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?
I love science!
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
You also do NOT add to scripture and deify people who were not deified in scripture.
Saints are not worshipped, they are venerated. They are not divine. Scripture was compiled by some of those saints.
You also do NOT have any kind of holy "relics" or idols that you worship. The instructions in scripture are clear about that.
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.
They were cheering.
The issue we have right now is a lack of enforcement of ideologies and culture.
It's the complete opposite. I see a lot of enforcement being done on part of the NWO agenda. We had lockdowns, vaxx certificates, surveillance, jailing people for dissenting and opposing the government, prosecuting whistleblowers, censorship and people getting arrested for mean tweets in the UK lately. Freedom is at an all time low in the west.
Yeah right, there was an FBI report on them being Mosad agents and they did an interview for Israeli TV confirming they were there.
Hm, that seems to be a hole in the theory indeed.
Yes, I understand but you're supposed to amputate the leg off to save the body, not shoot the patient in the head. What's the system if not our societal organization, infrastructure, culture and government? What will happen if we destroy it? What he posted comes of as accelerationist "let it all burn" nihilist bs which no sane person should aspire to.
Yes, there is a difference but I'd argue it's not a meaningful one when looking at the core values. Trump can't be a nationalist and na AIPAC zionist at the same time. If we go off on what his platform is he has advantage over the dems, but politicians lie and there's no good reason to trust him.
Slightly off topic, but: I caution you to avoid the term "Muslim Loving" as this falls into the same propaganda narrative as "Pro HAMAS"- labeling opposition to Israeli-Genocide as negative. Honestly, are Muslims even bad? Maybe? Or is it merely the fomented hatred that Israeli has generated between Muslims and the West that we are attributing to Islam? As the USA acts on behalf of Israeli to destroy Islamic nations why would they not hate us? I guess my question is:
If there were no Israel, and the USA did not act on behalf of Israel, would we even be talking about Islam?
Promotion of Islam and mass migration are part of a bigger plan that's not strictly tied to the zionist state and goes way beyond HAMAS or the current conflict. It's the NWO agenda to destroy traditional western society, family and culture. In this sense tptb use Islam as a useful chess piece to achieve their goals. Moreover Islam has always been a religion of conquest and Europe has a long history fighting off muslim and arab invasions. They weaponize eastern religions like Hinduism for cultural subversion purposes too, but Hinduism is not a religion of conquest so its use is limited (a soft power approach).
And finally, as a Christian I consider Islam as a blasphemous anti-christian religion - it's just as bad as talmudic judaism despite of the propaganda effort trying to convince Christians otherwise (again, this has been going for at least 60 years and it's well documented that jews are behind the islamization of the west). They love creating such false dialectics: "If you're against the jews, then you support the muslims" and vice versa. In reality both are enemies to the western (and eastern) Christian civilization and that's been proven time and time again.
PS: If you're interested in the plan for islamization I recommend this great book by geopolitical researcher Ioan Ratiu (there's a chapter on this): https://ia801609.us.archive.org/27/items/themilnerfabianconspiracy-ioanratiuoldscan-230418134425-46dcb70b/themilnerfabianconspiracy-ioanratiuoldscan-230418134425-46dcb70b.pdf
Cool. What will take its place? Do you know what will fill in the vacuum? Look at the French revolution - any system is better than complete chaos and wanton murder on the streets followed by a bloodthirsty tyrannical communist regime.
Are you making these same comments on reddit.com/pol/? Would degenerate libtards be as receptive to Jewish criticism? If there is no difference between Trump/degenerate liberalism you're welcome to flee back to reddit and carry on the same critique of Trump and Jewish power that you voice here.
It's funny you mention this, but muslim-loving libtards are the most vocal anti-jewish demographic right now. This is a result of the complex divide and conquer dialectical warfare deployed in society and not a sign of sanity of course (similar to radical feminists going strong against the troons - our planners don't care about both but need the chaos that ensues). As for reddit, I've been banned on for mild criticism of the skittles movement and I'm not going back.
If I had to choose I'd still prefer Trump over Kamala but let's be real - he's 100% owned by the jews (the guy is a real estate mogul - who's financing his ventures?), he's a staunch zionist and he pushed Warp speed and doubled down on the massacre it caused. You can't stand with what's right and support this traitorous piece of shit as if those things aren't facts (though I know the copium is high in those ranks).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Both parties are liberal, just different flavors of liberalism. The MAGA lolberts are no different than the insane degenerate libtards - they are just a decade or two (a few Overtone window shifts) behind them. They share the same enlightenment individualistic, hedonistic and consumerist worldview and that's what matters. I'm tired of hearing boomers talking about how great America once was. It was always a masonic state, but I'll grant it had redeeming qualities up until the 20th century. Once the Fed and the jewish bankers got full control it was all gone. Those boomers never got to see the actual great times.
The "Great America" Trump refers to was a degenerate technocratic imperialist state ran by warmongering jews and their helpers, but said boomers got to live a nice cozy life, enjoying abundance, safety, order paired up with the joys of the sexual revolution, a false sense of personal liberty and individualism and rampant consoomerism. They even packaged and sold it as the American dream and this PR mythology is what made Trump president.
Here's the theory in a non-AI song format: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UZU51vVIBUjo
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.
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.
It's not due to assumption of power, it's about having Satan, the father of lies and abominations, as their lord.
Christ is the eternal king of all there is and yet His power is not corruptible. The earthly rulers who follow Him won't be corrupted too. In the Christian worldview there's no dialectical tension between power and submission as in the worldly nitzschean, darwinian, hegelian or marxian worldviews. It's not about will to power or survival of the fittest - it's about harmony and being in God, of everything being in its right place and order.
People mistake communism for stalinism/sovietism.
I don't see reductionism as meaningful (taking words out of the context implied and analyzing them on their own) but you did good here.
Feudalism was much better because more often than not, the lord cared for his people and the people respected him. The whole system dependent on having able-bodied men who were loyal so they had to be content. They had land too. Now it's "you'll own nothing and be happy".
History is cyclical but it ultimately is linear and the prophecies of Revelation will come to pass. They will enslave humanity in the end but their rule will be short lived. Then Christ will put an end to it all.
You're not as smart as you think you are with your sophistry. The question why there are no articles in google search on this subject has nothing to do with me writing such articles.
Even if I were to write 10 articles 1) they won't be displayed in google search and 2) they will be 10 articles written by one person as opposed to countless articles written by various people and featured on big platforms.
Show me the wikipedia article about antichristian rhetoric in judaism or stfu.
None of the above but I'm sure you're a faggot.
It was never fiction. It's just that normies started noticing the obvious lately. Orwell, just like Huxley, knew perfectly well the people and ideas he wrote about in his book. He was part of the fabian socialist society himself (as was Huxley).
Why is this distinction relevant? Are you a stickler for details?