Notice how much of the strongest opposition to Jewish rule is often Catholic (going back to Reverend Coughlin and now E Michael Jones/ Nick Fuentes). Long before Jews were prominently in power, the Catholic church was recognized as the seat of anti-Christ and matches up well with the Book of Revelation.
The Vatican is also on board with the NWO agenda, just as much as the Jews are. So if/when the public does wake up to Jewish rule, the occultists will already have another faux Christian power structure ready to take over and lead you to hell.
This is why the only way forward is to actually get right with God and follow the true Messiah Jesus Christ. Following Freemasons, Popes or Jews (or your own ego -- ahem Atheists) instead will lead you to hell.
The Catholic Church has officially been destroyed by the Vatican II reform.
The Orthodox Church opposes the NWO agenda and has been calling out the jews for 2000 years. That's the true eternal Church of Christ.
I've seen some criticism of Orthodox theology, and some of it seems suspect. But that's not to say Eastern Orthodox can't be saved Christians.
Personally I just consider myself a born again follower of Christ.
The problem with Protestantism is it defies authority and everyone is basically their own pope doing their own interpretation. But that's exactly what's behind the societal collapse we witness - rampant individualism and lack of grounding in tradition and truth.
The Church is the body of Christ and the ark of salvation. Orthodoxy is the unchanged faith from the creation, the time of the prophets, the coming of Christ and His apostles to this day - it's the wholeness of the faith.
Do we not believe the Holy Spirit can lead those who are born again to good theology? The Bible is already clear about what a saved person looks like and what the unsaved look like. It's clear to those willing to seek truth.
If you're talking about prophecy and end times, even within an Orthodox body will every two people agree? And are those prophecies supposed to be crystal clear to everyone? It does not appear so. And cannot two saved people disagree about specific future predictions and still have saving faith? I don't see why not.
Is recorded in scripture better than in any man's traditions. In fact Jesus had some stark warnings about religious traditions going astray of God's commandments.
It absolutely isn't clear and that's why there are such great variations in interpretation from denomination to denomination and from person to person in Protestantism. The problem is that Scripture, just like any text, isn't interpreting itself and there needs to be an authority for interpretation. Protestantism poses that every individual is such an authority by the grace of the Holy Spirit while Orthodoxy claims authority within the apostolic Church, established by Christ when He sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
It's obvious there can be no unity in Protestantism because it's pluralistic from the get go, yet the true Church of Christ is one, united, eternal and bears no contradictions. It's also obvious man is fallen and succumbs to sin, error and spiritual delusion (prelest). You say the correct interpretation is evident because it follows the scripture, but that's circular because that judgment is contingent on how you interpret scripture (as I said the correct interpretation is at question here).
There are disagreements within the Orthodox Church but not in terms of theological dogma and doctrine. There's only one Orthodox eschatology, Christology and cosmology.
Scripture is the liturgical text of the Church. It was compiled by the Church. So protestants appealing to sola scriptura and denouncing the historical church are basically cutting off the branch they're sitting on. This is why it follows that the correct interpretation of scripture is to be found in that tradition.
Based on that view, scripture is of no value unless a Church papa who calls himself Orthodox tells you how to view it. That couldn't be more heretical. Why did Jesus even bother speaking to people at all when an Orthodox teacher wasn't there to interpret him? You see how ridiculous it is when this logic is taken to its conclusion?
What's getting in people's way is sin, not any lack of clarity in scripture which the Apostles and Prophets recorded. Your tactic supposition is that all these denominations are earnestly trying to submit their lives to the Lord, willing to do whatever it takes, just praying for truth and God is denying them because they refused to submit to an Orthodox "father"' and his interpretation of scripture. And despite their earnest pleas and surrender they are led astray by relying soley on their own minds and the Holy Spirit which are INCAPABLE of showing truth from the scripture that God gave us for guidance.
Nonsense.
And there is only one true message of salvation. You can call yourself Orthodox, Cyclodox or Monkeypox but what matters is the truth.
The problem is I've seen critical looks at Orthodox traditions (the traditions of men) which are extra biblical and just plain wrong. You don't need to call yourself a special name "Orthodox" and wear special uniforms to read clear instructions in scripture. God gave us basic reasoning ability, which when combined with a surrender to the Holy Spirit reveals Biblical truth.
It only requires basic reasoning ability to know that if Jesus said "call no man father" you do NOT then make calling religious leaders father part of church tradition.
You also do NOT add to scripture and deify people who were not deified in scripture.
You also do NOT have any kind of holy "relics" or idols that you worship. The instructions in scripture are clear about that.
A good Christian preacher and church is far more scripturally sound than that. Or should I just hang up this brain that God gave me and give it to some particular group who claims to speak for God better than his written word? No and never.
That's not how Orthodoxy works. There is no single authority in the Church but rather the whole of the Church tradition is the authority. It sounds ridiculous to you because you don't understand the Orthodox Church is the eternal kingdom of Christ here on Earth and not a man-made institution. The Church is His living body and she is headed by no other than Christ. It's the Ark of salvation and the continuous tradition of God's revelation throughout both the Old and the New Testaments. Abraham and Moses were part of the Church and they worshipped the Triune God and spoke with Christ (OT teophanies). The Bible was written and compiled by apostles of the Church. The dogmas and doctrines were fleshed out by the ecumenical councils by the Church fathers. There would be no Christianity without the tradition you speak against. The tradition is the faith. It's Christ's tradition.
So everyone is correct in their interpretation of Scripture despite all the contradictory beliefs? You realize there's no way both you and someone else taking the opposite of your position can both be true, right? So who's the authority, who's the arbiter deciding what interpretation is correct and follows scripture?
It's hilarious you protestants speak of "man made traditions" as if your interpretation is not that of a man too. Basically Protestants go "it's me and muh Bible, aided by the Holy Spirit, deciding what the true faith is" vs Orthodox/Catholics "it's the Church established by Christ and entrusted to His apostles, aided by the Holy Spirit, deciding what the true faith is". The difference is the latter is rooted in history through apostolic succession and is generally what the early Christians practiced and believed and in the case of Orthodoxy it remained unchanged for almost 2000 years, while the former is contingent on every single dude who gets to read the Bible and feels divinely inspired to do their own interpretation of the text (provided by said tradition), claiming there was a period of 15 centuries when the Church was non-existent (contradicting Matthew 16:18). The whole Sola Scriptura argument is retarded because there was no Bible up until the 4c. So what, Christianity wasn't didn't exist/ was not practiced before that?
Again, if it's so clear and easy, how come there are hundreds of official protestant denominations and countless more individual interpretations? How come they massacred each other during the Reformation because they reached different conclusions reading the same text? I'm sure every single one of them claims to have the Holy Spirit guide them. Furthermore, how can anyone be sure it's truly the Holy Spirit guiding them and it's not a form of spiritual delusion or demonic deception?
That's a great example of reading things out of context (quote mining) leading to wrong interpretation. Is everything in the gospels to be taken literally or does Jesus use metaphors, allegories, hyperboles and other rhetorical devices to make his point? Do you call your biological father, father and if so, do you consider that to be breaking Christ's commandment? Words only have the proper meaning in the context they are used in, this is how language works, it's a holistic system.
If you were correct explain why Paul said: “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15). The Bible is full of passages talking about spiritual fatherhood.
Saints are not worshipped, they are venerated. They are not divine. Scripture was compiled by some of those saints.
Did you know they had paintings on the Temple walls and in the synagogues Jesus worshipped in? How about the "idols" on the Arc of the Covenant (the cherubims)?
Look, I'm not going to regurgitate all this info because that's been done a million times over debates and books already. If you were interested to learn about the counters to your arguments you would have done so. But that knowledge would also probably make you leave Protestantism if you are honest with yourself and are seeking truth with an open heart. Check out Jay Dyer's channel on youtube and call in on one of his twitter livestreams if you think you can prove Protestantism is where it's at.
So let me ask you. Was Jesus' work and his teachings to his disciples sufficient for their salvation? Or did they require additional tradition?
Secondly were the teachings of the early apostles to the public who became the first church sufficient to lead them to salvation? Or did they require additional tradition?
When listening to preachers, there is a clear link between good theology and good morality being preached. Preachers who teach a clear Biblical based salvation using scripture to interpret scripture come to the same conclusions on moral issues overwhelmingly.
And bad morals follow bad unbiblical teachings of salvation. That's when they are adding their own "interpretation", which is more like adding meanings outside the text which are contradicted by God's commandments. There is no real "interpretation" of scripture supporting sodomy, for instance, but delusional people can claim anything. They could also call themselves Orthodox Christian, while doing so, since they are already calling themselves the misnomer of 'Christian'.
a) Paradigm aka para (beside) digm/deik (to show) implies being within sides and shown by another. Oneself implies para; others tempt one with digm/deik to ignore that.
b) Few suggesting left vs right paradigm to many are selected to be above by those willingly submitting to be below.
a) A jew suggests catholicism as a digm/deik to tempt the consent of gentiles.
b) Each consenting gentile chooses a suggested side to consent to (belief vs disbelief), which in return tempts one to ignore being para (in-between sides aka beside).
c) Catholic/cathode aka kata (down) hodos (way) implies gentiles (life) following a jewish suggestion down the way (inception towards death) instead of discerning for self to be an anode aka ana (up) hodos (way) aka of being a temporary growth within an ongoing loss, enabled as free will of choice to resist and thereby grow self.
Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/right#etymonline_v_15068
One needs to resist being (life) moved in a straight line (inception towards death). Nature implies ones right of passage...any and all suggested rights tempt one to ignore that.
A jew suggests progressivism (get) to tempt gentiles to "want to get", hence following the suggested carrot on a stick towards a promised/hoped for outcome...which in return tempts one to ignore perceivable origin, which moves one towards DEATH.