Why place confidence in tradition? St Paul told Timothy to commit the message to other faithful men who would then pass it to other faithful men. The epistle of Jude speaks of the faith once delivered to the saints. .
But, perhaps what I mean by tradition is not what you are denouncing. If your beef is with the Roman Church, I cannot enter into that - I am an Orthodox Christian - surely a poor example of one, for sure.
My journey to Holy Orthodoxy made me grapple with the question of the origins of the church, if such could be found. I began as pretty much a Baptist successionist, I suppose. I thought "The Trail of Blood" pretty much summed it up. Don't believe that anymore.
The epistles of St Ignatius rocked my world - especially his words on the Holy Mysteries (Eucharist) and the role of the Bishop.
He was martyred - eaten by lions - rather than renounce around 67 A.D. I found a church that counts him in their number.
But, again, I do not know that this holds any weight for you. Are you a Son of Noah - a righteous gentile? I know only a little of that. I heard Vendyl Jones speak once and was on his mailing list for a time.
Oof. Sorry for that. As I am 50 and still coming out of a long illness, I know how things go when they don't go as planned... Too young to quit, too hammered to work... But, perhaps this is an opportunity to try a little entrepreneurship. eh? My friend started a janitorial business at 55 and is doing better now than he ever did working for someone.
Why place confidence in tradition? St Paul told Timothy to commit the message to other faithful men who would then pass it to other faithful men. The epistle of Jude speaks of the faith once delivered to the saints. .
I am with you that far, but oral tradition cannot change what came before it. I mean, it is technically an impossibility, or one makes YHWH a liar.
But, perhaps what I mean by tradition is not what you are denouncing. If your beef is with the Roman Church, I cannot enter into that - I am an Orthodox Christian - surely a poor example of one, for sure.
I know you are Orthodox (and that the Missus is RCC) - Some time ago, we had quite a chat... As for being poor about it, humble things are always the best! : ) While I find the Orthodox to be way more palatable than the RCC, I am still a country mile away from where you are... But I can see you from here (*waves*).
As for tradition, I am particularly against the Roman church, but yours, Judaism's, and even my Protestant brethren's traditions are also needful to examine - We are to inspect for leaven once a year (Passover) - And I think that is healthy in every case.
My journey to Holy Orthodoxy made me grapple with the question of the origins of the church, if such could be found. I began as pretty much a Baptist successionist, I suppose. I thought "The Trail of Blood" pretty much summed it up. Don't believe that anymore.
I am not particularly endorsing the 'trail of blood' as per the Baptists, But I do think I am pretty close to where they are... There is something there - something that was distributed by very humble means...
The epistles of St Ignatius rocked my world - especially his words on the Holy Mysteries (Eucharist) and the role of the Bishop. He was martyred - eaten by lions - rather than renounce around 67 A.D. I found a church that counts him in their number.
I am not very swayed by church fathers - I view them largely as a contrivance rife with inclusions and outright frogeries (no offense intended) My problem is that the closer one tries to push a liturgical church, (complete with hierarchies resembling, if not outright mimicking pagan mystery religions) toward what was undoubtedly a Torah compliant sect of Judaism, the more ludicrous it becomes.
This pagan-laced monstrosity cannot have come from Yeshua (else he is a false prophet and teacher), and the closer one puts these pagan influences to the original Assembly, the more it emphasizes the fact that it cannot be what He laid down.
For instance, Baptism as it comes down to us is reminiscent of pagan baptisms (take your pick), whereas what we should be understanding is the thing that YHWH set as an example: The Hebrew Mikvah.
The same can be said of the Eucharist, which may as well have sprung complete right out of Mithras. It's very meaning is a far cry from the demonstration of the rite as performed by Melchizedek.
The thing is, The things of YHWH are all defined in the Torah, and in the Old Testament, and those things CANNOT be changed (added to, or taken away from). and I cannot believe for even an instant that Yeshua came to make His Father out to be a liar. Ergo, I am with you on the things that fit in that setting... The rest, I am adamantly against.
But, again, I do not know that this holds any weight for you. Are you a Son of Noah - a righteous gentile? I know only a little of that. I heard Vendyl Jones speak once and was on his mailing list for a time.
Nope. Christian Reform by upbringing, and Presbyterian OPC by association. But if studying prophecy and history as a Christian, inevitably the things of God intervene... So I am far afield compared to many of my fellows, but then I have always preferred the green pastures to the pens.
It's just too bad that the simple MESSAGE got all cluttered with things that are not important at all.
Much like the parlor game where a story is told from one person to the next.