>>11471422

I'm quite familiar with that fakery. It's a Gnostic version written long after the Apostles left this earth. Your argument is that Mary wasn't a virgin (as per your argument's claim as to the meaning thereof); while the Doctrine of the true Scriptures demand she have been a virgin else Christ would have been a bastard child. If He were a bastard child, then He wouldn't have fulfilled the Law, and His people would still be in their sins, and subject to the Father's wrath. Your adopted version denies the Gospel therefore.

>>11471455

Yeah, they've been selling us a bill of goods all this time.

>>11471666

The Jesuits are part of the army of the Papacy, which is the Man of Sin. The Papacy didn't invent that Christ was to be born of a virgin (not according to your adopted definition). You didn't make that claim directly, but your definition doesn't serve the Testimony of Christ regardless.

>>11471458

Highly likely…..

>>11471792

It is Christ's Testimony as the Lamb of God. Those calling themselves "Christians" are testifying to that Doctrine. It's amusing you are not dismissing a "brainlet" for responding to what you yourself brought up relative to subjects in the Scriptures. You might try your own advice.

>>11471849

That is, "you are dismissing"….