>>17892937
Brother, what im saying is that there is no evidence for the prophecy made by the original source. It's just a game of trust me, bro, telephone from an obscure nun in an obscure part of the world.
And this claim doesn't appear before the 1980s. This claim is only found in tradcath circles because it doesn't stand up on closer inspection.
The reason why I bring up Hebrews and Timothy is because these are credited to Paul, and they are not, so either the church is lying/committing forgery or someone after the fact took Anonymous letters and ascribed them to Paul, and tradition kept the legend going along.
In the OT, they backdated Daniel; it was written in the 2nd century bc and backdated to the 6th century bc. That's just the one that I know the best, but from what I understand, backdating texts and prophecy is common; the Romans and Greeks did it.
The cannon gospels are attributed to 4 of the 12 disciples; however, it's pretty clear that they had anonymous authors and were written decades after the fact. the bible was written in Greek, mostly by helenized jews spread throughout the empire. Mark coming first, then the other ones being partially based on Mark, and Mark has an unknown source. possibly being one of the non-canon gospels, like the gospel of Peter.
These helenized jews would have had connections to other mystery cults like the cult of Dionysus and other cults that would have been influential on early Christianity. These people would have been the first Christians outside of the Middle East.
My point being that the traditions that you hold are not eternal, nor really sacred. At one point, Christianity was a living, breathing, if messy force in the world, not a stuffed corpse.
It's said that the early Christians were persecuted and that people don't die for a lie. That's not true, people die for and because of lies all the time, but early Christianity spoke to people's soul in a way that modern Christianity can't.
