What’s your advice for Catholics evaluating Christianity ?

Consider that councils of dudes in slick robes and weird hats who lived 300+ years after Christ may not have had everything right. Consider how different the US is compared to the US 250 years ago. Consider just how distorted things became during the Roman persecution of paleoChristians. Consider that “canonical” means the same thing as “fiat”. Consider that “loving your neighbors as yourself” entails openly exploring your neighbors beliefs and practices, not prejudicially dismissing them as demonic simply because they are unfamiliar. Consider showing some interest in what happened during the years not accounted for in the canonical gospels by looking into sources that suggest that Jesus travelled a lot and studied all over the world.

🙏

Read the entire Bible start to finish. This can be done in a year.

The Bible Recap

Start The Bible Recap | How to Begin Reading the Bible in 365 Days — The Bible Recap

Begin your Bible reading journey with The Bible Recap! Learn how to follow the 365-day chronological reading plan, use daily podcasts or videos, an...

And consider the sort-of missing 300 years between Christ and Constantine. What were the Christians doing then? Why aren't they around anymore? Why did so many churches reject the Council of Nicea and the Nicean Creed? And a million other questions that all lead to the same answer.

From what I understand: Christians were persecuted (killed) in Rome for those 300 years. You can look up the catacombs and those old underground churches (very cool). One of the pillars of my faith is the martyrs who died for their beliefs. Some churches rejected the Nicene Creed - but it wasn’t a majority (or a lot). I enjoy reciting the Nicene Creed and believe it to be true, but I know some may disagree.

I'm pretty sure it was a lot. Probably not a majority, but enough to be useful to the Roman state. States are built on violence, which means for a state to justify its existence, it must have enemies, and it must manufacture enemies if that's the most convenient way to grow itself. But the reason I added that was to lead you or whoever reads it to the conclusion that early Christianity was distinctly different from what the Orthodox made it, thus refuting (perhaps preemptively) their assertion that they maintain the pure version of Christianity, which Jesus would recognize - I've heard them say that repeatedly, so I think that's part of their sales pitch. Its simply not true, and is actually ludicrously impossible.

Which is what?

Agree to disagree on some but not all points. 🤝

In broad brush language, the "parcel" of Christianity that has been "delivered" to us by our ancestors is not the same "parcel" that Christ delivered while walking the earth. It is a mixed bag of beautiful and accurate spiritual teachings, unintentional distortions that have become ossified into dogma, and intentional misdirection of course by Roman hijackers who did the same thing to Judaism from 66-70 AD. Rome saw Christ as a threat for multiple reasons. They wanted to centralize power and Christ had decentralized his wisdom and Christ was gaining too many followers. The biggest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. I would argue that agents acting in alignment with a Luciferian agenda make a point of infiltrating burgeoning religious movements with the goal of corrupting them in the initial generations after the leader of the movement dies. It's like aikido but very slow. This is why every religion is similar but different. They all started pointing at the same truths but they all got distorted over time, unintentionally and intentionally. They all have pieces of the truth. We just have to be familiar enough with them all to find the parts they all have in common and connect the dots.