As a foreword to the things which I will be talking about, I want to make a few observations on reality. Society's view of reality is a convoluted mess. In the eyes of our society, reality is determined by consensus. It held true going back to Galileo, further back at the Council of Nicea, back to the Pharisees and the Christian controversy, back to Babylonia and before. Therefore, society has tended to view the outlying perspective as non-reflective of reality, e.g. delusion. So the true reality has been pre-defined as a philosophy to avoid. The Bible makes clear on multiple occasions that God would give the people over to strong delusion, Solomon said there was a way that seemed right unto a man (Proverbs 14:12), and Yeshua even criticized the world view of charity, saying, "Peace I give unto you. Not as the world gives give I unto you..."
What the world has defined as reality is THE delusion itself and it is in the absurd that one finds order and coherence. The many things I have to say to you are things the world would like to tarnish as being absurd, but in it one will find the nourishing bread of the word of God and they can be fed.
The first tool that we need to weed through the true story (the event as it happened) from the official story (what the experts want you to believe happened) is to first consider the source. Another one, follow the money. Not every source can be believed. Not every source can be rejected on the basis of the inverse of what another may be qualified on. Some sources can not be trusted on account of what bases we may have already considered the validity of their testimony to have been founded upon.
All this means, to be clearer, is that there is not an equal validity in trusting one man because of the letters after his name (and that he is credible, also that many value his opinion, that it seems to be sound observation) and then rejecting on that same basis the case of a man who has no letters, no audience, or who otherwise does not seem to offer a sound observation. The lack thereof doesn't seem to do anything to discredit the latter man. We have no reason to think for any of the above reasons to think the man is not credible as well. One who is credible is one who is esteemed as credible and one who lacks an audience couldn't be esteemed to be credible.
The only basis by which to test a speaker is using the correspondence view of reality. Does what is being said corresponding to the reality to which it speaks to?
In the matters of faith I will discuss here, we need to conform our view of the matter to what God's view is.
So I test you here. Shake off the prejudices of the world and what the world thinks. Be willing to lay down all prior notions you may have had about reality and open yourself to the perspectives shared here. Only accept the part of it which corresponds to reality, and to the extent that my correspondence is poor, then reject it to that extent. Yeshua had hard lessons for a hard people, but they were hardened to the core of their hearts and were steadfast in their rebellion. I come bringing an unpopular message, but it is because the hearts of the people have been hardened for so long that these messages have not been heard before.
Test it against the Word. Test it in your personal life to see if it is true. I challenge you because I have nothing to hide.
So if we want to conform our view to God's view, then we must first consider pre-Catholic faith and why through a pre-Catholic lens can ultimate truth be uncovered. What did the early Church believe and how does it differ from orthodoxy? Let us consider pre-Catholic faith.