"The manner is which you exegete a text if far different from orthodox Christianity. "
Actually, the way I exegete the text is exactly the same as Orthodox Christianity. They are HUGE disciples of the Fathers of the Church from whom we have the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth-century Christian homilies, exegetical essays, polemical writings, liturgical norms, poetry, hymnody and so forth, which together with the decress of synods and councils, are "the" sources of "big-T Tradition".
So if you add the Catholics and the Orthodox together, you have roughly 60% of the Christians in today's world. Go back, say, 600 years ago, we were more like 98% of the Christians in the world. (And the other 2% weren't non-denoms, either, they were mostly the the non-Calcedonian Orthodox.)
Now that's the "Old-Time Religion."
(Guitar chords G Maj, C Maj, D Maj) "It was good enough for Athanasius,
and it's good enough for me!"
:o)
“”It was good enough for Athanasius,
and it’s good enough for me!””
Athanasius on the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith:
“If then ye are the disciples of the Gospel, speak not unrighteousness against God, but walk in the things that are written. But if you will speak any-thing besides that which is written, why do you contend with us, who are determined neither to hear nor to speak any thing but that which is written? The Lord himself says, If ye continue in my word, ye are truly free.” — Concerning the Incarnation of Christ.
“For the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are of themselves sufficient for the discovery of divine truth.” — -Speech against the Gentiles.
Athanasius on the canon of the scriptures:
“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and included in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical... The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.”— Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures.
Against Transubstantiation
“I saw an example of this in the Gospel of John, where treating concerning the eating of his body, and seeing many offended there by, he said, “Does this offend you, what if ye shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life.” He spake both of the spirit and the flesh, and made a distinction between his spirit and flesh, that not only believing in what was visible to their eyes, but also in his invisible nature, they might learn that the things which he said were not carnal, but spiritual: for, for how many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world? For this reason, therefore, he mentions the Son of man’s ascension into heaven that he might draw them from the corporeal sense, and that they might understand, that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly nourishment and spiritual food given to them from above. For the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life. As if he had said, This my body which is shown to you and is given for the world, shall be given as food, so as to be imparted spiritually within each, and to become to each a safe guard against the resurrection of eternal life.” — Upon that passage of the Gospel, “ Whosoever shall say.”
If it’s good enough for Athanasius, it’s good enough for me!!
And yet you have substantial differences in interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history, even on papal power and infallibility, among many other things. Nor do all of Rome's teachings have unanimous consent of the "fathers," despite claims for it. But RC assurance rests upon the premise of Rome's assured infallibility, under which only her interpretation has real authority.
Nor is NT authority based upon formal descent.
Then you must reject the Apocrypha.