TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

You do actually.

As evidence, read your own posts.

You'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.

It's everywhere in your posts. Both in content and in tone.

So you couldn't find any such thing. That's what that means.

But you can start with your post which got me involved :

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.

That says that reading for yourself gives you more "expertise" than what priest have.

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.

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?

[phyllo]

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.

By contrast, an ordinary man who has read his Bible is far ahead in "expertise" than the man in the frock.

There, you said it again.

Seriously :

The Canon law of the Catholic Church holds that the priesthood is a sacred and perpetual vocational state, not just a profession (which is a reason for, and symbolized by, the state of celibacy). There are programs of formation and studies which aim to enable the future priest to effectively serve his ministry. These programs are demanded by canon law (in the Latin Church, canons 232–264) which also refers to the Bishops' Conferences for local more detailed regulation. As a general rule, education is extensive and lasts at least five or six years, depending on the national Programme of Priestly Formation.[32]

In the United States, priests must have undergraduate-level instruction in philosophy plus an additional four to five years of graduate-level seminary formation in theology. A Master of Divinity is the most common degree. A preparatory (propaedeutic) year is now being added by many dioceses in the U.S. This spiritual year prepares aspirants for their eventual philosophical and theological studies.

In Scotland, there is a mandatory year of preparation before entering seminary for a year dedicated to spiritual formation, followed by several years of study.
In Europe, Australasia and North America, seminarians usually graduate with a Master of Divinity or a Master of Theology degree, which is a four-year professional degree (as opposed to a Master of Arts which is an academic degree). At least four years are to be in theological studies at the major seminary.[33]
In Germany and Austria, priest candidates graduate with an academic degree (Magister theologiae, Diplom-Theologe, Master of Arts in Theology). The degree takes five years and is preceded by a year of spiritual formation (plus learning of the ancient languages) and followed by two years of pastoral practice (during which the candidate is ordained to the deaconate). Usually, priests spend all of that time in a seminary except one "free year".
In Africa, Asia and South America, programmes are more flexible, being developed according to the age and academic abilities of those preparing for ordination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthoo ... #Education

[Immanuel Can]

The Canon law of the Catholic Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthoo ... #Education

Do you actually believe that a lay person can't come up to this level and even more? Then you're quite wrong. I've met those who have not only come up to it, but become world experts in things that priests are supposed to know, and don't.

And do you imagine that everybody who undergoes this procedure also acquires virtue and purity of heart thereby? Then look at our universities today, and decide how "pure hearted" they have made people to be. There's nothing about having degrees that makes a person virtuous. In fact, for some, all it makes them is more arrogant. And knowing the "canons of the Catholic Church" only means they've been indoctrinated in whatever it is their non-Biblical traditions have come to be; it does not tell you if they know their Bibles.

But I get what this is really all about. You're a person who has been accustomed to trusting your priest. The thought that he might be untrustworthy is horrifying to you, and you'd rather believe anything that look in your own Bible and find out that it's possibly true. I get that that thought is unsettling; but that was what started the Reformation -- a man studying his own Bible. Now, he was himself a "priest" at the time...but even he, Luther, was convinced by what he read. He felt that the Catholic hierarchy and doctrines needed reform -- not yet rejection, but reform -- and that's why he posted his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg. He was wanting to raise questions that would issue in better doctrine for the Catholics. He was not defying them, but appealing to them, trying to help out the organization of which he was still a member. And they wanted to kill him for it.

What does that mean? What does it tell you about the clergy?

[Gary Childress]

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.

By contrast, an ordinary man who has read his Bible is far ahead in "expertise" than the man in the frock.

There, you said it again.

Seriously :

The Canon law of the Catholic Church holds that the priesthood is a sacred and perpetual vocational state, not just a profession (which is a reason for, and symbolized by, the state of celibacy). There are programs of formation and studies which aim to enable the future priest to effectively serve his ministry. These programs are demanded by canon law (in the Latin Church, canons 232–264) which also refers to the Bishops' Conferences for local more detailed regulation. As a general rule, education is extensive and lasts at least five or six years, depending on the national Programme of Priestly Formation.[32]

In the United States, priests must have undergraduate-level instruction in philosophy plus an additional four to five years of graduate-level seminary formation in theology. A Master of Divinity is the most common degree. A preparatory (propaedeutic) year is now being added by many dioceses in the U.S. This spiritual year prepares aspirants for their eventual philosophical and theological studies.

In Scotland, there is a mandatory year of preparation before entering seminary for a year dedicated to spiritual formation, followed by several years of study.
In Europe, Australasia and North America, seminarians usually graduate with a Master of Divinity or a Master of Theology degree, which is a four-year professional degree (as opposed to a Master of Arts which is an academic degree). At least four years are to be in theological studies at the major seminary.[33]
In Germany and Austria, priest candidates graduate with an academic degree (Magister theologiae, Diplom-Theologe, Master of Arts in Theology). The degree takes five years and is preceded by a year of spiritual formation (plus learning of the ancient languages) and followed by two years of pastoral practice (during which the candidate is ordained to the deaconate). Usually, priests spend all of that time in a seminary except one "free year".
In Africa, Asia and South America, programmes are more flexible, being developed according to the age and academic abilities of those preparing for ordination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthoo ... #Education

Protestantism has always struck me as a more democratized Christianity, overall. It has its problems also, but it seems like it has a more "grass roots" approach to religion. I tend to admire that more so than hierarchical approaches to faith. "Power to the people" as the slogan goes.

[Immanuel Can]

Protestantism has always struck me as a more democratized Christianity, overall. It has its problems also, but it seems like it has a more "grass roots" approach to religion. I tend to admire that more so than hierarchical approaches to faith. "Power to the people" as the slogan goes.

That's generally correct, Gary. For the most part, the issue with the Protestant-Catholic divide was over the question of whether the Bible or religious traditions/authorities should be regarded as preeminent. Luthers said "sola scriptura," (Latin: only the Scriptures), and the Catholic hierarchy said, "extra ecclesiam nulla salis," (outside of our ecclesiastical system, no salvation). So for the Reformers, reading became a sacred responsibility of every individual Christian, and for the Counter-Reformers in the Catholic clergy, reading the Bible became the one thing they didn't want anybody to be able to do.

In fact, one of the early publishers of the Bible, William Tyndale, said to a lazy Catholic clergyman, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do.” And for this, he was tied to a stake, strangled and burned. But he made good on his promise.

Now, today, there are some Protestant groups that have reverted somewhat, and have become more ritualized and less devoted to reading their Bibles, and gone to a sort of half-clerical position on that. All the worse for them, I guess. I don't recommend their procedures. I think it's more indicative of laziness and capitulation to authoritarianism than anything; and it's certainly not Biblical.

[phyllo]

In fact, one of the early publishers of the Bible, William Tyndale, said to a lazy Catholic clergyman, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do.” And for this, he was tied to a stake, strangled and burned. But he made good on his promise.

Not a fact.

Eventually, Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips[37] to ducal authorities representing the Holy Roman Empire.[38] He was seized in Antwerp in 1535, and held in the castle of Vilvoorde (Filford) near Brussels.[39]

Following the insurrections of the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites, the German Peasants' War, the Münster Anabaptist rebellion, etc., heresy was connected by states with sedition and possible regicide; it carried, at worst, the terrible death penalty of burning at the stake. The Church could usually protect someone accused of heresy from being charged by the state, if that person satisfied the appointed theologian Inquisitor, in a formal process, that they did not (now) hold heretical views.

In Tyndale's case, he was held in prison for a year and a half: his Roman Catholic inquisitor, Jacobus Latomus, gave him the opportunity to write a book stating his views; Latomus wrote a book in response to convince him of his errors; Tyndale wrote two in reply; Latomus wrote two further books in response to Tyndale. Latomus' three books were subsequently published as one volume: in these it can be seen that the discussion on heresy revolves around the contents of three other books Tyndale had written on topics like justification by faith, free will, the denial of the soul, and so on. Latomus makes no mention of Bible translation; indeed, it seems that in prison, Tyndale was allowed to continue making translations from the Hebrew.[40] Thomas Cromwell was involved in some intercession or plans such as extradition.[41]: 220 

When Tyndale could not be convinced to abjure, he was handed over to the Brabantine secular arm and tried on charges of Lutheran heresy in 1536. The charges did not mention Bible translation, which was not illegal in the Netherlands.[40]: 317, 321 

He was found guilty by his own admission and condemned to be executed. Tyndale "was strangled to death[e] while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".[43] His final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported later as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

[phyllo]

Protestantism has always struck me as a more democratized Christianity, overall. It has its problems also, but it seems like it has a more "grass roots" approach to religion. I tend to admire that more so than hierarchical approaches to faith. "Power to the people" as the slogan goes.

Technically, Christianity isn't a democracy. It mirrors the divine structure of the universe.

God at the top.

Jesus

Angels

Apostles

Prophets

Priesthood

Laity

[phyllo]

Do you actually believe that a lay person can't come up to this level and even more? Then you're quite wrong. I've met those who have not only come up to it, but become world experts in things that priests are supposed to know, and don't.

It's not a question if someone can come up to a high level by reading. That's possible.

But you seem to believe that Bible readers routinely exceed the level of Catholics and Catholic clergy. Even highly educated Catholics and clergy.

And do you imagine that everybody who undergoes this procedure also acquires virtue and purity of heart thereby? Then look at our universities today, and decide how "pure hearted" they have made people to be. There's nothing about having degrees that makes a person virtuous. In fact, for some, all it makes them is more arrogant. And knowing the "canons of the Catholic Church" only means they've been indoctrinated in whatever it is their non-Biblical traditions have come to be; it does not tell you if they know their Bibles.

Do you imagine that reading the Bible makes one virtuous and pure?

But I get what this is really all about. You're a person who has been accustomed to trusting your priest. The thought that he might be untrustworthy is horrifying to you, and you'd rather believe anything that look in your own Bible and find out that it's possibly true. I get that that thought is unsettling;

No.

I don't have a priest.

What it's about is being realistic and truthful.

[Immanuel Can]

In fact, one of the early publishers of the Bible, William Tyndale, said to a lazy Catholic clergyman, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do.” And for this, he was tied to a stake, strangled and burned. But he made good on his promise.

Not a fact.

A fact. https://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/btyndale6.html

[Immanuel Can]

Protestantism has always struck me as a more democratized Christianity, overall. It has its problems also, but it seems like it has a more "grass roots" approach to religion. I tend to admire that more so than hierarchical approaches to faith. "Power to the people" as the slogan goes.

Technically, Christianity isn't a democracy. It mirrors the divine structure of the universe.

No, it's not a "democracy." That is true. But there's no priestly caste ordered for Christians, either. In fact, every Christian is equally called "a priest," in Rev.1: 6-7, for example. So the priest-laity distinction simply isn't real. And I have no idea what is meant by "the divine structure of the universe," since the universe is made up of all kinds of things. That idea, too, is simply not in Scripture.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you actually believe that a lay person can't come up to this level and even more? Then you're quite wrong. I've met those who have not only come up to it, but become world experts in things that priests are supposed to know, and don't.

It's not a question if someone can come up to a high level by reading. That's possible.

Indeed. I bet I could show you carpenters and bricklayers who have more Biblical knowledge than the present Pope.

But you seem to believe that Bible readers routinely exceed the level of Catholics and Catholic clergy.

Only because they so often do.

And do you imagine that everybody who undergoes this procedure also acquires virtue and purity of heart thereby? Then look at our universities today, and decide how "pure hearted" they have made people to be. There's nothing about having degrees that makes a person virtuous. In fact, for some, all it makes them is more arrogant. And knowing the "canons of the Catholic Church" only means they've been indoctrinated in whatever it is their non-Biblical traditions have come to be; it does not tell you if they know their Bibles.

Do you imagine that reading the Bible makes one virtuous and pure?

Not just reading. Heeding, meditating on, obeying, and participating in the relationship with God that it offers. But all of that starts with reading, and without reading, can't happen at all.

But I get what this is really all about. You're a person who has been accustomed to trusting your priest. The thought that he might be untrustworthy is horrifying to you, and you'd rather believe anything that look in your own Bible and find out that it's possibly true. I get that that thought is unsettling;

No. I don't have a priest.

Then why defend the rascals?

[phyllo]

Then why defend the rascals?

You're twisting the truth. Truth is what needs to be defended.

[Immanuel Can]

Then why defend the rascals?

You're twisting the truth. Truth is what needs to be defended.

What am I "twisting"? I'm just telling you how it is.

[iambiguous]

And you can thank the printing of Bibles for changing that situation. Before then, not only could people not afford books, but there was very little for them to read. Once the Bible was widely available, literacy rates skyrocketed.

And then this part...

Before the Bible was printed [or after but someone couldn't afford to buy one] any number of people had no access to Christianity at all. So, did they acquire a "get out of Hell free" card from the Lord on Judgment Day? And what about those around able to afford one after thousands and thousands were available? They read it but reject Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Suppose you gave them the Bible. Isn't it a fact then that you are at least in part responsible for dooming their souls?

You're literate. But damned.

[iambiguous]

If somebody wants to read the Bible ... okay.

Just don't pretend that by reading the Bible you have a wonderful understanding of God, Jesus or Christianity, which others are lacking.

I've never really been able to understand this frame of mind.

With so much at stake on both sides of the grave -- moral commandments, immortality, salvation -- would it not seem fundamentally imperative not only that we mere mortals read God's Words correctly but, as well, they are able to demonstrate why it is, in fact, their own God's words, and only their own God's words, that will save your soul for all of eternity.

I suppose that's why so many evangelical Christians here in America will go out and buy Trump's Bible. After all, Trump is a True Christian, right? Why take chances when their very soul is on the line.