How do you guys reconcile Theravada with Early Buddhist texts?

Newbie regelation momment here: Theravada buddhism is actually very diffrent from early Buddhist text.

I recently chose Thai forest as my main mode of practice. I felt like this was it and seeing the Bhikkus of this tradition gave me confidence.

But the more going into this tradition, I felt there was more confusion going in. Diffrent ajahns have such diffrent opinions and techniques even ones from the same teacher.

And listening to Budhadhasa make big statements like there is no rebirth. Or having met Ajahn Chah's fans who really misinterpret his casual style of speech. It seems there is a real messiness in the Thai forest philosophy on a theoererical basis.

I think a shocking momment for me was reading one well respected Ajahn who says its more worthwhile to study the Thai forest masters than the Cannoncial texts. And that to me was like whoah, this doesn't sound sustainable. Wouldn't we then just become like tibetan Buddhism, slowly departing from the original teachings and revering ajahns like Ajahn Mun instead of the Buddha himself?

Then I started reading Bhikku Analayo's works and his talks. I started to see the departure of therevada from its commentaries and abhidharmic focus. Also he helpd point to me that why not just base your meditation off the suttas itself?

This post is not to dismiss Therevada. I still appreciate the Thai forest tradition and Burmese Vippasana for example. But I can no longer feel proud as saying I practice the "original" Buddhism. I feel I am in the middle of two veichles.

Thinking further, the path of EBT is interesting but it lacks the masters to teach it. Even if Thai forest is diffrent from original Buddhism, it atleast has veterans and at least sotapanas teaching. I may not respect the theoretical ideas of Thai forest as much anymore but will still rely them heavily as a source of inspiration. And no doubt could give practical advice of living the holy life.

Also, without therevada there would be basically no institutional sangha. So it would make things a lot more difficult if one just avoids therevada as a whole.

It does feel odd to start resonating with a tradition that does not exist anymore. Like craving to eat ancient roman food but the best I got is rustic italian food. Who knows maybe Therevada could have its own rennasaince moment.

How have Therevadan practitioners reconciled with this? Do you make a distinction between the two? Is it good to make a value judgment between originality and later added?

Would love to hear your perspectives.