I think you’re setting up some very common false dichotomies.
The words of Christ were written down, in some cases, many centuries after he was crucified.
This is not true. St. Paul’s letters were written within the lifetime of the Apostles, the eyewitnesses of the life of Christ.
Even if your contention were true, oral histories cannot be presumed to be false histories.
Have you ever thought that perhaps the stories as expressed in the Bible, are a direct reflection of the people living in that time in history and they are stories that people could relate to?
What makes you think that reflecting a time in history renders a story false? A story can be both true and absolutely a reflection of the time and place in which it was written.
Also, what makes you so sure that your own interpretation of Scriptures is not tainted by the self-importance and scepticism rampant in our own age? What would make us immune to cultural bias?
I don’t think God can be placed neatly in a box that has him defined as a King or Judge.
Neither can God be tamed by a neat definition in which his darlings can do no wrong or in which good and evil are matters of opinion. To be a self-absorbed brat is its own punishment, no matter how indulgent or near your parents are. That isn’t an opinion.
King and Judge, that is precisely what ancient man could relate to in regards to a higher power.
Has it occurred to you that you reject the role of God as King and Judge because it conflicts with your cultural expectations or your particular psychological desires? I don’t blame you for being certain that our Divine King and Judge is as far above human kings and judges as the heavens are above the earth. I do want to caution you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I want to encourage you to re-imagine what a divine King and a Judge is.
That an idea is older does not make it less true. This is a common myth of our times.
There are many truths. For us as Christians, Jesus leads us to God.
Dogmatic absolutism isn’t the be all and end all.
There may be many different ways of expressing the truth, more than one way to discover it, and degrees to which one is practically aware of it, even if one has all the objective facts committed to memory, but there is such a thing as the objectively true and the objectively false.
There is a dogmatism that pretends to own the truth and that acts as if the truth were at its beck and call, but there is also an orthodoxy that is in obedience to the truth, too. Again, do not confuse the warped version for the real thing and throw out the whole idea on that account.
If someone experiences the sacred and has a relationship with God outside of Catholicism or even Christianity, who are we to tell them that they are on the wrong path to truth?
If one of our friends was driving a 4x4 with square wheels, who would we be to tell him that round was better? I mean, if he was getting where he was going? Again, some people are going to be determined to do things their own way, no matter what anyone else says, but that doesn’t mean that every truth is subject to personal opinion.
I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit may not choose to reveal the love and glory of God to whomever He pleases. I’m not saying that the Catholic Church owns the fullness of truth, rather than the other way around. To think we own God is a grave mistake, and can be a source of scandal. Nevertheless, it is possible to be closer or farther from objective truth.
Monarchical theism as brought people to god for centuries and if it still brings people to God…then again, clearly it is a vision of God that still has it’s proper place.
If you are objecting to a vision of God that is purely juridical, purely quid pro quo, then yes, it is possible to have a vision of God that is so narrow as to be false. How could a remote and cold monarch be reconciled with the truth of the Incarnation? With the truth of the Pascal Mystery? It is impossible.
Nevetheless…that Jesus is Shepherd, Brother, and Humble Savior, the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world does not precude him from being King and Judge. That He has dominion over every star does not mean he can’t care for every sparrow. Every knee shall bend before Him for whom equality with God was not something to be grasped at. These truths are not at odds.
Remember the story of the three blind men, arguing about whether an elephant was like a tree, a wall, a rope, or a firehose? Does this mean it is impossible for a blind man to have a good idea what an elephant is? Of course it doesn’t. Likewise, the truth that someone without the big picture can get an idea of the smaller pictures on their own does not mean the the big picture is not the most in keeping with reality.
Catholics may be as blind as anyone else, but we have been given an excellent description of what the elephant looks like.
The actual timeline seems to be from about thirty years after His death until about 140 years or so after his death, with the bulk written within 50 years His death
You certainly are leaving something behind, but what you describe is not Roman Catholicism. You do appear to be learning who God really is (rather than your errant ideas). I propose that you don’t need to leave Catholicism to maintain this journey.