Until a few centuries after the last of it was written, what we now have as the New Testament did not exist as a single document. There were more than a dozen separate documents floating around written by Paul alone, along with the Four Gospels, each written by a different author, and assorted letters and documents written by John, and Peter and James and Jude and possibly a few other authors. All this in addition to the various previously-existing documents that went into what we now have as the Old Testament. The process of gathering them together into what would become a single, unified volume, didn't even begin until about the third or fourth century.
Actually those letters went into the New testament. yet out of all those letters and writings they were all verified and sourced check before they were included. which is why many books were not included like the books of Thomas, Judas, Mary. the texts were either inconsistent with other writings that had been verified or their authors could not be sourced as to where the information came from.
actually the bible was canonized before that as early as 200 and by 350 at the latest it was fully canonized.
So, do you believe the word of God, or do you believe the word of Peter, or do you believe the word of Matthew, or do you believe the word of John, or do you believe someone else's word? If there can be only one word, in the sense that you intended to mean, then you cannot believe them all.
Sure I can as they have all been verified and they are consistent in their message between each other. IE Paul doesn't contradict the gospels and likewise. There writtings is what makes up the word of God.
And if you accept that the “one word” can include many writings from many different authors, that previously existed as many separate documents; then why can you not believe that there have been other prophets of God who have recorded his word, but whose writings were not among those that became part of the Bible? Did God only care to reveal his word to one subset of his people, in one part of the world, in one segment of time, while ignoring and neglecting his people in other parts of the world, in other times?
When those other so called prophets have conflicts with the original authors that knew Christ and walked and talked with him or they knew his disciples then yes I will call into question what they write.
Nope as He sent the apostles and disciples out to preach his Gospel. By the end of Paul's life he had setup and or organized Churches in almost every major city in the Roman empire.
When
Jesus said:,
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”, was he not speaking of other people elsewhere in the world, with whom the people to whom he said this had no contact or knowledge?
Yep one fold (the saved in Christ) one shepherd (himself). If he did and there were other people as they were anointed and appointed by the disciples and the apostles.
Yet the message that was spread was still consistent with their message.
The teachings of the LDS not so much. In fact the LDS has given up on trying to historically prove what Smith wrote. Why? because 0 evidence exists to prove that all these groups of people ever existed.
for one huge hurtle you do not believe that Christ is God. You believe like JW's that he is something other than God or a part of the God head.
you believe that he is some created being yet the bible absolutely 100% rejects this and Christ himself rejects this. Yet Smith says otherwise so you believe Smith over Christ himself.
Worse as pointed out by someone else you believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers which is not the case. Lucifer was an angel. a very high ranking angel but an angel none the less.
Christ was not created and has always existed.
that is when I start questioning the validity of what is being preached and taught.
you can't demote Christ's deity to something else and still say I am a Christian.
