If you are so down upon the scriptures and peoples interpretation, then how can you support external writings that were never accepted by the early church as “inspired”. Writings that introduces new thoughts and ideas to the Church. Forget the Sola Scriptura nonsense that goes on here. What exactly is your interpretation of what inspired writings mean?
Scripture is what the Church says it is. Scripture means what the Church says it means. Holy Scripture is a work product of the Church. If it meant something different then it would not be in the canon or in the Church teaching.
This is why Christ didn’t write a book. He established His Church, the pillar and foundation of all truth, guided by the Holy Spirit. That we may be One. That there be one Lord, one faith, one baptism - one holy, apostolic and catholic church.
Sola scriptura is neither scriptural nor practical - it doesn’t work, as protestants have shown again and again. Perhaps that is one reason Christ didn’t use it.