**IMPORTANT NOTE:** The OP is not looking to justify the Immaculate Conception of Mary, rather, the OP is looking for passages, significant bible passages that explicitly prove that "Mary is a sinner", meaning Mary had committed sins. This is in no way a duplicate question as commented. If Luther, Zwingli and Calvin who uphold the dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary were still alive, during the proclamation of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception, I'm pretty sure, the three of them will also embraced this Truth even the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, like what they did to the Dogma of Theotokos and Perpetual Virginity. Sad to say, the Modern Day Protestant and the Bible Alone Believers that I normally encounter in the social media, are simply drinking the shallow arguments, citing this two shallow passages. >"All have sinned." - Romans 3:23 and > "“None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” - Romans 3:10-12 In CSE, I've seen a lot of good exegesis, but when it comes to this two passages, they seem to become an elementary student or even a kindergarten in giving a thorough exegesis on this particular verse. Romans 3:10-12 can easily be refuted by God Himself in Job 1:1 >There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And this man was blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil. -Job 1:1 The "All have sinned", can easily be debunk by the Doctrine of Original Sin, as the word "sinned" here pointed to "actual sin", on which no Protestant, Modern Day Protestant and all Bible Alone Believers can justify against the Blessed Virgin Mary. Proof? Lets simply ask them a direct question. *What is the nature of sin committed by Mary and when? Please cite bible passages, and you wil see that none of them can cite a single verse, and they will simple go back to Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:10-12.* **In view of the above, I am looking for any wise Protestant and Bible Alone Believers here in CSE to cite significant verses aside from Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:1-12, to support their stance that Mary is a sinner.** Of course, I forgot the Magnificat... >My spirit rejoices in God my savior.." Careful to cite this passage, as Mary claimed to be saved already in this particular passage even before Jesus offered His life on the Cross. So, in this particular passage, the Savior of Mary is God the Father and not Jesus per se, and God the Father is outside of time, and can apply the merit of Christ in whatever ways He deemed appropriate according to His Divine Plan.

Adam was created in the original state of justice and holiness, he have a pure heart originally, a sinless creature. >The concept that Adam was created in a state of original justice and holiness is a doctrine rooted in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-3 and supported by New Testament reflections on the image of God. >Key Bible verses and theological points supporting this doctrine include: Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (KJV). This verse is widely cited as direct scriptural evidence that humanity’s original condition was one of moral integrity, righteousness, and innocence. Genesis 1:26-27, 31: God creates man in His own image and likeness and declares all of creation, including humanity, "very good." This state is interpreted as original justice—a harmonious relationship with God, oneself, and creation. >Ephesians 4:24: While referring to the "new self" in Christ, this verse highlights the original state intended for humanity: "...put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (NIV). This implies that the restoration of humanity brings them back to the original holiness Adam possessed. >Colossians 3:10: Speaks of being "renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator," referencing a return to the original righteous state. >Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This describes a state of innocence, internal harmony, and lack of sin before the Fall. >**Key Aspects of Original Justice:** >Original Holiness: Friendship with God and sharing in God's own life (sanctifying grace). >Original Justice: Harmony between Adam and Eve, inner harmony of the human person (reason, will, and desires were aligned), and harmony with creation. >Preternatural Gifts: Freedom from sickness, suffering, and death. >The Council of Trent (Session V, 1511) formally affirmed that Adam lost this "holiness and justice" through disobedience. It would seems that Adam was created with a pure heart before the fall, and there's no obstacle for him to see the face of God. **Did Adam saw the face of God before the fall?** This question is open for Catholicism, Protestant and Christians who have a source or writings that stated, Adam had seen the face of God before the fall.

With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question: According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?

This is an honest question and I would just like to know why "Jesus". "God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life." (CCC-1) Weren't we always his children and heirs? It does not make sense that He had to send Jesus. This is what I found in the Gospel: Matthew 5:17 >Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. But why, it does not seem like a good enough reason to be crucified for. Luke 12:51 >Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. Between good and evil, God knew already who is good and who is evil. Why did he need to send Jesus to divide? Matthew 10:34 >Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Okay, this I get to come and punish the people physically on earth, but God can do that from anywhere and have done it before. Why send Jesus to do it? Mark 2:17 >Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Luke 5:32 >I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Mark 10:45 >For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. To give His life in exchange for ours, so we might be saved. This doesn't make sense because just believing in Jesus and repenting is the same as believing in God and repenting why introduce an extra step? Why make it more complicated and divide even people more? Luke 4:18-19 >The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. This made the most sense to me, people at that time did not understand what God wanted. God sent Jesus to explain to the people that it's not just about following rules but cultivating a relationship and that everything that you do matters. You cannot say that you are a Christian but you value money or other things more than Me. You cannot say you are Christian but there are more important things in your life than God. He sends Jesus to make the people understand what is it to believe and to be Christian. He sent Him as an example. That is what I think, and I think this scripture relates to my own thoughts. Many of the previous prophets did the same, what I don't get is why sent Jesus to do this task if John or some of the other prophets could have done it also. Luke 19:10 >For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 3:17 >For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 6:38-40 >For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. I don't understand this. John 9:39 >Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 10:10 >The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 12:46 >I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 18:37 >Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” I don't understand.

**NOTE :** This question is aimed at narrowing down the probability, when did Mary committed an actual and personal sin, and what is the most likely nature of sin that She would commit? Protestant and Bible Alone Believers do not accept the Dogma on Immaculate Conception for lack of biblical support, so its only fair for Catholics, that we also, cannot accept the accusation that Mary is a sinner, for the same reason that it also lacking in biblical support. And so, its now the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers turn to prove their accusation and judgement that Mary is a sinner, by providing us biblical proof? Sin of pride, lust, envy, gluttony, sloth, etc. What is the most probable nature of sin that a lowly handmaid, a human being with profound humility, who is daily praying and embracing the Will of the Father, can fall into? Let's check on Mary's age. At age 1 to 3, is the age of innocence, therefore, Mary cannot commit sin here at this age. At age 3 to 13, Mary had spent her life in the Temple as a servant of God. Most likely, Satan cannot offer any of his temptations as he did to Jesus as money, fame and power will not entice the young Mary of this non-sense. https://www.mdrevelation.org/the-presentation-of-mary-in-the-temple/ At age 13, Angel Gabriel having faculties to see the soul of human being, saw Mary's soul as "full of grace", and telling us that in Mary's soul, the Lord presence can be seen. -Dominus tecum. Before conception, during conception and after giving birth it is unlikely that Mary can commit sin, as She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. And so, for all the Bible Alone Believers and wizards here at CSE, we only have one choices left. Mary is possible to commit sin, after giving birth to Jesus Christ. But what is the nature of sin, that a person who is docile to the voice of God, and had shown holiness and righteousness in her life,so, the simple and direct question is... What is the nature of sin that Mary would fall into after giving birth to Jesus Christ? **Can anyone tell us according to the bible, what is the nature of sin that Mary had fallen into, after giving birth to Jesus Christ?** Catholic, Protestant and Christian can answer this question, using only bible as the source and nothing else.

Searching from different bible translations, I had looked deeply into Douay-Rheims version. > "And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth." - Luke 1:40 From this passage, we can see that it ends with a period. This event is finished. A casual greetings can be inferred on this passage and nothing much, it's like Mary saying "Hi! or Hello!" to Her cousin Elizabeth, who knew nothing, about what happened to Mary in the annunciation and Her, having conceived the Messiah. Moving on to next verse... > And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? - Luke1:41-43 The word ***"and it came to pass"***, meaning, this event is separated from v.40, where the casual greetings occured. This salutation is much different, it delivered a profound effect on the child in the very womb of Elizabeth, who never knew the Blessed Virgin Mary. The greeting in v. 40 compare to v. 41 can be seen as two separate events. Luke described that it was Elizabeth who heard the salutation and not the infant in her womb. Elizabeth was overjoyed, cried out in a loud voice...this unexplainable feelings was then felt by the child in her womb, that made the infant leaped, as if he shared in the joy that Elizabeth her mother was experiencing at that very moment, that made him leaped. Could it be, that the ***"greetings or salutation"*** that Elizabeth heard at that moment from Mary while praying, is the **Magnificat**. Hearing the words from the Magnificat, was the cause, and the instrument that made her filled with the Holy Spirit. Because Mary's Magnificat was uttered, having overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the very words of Mary are inspired by the Holy Spirit, to praise the Father in spirit and truth. Elizabeth heard Mary's Canticle, and had realized that Mary was pregnant with the Messiah, and hearing Mary saying, ***"All generations shall call me blessed..."***, Elizabeth reacted,and she is the first one who praised Mary, saying ***"blessed are you among women..."***, and also the first one who proclaimed ***"Jesus is Lord"*** by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognizing, the child as her Lord, the way she knew the Lord as the chosen People of God, addressed God in the Old Testament. John the Baptist in Luke1:15 had been prophesied to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, and Luke's gospel described the moment, how it happened in v.44 > *For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.* - Luke 1:44 From the discernment above, we can see that the *"greetings"* in Luke 1:40 is different from the *"greetings"* in Luke1:41, the two greetings are a separate event. The other is obviously a casual greeting and the other is a mysterious greetings. In view of the above, I am looking for a commentary or writings from Catholic sources or Christian sources,biblical even extra-biblical showing that the "greetings" in Luke 1:40 and Luke 1:41 is a separate event and different from each other. Elizabeth didn't need to hear Mary's Magnificat to know that she was pregnant with the Lord. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, who was perfectly capable of conveying that knowledge. Elizabeth's intuition was very manifest here.

In [this video](https://youtu.be/NYXZQ9BRiGw?si=Aho7ezGrcCPKuvC0&t=616) , former KKK Grand Imperial Wizard Bill Wilkinson says that "we believe that God has commanded us to separate ourselves from the other races. Not because we hate the other races or because we feel we are better or worse, but because it's God's commandment". According to the KKK interpretation of Christian law, where, in the scriptures or in other sources of Christian religious law, does God command the whites to separate themselves from other races?

Many Christians believe that the Archangel Michael is actually Jesus, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptist preacher [Charles H. Spurgeon](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/63123/6071) . We have a question asking [for the Biblical basis for this belief](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/26253/6071) . This question asks: what is the Biblical basis **against** this belief, that Michael is not Jesus, but a separate angelic being?

Congregations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus is Michael. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael? **Jehovah's Witnesses** >...it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. [Source](http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/) **Seventh-day Adventists** >Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee." Early Writings, p. 164.

What Bible passages affirm that God determines, prior to their birth, whether each person will end up in the New Jerusalem or in the lake of fire? The Bible is clear that some people were predestined to spend eternity in the New Jerusalem. But the Bible is not clear that the fate of everyone else is also predetermined. I expected to find this question asked and answered multiple times in the past, but I was unable to find this. Ephesians 1:4-5 ESV >Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Ephesians 1:5 ESV >He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Romans 8:29 ESV >For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8:28-30 ESV >And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The Sabbath is mentioned about one hundred and forty-five times in the whole Bible (KJV), in the Old Testament the Sabbath is mentioned about ninety times and in almost all the texts it is an instruction to Israel to keep the Sabbath holy. Exodus 31:12 NASB >12 Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Now as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You must keep My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, so that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. Exodus 35:1-3 NASB >35 Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to [a]do: > >2 “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3 You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.” But in the New Testament, it is mentioned about fifty-five times and in almost every text it is used as an index or marker of the cycle of the week as well as relative to an event that took place Matthew 12:1 NASB >[a]At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat Luke 6:7 NASB >7 Now the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him [d]closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse Him. I picked randomly the above texts but it seems most of them only refer to the Sabbath relative to the events that were taking place. There seems to be no clear instruction to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament. But many churches do teach that Christians are to keep the Sabbath. So what is the Biblical Basis for Christians keeping the Sabbath?

### Background *Sola Scriptura* is commonly defined as follows > **The Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for faith** (alternatively doctrine) **and practice.** Protestant discussions about the scriptural basis for *Sola Scriptura* nearly always involve 2 Timothy 3:16 and other NT verses, but I have not seen Protestants argue for for *Sola Scriptura* on the basis of the Hebrew Bible. ### Question Do Protestants believe the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament taught *Sola Scriptura* prior to the advent of Christianity and the writing of the New Testament? If so, which passages teach this? If not, how do they explain this doctrine only being introduced by the New Testament?

From my reading of the Bible, I have come to understand that unity among Christians is a good thing. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 > Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Psalm 133:1 > Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity! These, and other passages of scripture, seem to emphasize the importance of Christian unity and love while de-emphasizing the importance of distinctions. In light of these passages, how do Christians justify separating themselves into so many different denominations? Are there any Biblical justifications given for why having such division is preferred over unity?

Below are several excerpts from Christian websites that discuss the idea of "paying the price" in a spiritual context: > In this sermon, the speaker shares a powerful testimony of a meeting where the glory of God was experienced. It started with one person praying and soon others joined, resulting in a powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The meeting lasted for over four hours, with people confessing their sins and seeking God's presence. The speaker emphasizes the need for the glory of God to return to our churches and lives, and encourages repentance, prayer, faith, and identification with Christ **as the simple yet costly price to pay for experiencing God's glory**. > > https://www.sermonindex.net/sermons/XuEeri0s1gBZfmHq > God is a God of process. The major problem with this generation is that men are not ready to **pay the price** to have spiritual power and experiences. But the truth is, if it is genuine, there will be **a price attached to it**. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:49 to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. So, where did you get the version of your divine power without divine process? **Anything valuable always has a price tag**. If you see anything that is valuable, that is cheap, it is either somebody paid for it, or it is stolen. **Authentic power has a price tag**. > > There is a **price you will have to pay** to walk in the authentic power of God. If you see a man that works in supposed power and you don’t see a price in his life, it’s false power he’s working with. The man that God will work with must **pay the price** for spiritual experiences. Specific callings and specific anointing call for specific **prices that we must constantly be paying**. May the Lord find you dependable to carry His power these last days. > > https://spiritmeat.net/2024/06/22/22-june-2024-the-price-for-spiritual-power-and-spiritual-experiences-pay-it-mark-314/ > Every day we need to be watchful by **paying the price to buy the Spirit as the golden oil** so that we may supply the churches with the Spirit for the testimony of Jesus and be rewarded by the Lord to participate in the marriage dinner of the Lamb. > > Our urgent need today is to gain more of the Spirit; we need to live a life of **buying** an extra portion of the Spirit to saturate our entire being. > > Day by day we need to live such a life, a life of **paying the price** to gain the Spirit not only in our spirit but also in our soul, being saturated with the Spirit in our vessel. If we have a day when we don’t **pay the price** to gain the saturating Spirit, that is a wasted day; we do not want to have any wasted days! > > For us to gain more of the Spirit in our soul we need to **pay a price**; we need to **pay the price** of giving up the world, dealing with the self, loving the Lord above all things, and counting all things loss for Christ. > > Day by day we need to **pay the price** of losing our soul life and denying the things that we want to do so that we may pray more, even persevere in prayer and watch unto prayer, so that we may gain more of the Spirit. > > If we don’t **pay the price to buy the oil today**, we will have to pay it after we are resurrected; sooner or later, we will have to **pay the price** – so why not today, why not in this age? > > https://agodman.com/paying-price-buy-spirit-oil-vessel-word-prayer/ > The wise virgins told the foolish virgins to go buy their own oil. When the Bible speaks of the oil, it refers to the Holy Spirit. You may ask, “But, how is it possible to buy the Holy Spirit?” > > Jesus is referring to a person having to **pay the price**, which means denying their will, obeying the Word of God, being faithful, sacrificing and keeping constant watch. > > All those who truly want the presence of God should be aware that **there is a price to pay**. The wise virgins, certainly, **paid the price** (sacrificed) with the time they waited for the bridegroom. Surely, they prepared themselves by investing in their spiritual lives through prayer, fasts, consecration and surrender, not allowing the light of the Spirit to burn out. > > On the other hand, there are those who aren’t willing to **pay that price**. They live according to their fleshly desires, refuse to stop living in sin, are in the church but far from God, have the lamp, which is faith, but don’t have the oil, which is the Holy Spirit. > > https://www.universal.org/en/bispo-macedo/pay-the-price/ Is the idea of "paying the price" for greater spiritual power, anointing, or a deeper experience of God a common teaching across all Christian denominations, or is it emphasized primarily within certain groups? For example, is it widely taught that Christians must *pay a price* to receive more of the Spirit, more anointing, or greater spiritual authority? What is the biblical basis for this teaching?

---------- God sent Jonah to prophesy to the Babylonian city of Nineveh, which he did with the greatest of reluctance, thereby effecting the largest mass conversion of a city up to that time. It's possible that Nineveh was a "random" city, but that's probably not the case, given its size and strategic importance. Instead, what made Nineveh significant enough to be chosen in God's eyes? Was Nineveh the "second" city of Babylon, after the capital, in the manner of New York City versus Washington D.C.? Did Nineveh have a "Sodom and Gomorrah" reputation, making it the worst city of Babylon? Was Nineveh unusually open and "cosmopolitan," thereby making it the easiest city to convert? Or was there some other reason that I have overlooked?

For a while, I have had thoughts on areas of scripture that suggest different degrees of punishments and rewards for different kinds of people both for and against Christ. Starting with Christians, we see Jesus making a statement in Mathew 5:19 where he says: > 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note how Jesus doesn't say they won't be saved but rather, they will be of a lower status in heaven than those who actively put their faith to action. Paul repeatedly echoes this point in multiple places such as: (2 Corinthians 5:10 ) > 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may **receive what is due us for the things done** while in the body, whether good or bad. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 ) > 11 **For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ**. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 **their work will be shown for what it is**, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and **the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.** 14 **If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward**. 15 **If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved**—even though only as one escaping through the flames. Paul here also implies that all those who are in Christ will be saved because he is a strong foundation even if the work they build in that foundation is poor. However they will be at a loss when it comes to receiving whatever inheritance (possibly other than eternal life which will be given to all Christians) God has prepared for us. The same also goes for the other side where Jesus mentions the punishment given to the pharisees and those towns that reject his disciples being worse than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day.(Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12 ) or his parable in Luke 12:47-48 : > 47 “**The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows**. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Considering all these (and more), is it safe to assume (and why) that there will be varying levels of punishment and reward within both hell and heaven respectively? If not, kindly explain how and why these verses do not support that idea. Appreciated.

When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope and that papal succession continued down through history to the present day. However, neither the Orthodox nor the Protestant churches recognize this. So, what are the biblical arguments (Protestant or Orthodox) against the papacy and papal succession?

A friend told me that "bad people" are limited when it comes to spreading the Word of God. According to scripture, how, and in what way, does sin hinder one's ability to spread the Word of God?

It's a common trope among craedobaptists that the purpose of baptism is in order to make a public commitment to the Christian faith. For example, here's an excerpt from a *GotQuestions.org* article on baptism: > Christian baptism is the means by which a person makes a public profession of faith and discipleship. In the waters of baptism, a person says, wordlessly, “I confess faith in Christ; Jesus has cleansed my soul from sin, and I now have a new life of sanctification.” It's the only paragraph on the article without a Biblical citation (other than the summary paragraph at the end). I'm curious what the Biblical basis for the idea of "public profession" being associated with Baptism. *Please note I am specifically asking about the association of **public** profession with baptism, not about craedobaptism generally.* (As context, I recently returned to Lutheranism after several years as a Baptist. Even while I was a Baptist, I never felt like I understood the basis for connection of public profession of faith to baptism.)