To that you add the fact that most teacher use stories to enlighten their students and that during the time of Jesus what was interesting and easy to remember was stories, not historical facts. You understand now how I think the apostles used a disclaimer.
Actually, I do see how you could come to that conclusion, but it still does not mean it is true. An example:
I have a something important I need to share with you. Something that is so important I want to provide the information in a way that is easily remembered so that you may pass it along to others.
1) "Luk, what I am about to tell you actually happened. There was an old woman who swallowed a fly. I don't know why she swallowed a fly. Perhaps she'll die."
2) "Luk, what I am about to tell you never actually happened. There was an old woman who swallowed a fly. I don't know why she swallowed a fly. Perhaps she'll die."
Now, do you think the disclaimer for either choice adds or subtracts from the ease of remembering? If it has no effect either way, then what purpose would the apostles have of prefacing any event from the Bible with it being a fictitious event if it had no effect whatsoever on it's capacity to be remembered? Is it not possible to talk about an actual, historical event in such a way to make it both interesting and easy to be remembered?
Perhaps it is just your particular Catholic religion that believes this because of the Christians I know and have known in real life... while varying to the degree of how much of the Bible is to be taken as historical fact... have never come out and claimed that the Good Book is comprised of fictitious stories to the extent that you have claimed.
Putting aside oral tradition, do you believe that the Bible as we know it today is written in a such a way to be "easy to remember"? Speaking for myself, I would say that it is not.
Negate? No! Support? Yes. We need a deeper understanding of what 2 Thessalonians 1:8 means. But I'm not an apologetic. Plus ONE pope is way better than one priest to support my choice of faith.
I'm confused. You (and the Pope) claim there is no penalty for not believing in Christ. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 says there is a penalty for not believing in Christ. This is clearly a contradiction. What deeper understanding is there for a passage that states "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus".
And between you and me, what makes more sense from someone who loves you as much as Jesus loves you? That he punish to eternal suffering because you made one tiny mistake of not believing in him but still led a good live full of love and caring OR that he welcomes you to heaven you who has spread so much joy around you?
It's a nice sentiment. Sort of a "you can have your cake and eat it, too" religion where as long as you lead a good life minimizing the harm inflicted upon others, you get rewarded in the afterlife. Unfortunately, Christianity is by no stretch of the imagination an example of this.
To be blunt, it sounds to me like Catholicism is attempting to sweep underneath the carpet every vile, sadistic and murderous act attributed to God in the OT... which without it there would be no Christianity... in order to win over more converts. "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar" as the old adage goes. Just my opinion.
Nothing about this religion, or any other one for that matter, makes "sense" to me. And that includes Jesus and the myths involving him. But that is a discussion for another time.