WHEN PAUL NEEDS THREE WITNESSES THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR JESUS

Paul is the most important witness to the resurrection of Jesus we have for he is the only one who spoke of having visions to verify it first hand. So if we eliminate him as unreliable then we have nothing but gossip to base our belief in the resurrection on. How could the New Testament be infallible when it contains the writings of Paul who furnished us with zero evidence that he had prophetic ability and could write scripture? No proof of his sincerity was given either.

Listening to hearsay is close to deliberately listening to lies.  You know a person wanting you to believe something just because they say it is being manipulative even if it is the truth.  To say x stole the wallet is to lie if there were other people who could have done it and x was not seen doing it.

Paul quotes with approval the Old Testament Law of God that in the mouths of two or three witnesses all things must be established.  The John Gospel says Jesus himself sanctioned that principle as well.

Paul in 2 Corinthians chapter 13 demands that we apply the rule and use it against those accused of some evil.  Rationally, as great good matters too, you cannot say somebody did a major good work without offering evidence.  It makes no sense to say that you need evidence to say x did evil and do not to say x did great good.  What if somebody else did that good?  What if nobody did and we should be looking at the person who really did do something wonderful?  To disagree is to admit to caring more about a person being accused of evil than about being good.  It is hypocritical.

A critic would say that while it is great to have the three witnesses, the problem is that they may know but they are not the ones administering punishment.  The punishers take their word for it.  A cynic would say we are back to hearsay again.

Anyway, Paul threatens then to discipline wrongdoers when he comes. Why did he quote the law? Was it because of the wrongdoers and to let the people know that it is God's will that they refuse to let them get away with it? No he was not asking for two or three witnesses for everything the recalcitrant did. That would be absurd. He said then that the people in Corinth wanted evidence that Jesus was really speaking through Paul. This was what the quoting of the law was about. He was applying it to himself. He was saying that he had nothing to fear from the law in terms of his own claims - the main one which was that he saw the risen Jesus and thus had authority over the believers. Then he explained that the proof was how God and Jesus were working in the people. So they were his two witnesses. God and Jesus working in Paul's converts was supposed to prove that Paul was authentic - God was one witness and Jesus the other. The people weren't denying that they felt God and Jesus were working in them. They were denying Paul's claim to have the right to govern them in the name of God and Jesus. That he couldn't mention any affidavits from the apostles in Jerusalem or any testimony from them is significant. It proves that they were saying, "We feel that Jesus rose therefore he did." They could not appeal to evidence. The lack of evidence shows that he was understandably regarded with suspicion by them if not outright opposition. He was using a very subjective proof, "I feel that God and Jesus are working in me and therefore Paul speaks with Jesus' authority and Jesus speaks through him." Such proofs are dangerous and lead only to chaos for any religious teacher could use similar logic. It is no incentive for implementing effectual discipline.

The credibility of Jesus' resurrection is at stake but who are we to care?