The point was, following your "original" vs. "second and third hand" logic, you would logically hold the quotes attributed to Jesus by Matthew and John are more accurate and authoritative than those recorded by Mark and Luke because chances are, Mark and Luke weren't there to hear Him with their own ears. And besides, who's to say any of their four human memories are good enough to quote Him accurately?
Do you hold with the original teaching of the Gospel from the source, or the disciple?
I hold to the original teaching of the Gospel from THE source, the complete and perfect revelation of God in His Word, the Holy Bible. Whether a word came from Christ's mouth or Paul's pen makes absolutely NO difference. ALL of the written Word came by the Holy Spirit.
If someone doesn't believe that, what possible basis does such a person have for believing the words attributed to Christ were actually His? That person might as well view the Bible as a book of good stories and general guidelines for good living. "Truth" it isn't, because it was ALL written by imperfect men. And that's not just wrong, it's truly sad to think any professing believer could think that way.
Jesus also taught His disciples to pray in the same manner as He taught the people.
Think about it. If God is, and knows each sparrow that falls, He will already know what the needs and desires of your heart are. The Lord's Prayer glorifies, exalts and praises God, with your faith that He knows these things.
I think the words of Jesus are more authoritative than those of Paul.
The communications of Gospel is really few, very simple and straightforward. The New Testament renders those few simple concepts through the mouths of many, the rest being heroic stories giving the concepts background and impetus to be taught, and the results of faith and belief in them and their Author.