Thread 24735175

I’ve been getting told to „embrace tradition” for like 10 years now, after all this time I’ve decided to
take religion more seriously. So seriously in fact that I started looking into biblical scholarship. What I
found out was surprising, I have no idea what I was expecting, but one of the interesting facts I
learned is that the gospel of Mark was written first, both Matthew and Luke used it as a source.
This has been proven, in my understanding, basically beyond a shadow of a doubt. It also has
profound implications as to how to interpret the bible on the whole, since with the knowledge that
both the authors of Matthew and Luke had Mark in front of them, we must now make sense of the
changes and differences between those and Mark, since this would make them editorial changes.
This makes a lot of the bible make more sense and was very eye-opening as far as understanding the
text goes.

I could talk about the implications of this single discovery further, but this isn’t the point of the
thread. The point is: only after re-reading the bible in this light did I realise, the catholic church insists
that Matthew was in fact first, going against pretty much all scholarship on the matter, I assume in
order to place the founding of the church by Saint Peter arbitrarily early.

>>24735175 (OP)

So the problem becomes clear: as a Polish man, the traditional position for me, for my society, is to
a) believe in the bible
b) believe in the traditions of the catholic church

at present I am unsure if both are possible at the same time, since it’s traditionally held that
Matthew was written first, and most catholics who have an opinion share this opinion. Polish
scholars are from what I found unanomous on this, because we’re catholic, we must hold that
Matthew was written first. I’ve read numerous arguments on the subject, I’ve watched a debate on
youtube… the position that Mark was written first seems to just be factually correct.
I wish I never tried to learn more about the bible this way and had just gone through the catehism
instead. But what’s done is done. What am I supposed to do now? I want to continue to embrace
tradition.
Since I’m Polish I can’t become protestant, that’d be just about the most un-traditional thing I could
do, being catholic is central to the polish society. It’d even make more sense to become muslim than
protestant. But at the same time, I can’t reconsile traditional catholic teachings with what seem to be
the facts. In this thread, hopefully, someone will post a great argument for Matthaean priority, but if
that doesn’t happen… what, do I just beat myself over the head until I forget what I learned, and
hope that I don’t come across this information again in the future?

How do you embrace tradition in light of new knowledge? Keep in mind this isn’t a recent discovery,
this is known since the 19th century.

>>24735175 (OP)
Evola was a hylic poser who whined to Guenon about the crippled leg he couldn't cure.

>>24735200
why didn't he just cast a healing spell?

>>24735176
Read Simone Weil
First The Need for Roots then Waiting for God
Dont have the time to elaborate right now but I was in a similar situation and she helped to put my mind at ease

>>24735175 (OP)
>the catholic church insists
>that Matthew was in fact first, going against pretty much all scholarship on the matter, I assume in
>order to place the founding of the church by Saint Peter arbitrarily early.
iirc it's because of the traditional authorship claims. Since Matthew was an actual disciple and Mark wasn't, Matthew starting from scratch makes more sense than using someone else's book as a base.

>>24735271
Yes, and also Mark being last is supposed to solve the synoptic problem by claiming Mark wrote down what Luke and Matthew agreed upon. But the obvious problem with this would be, why even write your own gospel if you're just going to abridge existing ones?

>>24735175 (OP)
nigga you embrace tradition by embracing it. faggot.

>>24735427
okay, how?

>>24735175 (OP)
Reading the bible in your own language is the opposite of "embracing tradition". You're just recreating modernity through first principles.

>>24735468
Okay, what language should I read it in then?
Choose your answer carefully.

>>24735176
Is christfagging really the most tradition you have? Think carefully and consider that before the counter reformation catholics had no real idea what was even in the Bible. Even after that they are remarkably uninterested in what it says or what’s factual. For about a millennia there were no real quality controls at all, with uneducated clergy performing rites in a language they didn’t understand being normal. The discontent didn’t pop up out of nowhere with Luther, what the catholics tried to suppress as heresies were largely concerned with actually understanding the Bible and caring about the church being both venal and stupid. Continually monastic orders would form with a mission of actually bothering to understand the religion and getting back to that whole “give to the poor” thing Jesus said explicitly. Which lasts a couple of centuries until they’re swimming in opulence again.

“Trad” is empty gesturing without any core values and the “tradcath” in particular is a disgusting creature of feigned interest in religion with no understanding or genuine passion for it.

Start with your value systems. The reason all these trad authors cling to religion or the culture of ca 1800 is the lack of any depth of thought about what the problem even is. People like Evola did think about it but ended up constructing these romantic mythologies about people’s spirits through time. He was also into magic nonsense because it was trendy to that circle and didn’t actually live up to these supposed values at all.

Read the western canon (you dirty slav). Figure out what part of it speaks to you and why. After finding your values and a life philosophy you can figure out how to practically implement it.

>>24735271
There is also a tradition of a version of matthew in hebrew or aramaic circulating

>>24735175 (OP)

>How do you embrace tradition in light of new knowledge?
>I started looking into biblical scholarship

You don't embrace tradition by choosing to believe that atheists who hate the bible and Protestants who want the bible to be anything they want are legitimate authorities on anything.

If you read some Guenon you'd understand the necessity of an authentic transmission of initiation and tradition from antiquity to today, and he also tears down the farce of textual criticism. Modern biblical criticism is born explicitly out of counter-traditional desires, and is actively looking for ways to get you to presuppose that traditional perspectives are false to "prove" to you that their new, secular, enlightened way of viewing things is true. "Heads I win, tails you lose" type beat.

t. Polish expat who was raised an atheist and eventually became Orthodox.

>>24735175 (OP)
You bend over and take it.

>>24735175 (OP)
Evola did it by larping as an aristocrat (he wasn't).

>>24735502
>Is christfagging really the most tradition you have? Not poster, but it is truly the best. Catholicism and it's pagan like aesthetics cannot be matched.

>before the counter reformation catholics had no real idea what was even in the Bible
And now you have thousands of micro Protestant religions all claiming to be the one true religion, kek.

There's a reason WHY masses were in Latin. This is the esoteric nature of the Bible. Protestants, to be fair here; American protestants, rejected the esoteric for the exoteric and made it into the joke of what it is today.

What do you have to do be initiated? Go to the IRS website and pay a fee. Kek

>>24735737
He didn't come from a Sicilian aristocratic family?

>>24735691
>MUHTHORITY

Does the orthodox still use one guy with a bunch of honors but no authority?

>MUHTURDITIONS

No eternal truth? They openly acknowledge they don't have any.

>MUH MUH MUH YOU JUST HAF TA FIND GAWD BRO DATS WHAT IT ALL ABOUT

Where is it?

>I DUN HAVEN'T FOUND IT MUH GUENON MUHVOLA MUH ORTHO MUH MUH MUH I'LL MAKE A NIETZSCHE THREAD

Oof, looking for answers from Neetch huh. Yeah, alright Nietzsche can't answer much in that department. You might like Werner Stegmaier though, he basically just published these odd mixtures of various philosophers. To give you an example he would break a philosopher down by how they chose to define substance and then make this a process, the philosophers with the most efficiency usually were the ones he gravitated towards. He would then make a matrix (think math not the movie) of various ones to see where most patterns develop for entry and exit. Combining Aristotle, Descartes, and Leibnitz for instance produced the most efficient combination for a substance conversion to unit and the fastest interval of time by which someone could completely change identities. He did this with easily 50 different philosophers, and there are a few honorable mentions but he found that with just Nietzsche, the process could be performed independently.

He became obsessed with Nietzsche, I mean this literally. He published work proposing an actual hypothetical Nietzschean theology. His work is extensively researched, and draws heavily from source material. He mostly suggests that with just Nietzsche an individual can gain a new identity and create a personal theology of sorts but that's highly simplistic. He also went and tested it, one of the conclusions he came to was that his specific version was essentially a devil's advocate for God. He also proposed a hypothesis to solve a problem that had plagued Nietzsche research almost since his death, what to make of Nietzsche's notes and WtP? Stegmaier claimed Nietzsche was aware of the effect his philosophy was intended to produce, he thought that Nietzsche had an end result in mind and that all of his works leading up to his breakdown and posthumous offerings were just experimental. Nietzsche was offering a 2 way experiment, anyone could show up and play, Nietzsche gets to gauge how people react. For those that pass each experimental hurdle Stegmaier thought that they would be given the key to a new identity and this Nietzschean theology of sorts. Think of it like the ultimate culmination of what the greatest thinkers before Nietzsche concluded offered in the most efficient yet challenging way possible to produce the result as something that could be attainable before the person reaches a point where they do lose interest in such a thing. Paradoxically the result is also a new identity.

I don't know how much of his work has been translated but he also found that the only unifying link he found throughout was anti-indoctrination.

>>24735846

You're posting anonymously. You only gain social clout through histrionics on social media.

>>24735759
No, there is no evidence of any kind of nobility in his line. He made it up.

>>24736107
didn't nietzsche make up he's polish nobility lol. these fake philosophers of newer times really wanted to be like the greeks.

>>24735175 (OP)
It means breaking out of the modernist worldview. Here’s a good book to help with that.

>>24736072
Why would I care? Apparently I'm a god to you.

The Bible and the gospels function as supports to Christ's church.
If you only study the bible, like many prots, you will not get any closer to the truth of Christ; this is only possible by partaking in his church. It seems at this point that the (legitimate) Orthodox churches are the last ones possessing this truth. I hold hope that the Latin churche might be reunited in this truth by a return to the time they possessed it, i.e., prior to the XIV century

>>24735176
>Since I’m Polish I can’t become protestant
You can become Orthodox like your slavic brothers

>>24735407
What about gospel harmonies? People do seem to be interested in abridging existing gospels, why not when there were only 2? or so the argument to your line of questioning would go. Better to rely on other arguments to support the idea.

I embrace tradition by studying different traditions but unfortunately the only tradition I have been initiated into is the French restaurant tradition
Tradition is mostly dead in the modern world

>>24738137
Tradition is degenerate. You should go live on a farm and drink a gallon of raw milk every morning.

Buddy. If you have to ask, you ain’t traditional

>>24736107
can you show me where you found this? im curious and would like to know more