@josephw said
There are "priests" of all sorts, but there are only real ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, i.e. Holy Spirit ordained pastors and teachers.
I'm talking about biblical Christianity. Not organizations developed for ecumenical feel good tax exemption purposes.
But let's not go down that road. You can do whatever you like as long as it's legal. Just don't pretend it has anything to do with the real deal.
I have no interest in preaching the gospel which biblical Christians typically attribute to their namesake, so why would I bother to get myself ordained as what you are pleased to call "a
real minister" ? That is merely a minister in one particular religion, nothing more.
"The real deal"? If you think that only one religion is the real deal, then what you worship is religion, not God, and that is a definition of idolatry.
I suggest you review the parable of the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his (the centurion's) servant. Jesus says the most remarkable thing to him: he says that his (the
centurion's) faith has healed the servant, not that he (Jesus) has healed him by miracle. Now, one has to ask, in what did the pagan's "faith" consist?
We are safe to assume that the centurion was no Christian himself, since there was no such religion in the world at that time. We are safe to assume that the centurion had no beliefs whatsoever about Jesus being the sacrificial lamb who would die for his, the centurion's, sins and be resurrected, because that doctrine hadn't been invented yet. If even the Apostles did not know or expect such a fate of their lord, then the centurion cannot have known or suspected it either. Nor did the centurion have any beliefs about a virgin birth. Nor did the centurion hold scripture to be inerrant (since the gospels hadn't been written yet), and it is highly unlikely that a pagan Roman soldier would have familiarised himself with the Jewish OT. So all of the Christian dogma in such matters counts for zilch.
Yet Jesus himself says that the pagan's faith has healed the servant. The obvious question is whether adhering to some religion, any religion at all, is the necessary condition of receiving Jesus's blessing. Jesus could simply have turned the centurion away (after all, the centurion was part of a deeply resented occupation army, rather like the Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan until recently), but he didn't. I understand the moral of the parable to be that Jesus won't turn anyone away simply for not adhering to one particular religion (which hadn't been invented yet).