The fact that it's NOT consistent with the Church Fathers is a HUGE problem. Being Christian means we are supposed to receive the Faith as it was understood by the Christians before us. If we allow the Faith to be changed somewhere along the way that contradicts what Christians before us believed, then that is obviously a problem. It means that a "new Faith" was essentially created.
Why should we care how others before us perceived it if it conflicts with Scripture? We're under the curse of disobedience in Deuteronomy, so of course our understanding is going to be clouded and change as the veil is lifted. Dual seedline is the understanding that comes as a result.
If you don't "hold firm to tradition" as St. Paul tells us, then this means you have fallen to prey to "false prophets" and are off the mark of Christian orthodoxy.
"Word" actually means "word of mouth", since at the time St. Paul wrote that letter, there was no "New Testament Scriptures" yet...
And if your response is "aha, but there were some: his letters!" Then my response is this: Epistle is a synonym for letter.
Thus, in the 50s, when St. Paul was writing his letters/epistles, the 4 Gospel accounts, Book of Acts, Revelation, etc. weren't even written yet, so he was mainly referring to keeping the Traditions of the verbal teachings him and the other Apostles passed onto the Churches they founded.
And you're literally interpreting it as the opposite to try to argue that keeping Traditions outside of Scripture is unimportant...
You see now how that is problematic?
If I were you, I would read the Early Church Fathers and see what Early Christians actually believed... If you do so, you will either come out Catholic or Eastern Orthodox...
What way in particular do you think it conflicts with Scripture?
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle."
Word, as in the Scriptures, not the imagination of some church father, rather than the words of Christ.
"Word" actually means "word of mouth", since at the time St. Paul wrote that letter, there was no "New Testament Scriptures" yet...
And if your response is "aha, but there were some: his letters!" Then my response is this: Epistle is a synonym for letter.
Thus, in the 50s, when St. Paul was writing his letters/epistles, the 4 Gospel accounts, Book of Acts, Revelation, etc. weren't even written yet, so he was mainly referring to keeping the Traditions of the verbal teachings him and the other Apostles passed onto the Churches they founded.
And you're literally interpreting it as the opposite to try to argue that keeping Traditions outside of Scripture is unimportant...
You see now how that is problematic?
If I were you, I would read the Early Church Fathers and see what Early Christians actually believed... If you do so, you will either come out Catholic or Eastern Orthodox...