Did Mary Sin | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Did Mary Sin

Many modern protestants come out of the great awakenings in the united states, who are reformers of the reformation movement in Europe that birthed Protestantism. Honestly I'd be happy if you just called yourself a Christian if were going to follow your logic sense we're going with sola scriptura, the only problem with that is that it makes conversation hard.

Well, yes, I prefer being called simply a Christian, anyway. It just seemed like you wanted some specifics.

I guess the better question is do you believe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit takes place at Baptism or at the recognition of Christ as Lord.

At the moment of regeneration, but nobody really knows precisely when it happens, not even the believer. He just knows he was once blind, but now he sees.

In Scriptural terms, God "shines" in "our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 4:6)

But, again, the precise moment is unknown.

Jesus said, in John 8:
"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”


The "Pray Jesus into your heart" is a popular public prayer of recognition of the divinity of Christ in some baptist churches that marks whether a person is saved or not(or in your terms knows Christ).

Sounds like "The Sinner's Prayer," a little bit. Which is popular, but not Biblical.

In any case, I'm not familiar with that concept.


The other opinion is that at Baptism(along with confession of faith) is what marks whether a person knows Christ.

Well, it's not necessarily a mark of whether a person knows Christ, but it's a public declaration of the person that he knows Christ.

Do you know what I mean?

What I mean is , a "profession" of faith doesn't necessarily mean "possession" of faith.

But yes, we believe in confessing our faith publicly in the church, in the ordinances of baptism and "the Lord's Table."

And the personal "testimony" is totally optional.

Also another note, how do you feel about infant baptism, I'm going to guess because your on board with full water immersion(and I agree to that) your not a fan.

I believe infant baptism is a blasphemous form of legalism.

It's called "sacramentalism." And it amazes me that some "Protestant" churches still practice it. It's nothing but product of Roman Catholic heresy.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so for participating in a thread called "Did Mary Sin" I received a thumbs down for calmly explaining my stance along with an all caps condemnation to Hell by someone who's been here for all of one month. Fuck this, I'm out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sprinkles
Counter point, Jesus had brother named James, who Paul refer's to as "The Lord's brother." It's also a fairly common assumption that Jesus commended Mary to the apostles not just John.


Edit: disregard what I said about Mary being given to the apostles, I misremembered, upon rereading Jesus gave Mary over to John in john 19:26 in and John took her home. Though arguably this is because John was the only one with the courage to show up to Jesus' crucifixion.

Whatever the reason John was chosen, the fact that someone was chosen to take Mary into his house concurs with her not having any other children. Moreover, James, the one called the brother of Our Lord is the one who remained in Jerusalem as that city's first bishop. If he had been the literal brother of Jesus, Mary would not have been entrusted to another disciple. Some speculate that St Joseph was a widower and had sons, who became step-brothers to Jesus.
 
@Lark

What about the grandmother of God?

It's the same problem one step removed. Pretty much a chicken and egg deal. "The chicken came first to lay the egg" well where did the chicken come from then?

This just seems to pawn off the issue to avoid looking at it any deeper. No matter how you cut it, somebody is breaking the chain somewhere so it stands to reason that Mary being sinless to be the Mother of God is actually no better an explanation than Jesus being directly the Son of God.

If Mary could be born sinless from sinners then intellectually one should recognize that Jesus could just as easily be the same, if not more likely, which really eliminates the need for that extra step which only appeals on a superficial level.

I'm not sure I see your dilemma.

Mary was sinless because she was the individual who bore Jesus in her womb, therefore she had to be sinless, you dont put new wine in old wine skins you understand?

Mary's parents did not have to be without sin in order for her to be without sin.

Also if you consider the working definition of sin which I am talking about, ie turning away from God, then Mary was definitely not sinful, when the annunciation took place she did not refuse to believe or to play her role and be of service to God, its difficult to see how someone could be sinful in the sense of disbelief and disobedience when they are absolutely certain of the existence of God and divine providence, I'm not saying they wouldnt suffer from the same or worse challenges that everyone does in life because the world is as it is but the inherited sin which is disbelief and doubt is out of the question when you've encoutnered it first hand.
 
Mary was sinful. The Bible is clearly in this matter.
The teaching that she was sinless is one of the many false doctrines that got into Catholic and Orthodox Church, whithout any Biblical support, just romance.
 
Mary was sinful. The Bible is clearly in this matter.
The teaching that she was sinless is one of the many false doctrines that got into Catholic and Orthodox Church, whithout any Biblical support, just romance.
Where does the bible say that?
 
Jesus was a man. All men are sinners. He may have claimed to be part of god, and he most definitely was, but we are all part of god because, well...WE ARE GOD. The sooner we stop looking to an old book on how to live our lives and instead start looking within ourselves for answers, the better off we will be.

Start thinking for yourselves people! The more I learn about different religions and the beliefs they hold, the more I realize that it's nothing but a big sham created to control the masses.

There is nothing new under the sun...

Genesis 3:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,

3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

This is a old lie, that we are all gods.
 
Jesus was a man. All men are sinners. He may have claimed to be part of god, and he most definitely was, but we are all part of god because, well...WE ARE GOD. The sooner we stop looking to an old book on how to live our lives and instead start looking within ourselves for answers, the better off we will be.

Start thinking for yourselves people! The more I learn about different religions and the beliefs they hold, the more I realize that it's nothing but a big sham created to control the masses.

Mary and Jesus were sinners because they were human, just like everyone else.

And for the record, the "immaculate conception" story is the most irrational thing I have ever heard. I can't believe people are brainwashed with this shit.

People already think for themselves.
 
@Lark

What about the grandmother of God?

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Anne

saint Anne (also known as Ann or Anna, from Hebrew Hannah חַנָּה, meaning "favor" or "grace") of David's house and line, was the mother of the Virgin Mary and grandmother of Jesus Christ, according to Christian and Islamic tradition. Mary's mother is not named in the canonical gospels, nor in the Qur'an. Anne's name and that of her husband Joachim come only from New Testament apocrypha, of which the Protoevangelium of James (written perhaps around 150) seems to be the earliest that mentions them.
 
Where does the bible say that?

Romans 3:23.

And of course, the immaculate conception does not even make sense logically. For also the mother of Mary would have to be sinless, and her grand-mather, and so on.
 
Romans 3:23.

And of course, the immaculate conception does not even make sense logically. For also the mother of Mary would have to be sinless, and her grand-mather, and so on.


For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god.

well that is actually not clear. It's not even an entire sentence for one thing.

Plus it says all. All what? All men? Jesus was a man. So again it is not clear.

Mary's grandmother would not have to be be sinless for mary to be this way. But if we followed your logic forward in time we would see that because Jesus is born of a woman He would be sinful .Since we know that is not true, we know for certain that things are not as clear as you'd like them to be.
 
There is nothing new under the sun...

Genesis 3:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,

3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

This is a old lie, that we are all gods.

Did you ever consider that all of these things you quote are old lies?
 
Did you ever consider that all of these things you quote are old lies?

What you said now is also a old lie. Like it is said, there is nothing new under the sun.
 
Mary's grandmother would not have to be be sinless for mary to be this way. But if we followed your logic forward in time we would see that because Jesus is born of a woman He would be sinful .Since we know that is not true, we know for certain that things are not as clear as you'd like them to be.
This is total non-sense.
 
[MENTION=731]the[/MENTION]

The problem is that the immaculate conception starts from the premise that if Jesus was sinless, then it must be that his mother would also be sinless, because Jesus could not be born sinless from a sinful female human. And if we follow this logic, also the mother of Mary would have to be sinless, and so on. So its not my logic, its Catholic logic, with complete ignorance of the Scriptures.
 
What you said now is also a old lie. Like it is said, there is nothing new under the sun.

Right. It's all lies if it doesn't jive with your beliefs. I get it.

You know, I was thinking about something you had wrote in response to a question I had in an old post. I asked if you would be accepting of homosexuality if the bible said it was okay, and you said you would if that was what it stated. And you have clearly stated how much you personally disapprove of homosexuality. Which makes me think: if you were brought up in a household that worshipped Satan, then you most likely would be worshipping Satan right now and preaching his word. No questions asked, his word is bond. It would be all you knew.

Which brings me to my point that people should start thinking for themselves... [MENTION=731]the[/MENTION]

Question things. That is why your God gave you a brain!
 
Last edited by a moderator: