I would not arbitrarily and universally judge Paul, certainly not, on behalf of, or as far as yourself and other people are concerned. Because you were using Paul to make your point I was pointing out that Paul has no traction with me, and the point isn't made.
Whether Paul had a revelation from God or not I wouldn't know; neither would I be required to know, or be required to believe it; unless God told me. If God told me, and I told you, you would be a fool to believe it, as you would be fool to not believe it; you should test what is said if you consider it important. If you found what I said to be true, that would necessarily prove God told me; you would only know God told me if God told you. What God told me was not to do with Paul the person but to not read the Epistles of Paul. I had previously just read Revelation, the four Gospels and acts, Romans and a quarter of 1Corinthians, and went on to read Revelation 5 times, the Gospels 4 times and the non-Pauline epistles once.
Later I wondered what was wrong with Paul; and to come up with matters that people like yourself would not dispute, is hard, although there is much circumstantial evidence. For myself I have reasoned this way; if I needed Paul's epistles for my salvation that would diminish Christ and constitute blasphemy.
Jesus told the apostles that he would not do anything unless He told them first; that road to Damascus event was (if it happened) was of earth quake magnitude yet when Paul showed up he was a surprise to the apostles.
My faith does not depend on others agreeing with me.