Valerie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2026 3:18 pm
John, the 4 Gospel books were not written by Jesus Himself & they don’t always say the same thing yet we trust they were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, same as Apostle Paul’s writings.
Much in the Bible was written without two or three witnesses to confirm.
Deut 19:15 at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Christ said:
John 5:(31) If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
(32) There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
(33) Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
That we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus the Gospel of Thomas - these are all witnesses that say essentially the same thing about Christ.
And they all record different things, just like if you and your siblings wrote their memories of your parents, they would all be different.
But the most important parts of the story of Christ are the same, and recorded by 4-5 recorded witnesses. That is the difference.
Paul is a single witness to many things, including his own Apostleship. He tells us repeatedly that he is an Apostle, but when and where did he become an Apostle? On the Road to Damascus? The word "Apostle" is never used by Christ about Paul in Paul's 3 different versions of his conversion story. Acts 9, 22, 26
Paul is not listed as one of the 12 Apostles selected by Christ in Acts 10:1-4
In Acts 15:2, Paul is still not an Apostle, but must ask the Apostles for guidance, so it is evident that Paul did not become an Apostle on the Road to Damascus.
And there are only 12 Foundation Stones in Heaven (Rev 12:14) and 12 Thrones in Heaven (Matt 19:28) for 12 Apostles, and no place for a 13th Apostle, which is Paul.
When the 11 Apostles selected the replacement for Judas, the qualifications required to be an Apostle for Matthias had to have to be an Apostle, these requirements would have prevented Paul from being an Apostle. Acts 1:21-22
Yet Paul sets up the office of "Apostle" at the top of his own church hierarchy (1 Cor 12:28) which Christ forbids. Luke 22:24-26
In 2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:25, Paul calls Titus and Epaphroditus as "Apostles" to the churches, mistranslated as "messengers" as this is a really horrible statement by Paul if the Greek were translated plainly. Where did Paul get this power to make these two men his own Apostles?
But the common thread with Paul is that he is the only single witness that can see Christ talking to himself. There is never a second witness that Christ ever said anything to Paul in a vision or whatever.
Paul also has "his Jesus" say things like "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks", a line from these two Greek Plays:
Euripides : "kicks against the pricks" (Euripides, Bacchae.)
Aeschylus:. "kicks against the pricks." (Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1624.)
Did Jesus really read any Greek Plays or talk like this? To "kick against the pricks" is an Greek figure of speech where a mortal rebels against a Greek god, and so the mortal, like Paul, kicks against the goads put on a wagon to keep an animal from backing up.
I don't believe that the "Real Jesus" would say this, or need to resort to Greek literature. Or that the "Real Jesus" would even talk to Paul directly after His Ascension as that would violate what the "Real Jesus" said in Matt 24:26.
This "kick against the pricks" looks like plagiarism by Paul, and would be a good witness against Paul, and not for Paul.
It is very easy to destroy Paul's credibility if you open your mind. What about the other writers?
Peter also had problems as a human and even denied Christ. Should the writings of Peter be considered superior to the doctrines of Christ? No. He was fallible.
The same for all of the other writings of the Apostles, the Book of Revelation and the Book of James. While they are interesting, they are not superior to Christ.
The Pope is not superior to Christ, nor is Constantine and his church. Menno Simons is not superior to Christ nor did he ever pretend to be superior.
Valerie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2026 3:18 pm
they don’t always say the same thing yet we trust they were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We should trust that these writings were written by men and allowed into the NT Canon of scripture by Constantine and his church.
It is the NT Canon that is the problem, and our belief today that everything in the NT Canon has the same level of authority.
Constantine and his wicked priests never had the Holy Spirit when they selected the books of the NT Canon. You don't need all these books, just Christ.
The early church before the fall of Jerusalem only had the Book of Matthew as their canon of "NT scripture" and the Book of Matthew was sufficient to follow just the words of Christ and be a Christian. Why is it different now?
If I were to only follow the Book of Matthew, and only follow the religion that Christ taught, would I have a different religion than the churches of today? Yes. Why is that? Because the modern church follows the doctrines of men and not Christ.
I don't even need to "bash Paul" to make this point. But if you were to follow "Only Christ", then all of the doctrines that divide us, like Predestination, Eternal Security, Original Sin and Infant Baptism, etc. - all of these doctrines go away, and we are free just to concentrate on how we deal with other people from the instructions in Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and how we adapt ourselves to the Parables and Teachings of Christ. It is an entirely different religion. it is very sweet, and very easy.
Matt 11:(28) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
(29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
(30) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Jesus is all we need.
