Does the Roman Catholic Church really contradict the bible?

maryofoxford · Feb 3, 2016

I told my sister that if, after my research, I found that anything the Catholic faith truly believed went against the Bible, that I would leave also.

It just so happens that while searching for these answers I started wondering if anyone, other than the apostles, that lived at the same time as Christ, knew how to write and actually wrote down things about Jesus and the apostles and the earliest church? As I figured it: If those writings were still available, it would be the perfect way to see what the first Christians believed and practiced. I mean the chances are FAR greater that those Christians believed and worshiped as Christ taught us to worship, then people living 2,000 years later, right?

Also, any disputes about what the gospels or the letters of the New Testament meant, should be cleared up by reading letters about what the first Christians believed they meant. They would have been taught, either by Jesus himself, or by the apostles directly! I'd heard many people say that we should get back to living and worshiping as the early church did. Letters like this would tell us that info.

Well, lo and behold, I found out that there did exist writings like this. I was recommended to read a 3 vol. set, edited by Jurgens, called The Faith of the Early Fathers. Wow! It blew my mind! These were letters written from aprox. ad 80 to ad 350. Long before Protestantism ever started. Even long before the Eastern Orthodox Catholics split from the Catholic Church.

When I read what the instructions were for the first Christians, given to them by the first apostles and disciples of the Lord, and while the apostle John was still living (and would certainly have called it heresy, if he felt it was, since there was never any lack of heretics being condemned any other time.) I was amazed! Here, in black and white, were letters speaking of Bishops, hierarchy in the church, even clarifying the belief regarding the Lord's supper/communion; I could only conclude that it certainly agreed with what the Catholic Church taught as their doctrine.

I also attended a Catholic Seminary in order to get a 2yr degree in Ministry. I took many many classes on the Catholic Faith, the Jewish faith, and the Sacred Scriptures. This is where I received the bulk of my knowledge on what the Catholic Church believes as doctrine, vs. what they follow as church discipline (totally different in many ways!). These are the two big areas that cause about 1/2 of the confusions that take place.

I've continued my studies on the early church and now own a collection of 24 vols. of writings by the first Christians (none later than the later 300's). I also have read about 20 different books explaining what we believe and regarding the lives of saints, etc.

I have absolutely NO problem defending the Catholic faith as the ONE faith established by Jesus Christ. The faith that he promised to send His Holy Spirit to lead into all truth, and the faith that Jesus Christ himself said, that "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against." Christ is God. God cannot lie. There was only ONE church that He left on this earth, and that church MUST still be existing, unchanged from the very beginning. Only ONE church meets all of the promises that Christ proclaimed in order to identify the true church, and my friends that IS the Catholic Church.

If you disagree, than I believe that would make Jesus Christ a liar. If you believe that the Catholic Church's doctrines are contrary to Sacred Scripture, than I ask you to PLEASE tell me where (just one place at a time) and I will show you otherwise. Just give me a chance to show you using the Bible itself. I know from experience that I'll be shown a slew of places; but I also know that I can show you a slew of places in the Bible that will contradict anything you show me.

Thanks so much for your patience in reading this.

Goatee · Feb 4, 2016

maryofoxford said:
I told my sister that if, after my research, I found that anything the Catholic faith truly believed went against the Bible, that I would leave also.

It just so happens that while searching for these answers I started wondering if anyone, other than the apostles, that lived at the same time as Christ, knew how to write and actually wrote down things about Jesus and the apostles and the earliest church? As I figured it: If those writings were still available, it would be the perfect way to see what the first Christians believed and practiced. I mean the chances are FAR greater that those Christians believed and worshiped as Christ taught us to worship, then people living 2,000 years later, right?

Also, any disputes about what the gospels or the letters of the New Testament meant, should be cleared up by reading letters about what the first Christians believed they meant. They would have been taught, either by Jesus himself, or by the apostles directly! I'd heard many people say that we should get back to living and worshiping as the early church did. Letters like this would tell us that info.

Well, lo and behold, I found out that there did exist writings like this. I was recommended to read a 3 vol. set, edited by Jurgens, called The Faith of the Early Fathers. Wow! It blew my mind! These were letters written from aprox. ad 80 to ad 350. Long before Protestantism ever started. Even long before the Eastern Orthodox Catholics split from the Catholic Church.

When I read what the instructions were for the first Christians, given to them by the first apostles and disciples of the Lord, and while the apostle John was still living (and would certainly have called it heresy, if he felt it was, since there was never any lack of heretics being condemned any other time.) I was amazed! Here, in black and white, were letters speaking of Bishops, hierarchy in the church, even clarifying the belief regarding the Lord's supper/communion; I could only conclude that it certainly agreed with what the Catholic Church taught as their doctrine.

I also attended a Catholic Seminary in order to get a 2yr degree in Ministry. I took many many classes on the Catholic Faith, the Jewish faith, and the Sacred Scriptures. This is where I received the bulk of my knowledge on what the Catholic Church believes as doctrine, vs. what they follow as church discipline (totally different in many ways!). These are the two big areas that cause about 1/2 of the confusions that take place.

I've continued my studies on the early church and now own a collection of 24 vols. of writings by the first Christians (none later than the later 300's). I also have read about 20 different books explaining what we believe and regarding the lives of saints, etc.

I have absolutely NO problem defending the Catholic faith as the ONE faith established by Jesus Christ. The faith that he promised to send His Holy Spirit to lead into all truth, and the faith that Jesus Christ himself said, that "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against." Christ is God. God cannot lie. There was only ONE church that He left on this earth, and that church MUST still be existing, unchanged from the very beginning. Only ONE church meets all of the promises that Christ proclaimed in order to identify the true church, and my friends that IS the Catholic Church.

If you disagree, than I believe that would make Jesus Christ a liar. If you believe that the Catholic Church's doctrines are contrary to Sacred Scripture, than I ask you to PLEASE tell me where (just one place at a time) and I will show you otherwise. Just give me a chance to show you using the Bible itself. I know from experience that I'll be shown a slew of places; but I also know that I can show you a slew of places in the Bible that will contradict anything you show me.

Thanks so much for your patience in reading this.

Fascinating story. Thanks for sharing it on here. God bless you

nomadictheist · Feb 4, 2016

justcoolforyou said:
To bad the bible teaches the apostles via the holy spirit made new apostles... in the book of acts judes place is taken by another... and all the other original churches still call themselves catholic who are apart from the roman catholics. ..

That's an interesting take on those passages.

The Bible shows us that the choosing of Matthias was done in accordance with specific prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the betrayer. If the message is apostolic succession, then there should continue to be a lineage of 12 apostles, chosen from among the Jewish Christians (note that none of the apostles who we see chosen - even Paul, the self-described "apostle to the gentiles" - were of pagan origin. Note also that at the time Paul was chosen, there were at least a few non-Jewish Christians already).

In terms of catholic, the word "catholic" is an old word meaning, in essence, "worldwide." God's church consists of people. Not buildings or denominational institutions. Just as Paul said "he is a Jew who is one inwardly," "he is a Christian who is one inwardly."

My whole-hearted belief on this subject is that everyone in the world who has believed on the name of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, and placed their faith in Him for salvation is the church. No matter what denomination they fall under, the grace of God extends to all who believe on His name.

There is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ.

justcoolforyou · Feb 4, 2016

nomadictheist said:
That's an interesting take on those passages.

The Bible shows us that the choosing of Matthias was done in accordance with specific prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the betrayer. If the message is apostolic succession, then there should continue to be a lineage of 12 apostles, chosen from among the Jewish Christians (note that none of the apostles who we see chosen - even Paul, the self-described "apostle to the gentiles" - were of pagan origin. Note also that at the time Paul was chosen, there were at least a few non-Jewish Christians already).

In terms of catholic, the word "catholic" is an old word meaning, in essence, "worldwide." God's church consists of people. Not buildings or denominational institutions. Just as Paul said "he is a Jew who is one inwardly," "he is a Christian who is one inwardly."

My whole-hearted belief on this subject is that everyone in the world who has believed on the name of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, and placed their faith in Him for salvation is the church. No matter what denomination they fall under, the grace of God extends to all who believe on His name.

There is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ.

But we still have churches that can trace there line to the 12 apostles not just peter or paul or john...

Albion · Feb 4, 2016

nomadictheist said:
The Bible shows us that the choosing of Matthias was done in accordance with specific prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the betrayer. If the message is apostolic succession, then there should continue to be a lineage of 12 apostles, chosen from among the Jewish Christians (note that none of the apostles who we see chosen - even Paul, the self-described "apostle to the gentiles" - were of pagan origin. Note also that at the time Paul was chosen, there were at least a few non-Jewish Christians already).

I don't see any reason for any of this to be part of the process. It's a matter of whom the Apostles installed as their successors, not who was pagan or Jewish or anything else beforehand. And since any one Apostle may have "consecrated" multiple new bishops--as well as several bishops jointly consecrating a new one--the lines of succession would become, in time, many and intertwined. Today, any bishop of any church that has retained Apostolic Succession can claim descent from many lines.

Goatee · Feb 4, 2016

Matthias was chosen by God.

Goatee · Feb 4, 2016

nomadictheist · Feb 4, 2016

Albion said:
I don't see any reason for any of this to be part of the process. It's a matter of whom the Apostles installed as their successors, not who was pagan or Jewish or anything else beforehand. And since any one Apostle may have "consecrated" multiple new bishops--as well as several bishops jointly consecrating a new one--the lines of succession would become, in time, many and intertwined. Today, any bishop of any church that has retained Apostolic Succession can claim descent from many lines.

I don't think this should be part of the process either... But I don't limit that to not necessitating Jewish Christians.

Jesus told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God would be taken from their hands and given to others. Paul said that he is a "Jew who is one inwardly." Christians are "grafted in" to the inheritance of Israel.

Jesus said that you would know His followers by their fruits. Looking at a great many people throughout history, you see notable Catholic names like Mother Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, and others. Yet you also see men who led great revivals among protestant faiths, such as Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham. Additionally, the work of C.S. Lewis in apologetics was instrumental in combating the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, and Lewis (an Anglican) is acknowledged almost universally as the foremost Christian apologist of his time.

There is also the evangelical missionary James Elliot, who paved the way for bringing the gospel to the Aucas - a native American tribe in Ecuador - and gave his life in the process.

So I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church alone holds the keys to the kingdom. I believe that God has given them to those of His choosing no matter what denomination they may belong to.

com7fy8 · Feb 4, 2016

jason_delisle said:
Mary is married to the Holy Spirit? Realy?

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

Linet Kihonge said:
So IF I Were to be asked, MARY was just an honored person to have carried CHRIST but not super-human just honored.

It says "blessed", not superhuman or sinless. And she was "among women" . . . not above and superior, necessarily. How about Abigail? She was blessed and honored, though not sinless. And Jesus said Peter was "blessed" because Peter knew who Jesus is > but Peter still sinned, after that, including what he did at Antioch > Galatians 2:11-13.

Linet Kihonge said:
Explain this, (Not that Jesus meant to disrespect his mother & brothers but rather to define who were his relatives in the spiritual context), Matthew 12: 44-50

To me, it looks like Mary and His brothers tried to interrupt His ministering. And why were they not with Him to hear His word?

justcoolforyou said:
I think james chapter 2 is intentionally addressing misunderstanding in pauls letters; jas 2:24 not by faith alone... paul is talking about initial salvation which is by grace alone and james is talking about on going salvation grace in faith working through love as paul states...

I think Paul is very clear that works of the law can't save or justify a person. But James does not give examples of works of the law . . . in James chapter two. And yes Paul says we need "faith working through love" > Galatians 5:6.

parousia70 said:
Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Being in agreement does not mean you are in agreement with the Holy Spirit.

In Revelation, we see the letters to the seven churches > each church seems to have its own special message which goes for that group. So, each church is unified . . . in being right or wrong or both, but pretty much the same thing goes for everyone in each church.

Why? Because each group of Christians is unified . . . however. Ones can be unified in fighting and arguing, or in being submissive to each other, or however.

So, Jesus had things to say to criticize certain churches; each criticized church was unified, in how each was wrong.

So, it is not wise to compare ourselves with others who are wrong and try to make ourselves right in comparison with wrong people and their standards > 2 Corinthians 10:12.

Also, it is not wise to have superficial standards which a psychopath can fake so he can put on an act which gets him ordained as a pastor; if even the higher leaders are evaluating men by superficial standards, this is why they can ordain monsters instead of ministers of God's own love. There are church culture people who evaluate each other by how they act outwardly and how they talk and tone their voices, and so they are unified in their ability to ordain psychopaths, even, as pastors. And they can do this while they point their finger at and even look down on other groups. This is not the right way to be unified!!

So, we need to become able to make sure with God about whom He has us trust. Jesus makes His "sheep", even . . . not only His leaders . . . able to tell the difference between a monster and a man who ministers God's own love > John 10:1-30, John 7:24, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Philippians 1:9, Hebrews 5:14. In God's love, we have reliable senses, and we have God guiding us according to all He knows. But there are people who take it on themselves to not obey how our Apostle Paul says to evaluate candidates to "take care of the church of God" > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. And their spirit of disobedience makes them darkened so they can ordain monsters and not even see who they are ordaining.

Make sure with God.

justcoolforyou · Feb 4, 2016

com7fy8 said:
"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

It says "blessed", not superhuman or sinless. And she was "among women" . . . not above and superior, necessarily. How about Abigail? She was blessed and honored, though not sinless. And Jesus said Peter was "blessed" because Peter knew who Jesus is > but Peter still sinned, after that, including what he did at Antioch > Galatians 2:11-13.

To me, it looks like Mary and His brothers tried to interrupt His ministering. And why were they not with Him to hear His word?

I think Paul is very clear that works of the law can't save or justify a person. But James does not give examples of works of the law . . . in James chapter two. And yes Paul says we need "faith working through love" > Galatians 5:6.

Being in agreement does not mean you are in agreement with the Holy Spirit.

In Revelation, we see the letters to the seven churches > each church seems to have its own special message which goes for that group. So, each church is unified . . . in being right or wrong or both, but pretty much the same thing goes for everyone in each church.

Why? Because each group of Christians is unified . . . however. Ones can be unified in fighting and arguing, or in being submissive to each other, or however.

So, Jesus had things to say to criticize certain churches; each criticized church was unified, in how each was wrong.

So, it is not wise to compare ourselves with others who are wrong and try to make ourselves right in comparison with wrong people and their standards > 2 Corinthians 10:12.

Also, it is not wise to have superficial standards which a psychopath can fake so he can put on an act which gets him ordained as a pastor; if even the higher leaders are evaluating men by superficial standards, this is why they can ordain monsters instead of ministers of God's own love. There are church culture people who evaluate each other by how they act outwardly and how they talk and tone their voices, and so they are unified in their ability to ordain psychopaths, even, as pastors. And they can do this while they point their finger at and even look down on other groups. This is not the right way to be unified!!

So, we need to become able to make sure with God about whom He has us trust. Jesus makes His "sheep", even . . . not only His leaders . . . able to tell the difference between a monster and a man who ministers God's own love > John 10:1-30, John 7:24, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Philippians 1:9, Hebrews 5:14. In God's love, we have reliable senses, and we have God guiding us according to all He knows. But there are people who take it on themselves to not obey how our Apostle Paul says to evaluate candidates to "take care of the church of God" > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. And their spirit of disobedience makes them darkened so they can ordain monsters and not even see who they are ordaining.

Make sure with God.

The hebrews idiom means above women...In today’s post I want to take a quick look at three great heroines of the Bible and see what they have in common.

"Blessed Among Women

In the Scriptures we see that there are three women who are called blessed among women: Judith, Ja’el, and Mary...Wouldn’t it be interesting if these three women had something else in common. Well, as it turns out, they do!

Each crushed the head of the enemy king.

Mary

Satan was crushed by Mary’s son."
St. Paul, in his letter to the church of Rome writes that “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” If we can say this of Christians in general, then, I would argue, we can say it of Mary in particular, and to the greatest degree!

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he(she) shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his(her) heel” (Genesis 3:15).
http://mattfradd.com/what-do-jael-judith-and-mary-have-in-common/

Goatee · Feb 5, 2016

Fantastic video

maryofoxford · Feb 6, 2016

Albion said:
I don't see any reason for any of this to be part of the process. It's a matter of whom the Apostles installed as their successors, not who was pagan or Jewish or anything else beforehand. And since any one Apostle may have "consecrated" multiple new bishops--as well as several bishops jointly consecrating a new one--the lines of succession would become, in time, many and intertwined. Today, any bishop of any church that has retained Apostolic Succession can claim descent from many lines.

Apostolic Succession is passed on by the laying on of hands. You see this in, 1 Tim 4:14, & 1 Tim 5:22.

This being said all validly ordained bishops may ordain other men using proper form and matter, (words and physical things, ex. Holy Oils, etc.). Words (obviously) have a great deal of meaning, and a bishop not only needs to needs to lay hands on the candidate for priesthood, but must use the correct prayers & physical actions(form), and physical items (matter). See below for a more complete explanation. How do we know that we must use these ways to properly confer the sacrament? We know because there are many writings left to us by the early church as instructions to the first Christians. One document in particular is the Didache; dated between ad 80 to 110. It was written very early, while the apostle John was still alive, or at the very least, while his successors, that were taught by John himself, lived. I HIGHLY recommend all Christians read this document. See below for a more complete explanation on validly ordained clergy.

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued his apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, in which he upheld the Church's position that Anglican orders are "absolutely null and void." When the first Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, came to power under King Henry VIII, he drastically modified the rite of ordination, eliminating all references to a sacrificial priesthood.(remember by that time King Henry VIII had declared himself the head of the Church of England and able to change anything in it. This may be one explanation for the change.)

Since to be valid the sacraments must have the proper form and matter, grave questions immediately arose as to the validity of Anglicanism's new form of holy orders. Upon further study, the Catholic Church determined that, although an ordination might be attempted by a valid though heretical Catholic bishop, because the Anglican rite of ordination had been so distorted it could no longer effect a valid ordination.

Thus, within a generation or two after the inception of the Anglican Church there were no validly consecrated Anglican bishops (the original Catholic bishops who had gone into heresy having since died). Therefore the Anglican bishops (who technically weren't bishops at all nor even priests) couldn't validly ordain men to the priesthood.

There is, though, a further complication. Some candidates for the Anglican priesthood, recognizing the sterile nature of their church's holy orders, have received ordination at the hands of validly ordained schismatic bishops (such as the Old Catholics, who broke from Rome in the nineteenth century). Assuming these bishops used the proper rite and had the necessary intention, those ordinations would be valid, though illicit. The problem is that it's extraordinarily difficult to ascertain whether an individual Anglican priest's orders are valid or not.

This is why bishops from true apostolic church's, (which would be made of of all the branches of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church), can actually trace their own apostolic line all the way back to one of the twelve apostles. If your bishop can't do that then he is not a valid bishop. The lines don't intersect anywhere since each candidate for priesthood, or the bishopric is never ordained by more than one bishop.

maryofoxford · Feb 6, 2016

Mary is married to the Holy Spirit? Realy?[/QUOTE]
jason_delisle, Jan 18, 2016

com7fy8 said: ↑
"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)[/QUOTE]

---------------I can't tell by your reply to this comment whether you're agreeing with him, or disagreeing? ---------
----------------Please let me know if your reply is meant to agree with jason. If so, I'll post my explanation of why the virgin Mary is considered to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit. (obviously not in the sense of 2 gods, or 2 humans; but in a completely unique way.)

Albion · Feb 6, 2016

maryofoxford said:
Apostolic Succession is passed on by the laying on of hands. You see this in, 1 Tim 4:14, & 1 Tim 5:22.

Maybe. There's not enough there to establish Apostolic Succession as an ongoing system, however.

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued his apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, in which he upheld the Church's position that Anglican orders are "absolutely null and void." When the first Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, came to power under King Henry VIII, he drastically modified the rite of ordination, eliminating all references to a sacrificial priesthood.

Few theologians see this letter as anything but politics. The Papacy was losing its ability to "make and break" kings during the 19th century and tried various ways to reassert itself, from declarations against the Freemasons (who favored national independence and popular elections) to the declaration of Papal Infallibility (which speaks for itself) to the letter on Anglican orders which is bogus from the start because the form that of consecrations you refer to here was the same as used by Catholics in England prior to the Reformation.

remember by that time King Henry VIII had declared himself the head of the Church of England and able to change anything in it. This may be one explanation for the change.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, Henry did not change much of anything and didn't claim any such power. He died a Catholic, never was declared a heretic, and is remembered for prohibiting the teaching of Continental Protestant doctrines.[

com7fy8 · Feb 7, 2016

maryofoxford said:
com7fy8 said: ↑
"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

---------------I can't tell by your reply to this comment whether you're agreeing with him, or disagreeing? ---------
----------------Please let me know if your reply is meant to agree with jason. If so, I'll post my explanation of why the virgin Mary is considered to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit. (obviously not in the sense of 2 gods, or 2 humans; but in a completely unique way.)[/QUOTE]Well, I wasn't trying to directly agree or disagree. But I was feeding in how any child of God is "one spirit with Him" (1 Corinthians 6:17). And being one in spirit is some kind of "marriage", I consider. And we are in union with the Holy Spirit in God's own love > Romans 5:5. This is more intimate than humans know marriage to be.

Linet Kihonge · Feb 8, 2016

justcoolforyou said:
will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he(she) shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his(her) heel”

The Lord Jesus will bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel. "The enemy thought he had won when Jesus was crucified (bruising his heel) but the Lord Rose again thus defeating death ( he crushed his head).

justcoolforyou · Feb 8, 2016

Linet Kihonge said:
The Lord Jesus will bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel. "The enemy thought he had won when Jesus was crucified (bruising his heel) but the Lord Rose again thus defeating death ( he crushed his head).

It depends on your basis in translation... oldest translation in Jewish tradition is "she" later was translate "he" some translate "they"... Genesis 3:15 continues in Revelation 12 the war with the woman and the Dragon... and your correct

St. Paul, in his letter to the church of Rome writes that “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.”ROMANS 16:20 If we can say this of Christians in general, then, I would argue, we can say it of Mary in particular, and to the greatest degree!

Linet Kihonge · Feb 8, 2016

I just would like to know the difference between a Christian who does what the bible asks and the one who's able to trace his descendants to apostles?

I know there's anxiety on what If I'm right or what if I'm wrong? Everyone can read the scriptures and everyone can be guided by Holy Spirit.

What would happen to a believer from Kakuma whose source of Hope is that little book from Matthews to Revelation? Or a simple village elder from Burundi who doesn't know what a Church looks like let alone a Cardinal Elect? What would become of such? What word would you give? What does it take to be a heaven bound? I know where I come from and all we leave behind to desperation is that "He came seek and save the LOST"

We leave procedures behind and by faith we only pray for the Lord to forgive them and ask for the gift of the Holy Spirit. So far, the Lord leaves the Spirit of Joy, and many more.

I have never known how I received my gift of prophecy but I received a vision that came to pass. I think denominations divide because apostles only went with the word of the LORD and with the humility of Christ.

When u go to Korea ... I will wish you the Lord's abundance.

Does the Roman Catholic Church really contradict the bible?

Regular Member

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Alive in Christ

Active Member

Facilitator

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Alive in Christ

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Shalom

Active Member

Shalom

Similar threads