So you couldn't find any such thing. That's what that means.phyllo wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:27 pmIt's everywhere in your posts. Both in content and in tone.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:12 pmYou'll have to quote where I said any such thing. But you won't find it.
However, watch your so-called "teachers": if they don't want you to read, they don't want you to get wise to them. You can count on it.
But you can start with your post which got me involved :
There's certainly nothing special about a man in a frock. He doesn't even necessarily have any expertise at all...just a frock. So a man with a frock who has not read his Bible is no "expert," and has no "expertise." He's just a man in a frock.That says that reading for yourself gives you more "expertise" than what priest have.Well, the point of everybody being able to have a Bible (which the Catholic hierarchy opposed so strongly they strangled and burned people for doing, because they didn't want their monopoly on access to it broken) is to read it for oneself, so as to be self-feeding, and able to engage fully and analytically with the teaching one receives, and arrive at one's own convictions based on that, and live by those convictions. And I might add, I have met many lay preachers and scholars who vastly exceed the knowledge, humility and skill in communication, all those posers-in-frocks who style themselves "priests."
So it's not really a problem. The so-called "expertise" of the priests is mostly in extra-Biblical traditions, rote ritual and dogma, and other such nonsense. We could do very nicely with just ourselves and our Bibles. Many Christians do. And a living, developing faith depends on one being willing to read for oneself.
By contrast, an ordinary man who has read his Bible is far ahead in "expertise" relative to the man in the frock. What makes a man an expert is having read the relevant material, studied it deeply, and understood it well. If he's really a great teacher, he can also explain it clearly to other people, and loves to do that -- but he also will delight in his listeners reading it for themselves. And they'll only be more convinced, if they do...that is, if what the text says is actually what the alleged "teacher" says it says.
So an honest teacher has absolutely no motive not to want his listeners to have read the material. He has every motive to be glad they have. And he wants to be questioned, too, so he can explain and lead them deeper into the truth.
Anybody who doesn't want that is up to tricks. You can be sure.
Now, maybe you've been trusting your "priest." Whether you should or not will depend on what the Word of God says, not on what he says. If he's keeping faith with the text, then maybe you should listen to him: but if he's not, then he's no priest, and he's up to tricks. Either way, you'll only know if you read for yourself. If he's an honest man and a teacher of truth, he should want you to.
If he doesn't, what does that tell you?