In Matthew 27:52–53, it is stated that “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised… and appeared to many in Jerusalem,” which seems to suggest a physical (possibly glorified) resurrection. Additionally, Ephesians 4:8 says that when Christ “ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men,” which some interpret as Christ liberating the righteous dead and bringing them into a heavenly state. - Which Protestant denominations (if any) hold the view that Christ raised Old Testament saints in glorified bodies and took them to heaven at or after His resurrection/ascension? - How do these traditions interpret these passages in support of that view? - and do they also believe this lot received rewards in heaven after Christ ascended on high and are these people the first fruits of the resurrection as written in the New testament. - did these saints do it with a glorified body since they appear as did Jesus appear to the twelve and others? - Conversely, which Protestant traditions reject this interpretation, and what alternative explanations do they provide?

At the Wedding at Cana, we found that Jesus was only on the sideline, and not looking after the needs of the people, as Jesus revealed His thought, "My hour has not yet come." While in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the gospel described Her as looking after the needs of the people, and had seen that there was no more wine. Mary then, knowing that Jesus is fully man and fully God, instead of pleading to God the Father, She pleaded to Jesus, looking at Him as fully God, and can do miracle at that hour. Others might ask, did Mary really knew Jesus as fully God? Luke Gospel will say Yes!. Remember at the Annunciation, St. Gabriel revealed Jesus incarnation, and St. Elizabeth proclaimed that Jesus is Lord, the God of the chosen people at the Old Testament. Thereby, Mary knew that Jesus nature, was fully man and fully God and co do miracles even the impossible. >Three days later there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited. When they ran out of wine, since the wine provided for the wedding was all finished, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." Jesus said, "Woman, why turn to me? My hour has not come yet." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." There were six stone water jars standing there, meant for the ablutions that are customary among the Jews: each could hold twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water", and they filled them to the brim. "Draw some out now" he told them "and take it to the steward." They did this; the steward tasted the water, and it had turned into wine. Having no idea where it came from - only the servants who had drawn the water knew - the steward called the bridegroom and said, "People generally serve the best wine first, and keep the cheaper sort till the guests have had plenty to drink; but you have kept the best wine till now." *This was the first of the signs given by Jesus: it was given at Cana in Galilee. He let his glory be seen, and his disciples believed in him. (Jn 2, 1-11)* **The question is, who among the Protestant churches and Bible Alone group who acknowledged and saw the mediation or intercessory action of the Blessed Virgin Mary?** This question stems from the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers, who ignored the intercessory role of Mary in the salvation plan of God, and specifically to those, who claimed the bible passage insisting, there's only "One Mediator" between man and God, and that is Jesus only. The Wedding at Cana, debunked this interpretation, showing Mary pleading and mediating in behalf of the People of God, knowing fully, that Jesus is fully God.

Assuming the arrow of time as a premise that the past comes before the present, and the present comes before the future, temporarily. Could there have been a time where there was nothing before the origin of the something Christians call their God? Is there a universal explanation between the Christian faiths or is there a difference in protestant and catholic faiths in there explanation of the physical manifestation of the arrow of time and its consequence to God coming from ex Nihilo

The Lord's prayer in Matthew concerns forgiveness of 'debts', the word in the original being a matter of a failure in obligatory service (*opheilēmata*), Matthew 6:12. The similar passage in Mark regards 'trespasses'a matter of 'offence' in regard to lack of liveliness (*paraptoma*), Mark 11:25,26. However, I am hearing, many times, that ministers in Protestant churches are requesting forgiveness (for the whole congregation) of 'sins'. 'Sins' is the translation of *hamartia* and is a much more serious matter than a shortcoming in service or a lack of liveliness in conduct. Sin, says John, is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4. The original is a matter of negating a witness (*a-martus*), contradicting a testimony, deliberately going against a commandment. John states that those born of God do not practice 'sin', 1 John 3:9. In Roman Catholic congregations, one has a private conference with a priest and one's own, individual behaviour is confessed in detail, before a pronouncement is made, individually. But in Protestanism, currently, I am seeing a blanket 'forgiveness' being asked (and presumably being expected) for very serious behavioural failure - 'sins'. There is no explanation made as to what is being confessed (by the minister) and I could have committed adultery all week and sit there fully expecting to be forgiven for it, this Sunday and next Sunday, presumably. Is there any Protestant Denomination which makes a distinction between 'debts''trespasses' and the much more serious matter of 'sins' in connection to the Lord's prayer and congregational forgiveness ? ------------------------------------- As before, I am not asking for refutation or support of the practice, I am specifically interested in whether discrimination is being applied to these matters of conduct by particular Protestant Denominations.

### Introduction In the Hebrew Bible in Deuteronomy 30:15, God says that He is who sets the choice between good and evil before people: > See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. In the Lords Prayer in Matthew 6, God is asked to not lead people into temptation: > Our Father who art in heaven, > Hallowed be thy name. ... > **And lead us not into temptation**, > But deliver us from evil. There seems to be many possible answers from the Christian bible: Satan, mankind's own fallen nature, or even Jesus himself. ### Question In Protestant theology, who or what tempts people into sin?

In Christian theology, what is understood to happen immediately after a person dies? Some biblical passages seem to suggest that the dead go to a general realm of the dead (often referred to as Sheol or Hades), while others describe conscious states such as paradise or torment. Additionally, Scripture strongly prohibits consulting the dead, yet there are passages that appear to depict interaction with deceased individuals. How do mainstream Protestant doctrines reconcile the following questions: 1. Do people, upon death, go immediately to paradise or torment, or do they enter a general realm of the dead awaiting final judgment? I am looking for a doctrinally grounded answer using Scripture and recognized Christian theological frameworks.

> **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."** - Matthew5:8 **IMPORTANT NOTE:** We cannot add nor subtract any word from the bible. When Jesus said this beatitude, He said this promised to all the living not dead nor this promise can only be gain after death. Jesus did not said, *"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God,* ***after death***." Archangel Gabriel have faculties to see the state of soul of every human being. Archangel Gabriel saw the majestic soul of Mary, and proclaimed that it was *"full of grace"*. Mary was seen having the most pure heart. > [**Mary: Woman of Most Pure Heart**](https://carmelite.org/spirituality/mary-woman-most-pure-heart/) > > As well as regarding Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as patron of our Order, we Carmelites revere her under a number of special titles such as ‘Beauty of Carmel’, ‘Sister’, and ‘Woman of Most Pure Heart’. > > Purity of Heart (Puritas Cordis in Latin) is an important concept in Carmelite spirituality, and Mary is seen as its greatest exemplar and embodiment. For this reason medieval Carmelites were among the most fervent promoters of the doctrine of Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’, which was not formally proclaimed a dogma of the Catholic Church until 1854. > > Carmelites have always sought to imitate Mary in her purity of heart. The medieval Carmelite writer Felip Ribot said that the goal of the Carmelite life is to offer to God a holy heart purified from all stain of sin. The purpose of this is to achieve, by God’s grace, union with God. Mary, the Most Pure Virgin, is seen as the perfect model of one who was totally available for union with God. > > To explain the significance of purity from a Carmelite perspective, the Irish theologian Chris O’Donnell, O.Carm., uses the image of a milk jug. The purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk. In order to do so properly, it must be clean; if the milk jug is dirty, then the milk will become infected. However, there is no point in the milk jug being clean simply for the sake of it; if the purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk, then it can be as clean as you like but if it’s empty then it isn’t useful. This is an analogy of the human heart. Its purpose is to pour out love for others. If our hearts are impure, then what we ‘pour our’ to others will be infected. But there is no point is having a pure heart simply to leave it empty; the point of purity is not an end in itself but a means to be useful for others. > > This is what Carmelites mean by purity: having a heart undivided for God, free from our own motives and desires so that God’s will be done in us. Today’s society often associates ‘purity’ with puerile notions of sex. Carmel teaches us that purity is more a matter of the heart than the rest of the body. > > *Maria Purissima*, Mary Most Pure, is the great example of purity, in that her heart is totally given over to God and pours out love towards those around her. **Looking for Protestant Founders like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. also theologians and biblical scholars outside of Catholic Church, before Reformation and early reformation era, who look upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as having a pure heart**." A citation from Protestant Founders and Theologians in harmony with Early Church and Church Fathers would be a perfect answer.

**Which Churches or denominations agree that from birth to thirty years old Jesus was "Super Jesus"?** There are no passages in the Bible of a ***"Super Jesus***", who have supernatural powers from birth, and who also displayed divine powers before he was 30 years old. St. Paul's teaching described Jesus this way: >**The Attitude of Christ** 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross. - Ephesians 2:5-7 St. Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and powers and took the form of a servant. What is a servant or servanthood according to the bible? >**Biblical Concepts of Servanthood** >**Sacrifice:** The true currency of God's kingdom is sacrificial service to others, rather than pursuing greatness. In fact in one incident in the Bible it would normally appear that Jesus who went to the Temple all by Himself and did not even took the time to inform His beloved Mother and Father, is in all honesty, not a good attitude. In my own experienced conversing and exchanging Biblical ideas and studies about Jesus, most Protestant and denominations esp. the Bible Alone Believers thinks that Jesus is a "Super Jesus" even before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. **I am looking for Prote >**The Boy Jesus at the Temple** > > …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.-Luke2:51-52

I'm reading *St. Seraphim of Sarov: On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit (Conversation with Motovilov)* ([pdf](https://eeparchy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/05/ST.-SERAPHIM-OF-SAROV-ON-THE-ACQUISITION-OF-THE-HOLY-SPIRIT-Conversation-with-Motovilov-.pdf)) . For context: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_of_Sarov - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Motovilov On pp. 5–6, Seraphim says (emphasis mine): > "Your Godliness deigns to think it a great happiness to talk to poor > Seraphim, believing that even he is not bereft of the grace of the > Lord. What then shall we say of the Lord Himself, the never-failing > source of every blessing both heavenly and earthly? Truly in prayer we > are granted to converse with Him, our all-gracious and life-giving God > and Savior Himself. **But even here we must pray only until God the > Holy Spirit descends on us in measures of His heavenly grace known to > Him**. **And when He deigns to visit us, we must stop praying**. Why > should we then pray to Him, 'Come and abide in us and cleanse us from > all impurity and save our souls, O Good One,' when He has already come > to us to save us, who trust in Him, and truly call on His holy Name, > that humbly and lovingly we may receive Him, the Comforter, in the > mansions of our souls, hungering and thirsting for His coming? > > "I will explain this point to your Godliness through an example. > **Imagine that you have invited me to pay you a visit, and at your invitation I come to have a talk with you**. But you continue to > invite me, saying: 'Come in, please. Do come in!' Then I should be > obliged to think: 'What is the matter with him? Is he out of his > mind?' > > "So it is with regard to our Lord God the Holy Spirit. That is why it > is said: Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the > nations. I will be exalted in the earth (Ps. 45:10). **That is, I > will appear and will continue to appear to everyone who believes in Me > and calls upon Me, and I will converse with him as once I conversed > with Adam in Paradise, with Abraham and Jacob and other servants of > Mine, with Moses and Job, and those like them.** > > Many explain that this stillness refers only to worldly matters; in > other words, that during prayerful converse with God you must 'be > still' with regard to worldly affairs. But I will tell you in the name > of God that not only is it necessary to be dead to them at prayer, but > **when by the omnipotent power of faith and prayer our Lord God the Holy** > **Spirit condescends to visit us, and comes to us in the plenitude of** > **His unutterable goodness**, we must be dead to prayer too. > > "The soul speaks and converses during prayer, **but at the descent of > the Holy Spirit** we must remain in complete silence, in order to hear > clearly and intelligibly all the words of eternal life which he will > then deign to communicate. Complete soberness of soul and spirit, and > chaste purity of body is required at the same time. The same demands > were made at Mount Horeb, when the Israelites were told not even to > touch their wives for three days before the appearance of God on Mount > Sinai. For our God is a fire which consumes everything unclean, and no > one who is defiled in body or spirit can enter into communion with > Him." As I understand it, Seraphim describes prayer as "inviting" the Holy Spirit, and teaches that when the Spirit "visits" in a special way, one should cease speaking (even cease verbal prayer) and attend in silence to what God communicates. This sounds mystical/contemplative, and also resembles some Pentecostal/charismatic language about experiencing the Spirit's presence. How do Protestants generally evaluate this kind of pursuit? Specifically: - Do Protestants believe Christians should *seek* special "visitations" or intensified experiences of the Holy Spirit during prayer, beyond the Spirit's ordinary indwelling? - Would Protestants agree with the idea that, when such a visitation occurs, one should stop speaking and listen in silence for communication from the Spirit? - Are there particular Protestant traditions (e.g., Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal/charismatic) that would affirm or reject this, and on what biblical/theological grounds?

Matthew 1:23 uses the word [G3933 - parthenos](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3933/kjv/tr/0-1/) . Thayer's Greek Lexicon says it can mean: - a virgin. - a marriageable maiden, or a young (married) woman. He is quoting Isaiah 7:14, which uses the word [H5959 - ʿalmâ](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5959/kjv/wlc/0-1/) . This Hebrew word is defined as: - young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married). Almost all English translations render it as "virgin". Whether it's "virgin", "maid", "marriageable maiden", "newly married", or whatever, it really doesn't make much difference, as Matthew clearly provides the detail that *is* significant: - 1:18 "*with child of the Holy Ghost*". - 1:20 "*that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost*". It's obvious why the Catholic Church (Roman or Orthodox) would want "virgin" to be the translation, but why do any other Christian denominations care about it? --- # Note that this is not asking about the Roman/Orthodox position, nor is it asking for what the "correct" translation is. (Yes, I know it's bad form to shout like that, but too many people don't seem to notice it otherwise.) It is asking why *non-Catholic* denominations also seem to believe the "virgin" translation is important and significant. It is similar to, but not a duplicate of [*Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2414/why-was-it-necessary-for-mary-to-be-a-virgin) , as that was too broadly scoped, and was doctrinal rather than about translation.

The Catholic Church has four Marian Dogmas and claims that the Church was guided and its teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit. CCC95 says, > It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. *Pastor aeternus* teaches that the Pope is guided by the charism of the Holy Spirit and upheld infallibility in proclaiming Church Dogma. > We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. — [Pastor aeternus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor_aeternus) How come the Protestant and Christian denominations or Bible alone believers who oppose these Dogmas claim that they are also guided by the same Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit that guided the Catholic Church in proclaiming the Marian Dogmass the same Holy Spirit that were inspiring Protestant and Christian denominations to oppose it? How can the Protestant defend themselves on this obvious contradiction, knowing fully that there are no Protestant pastors and believers who can claim infallibility in their scripture interpretations?

In 1598 the Edict of Nantes was passed allowing Protestants to worship in Catholic France. But this Edict was revoked in 1685, and under the reign of King Louis XIV, there was extreme persecution of the Huguenots in southern France. Among the Huguenots were the charismatic Camisards known for their visions, prophecies, and speaking in tongues. There was a time of great fighting, with many Protestants fleeing the country of France...until emigration was outlawed, too. And much of the Camisard settlements were destroyed. Many were massacred by the French dragoons. Some were able to flee to England. Are there any existing charismatic Camisards that still meet in Protestant (Reformed) churches today, and practice the charismatic gifts? In France? In other nations? Or have they disappeared from the Church landscape?

**Do any denominations that believe Jesus rebuked his mother believe Jesus committed a sin by violating the commandment of God to honour one's parents?** Looking at the posted answer here, it claimed that Jesus rebuked His beloved Mother, and worst, Jesus did it infront of a crowd. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112936/mary-is-a-sinner-looking-for-significant-passages-with-exegesis-to-support-the/112953#112953 The answer claimed, the following biblical passages: >1. Matth. 12:43-50 and Mark 3:31-35, St. John Chrysostom: Mary's sin of vainglory These passages are, in my opinion, the clearest if one wants to find a Biblical passage with a specific instance of Mary's imperfection. Quoting from Mark: >Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone to call him. A crowald always sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." >"Who are my mother and brothers?" he asked. >Then he looked at those seating in a circle around him, and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!" Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother. **It might not be clear precisely what Mary has done wrong here, but Jesus' response certainly has the character of a rebuke**. Apparently, she was trying to leverage her familial relationship with Jesus for some kind of gain. >2. John 2:1-4 and John Calvin: Mary's sin of unreasonable haste >John Calvin (contrary to your supposition in the OP) drew a similar conclusion from John 2:3-4: >When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” >“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” >Calvin's commentary on John 2:4, while careful to emphasize that Mary's sin here is of a minor nature, says "she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds." From the above citations and interpretation, Jesus would appear to have committed the sin against the commandment of God. >**The Commandment**: > >**"Honor your father and your mother,**" is a foundational principle in Abrahamic religions, commanding respect, gratitude, and care for parents, extending beyond childhood obedience to include supporting them in old age and recognizing legitimate authority figures like teachers, leaders, and country, forming a basis for social order and lasting blessings like long life and prosperity. It signifies honoring God's gift of life and involves actions like obedience (when not sinful), providing for needs, praying for them, and avoiding disrespect, even when parents are difficult. And Paul repeated the call to honor thy Mother and Father >**Children and Parents** 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. **2“Honor your father and mother” (which is the first commandment with a promise),** 3“that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on the earth.”… - Ephesians6:2 **Is Jesus guilty of committing a sin by rebuking His beloved in two occasions, one was infront of the crowd, and the other was in Wedding at Cana?** Looking for answer from Protestant and any denominations or non-denominations who interpreted the passages cited, as a rebuke and dishonor to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

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.

I know a lot of people who claim to be Christian but practice Yoga. I always thought (and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) seems to back me up on this) that Yoga was about meditation in Hinduism or Buddhism. Is practicing Yoga a sin since you're actually following another religion? Or is it possible to practice Yoga in a Christian manner? Also, if you are able to practice Yoga in a Christian manner, is there a conflict with that and the problem with [the weaker brother](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:9-12&version=NIV) ? Specifically, I'm seeking a [mainstream Protestant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant) viewpoint on this. I suspect that they will all be the same, but if they differ, let me know so that I can refine the scope.

**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.

**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.

### Background Protestants across the ages have criticized and prohibited icons and worship of icons of Jesus: John Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*: > God’s glory is corrupted by an impious falsehood whenever any form is attached to Him R. Scott Clark: > To picture His manhood, when we cannot picture His Godhead, is a sin, because we make Him to be but half Christ; we separate what God has joined ### Incarnation Protestants also believe in the incarnation: that God took on a physical form of a man named Jesus, and that Jesus retains a physical form of a human man today and into eternity, see the *Westminster Shorter Catechism* as an example of this belief: > Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin ### Premises The premise of the question is as follows: Protestants believe **p1**. God (the son) took on physical form **p2**. Humans saw this physical form in the 1st Century CE **p3**. Some of those people worshiped Jesus while he was in the physical form Then reasonable logical inferences: **i1**. Those followers of Jesus continued to remember what Jesus physically looked like **i2**. When praying to Jesus, those people had a mental image of Jesus's face and prayed to that in their minds ### Question - Are any of the premises or inferences wrong according to Protestants? - Were the first followers of Jesus/Christians prohibited from making illustrations of Jesus? - Were the first Christians sinning when imagining Jesus's physical form when praying? - Why would putting an image of the incarnate Jesus to paper be a sin if people saw him and knew what he looked like? - Why would praying to an image of Jesus be wrong if praying to his physical form was not wrong?

According to Protestantism, can Satan and his demons perform true and genuine miracles? God can perform great wonders and miracles, but can the Devil and his minions perform such wonders and miracles as Almighty God is able to perform. Are satanic miracles permanent and long lasting according to Protestant scholars?

### 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?