The main reason there can never be true unity between Catholics and Christians

If you know anything at all about me you know I couldn't agree more.

Yo changed the word minister to Priest? Since there's a huge difference between the 2 offices... I'm wondering why you chose to do this?

Can you cite a source for the Greek-English translation/rendition, please? I've never heard of anything remotely close to that, sounds too incredible to be considered...

[QUO
I’m not sure what you are meaning here, but I thought it proper to bring more grace into thIs discussion to help promote civility.

Sorry, I thought I had given sufficient meaning.

May I use a Biblical definition/analogy of hypocrisy… it’s where someone claims to be a Christ follower, but their words and manner of speech, or deeds prove otherwise. 🙂

1 Corinthians 11:26 says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes."

It says death (singular), not deaths (plural). It says we proclaim His death; it doesn't say we transform the bread and cup into His body and blood each time and offer Him up again. What do we proclaim? His once for all sacrifice.

This is just another example of Catholicism giving their own traditions priority over Yahweh's word.

Beckie, as you wish.

Hi Ted. I cited the NASB, you can read it here: "16to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

Taken from: https://biblehub.com/nasb_/romans/15.htm

Now, if we look at the Greek, the word is
"in the priestly service
ἱερουργοῦντα (hierourgounta)
Verb - Present Participle Active - Accusative Masculine Singular
Strong's 2418: To minister in holy things. From a compound of hieron and the base of ergon; to be a temple-worker, i.e. Officiate as a priest. " Taken from: https://biblehub.com/romans/15-16.htm

And here is a commentary from that same link: "Elliot's Commentary: (16) Minister . . . ministering.--These are two different words in the Greek, but allied in their signification. Both refer originally to the liturgical service of the Temple; the first to the whole of the functions both of the priests and Levites, the second to the special function of the priests in the offering of sacrifice. St. Paul is a "minister of Jesus Christ;" i.e., his sacred office was given to him by Christ; it was Christ who appointed and ordained him to it; and his special duty as a priest of the gospel was to see that the Church of the Gentiles, whom it fell to him to present as a sacrifice to God, should be fit for such a sacrifice, made holy by the indwelling Spirit, and therefore acceptable to Him to whom it was offered."

In the Early Church, this Analogy was often made by the Church Fathers: Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons are the Three Orders of the Christian Priesthood, that have succeeded to the Three Orders of the Jewish Priesthood, High Priests, Priest and Levites.

In the Bible, a distinct Greek word is used for Bishop, ἐπισκόπους (episkopous) (e.g. Acts 20:28), Presbyter (πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) (e.g. Titus 1:5) and Deacon. Unfortunately, some English Translations sometimes render Bishop as "overseer" and Presbyter as elder.

The Early Church Father St. Ignatius (died around A.D. 110) of Antioch (were the disciples were first called Christians, as we read in Acts), who was a companion of the Apostle St. John, wrote this shortly before he died: "
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm So again, we see, Eucharists, Bishops etc, Biblically and historically, goes back to the Early Church. God Bless.

Hi Tony, thanks for the kindness. If that was your experience, I respect it. We must all do what we believe the Good Lord leads us to do.

For me, I've always had Protestant Friends, and some Relatives. Right now, I'm in Mumbai, to work from Office. But when I was back home in Chennai, me and my mother would go to a non-denominational Christian Fellowship service every Sunday. We liked the people and the place. We sang hymns and praised and worshipped the Lord. I appreciate the love and zeal for the Lord Jesus many Evangelical Christians have. But I see no reason to change denomination. Later in the day, we would also go to the local St. Luke's Parish for Mass.

God Bless.

You clearly don't know much about religions do you? A Hindu is a believer of Gods and clings to Caste hierarchy. That's what it's all about for a Hindu. Buddhism speaks about atheistic principles and Gauthama Buddha sought to free people from the oppression of caste. He neglected to mention God anywhere during his lifetime. Apparently this is a Christian forum or so they say. So, I'll leave you with this information. Please go do your homework before you say something.

Buddha did mention gods. Gods appear regularly in the Pali Sutta and
Mahayana Sutra, and are also referred to by the Buddha in the Dhammapada:

“Even the Gods emulate those who are awakened.
Established in meditation, they live in freedom, at peace”.

“Let us live in joy, never hoarding things among those who
hoard. Let us live in growing joy like the bright Gods.”

“But who can blame those who are pure, wise, good and meditative? They shine
like a coin of pure gold. Even the Gods praise them, even Brahma, the creator.” source

Belief in God or gods is not a necessary component of Buddhism.

Anything to do with the Mahayana Sutra has to do with Hinduism. Because Guathama Buddha during His lifetime never did mention God. He was a Social thinker and reformer. Buddhist followers later on wrote many other sutras to assimilate Buddhism that posed a threat to Hinduism at the time. Hinduism nearly died out in India because of Buddhism. That's why Brahminical people had to come up with things like Buddha is the 10th Avatar of Vishnu and so forth to bring Buddhism back as a branch of Hinduism which it clearly is not.

The crux of Hinduism is that all are not born equal according to the 4 Varnas. Buddha during his time spoke that all human beings are equal which literally shattered the Varna system. Hence the need for the Mahayana movement after Buddha's death.

May I ask, who is "they"?

Buddha was a rationalist. What He propagated most was the 8 fold path of Buddhism during his lifetime. The depiction of him fighting demons and sitting under the serpent's head is all imagination and anyone can tell that it is the mythological depiction of Buddha and this is owed to the Brahminical interference for the sole purpose of bringing back the Varna system. Because without the varna system, there can be no Hinduism even to this day. So, for the Varna system to be brought back, there had to be accounts of Buddha talking of heavenly beings and life after death and all that which is completely irrelevant to what Buddhism is all about.

It's clearly understood even by Hindu scholars themselves that all the puranas and ithihasas were all written to lure the people to Hinduism. It's all mythology which you are referring to. It isn't historic. Hindu symbolism itself is so unfit that it is never in use for all India national purposes. Take our national flag for example. The Dharma chakra of Buddha is there at the center of the Indian flag. The Ashoka pillar at Sarnath consisting of 4 lions has been adopted as our national architectural symbol and it can be found on Indian passports, postcards and so forth. This means that the Government of India recognizes Buddha's teaching.

What you're talking about is the superstitious Buddha and the mythological Buddha which was created by Brahminical imperialists who came after Buddha's time to water down the greatness of Buddha's teaching which was rationality and rational thinking.

The Puranas and Ithihasas were written in Barbaric times and the practices as described in those books were also barbaric. Buddha stood against all that with his teaching. Buddhists were chased out and persecuted by the Brahmins in the later years yet they could not completely do away with Buddhism. So, they had to spin all these elaborate tells none of which a rationalist like Buddha would have had the time to concoct.

If a debt has been paid in full, why would a person continue to pay more and more installments on it (i.e., the mass)? It's foolish. The mass and the false Jesus of the mass perpetuates the lie that the debt was not paid in full at Calvary.

Catholicism essentially makes the true Jesus who was sacrificed on Calvary into a false Jesus. The true Jesus' sacrifice paid the debt, once for all; the false Jesus' sacrifice wasn't sufficient and therefore must be repeated over and over in the mass.

If there is no New Covenant Universal Offering, in every Gentile Nation, then Malachi 1:11 is a false prophecy. Of course, it actually is not.

Malachi 1:

"For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations,” Says the LORD of hosts."

Pulpit Commentary: "The Fathers and mediaeval writers, and many modern commentators, see in this verse a prophecy of the Holy Eucharist, the "pure offering" commemorative of Christ's sacrifice, which is found in every nation under heaven where the Name of Christ is adored." Taken from: https://biblehub.com/malachi/1-11.htm

May be error? If you are not solid on what is and what is not error then where does your authority come from to share the message of God?



Simply stating the gospel and pointing out error does work in the real world when the Holy Spirit is active..



I am not really concerned either.. I just go on what people say.. Unless they share their denomination and it's something like mormonism or catholic ..

The message was simple every where we went, Jesus saves. And when people truly take hold of that, then the Holy Spirit will lead them the rest of the way.

Click to expand...

Thats it? Jesus saves??? From what does he save us? How does He save us? Are you sure just going around saying Jesus saves.. saves anyone?