[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / doomer / egy / klpmm / pinoy / vg / vichan ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 41752cfaf3f7701⋯.jpg (34.36 KB, 655x527, 655:527, 02f.jpg)

23728f  No.797406

I want to become Christian and have been researching the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and I have a question.

Do Catholics worship Mary?

Why is Mary mentioned so much more in Catholicism than in other denominations?

4bf252  No.797432

Do you Catholics worship Mary?

No.


a58ed2  No.797433

If you've been doing so much research, why have you overlooked the Catholic Catechism and every other source of Catholic dogma which states clearly and repeatedly—unbroken for two thousand years—that Mary, as a creature, cannot be worshipped?


c9066c  No.797454

>>797433

Read the CCC and you'll see that Catholics give Mary the title of "Mediatrix". Whether you worship her or not, giving her this title is heresy because there is one mediator between man and god, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).


9cee08  No.797471

>>797406

Catholics believe that Mary was necessary for Christ to incarnate (instead of being merely an incidental choice because God could have incarnated however he wanted) and they believe that Mary wasn’t created by Jesus. In other words, massively heretical beliefs about Mary.


bffd8c  No.797474

>>797454

Why didn't you post the footnote from the CCC you serpent

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

>"Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513

>"No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."


c9066c  No.797538

>>797474

Because you shouldn't need external mental gymnastics to explain something (if it's found in the Bible, as all doctrines of faith should be). If it's sound doctrine it'll be in line with scripture. Luke 11:28 shows us that veneration of Mary is not scriptural. Jesus never tells us to venerate or pray to his mother and the only instruction he gives us regarding her is a rebuke of someone trying to praise her for being the one who gave birth to Jesus.


0ba71f  No.797582

>>797471

>and they believe that Mary wasn’t created by Jesus

Lying is a sin. The Vatican condemns that particular doctrine as being heretical.


857bab  No.797589

Go Orthodox.


23728f  No.797598

File: e416fbd64853476⋯.jpg (32.91 KB, 720x479, 720:479, begone.jpg)

>>797538

Thanks for that anon, Luke 11:27 and 11:28 do make it pretty clear.

Definitely going to BEGOME now


0ba71f  No.797615

>>797605

You type like a schizo.


bffd8c  No.797632

>>797538

You're outright lying. You said 'well they consider her mediatrix therefore equal to Christ but there's only one mediator between man and God' and the following sentence brings your lie to life

>the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it

That's not mental gymnastics, that's a perfectly clear statement. And a protestant scolding others for mental gymnastics is the pinnacle of comedy.

>[46] And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. [47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. [48] Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Since the beginning of Christianity Apostolic Christians have prayed for our Lady's intercessions. I love it when you try to isolate Catholicism and link it to Roman paganism.

http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/2010/02/the-holy-virgin-mary-in-the-syrian-orthodox-church/

The Syrians are the oldest Christians btw. Should I trust them or you? Do you want me to link you Coptic doctrine on Mary? Antiochan? Jerusalem's? Constantinople's? They're all wrong but you're right?

Oh but you prots are too busy interpreting the scripture correctly to be paying attention to Apostolic tradition

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/04/17/methodist-baptist-lutheran-presbyterian-and-united-church-of-christ-pastors-sign-letter-supporting-abortion/


bffd8c  No.797642

>>797638

He is lying that the Catholics consider Mary to be co mediatrix with Christ, obviously.


c9066c  No.797663

>>797632

That last link is some nice well-poisoning but easily refutable. Individual pastors signing something is not declarative of the beliefs of all who would claim they belong to the same denomination. I believe you would make the same argument if I pointed to Pope Francis saying something out of line with the Catholic faith (not ex-cathedra of course).

Yes, your catechism says that Mary's influence flows forth from Christ, and gets all power from His mediation, etc. That explanation, no matter how clearly it may be stated, is not supported by scripture. Jesus never tells us to pray to his mother.

As for that quote from Mary, it says that all generations shall call her blessed. I don't disagree and I don't hate Mary in the slightest. I think she was very blessed to have been chosen to give birth to our Lord and Savior. That doesn't mean we should pray to her.

>Since the beginning of Christianity Apostolic Christians have prayed for our Lady's intercessions

You do know that heresies existed even during Jesus' life, right? To say "early Christians did this thing, therefore it's automatically correct" is faulty logic. Some early Christians did things that you would just as quickly call heresy, so should those things be considered right just because they were done early on?


8b3eea  No.797665

>>797663

>You do know that heresies existed even during Jesus' life, right? To say "early Christians did this thing, therefore it's automatically correct" is faulty logic. Some early Christians did things that you would just as quickly call heresy, so should those things be considered right just because they were done early on?

I'm not a Catholic, but those weren't heretics. There are early catacomb paintings of Mary and they surely revered her. And I pray that I'm never tested as severely as they are with the amount of persecution they dealt with. Rather than heretics, they are the giants of our faith and we'd be nowhere without the strength Christ gave them to endure and build his church in the darkest of times. Not only do I pay Mary respect, but pay them respect too. I sympathize with the basic Protestant impetus of keeping "things simple", but it's gotten out of hand when it becomes so dismissive of saints…especially those who paid the ultimate price.


8b3eea  No.797666

If anything, the actual heretics (like Gnostics) didn't even care about the virgin birth. The whole paradigm of "material reality" was inconsequential to them.. including the incarnation and death of Jesus (the latter of which they denied of truly happening). They propped Jesus into the realm of abstracts. Heretics weren't the ones who both worshipped the Son of God and celebrated his very earthly side.


c9066c  No.797668

>>797642

Also (sorry for double posting), I don't see how I can be lying about something when it's your catechism that says it. I'm gonna pull a couple quotes from the CCC that I'm curious about, if you would be so kind as to help me understand them.

>You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

So is it Jesus' sacrifice that delivers our souls from death, or Mary's prayers?

>Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation

This makes it seem like the RCC believes that Mary has a part in our salvation. If God is truly all powerful, and Jesus' sacrifice is what gives us eternal salvation, then why is Mary needed to bring them to us?

>"The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515

Can you find any scriptural support for this? Last time I checked this faith was about worshiping Christ, not Christ's mother.

>974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.

Where in scripture does it say that she was assumed bodily into heaven?

>>797665

Early catacomb paintings doesn't refute my previous point about something being proper doctrine just because early Christians did it. Is the veneration of Mary supported by scripture?


bffd8c  No.797670

>>797663

>That last link is some nice well-poisoning but easily refutable.

Is it? Because you claim that sound doctrine in the Bible is so obvious. Yet I would bet that the people who signed that letter would swear on their lives they're following the Bible. And this is the real evil of sola scriptura.

>To say "early Christians did this thing

These are not just random groups of Christians. These are Christians who were directly taught by the Apostles. And lo and behold, what a huge coincidence, all Christians taught by the Apostles believe the same things.

Acts 15:24

>Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,

See, in order to preach, you had to have the permission of the Apostles. How many times in the Bible did Apostles say 'follow only traditions that we have given you'? And you're telling me you rediscovered Apostolic tradition 1500 year later and you know it better then the people of Nineveh? lol

Christians have always asked for the help of Christians in Heaven and who can be of better help than the mother of our Lord? For He, apart from being fully God, was also fully human and He loved His mother just like every human loves his mother.


bffd8c  No.797672

>>797668

>So is it Jesus' sacrifice that delivers our souls from death, or Mary's prayers?

Posting this for the 3rd time:

>the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it

>If God is truly all powerful, and Jesus' sacrifice is what gives us eternal salvation, then why is Mary needed to bring them to us?

She's not 'needed'. But following her example of obedience to God will lead you to eternal salvation. Do you believe in OSAS? Do you believe you don't need any help to obtain eternal salvation?

>Can you find any scriptural support for this?

How about the history of Christianity?

>Where in scripture does it say that she was assumed bodily into heaven?

Again, Apostolic tradition. Here's what the Copts say what happened:

>While Saint Mary was keeping vigil, praying in the Holy Sepulcher, and waiting for the happy minute of her liberation from the bonds of the flesh, the Holy Spirit informed her of her forthcoming departure from this vain world. When the time drew near, the disciples and the virgins of the Mount of Olives (Zeitoun) came and the Lady was lying on her bed. Our Lord, surrounded by thousands and thousands of angels, came to Her. He consoled her, and announced her with the everlasting joy which was prepared for Her. She was happy, and she stretched out her hands, blessed the Disciples, and the Virgins. Then, she delivered up her pure soul in the hand of her Son and God, Jesus Christ, Who ascended her to the higher habitations. As of the pure body, they shrouded it and carried it to Gethsemane. On their way, some of the Jews blocked the way in the face of the disciples to prevent the burial. One of them seized the coffin. His hands were separated from his body, and remained hanging until he believed and repented for his mischievous deed. With the prayers of the holy disciples, his hands were reattached to his body as they had been before.

>Saint Thomas was absent at the time of Saint Mary’s departure, but he came after the burial. On his way back to Jerusalem, Saint Thomas saw angels carrying Saint Mary’s pure body and ascending with it to heaven, and one of the angels said to him, “Hurry and kiss the pure body of Saint Mary.” When he arrived to the disciples, they informed him about Saint Mary’s departure. He told them, “I will not believe, unless I see her body, as you all know how I did doubt the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ before.” They took him to the tomb, to uncover the body but they did not find it, and they were perplexed and amazed. Saint Thomas told them how he saw the pure body ascending to heaven, carried by angels.

>The Holy Spirit then told them, “The Lord did not Will to leave Her Holy body on earth.” The Lord had promised his pure apostles that they would see her in flesh another time. They were waiting for the fulfillment of this truthful promise, until the sixteenth day of the month of Misra, when the promise of seeing her was fulfilled. They saw her sitting on the right hand of her Son and her Lord, surrounded by the angelic Host, as David prophesied and said, “At your right hand stands the queen” (Psalm 45:9). Saint Mary’s life on earth was sixty years. She was 12 years old when she left the temple (she stayed in the Temple 9 years), then spent 34 years in the house of the righteous Saint Joseph, and spent 14 years in the care of Saint John the Evangelist, as the Lord commanded her saying, “Woman behold your Son,” and to Saint John, “Behold your Mother.”


4bbf4c  No.797673

>>797668

>Early catacomb paintings doesn't refute my previous point about something being proper doctrine just because early Christians did it. Is the veneration of Mary supported by scripture?

Sorry, same anon. Anytime I turn VPN on/off, it'll switch ID. I'm only saying they're not heretics. Their actions prove it. What more needs to be said? The amount of love they had for God is staring us in the face.. for they loved God so much they gave up EVERYTHING for him. Jesus told you plainly that no one has greater love than this. Pay some respect. And don't assume their Mariology is reflective of modern Mariology. You're attacking them because you project what, say, some modern person in Mexico does (for example). You don't know what their Mariology actually was to go that far. But if you look at Orthodox, they don't even go so far in their Mariology as Catholics do. This tells me that the catacomb Christians had a simplified form as well. We should try to understand it rather than dismiss because of modern understanding and call them heretics for things we don't even know that they did.

They obviously were not heretics though, since they died and suffered for Christ.

Also, research more into what heresy was in those days. It was the complete opposite of those who embraced persecution. Part of the motivation of early heresies were their proclivity to "blend" in the Roman world and speak only in abstracts and try to paint a "respectable" face of Christianity that philosophy loving Greeks and Romans could like. The heretics were the ones who ESCAPED persecution.

It's the same with heretics nowadays. They're always trying to look good to the outside world and try to make friends. It's ridiculous to blame catacomb dwelling Christians of the same thing (of mingling pagan ideas), when they were the ones being killed.


bffd8c  No.797674

>>797668

Oh and speaking of Copts, they even remember when the first church consecrated to Mary was built and why

>On this day, 21 Baounah (June 28th), the church celebrates the commemoration of the first church to be built in the name of the Virgin Lady, the All pure Saint Mary, the Theotokos (Mother of God), through whom the salvation of Adam and his posterity was fulfilled. When the two apostles Paul and Silas preached among the gentiles, many believed of them in the city of Philippi. They built a church there in the name of the Virgin, the Mother of God, and its consecration was on that day. It is appropriate for us to celebrate for her a spiritual festival, for she has borne the Savior of the world.


4e440a  No.797675

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

This goes over the basis of marian devotion from scripture, very good talk.

No we don't worship mary, we have distinct categories for things

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJW9IEZwXSU

Mary is special among the saints and this video goes over how

>Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Scripture affirms any group that doesn't call her blessed isn't Christian.

>>797599

For anyone this ignorant/stupid the queen mother is a fairly common historical thing, it's in scripture as the mother of David. David is a type of Christ and as David is king, Christ is king, and both of their mothers are queen. David was not an idolater and neither is Christ. Sadly people don't read their bibles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEw4U68Xa_k

This touches on that (but embed goes over most)

Also just because it's so obvious

>And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

>5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

It's clearly speaking of Mary (no sane person would deny this) and says she has a crown.

You can either deny Mary gave birth to Christ or you just kind of have to accept she is queen.

And to op

>>797406

We mention her most because she destroys heresies and all the other religions are false, so how could they?

She's still actively and openly participating in the Church today, check out some of the recent apparitions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKA710jhSQs

This goes in depth on a number of scientifically verifiable miracles many of which Mary was a participant.


c9066c  No.797680

>>797672

>Posting this for the 3rd time

That dodges the question. The CCC says "by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death". Even if her salutary powers come from God, is it God that saves us or Mary praying for us that saves us?

>How about the history of Christianity?

I didn't ask for history, which is the tradition of man, I asked for scripture that is the word of God. Can you supply me with God's word saying that we should do this?

>Again, Apostolic tradition. Here's what the Copts say what happened:

See above. That is following the traditions of man not the word of God, unless Mary veneration is found in scripture. If it is found in scripture, and is therefore the word of God, why is it so hard to provide proof of that? Why do you need to point to history instead of God's word?

>>797673

>The amount of love they had for God is staring us in the face.. for they loved God so much they gave up EVERYTHING for him.

I don't deny that they loved God, but didn't pagans have the same love for their gods? I respect that they died for our Lord, and your point about my lack of knowledge regarding their form of Mariology is actually a really good one. Like I've said before in the thread, I have a respect for Mary but I think that the RCC view of her has gotten out of hand. Also, what you wrote here about heretics being the ones to escape persecution is really good information and I didn't make that connection before. Thank you for helping me to understand where you were coming from.

>>797674

That's still not a good argument. Pagans built temples consecrated to their gods, does that make them right?


4e440a  No.797681

Also if someone wants a list that delusional people would think means they are all idolators

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_mother#Notable_mothers_of_kings_and_queens_regnant

It's literally a political title


4e440a  No.797682

>>797680

>Even if her salutary powers come from God, is it God that saves us or Mary praying for us that saves us?

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

check this out

she is the mediator of all graces, no one received graces without her prayers.

God to glorify her as much as possible as his greatest creation (and why she was given the grace of birthing God) has chosen to further glorify her by granting all graces through her.

You can deny it's actuality but it's possibility is fairly easy to see. Video goes quite a bit more in depth.


c9066c  No.797683

>>797682

>no one received graces without her prayers.

Where is this in scripture, or is it just a tradition of man? Also, posting a 22-minute youtube video as a response isn't usually a very good argumentation tactic, but I'll sit through it and see if I can understand your position a bit better.


4e440a  No.797691

>>797683

He goes over the scripture, you have to keep in mind when speaking with Catholics we have very fundamentally different paradigms for Truth. I can provide resources that go over all the scriptural evidences for things and I find them insightful myself however we aren't a religon of the Book as muslims call it. Scripture is a true test of the faith and I love it, mostly reading and re-reading the gospels along with commentaries and meditations on them where Christ speaks most clearly.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/generalpreface.htm

Great essay on the majesty of the gospels I love.

However we don't view scripture as a doctrinal textbook or specific list of teachings. The fundamental principle of the Catholic Church is that it is a real and active institution founded by Christ that he still actively teaches through, and it's by that teaching ability we know and trust scripture, and also by that teaching we know for certain verses which readings are permitted and those which aren't. A key part of this is that scripture is under-determined, or "incomplete" (using a technical term), in that it does not in itself provide a total and complete basis for any specific belief, many verses can be read, and reasonably so, in contradictory ways. (Though I don't think you can read scripture in a way that doesn't point to the institution of an active and actual body of believers like the Catholic Church).

But yeah I can't and am not arguing with you, we have fundamentally different paradigms. I can't really use scripture just to argue stuff, because I think you could have different rational beliefs based on scripture. All the Church's teaching is and must be in line with scripture, and often has a scriptural basis though some basically don't and I don't really have any problem with it. Scripture is useful for teaching and better understanding things, however it isn't the final test. The final test is the mechanism Christ created so that the Truth of the Faith was always clear, accessible (not hidden in a book that requires a very high intelligence to read/understand), and consistent, and that is the very test by which any Catholic trusts scripture at all.

If you want to read my favorite scripture commentary check this out

https://archive.org/details/thechurchofthepa00pracuoft/page/n7

goes super in depth in Christ's parables, particularly in relation to anesthesiology but touches on many issues. Has an emphasis on that actual interactive institution thing I've made reference to though.

The sections are somewhat standalone but the first section on the Parable of the Good Samaritan is great at showing the incredibly depth Christ put into every carefully chosen word.


4e440a  No.797693

>>797691

>anesthesiology

uh ecclesiology spell check meme'd me


c9066c  No.797698

>>797691

Let me start by saying thank you for using a very polite tone in this post, I really appreciate that and it made it much easier to read.

My one question based on this response is about the Berean Jews. These people were talked about in the Bible as a good example of what Christians should be because of how eager they were to learn about God and how they checked the teachings of Paul and Silas against the scriptures. They didn't take the teachings simply because someone with authority told them to, but because what they preached matched scripture. So how would you reconcile this with the RCC, the organization that historically banned the translation of the Bible into the common tongue?


4e440a  No.797707

File: 784f904658cce08⋯.jpg (330.03 KB, 579x841, 579:841, Bible_vaclav.jpg)

>>797698

Well St. Paul was making scriptural claims about the incoming messiah, Jews were a group of people who were awaiting the messiah so it makes sense that they'd check the stuff of their religion to verify his claims. The messiahship of Jesus is quite clear in scripture, but of course many learned people like St. Paul himself rejected that at first as well.

Also this still does apply for modern stuff in the Catholic Church as well, we still test everything by scripture, just within the constraints of things we know as taught by the Magisterium, and you will see Catholics use scripture to resolve different views and go with that which matches scripture. For example with that mediatrix idea, some Catholics do deny that, and some argue against them using scripture. This would apply with many other ideas like how many people go to heaven (which I rely on scripture heavily to discuss).

Scripture in itself is underdetermined for everything, but it's still the inerrant word of God so if something is very clearly stated in scripture, nothing can go against that. Even the weirdest heretics (among Catholics) use scripture just in really weird ways. It's just not all there is, and the same problems people have with reading scripture some Catholics have with the Church Fathers and stuff. They'll pull some random quote from them and use it to justify something clearly no one actually taught.

This is very different from say converting a pagan, I am a convert from athiesm/nihilism and if someone tried to prove in the OT how Christ was the messiah I wouldn't care at all, because I had no reason to care about scripture.

>They didn't take the teachings simply because someone with authority told them to

> Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Christ did specifically tell the apostles to follow a Chair of authority as many Catholics follow the Chair of St. Peter. Their practice may be bad but we still are obliged to maintain what they teach.

>So how would you reconcile this with the RCC, the organization that historically banned the translation of the Bible into the common tongue?

This is somewhat not accurate, there were common tongue scripture translations hundreds of years before Protestantism. (but again keep in mind most people couldn't read anyway, and anyone who could read, could read latin).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages#Notable_medieval_vernacular_Bibles_by_language,_region_and_type

you can read a bunch of the vernacular here though

The thing the banned was unapproved translations, because I think it goes without saying you CAN translate scripture very badly, and IIRC there were people who openly said they did bad scripture translations to mislead people. I also would totally support doing this.

The only sort of argument was they weren't complete bibles, which if you had to hand write the entire thing I think is a bit more understandable, espeically if you are doing so with the standard of quality in this picture.

(picture is a german translation from 1390)

They had a very high esteem for scripture and wanted it's printing to fit that quality.

I know there was also a big political element where printers liked to be revolutionaries, so at first they printed protestant stuff, and later printed Catholic stuff just to go against the grain.

Fairly historically complicated but we had scripture every mass and any educated person could access scripture, and they were the ones who could read anyway.

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

This is a good lecture on the inquisition that shows what it actually was, and where the totally fake absurd ideas came about (we can track them to specific books that were written like horror stories)

Kind of scattered but there was lots to cover

Also the only rational reason the Church would hide scripture is if that alone would be enough to prove the Church was false and lead to it's destruction.

It's still here, many people very knowledgeable on scripture convert, and we've had a ton of heresies going back to the beginning. Also the actors in the protestant thing were all very educated people, not random lay people reading scripture in vernacular and realizing the Church is wrong.


5a9544  No.797868

>>797663

Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Her power stems from God just as the arks power stems from God, and her role in giving spiritual victory is again the same - it's no wonder we give her praise. She's our ace (and also our mom, your too).

That she is the ark of the covenant is indisputable once you see the scriptural parallels between her and the ark. They're quite something if you've never seen them before, so i'd recommend looking it up. There are also parallels between Mary and eve, so just as through one man and woman's sin all were condemned, through one man and woman all men would be saved.

So that's could be considered indirect scriptural evidence. I don't think its exactly right to say it is baseless.


45deba  No.797912

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / doomer / egy / klpmm / pinoy / vg / vichan ]