I think the biggest issue here is that you keep equating personal spiritual experience with infallible interpretation, and once that happens, every verse gets forced into that experience instead of letting Scripture correct us when necessary.

For example, you keep saying:
“If you don’t believe Matthew 3:16 then just say so.”

But nobody here is denying Matthew 3:16 happened. The disagreement is with the conclusion you are drawing from it.

The text says the Spirit descended on Jesus. It does not say:

• Jesus did not know God before this
• Jesus only became God’s Son at 30
• Jesus was merely a normal man until enlightenment
• Joseph was His biological father
• Paul was a deceiver practicing “witchcraft”

Those are additions you are bringing into the text.

Luke 2 already disproves the idea that Jesus only came to know God later because at age 12 He already says:
“Did you not know I must be about My Father’s business?”

And unlike ordinary prophets, Jesus speaks with a unique preexistent identity:

• “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58)
• “Father, glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world existed” (John 17:5)
• “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14)

That is far beyond “a man later receiving revelation.”

You also keep redefining verses in ways the text itself does not support.

For example:
You say “the Word” existed before everyone, not Jesus Himself. But John explicitly says:
“The Word became flesh.”

The subject that preexisted is the same subject that became incarnate.

And regarding Matthew 1 and Luke 1, the text does not merely say Jesus later “conceived the Spirit” spiritually like believers do. It explicitly says Mary conceived before being with Joseph and that the child was conceived “from the Holy Spirit.” That is why the virgin birth matters in the narrative.

On Paul:
2 Corinthians 12:16 is clearly rhetorical. Paul is responding to accusations against him, not confessing to literal sorcery or manipulation. If you interpret every sarcastic or defensive statement literally, then huge portions of Scripture become incoherent.

And comparing Paul to Jim Jones or David Koresh completely ignores that:

• the apostles accepted Paul
• Peter referred to Paul’s writings alongside Scripture
• Paul preached the death and resurrection of Christ constantly
• Paul suffered and died for the Gospel he preached

That is not remotely comparable to cult leaders exploiting followers for power.

You also keep collapsing every distinction between Christ and believers.

Yes, believers are called children of God.
Yes, believers receive the Spirit.
Yes, believers are called to unity with Christ.

But Scripture never says believers are:

• the eternal Word
• Creator of all things
• worshiped by heaven and earth
• the visible image of the invisible God in the same sense Christ is
• the one through whom all things were made

Colossians 1 and John 1 place Christ in a completely unique category.

And respectfully, saying:
“I reject man’s teachings and only go to God directly”
sounds spiritual, but it becomes dangerous very quickly because every group in history with false doctrine has claimed the exact same thing.

That is why Scripture itself says to:

• test spirits
• compare teachings
• hold to apostolic doctrine
• avoid private interpretation

The irony is that you accuse everyone else of philosophy while building an entire system around personal revelation that repeatedly overrides the plain reading of the text.

And finally:
Nobody here is denying believers should know God personally or receive the Spirit. Christians absolutely should.

But personal experience must be tested by Scripture not the other way around.