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.
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?
Jesus's teaching is His tradition. That's why he constantly references the OT. That's why Luke and Matthew write down His genealogy. If anything this argument destroys Sola Scriptura since it demonstrates people were saved without having access to the written Scripture because they still were part of the tradition and professed the true faith (even when Christ was not among them as a man anymore).
You assume a reductionist approach by divorcing the teachings from the tradition, as if the teachings of Christ came out of nowhere and are not part of the revelation of God to man starting with Adam and ending at Pentecost. What the Church did was to teach the gospel of salvation to every nation the way it was revealed to the prophets and the apostles by God. The Church fathers, who received the Holy Spirit and were given authority by the Apostles through laying of hands (the same way Peter did to Timothy) fleshed out the theology of the revelation without adding new meaning or context to it (e.g. the Nicene creed). Idiot unitarians argue that God is not triune because the word Trinity is not in the Bible - that's where literalism and sperg/AI level of context understanding leads to. They will say the Church fathers added their own meaning to Scripture because they presuppose their wrongful literalist interpretation (to which "the Holy Spirit guided them", no doubt).
Adding new interpretation or meaning is considered a heresy and an attack on the true faith and that's what the Early Church fought against vehemently (the gnostics, the arians, the marcians, the valentinians, the neo-platonists, etc.). Unfortunately after Rome fell away, heretical movements started proliferating across Europe leading to the revolutionary Reformation as an antithesis to Rome's mistakes and Church tradition as a whole. And here we are today, where every protestant thinks they have the correct interpretation (being their own Pope) of the Scripture they got from the historic tradition they deny, because they have a personal relationship with God, so basically relativism. Is it any wonder society has turned out this way?