I question everything, including what you have to say. And I doubt you would get along with me, because I think you are a person with an agenda.

Oh, I get along, and so far you're getting along. I have only one agenda, the One who laid hold on me, I am his love-slave and can do no other than serve him, I'm very predictable that way.

Are you referring here to Oséh, meaning the one who acts as in Freemasonry?

No, clearly the Masons stole that word from the Hebrew, Oseh doer, Asah to do or make. When Jesus said "It is finished" he was quoting the last verse of Psalm 22 (as he had quoted the first verse), "He has done it", which is "Asah" in Hebrew. Not my fault if the Masons culturally appropriated it from the correct Hebrew meaning you describe.

Maybe it's nothing wrong with the Bible and Paul belongs there, although there is little doubt in my mind he was an agent of Rome, not only a citizen, and doing the work the Pharisees tasked him to do. Maybe everything is wrong with the Bible starting with Genesis where in the first two chapters we find two distinct and contradictory stories of creation.

Good. I've tested the first theory and haven't found problems with it. I've tested the second theory and found that it relies on faulty assumptions and people inventing perceived contradictions from extreme cultural distance after thousands of years of regular readers not seeing anything contradictory. Nobody treats any other ancient book that way, as if the whole book is garbage after thousands of years of preservation because a 19th-century German doesn't understand the first two pages in their context.

And continuing with the Ethiopian Bible which has 81 books, compared to 66 books for Protestants, 73 for Catholics. And hundreds of manuscripts, including Gospels, and religious writings, were considered merely Apocrypha, not part of the accepted canon of Scriptures.

Correct. Note that this is not about shutting anything out, this is about what books rose to the level of canon over hundreds of years of testing by covenant people. All three agree on the same 66 books (and the Jews agree on the Hebrew books), so it's the same covenant tradition of the same books being recognized, because they all passed the same tests and none of the others came anywhere close. The extra books were always regarded, by each group including Protestants, as attaining to a secondary level of utility (deuterocanon), not meeting the marks of the protocanon but still retaining broad utility. Yes, the hundreds of other books could be counted as close to the deuterocanon, and it's a disappointment the church doesn't share more about them (let me plug Odes of Solomon again). The modern idea that the fourth century made a random list and censored everything else is totally false; rather, each book, when it was written, was preserved by the covenant people as a candidate and, after the centuries of testing, rose in esteem until it was accepted as inspired. It's a pretty well-regulated process, actually.

I assume you mean exclude him as a disciple of Christ.

Well, I meant exclude his writings as inspired. See, you're free to select any writing as inspired, or reject them all, but I do ask people to make decisions and be consistent. If you were to imply that the words of Yeshu only appear in Thomas, well, you can say that straight out and we can work with it. But if you act as if the gospels have some historical value, those (a) give lots more words of Yeshu, (b) indicate that he believed every letter and serif of the Hebrew Scriptures, (c) indicate something extraordinary and unparalleled happened among Yeshu and his disciples. The idea that none of the Greek Scriptures were written by people who knew Yeshu is very recent and actually falls apart upon a little inspection (IMHO), but if you'd like to put forward standards for judging historical documents we can easily work those details out. But when you present as a person who feels free to quote Scriptures but who doubts Paul, I state my positions from Scripture without Paul. If you'd like the truth derived only from Thomas, it's a slower route but it might be doable. I hold back from overwhelming you with links unless I'm confident you'd enjoy them.

Despite considerable research we know surprisingly little about the historical Yeshu (Jesus).

Whaddaya mean we, kemo sabe?

Everything else like virgin birth, miracles, walking on water, resurrection, including Peter being a disciple, comes from texts written decades later by people who never met Yeshu.

Actually, the first evidence we have, as many scholars are now recognizing, is that 1 Cor. 15:3-4 quotes an oral tradition that Paul formally "received" from Peter and James and that had to have been circulating 2-5 years after the crucifixion, and it indicates the belief in the supernatural nature of the death had already begun entrenching itself. Luke is often regarded as the best historian of the era, given his accuracy, and he describes (as if written for a court review, which it probably was) how a demoralized group suddenly became accepted leaders of a new Jewish movement that rapidly spread worldwide, with regular reference to miracles; these statements were written when contemporaries were alive to dispute them, and often challenge them to do so. So by ordinary historical standards, something extraordinary caused a massive new movement that taught the supernatural from its origin (a supernatural that, incidentally, the surrounding Jewish culture universally taught as well). But let me know what core you want to start from and we can go from there. I doubt you'd want to propose both that none of the NT was written by people whose names are on it and that Thomas nevertheless wrote Thomas, that would be a bit of special pleading.

So I appreciate very much the consideration. But ultimately it comes down to Truth. Truth apprehended me and enslaves me, and so I ask people if they are committed to pursue Truth at all costs, or if there is some reason one couldn't commit that. If you question everything for the sake of establishing Truth, you're making that commitment and you'll come to find what of the Scriptures is true. It sounds like you've come across many conflicting sources (churchianity, gnostics, skeptics, Mormons, Masons) and so you are cautious about making truth commitments. Except Thomas sounds good to you (it's so ambiguous and twistable, it serves that purpose for many). But I find you only need that one commitment, Truth, and by the time you find yourself making it you realize it was already made for you. From then on it's easy to receive more truths every moment.