1. Though I know Paul's statement in Galatians 2, I've also heard an argument (that I'm not entirely convinced by, but also leave room that it might be true) that might make me doubt that the Apostles aren't my betters... there was something that, over and over, set Peter apart, for instance.
2. Paul, author of the majority of the writings entitled "New Testament", wasn't with Christ 3 years--though he did say he had some revelations.
3. Again, when these Scriptures RELY ON and AUTHORITATIVELY CITE other documents (and, again, comparing Jude's citation of Enoch (calling him a Prophet who spoke God's Words, in order to teach the Church--using inspired-by-God material that corresponds with the inspired-by-God audience) to Paul's citation of a pagan (becoming as a pagan in order to win pagans' souls) is an apples-to-oranges comparison) not included in the anthology known as "the Bible" it's more than a hint that it, having been compiled by men "no better than you or me" (proven by the fact that they had already begun to hold Mary in far too high esteem--from whom issued errant doctrines--who would have been corrected by the Apostles had the Apostles been present to correct them, just as Paul wept knowing how men would come in later on over whom he would hold no sway) is not an exhaustive complete collection.
Yes, comparing Paul's quotation of pagan material with Jude's quotation of Enoch is an apples and oranges comparison in some respects. I'd hoped to show that language generally does *not require* that religious people cite religious works that are uncompromised to make a point. For example, Paul had no problem referring to "baptism for the dead" to make a point, even though "baptism for the dead" was not valid.
But there is no way I can prove this in this particular case except that the work Paul is citing appears to be pseudepigraphal, and his reference to Enoch legitimate. And so I conclude, along with the Jews, that Enoch is not canonical, although something worthy of quoting.
As to Paul being an apostle, I did not mean to say that all the apostles had to spend 3 years with Jesus. It is just a fact that the 12 apostles did have this time and for this reason, I believe. Jesus wanted them not to be better than us, spiritually, but to be able to reliably transfer truth from him to us, knowing that we all, including the apostles, are susceptible to error. Jesus wanted his teaching to be reliably and truthfully transmitted. Hence, we call it "Scripture."
Paul was an apostle not by virtue of being one of the 12 apostles, but only by virtue of his own special calling, which extended far beyond Israel. The 12 also had ministries extending beyond Israel, but their ministries began in Israel.
Paul's ministry began abroad, though he always taught in the synagogues abroad first. And he certainly consulted with the leaders among the 12 apostles, to ensure that his own stories and teaching about Jesus was correct. He was an apostle, therefore, in the truest sense of the word.
We cannot have apostles founding the Church today because it has already been founded. Nobody can go back and get the scoop on Jesus in the time in which Jesus lived, and from the people that intimately knew him.
That being said, churches are still be founded in other countries, and I suppose you could call leaders and missionaries doing this work "apostles." But I'm referring to the apostolic ministry of *founding the Church." And writing Scriptures was dependent, I believe, on getting the straight scoop directly from Jesus' apostles, as well as by getting spiritual revelation and calling directly from Jesus.
Thanks for the discussion.