₦airaland Forum

Anas09:
Oga, the Catholic Church remains the Harlot. Look at her flirtation with Islam now. Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes shall be destroyed.

you think constantly repeating something makes it true.

oya answer the question, where did the early go?

the guys are Catholic ministers and theologians, I thought you would have guessed that.

MuttleyLaff:
You didnt say who "them" are
Now you are again you've left scratching my head trying to guess who you mean "those guys" are

Husbands and wives disagree yet it doesnt turn into disliking each other

I have more than once agreed with PastorAIO

I dont dislike PastorAIO,
What you witnessed, was just a mere case of, you have to be able to give as good as you get

The western part have a colloquial that say "Ti a ba sunkun, a maa riran"
It loosely means "Crying and tear drops doesnt cause one not to see road"

hopefulLandlord:
Holy spirit would reveal the truth to believers

you think he didn't?

Fuckyoumod:
oga your deviating.

Who told you that the pictures you use in your Catholic church are the real pictures of Jesus and Mary

Google shroud of Turin

Anas09:
Why will hate what is not a person? Brother, repent from idol worship ir you'd end in hellfire with all the Popes.

madam you made a mistake by saying the Orthodox Church didn't break from the Catholic Church, just acknowledge your mistake and move on, simply show us what happened to the early Church which you say wasn't Catholic.

doyinbaby:
Protestant could not accept catholic doctrine leads to broken courtship......l broke up courtship with my ex because I found it difficult to accept doctrine of his church...... I couldn't accept a life time of praying to Mary and to dead saints..... though he was about to introduce me to his parents I broke the relationship...... will God be happy with me if I stay in a church where people keep praying to Mary and some saints,? How will I appear before God on the judgement day explaining to God that I stayed in a church where people pray to Mary ..... when we where about to start the relationship he said he will change church.....later he denied he ever to me he will change church......of which I remember he told me he will change his church......

did you bother to look up and research what his Church believes or you just concluded on your own

OLAADEGBU:
"In the early 1500s, a German monk named Martin Luther was so conscious of his sins that he spent up to six hours in the confessional. Through study of the Scriptures he found that salvation didn't come through anything he did, but simply through trusting in the finished work of the cross of Jesus Christ. He listed the contradictions between what the Scriptures said and what his church taught, and nailed his "95 Thesis" to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany.

Martin Luther became the first to "protest" against the Roman church, and thus he became the father of the Protestant church. Since that split, there have been many disagreements about how much water one should baptise with, how to sing what and why, who should govern who, etc, causing thousands of splinter groups. Many of these groups are convinced that they alone are right. These have become known as Protestant "denominations." Despite the confusion, these churches subscribe to certain foundational beliefs such as the deity, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible says, "The foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows them that are his (2 Timothy 2:19)"

"Thomas Jefferson once wrote of a preacher, Richard Mote, "who "exclaimed aloud to his congregation that he did not believe there was a Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist in heaven, having paused to give his hearers time to stare and to wonder. He added that, in heaven, God knew no distinctions"

"For the Lord knows the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish" (Psalms 1:6).- The Evidence Bible.

if all that was needed is the deity death and resurrection of Jesus... then what use was the Protestantism because the Catholic Church already believe all that.

brocab:
While searching the net, I found this video accidental, finely someone had found the evidence that shows the first secret underground Christian Church, from days of Jesus discovered in Jerusalem!
Even in Jerusalem the Locals called it, the first Christian Church.
And yet Why doesn't the Vatican protect this site, it is Christian, and it is historical?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spPeRpAegF0

if you bothered to watched you would have noticed that the place is under the administration of the Greek Orthodox Church.... what do you want the Vatican to do, pursue them and take over? be sensible

hopefulLandlord:
I hear this a lot when topics like these get brought up but I can bet my left nut that none of you Christians really preach this message in your post

Y'all can lie to yourself on the internet but real life proves beyond reasonable doubt that its all a lie as many of these Christian denominations find many/most/all others "Heretical" and if you put your ears to the ground you can hear preachers say so so and so denominations are not from Christ while those denominations also return the favour. From Arianism to "Mariolotry", from thefilioque, to anti-trinitarian Oneness Pentecostalism, from hardline Feeneyism to Christian Universalism, from Quietism to televangelists and everything inbetween each categories ... any doctrinal standpoint held by one Christian group is guaranteed to be held in contempt by many other (ostensibly) fellow Christians.

"By their fruits you will know them," wrote the unknown author(s) of the book we call Matthew, and those words are quite right. The fruits of Christianity have always been discord among themselves, dehumanization of others and mutual persecution over whatever passes for heresy at that time and place. "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit" applies wonderfully to Christianity. By that very standard, the tree of Christianity is rotten to the core and more prickly than a cactus. It is evident and obvious that there is no "still, small voice" guiding Christians, that the Bible is wrong when it promises to reveal the truth to believers ... because regardless of one's belief, there are millions upon millions of other Christians who are convinced of that belief's incorrectness, convinced that the Holy Spirit has lit their path to truth (and likely think said "heretics" deserve eternal punishment to boot despite the fact that they are all supplicants to the same Lord)

the Bible claims what?

OLAADEGBU:
Whatever good they do will not be good enough to make heaven.

no body good work merits heaven, heaven is all about God's Grace and mercy, but even so I will encourage those who don't yet believe to do good act 10:4 come to mind

HashtagMoniker:
OP I think disagree with you on this, the title is misleading. In my understanding, what you posted as his actual speech does not seem to be as an extension of the title, it's more like that Bible passage that says "forsake not the fellowship of the brethren".

you are correct but ola doesn't Care about the truth, sofar he can bash the pope.


personally I agree with the pope, the temptation to a do-it-alone Christianity is both dangerous and harmful

spartan117:
Lies again. The first apostles were not roman catholics.

God is bigger than any church denomination, without jesus christ there will be no Christianity, with him there is Christianity and a bible.

The focus must always be on jesus christ.

when Jesus came his didn't write a book, he formed his Church and gave her the holy spirit, that Church through the guidance of the same spirit recognized certain books as scriptures and gathered them together and called it the Bible.

the Catholic Church is the original Christian Church, it is these breakaway sects that are called denominations.

Anas09:
I don't know for how long you'd keep telling yourself this lie that without the Catholic Church the world won't have Christianity.

There was no Catholic Church until the 4the Century AD, yet there was Christianity fully power. Lions were being fed with Christians yet the Church was increasing.

Maybe you meant to say 'without the Catholic Church, Christianity would have been preached in all the earth by now'.

The Catholic Church hindered and is still hindering the move of the Church till tomorrow. Good a thing, no one can cage the Holy Spirit.

lol, who lied to you that Catholicism began in the 4th century because even Wikipedia disagrees, and if you managed to read up all the Christians before the 4th century you would see they were all Catholics.


who do you think were been fed to lion? Protestants? no! it was people like Ignatius of Antioch a Catholic bishop in AD107, Justin martyr of Rome in the 2nd century and a host of other Catholics.... those were the people been killed, all 1st 5 Bishop in Rome from the apostle peter were all martyrs.

this same Catholic Church has evangelised the whole world, abeg be informed.

Anas09:
@ the bolded. What that means is that, when Jesus appears, a lot of you will be depending on your priests or pastors to answer for you.


God is not stupid for making it possible for the Bible to be written in a common language and in diverse translations. The Catholic church wanted the Bible locked and kept away in a dead Latin language which only a few priests would understand and tell us what they want us to hear. but the Lord has made it available to all, none of us has any excuse for not knowing what the Bible says about anything.


Buy a Bible, read it everyday. Go out preach it, win souls and advance God's Kingdom.


Jesus is coming soon and the souls you won will be the rewards you get there. Whatever you get here, including your flesh remains here. If Christ returns while your spirit man is still dead, na you sabi o. We are here shouting it everyday. Jesus no go ask you which church you dey attend o.

I don't know how many times I have heard this lie that the Catholic Church kept the Bible locked in Latin, it seems you guys think repeating a lie frequently will make it true.


the Catholic Church actually had the Bible translated in the vernacular inasmuch as the language was relatively stable, in fact before matin Luther began his German translation there were already 13 German translations of the Bible.


2ndly Latin was not a dead language, anyone who could read in those days could read latin , because Latin was the language of education through out Europe just as English is the language of education through out Nigeria... in fact how many could read in the vernacular?


the above simply shows you are regurgitating a lie you were told and that you are largely ignorant of medieval Europe, because if you were informed you would know that every one in Europe at that time who could read actually understood Latin because that was the language of education through out Europe, so anyone who could read at all could read the Bible in Latin, so it was never locked up in a dead language. and even though the Bible was already in the language of education, the Church still made inroads to translate it in any vernacular language that was relatively stable.

Lilisticlili:
on what assertion please?

on the claim that pope leo called Jesus a myth

Lilisticlili:
the question is,why are you a catholic in this age of mental civilization to the true faith in spiritt?

I'll simply ask you to provide a source from the time of Pope Leo that says he made such a statement

MuttleyLaff:
How did you come about this thought? What instigated this thought?
How do you mean "them"? Who exactly are "them"?
I see the former to be, a contemporary engaging person and the latter, a Simon interesting person

well I guess you'll disagree with those guys on a lot of issues....
people tend to dislike those they disagree with e.g your case with pastoraio.

I just assumed the same for the guys above.

Originalsly:
Lost what?...you can't lose something you never had. Nothing wrong in celebrating culture or whatever in any such 'church'. Catholics are Catholics...not Christians.

you mean Protestants are Protestants.... not Christians.

CAPSLOCKED:

YOU IMBECìLE!
IT'S SPELT "BREVIARY" AND IT'S NOTHING LIKE THE BIBLE. JUST A PRAYER BOOK.. I HAVE MINE WITH ME TILL THIS DAY, AND I SING THE HYMNS IN IT.
THE MORE YOU QUOTE ME TO SHOW YOUR LACK OF AWARENESS ON THIS SUBJECT, THE MORE YOUR PRIESTS AND CARDINALS JEER AND DRINK WINE TO THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

Pope Leo didn't make that statement...

this response was already given.



I was born and raised a Catholic (I'm not religious at all any more). I've never met a Catholic in my life who pays tithe. Not once. All the churches I grew up going to in Lagos (St Dominic in Yaba, St Agnes in Maryland, Holy Family in Festac), I never once heard anyone solicit for tithes. Ever. Not once. You could pick out 100 Catholics randomly and not a single one of them pays tithes. I've heard in some of the rural communities in the South East, parishes solicit tithes, but I've never witnessed it myself. For most of the calendar, 1st and 2nd collections is what I grew up knowing, but during Harvest periods, the frequency of collections certainly escalates. Also when the church is building new outstations or undertaking major projects, there are also more collections than usual. And while some of the collections go to the Diocese/Arch Diocese, there are no "targets" as you claim. You can't demote or punish a priest because he doesn't raise enough money for you. Your claim that Catholic churches all over the world send "most of their money to Rome" is false too. The overwhelming majority of funds generated stays within its root Diocese. Once a year, a special collection called Peter's Pence is collected which any Parish/Diocese/Arch Diocese is entitled to skip and many often skip it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Peter%27s_Pence This amount is far less that what the Vatican itself generates. The Vatican generates most of its revenue from tourism and its own commercial dealings from the vast estates it inherited over the centuries. I don't understand in what way the Catholic Church is a one- man business either. Any aspiring priest can dream of being a cardinal or even a Pope. Cardinal Arinze is one of the most senior Cardinals in the Vatican and was one of the favourites in the elections for a new Pope. How is a democratic structure where anyone can rise to anything a "one-man business"? I share your religious skepticism but some organizations are bigger profiteers than others. We don't have to draw a false equivalence to smear every religion as the same. (Quote ) (Report ) 3 Likes ( Like ) ( Share)

MuttleyLaff:
Amen.

Yes Really

Exactly what Jesus did, in healing the centurion's "servant"

Ive always taken a shine to Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Started getting fascinated by him, for his peculiar against the grain, action in 2013, on the day before Good Friday
The fascination went up a notch more because of what Eugenio Scalfari revealed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in private, told him about hell.
Venerable Fulton J Sheen and Cardinal Francis Arinze too, both intelligent and well informed too, I warm to.

interesting, I thought you'll dislike them.

ever watch bishop baron or read cardinal Newman.

this is not a black and White case.


someone claimed he told this guy about a crime over 20 years ago, the guy said he wasn't told any such thing and has no recollection of such. The jury decided that they believe the conversation took place even though the accused totally denied ever been told such.

the guy goes to jail, this is one of those cases you just can't know.

if he was told and did nothing, I pray he repents of that sin, if he was falsely accused I pray God grants him fortitude.

M0ron:
Celibacy does a number on their priests. That's why
https://nyti.ms/2Iwcjiu

why does Protestantism flirt with pedophilia . why are there more pastor abusers than Catholic priest? even though you guys don't have celibacy


https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/740853

SolutionsGuy:
Child sex scandals, abuses and cover up have been around Catholic priests worldwide for decades.
It will be childish to start diverting it to Catholicism vs Pentecostalism. No doubt that having wives would minimize it drastically.

you haven't been paying lot of attention to the news.

child sex scandal has been everywhere, in Protestant churches, among Jehovah's witness name them, in the U.S it is said that the amount of sex abuse cases in Protestant churches is even greater.... it has been on a steady rise since the 1970s, the Catholic church just got theirs under control in 2005 and such issues have been on a decline since then.

it isn't even so much a Christian problem as it is a world problem. in 75% of all child sex abuse cases, the offender is a family member, usually the father or uncles etc and most of them are married people another 20 or so % is teachers and couches and such, many of them married.

in fact in child sex abuse cases a married abuser seems as likely to abuse kids as a unmarried person if not even more.


so no, marriage doesn't stop an abuser, he or she will abuse whether married or not. celibacy doesn't create abusers.

it isn't a Protestant vs Catholic problem it is a world problem, for some reason there is a steady rise in abusers both family member, teacher, coach, priest, pastor, married or unmarried.


if an abuser is married it only becomes worse because he will also sexually abuse his kids.

Malakh:
That's simply because she makes dirty money, money from Italian Mafia'a, Jesuits, she makes money from confessions from the mafia when they make a hit and the Pope requires a ransom from them for the forgiveness of their sins, tithes are also included, she makes dirty and blood money, I'm talking about the Catholic Church and her daughter Xtianty.
Revelation 17:4 KJVS
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
John the Revelator already prophesied that this Harlot of a Christian and a Catholic would be very rich, it doesn't surprise or amaze us the Elect of Yah, the True Church

sorry you have been misinformed.

the Catholic church doesn't collect money for the forgiveness of sins, not from the Mafia or any other group, forgiveness of sin is by repentance, confession, satisfaction. and according to the Pope, the Italian Mafia is under excommunication.

the Jesuit are a group of evangelists with ministry in teaching, advancing science and the humanities, charities.... they aren't making dirty money.

akintom:
Lolz..... Sorry, you just simply can't see beyond the act of manipulation by your church leaders. Idahosa built his church in his name, the very reason his Co-pastors couldn't head the church after his death.

Idahosa wife took over, she later ordained her son as bishop. The son will take over when she dies.

It's church business, only the hypnotized and gullible are under the illusion that church isn't a scam business.

why do you sound surprised, Pentecostalism is a family business in Nigeria, oyedepo isn't different.

I'm Catholic.

the information is pretty correct on all point except no 1.
in Catholicism all authority come from Christ and this authority is bestowed on his Church through the apostles, the revelation of Christ come to us as scripture and tradition.

properly speaking there are exactly 3 sources of authority.

1. scripture
2. tradition
3. teaching authority of the church

daveP:
What will you be doing now ubenedictus?. Are you saying that he wasn't the lamb of God before he became our high priest? He was no high priest before his crucifixion and ressurection. That happened and was conferred on him after he ressurected pls.


Go back to the prophecies of Isaiah and read for yourself.

After that curtain tore apart, the typical aaronic priesthood was suspended for a new dispensation. That of Christ now the high priest atoning for us since that day.


So yes he is thelamb first before priest. Paul in Hebrews was trying to explain the kingship and priesthood of Christ according to the aaronic style they were so used to.


John didn't utter those words at the river Jordan just cos he wanted to. That was exactly what he was at that period in time.


Lamb first, and since we know the way these sacrifice protocols went, we should both understand that he was led as a sheep to the slaughter. He was still that lamb till the comment "it is finished! "


Still the lamb.... when he descended and took captivity captive, a new role was given him, and that is that every knee must bow. This was the coronation of kingship and priesthood on Jesus Christ bro.


Lamb first, before Priest


Sacrifice must be available before the priest can perform..

there can be no sacrifice without a priest, without a priest, killing the lamb is just senseless slaughter. from the very moment Jesus was the lamb he was also high priest. without him been high priest then his sacrifice is totally useless. the levitical priesthood could never offer the new sacrifice of Jesus, their priesthood was deficient.

Hebrew 7
If perfection could have been attained through the
Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the
people established that priesthood—why was there still
need for another priest to come, one in the order of
Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

that priesthood was too deficient and imperfect, that Jesus had to be the high priest to offer the sacrifice of atonement where he is the lamb.

Hebrew 2;17
For this reason he had to be made like
them, fully human in every way, in order that he might
become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to
God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of
the people. Because he himself suffered when he
was tempted, he is able to help those who are being
tempted.

Jesus Christ is the high priest the offered the sacrifice of atonement not John. the Bible is very clear on this.


Hebrew 7


Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is
holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted
above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he
does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for
his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He
sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered
himself. For the law appoints as high priests men in
all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the
law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect
forever.

the Bible is so clear Jesus is the high priest who offered himself, the priesthood of Aaron was too deficient for such a sacrifice.


even before Isaiah prophesied about the lamb, David had prophesied about the priesthood of Jesus, he said, "the Lord has sworn an oath he will not change you are a priest forever, a priest like Melchizedek"


job cannot feature in this sacrifice, his priesthood was imperfect.

Thegospelman:
Someone once said that the problem with the mainstream Christianity is that there are many blind believers. They believe things not because they have found them to be true but because majority accept them or their churches teach such. I think Roman Catholic church is the reservoir of such blind followers. They were fed from infancy to believe in certain doctrines and reject others as heresies. When I go into argument with them I found out that always go blank before the Word of God. Conclusively they value their church teachings more than the Word of God.

You will never realise how unstable your faith is untill I expose it...

First of all, you said He was baptized to identify with sinners and supported your view with a Hebrews portion probably (Hebrews 4:15), I have thoroughly investigated, no Hebrews portion supported this your thought nor any verse of the entire Scriptures! Christ didn't come to identify with sinners rather He came to save His people from their sins. Everything He ever did was to save His people from sins. How can God the Almighty leave His throne only to identify with sinners as though He sought so much to taste human nature. Even though He came as a flesh, His ultimate goal was to save us from sins. When I asked you what you meant by "identify with sinners" you referred me to non-existing Hebrews portion of the Scriptures.

Now When John tried to prevent Him from being baptized because John well knew that Christ had no need for baptism as He had no sins. Now Christ gave John the reason he should baptize Him by saying "for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" (i.e this is the only way for us to fulfill all righteousness).
Now visibly in agreement with what live4dgospel explained from original Greek text, you changed to "to do justice" as the reason for Christ baptism. I'm now asking you how did Christ do 'justice' with His baptism?

the problem with new age believer of the last days is that they prefer cleverly invented myths of yesterday to the truth and it seems your sect is filled with such.

1. the book of Hebrew says that we have a high priest who chose to be like us in every way but sin, in fact if you knew anything about the old testament sacrifice you would know that the lamb to be killed for the Passover must be placed in the house of those for whom it will be sacrificed for days so as to identify it with them....
2ndly as I explained, God had earlier spoken to John the Baptist that he to whom the spirit fell on as he came out of the water, that was the Messiah, Jesus' baptism fulfilled the word given to John and lastly is an example to us.


the thing that you will never find in the entire scripture from Genesis to revelation is the funny idea that John was a high priest conferring sins on Jesus... that is not in the Bible... in fact the Bible clearly tells us who was high priest at the time, his name was caiaphas. in fact all through the Bible John is talked about as a prophet, the new Elijah preparing the Way for the Lord but certainly not as high priest.

Igbaba2:
In addition sir, John is not a high priest, he is d last prophet sent to prepare God's path by preaching repentance and Jesus Christ is the highest priest of God.

amen

engrchykae:
caiaphas the High priest is the last of the Arronic priest who supervised the killing of the passover lamb Jesus.
John belong to the the line of the prophets and occupies the room of elijah.

abeg tell am

daveP:
i get your point well.


But what he means is that typically of a priest when he wants to atone for the people's sins, he pronounces the sins of the people on a lamb without blemish(Jesus), and then sends the lamb out away to the wilderness....

Or the lamb is killed and sprinkled on thebpeole while the priest pleads forgiveness for them..... It's a representation of what Jesus came to fulfill. He followed the protocol so well that rabbis and Jewish scholars are now presently shocked that he followed due process.

Isaiah wasn't just writing "Like a lamb to the slaughter..... " He was writing what the spirit was revealing to him from the future. Hmm.

A study of Jewish Customs and traditions will fill in some void of knowledge about why somethins were done....



you have a point. and so does he.

my dear, I am not new to the topic, Jewish rituals are not lost to me, I have studied them and still study them.

Jesus didn't need any other priest to pronounce sin over him... he himself was the high priest for his sacrifice....

you guys need to Read up on the book of Hebrew please begin from chapter one, from birth Jesus was to be the high priest, the lamb and the sacrifice. he did not need a Jewish high priest to mediate in his sacrifice, he is the high priest for his sacrifice.



Hebrew 2;17


For this reason he had to be made like
them, fully human in every way, in order that he might
become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to
God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of
the people. Because he himself suffered when he
was tempted, he is able to help those who are being
tempted.

Jesus was made human so that he may be like us and thus be the high priest for the sacrifice not John the Baptist

Hebrew 7

If perfection could have been attained through the
Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the
people established that priesthood—why was there still
need for another priest to come, one in the order of
Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when the
priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
He of whom these things are said belonged to a
different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever
served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord
descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses
said nothing about priests. And what we have said is
even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek
appears, one who has become a priest not on the
basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis
of the power of an indestructible life. For it is
declared:
The former regulation is set aside because it was
weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect),
and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near
to God.
And it was not without an oath! Others became
priests without any oath, but he became a priest
with an oath when God said to him:
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the
guarantor of a better covenant.
Now there have been many of those priests, since
death prevented them from continuing in office; but
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent
priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely
those who come to God through him, because he always
lives to intercede for them.
Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is
holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted
above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he
does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for
his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He
sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered
himself. For the law appoints as high priests men in
all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the
law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect
forever.


the aaronic priesthood was inherently defective and couldn't offer the perfect sacrifice, so God swore an oath that made Jesus our high priest so he could offer that one sacrifice.

because it is the priesthood of Melchizedek that is given the power to offer that sacrifice, the priesthood of Aaron wasn't needed, thus John could never perform the duty of a priest where Jesus the perfect high priest is.

Hebrew 8
If perfection could have been attained through the
Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the
people established that priesthood—why was there still
need for another priest to come, one in the order of
Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when the
priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
He of whom these things are said belonged to a
different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever
served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord
descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses
said nothing about priests. And what we have said is
even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek
appears, one who has become a priest not on the
basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis
of the power of an indestructible life. For it is
declared:
The former regulation is set aside because it was
weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect),
and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near
to God.
And it was not without an oath! Others became
priests without any oath, but he became a priest
with an oath when God said to him:
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the
guarantor of a better covenant.
Now there have been many of those priests, since
death prevented them from continuing in office; but
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent
priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely
those who come to God through him, because he always
lives to intercede for them.
Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is
holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted
above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he
does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for
his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He
sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered
himself. For the law appoints as high priests men in
all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the
law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect
forever.

For Christ did not enter a sanctuary
made with human hands that was only a copy of the true
one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in
God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer
himself again and again, the way the high priest enters
the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his
own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer
many times since the creation of the world. But he has
appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to
do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as
people are destined to die once, and after that to face
judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away
the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not
to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are
waiting for him.




the Bible is very clear on this. Jesus is the sole high priest for that sacrifice, the priesthood of john was defective and couldn't carry that sacrifice so Jesus had to be the high priest for his own sacrifice not John the Baptist.