Proof Page for New Doctrines

quote:

---

Originally posted by evangelist

quote:

---

Originally posted by heavenlysecrets

I think whoever loses should convert.

---

You can say that again!
But it is not about losing it is about winning over satan deceptions and twisted lies taken from the truth of the bible like satan did with Jesus to get Him to jump from the temple biblically!
If you don't have an open heart even a loser will not convert, and if you hold back of what the Hoy spirit is saying you will stay frozen in unbelief and continue to be decieved think you won but lost because you were on the losing team of satan along!

I deal with alot of JW and they claim to be christians and have the truth and have the bible but when you win over their brainwash society they run like a rabbit, and still say they are the only true religion and they< are thee truth!
jesus says he is the truth , sowho is right?

I'LL stay with Jesus who already won!

Amen!
one love

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith_at_Large

One of the problems with inter-denominational Bible studies is that sometimes the individual/denominational traditions traditions create a bias which affects the interpretation of scripture. This is normal and to be expected, but it can create a lot of communication problems.

Another issue is when "rules" are unequally applied to given favour to one group at the expense of the other.

A common set of rules that has been frequently imposed on Catholics on this forum is that for a doctrine to be formed it must meet certain criteria.

1. That any doctrine must be plainly stated in the Bible so that there is no confusion or ambiguity.

2. That any single verse used in support of a doctrine must be witnessed by no less than two other verses which agree with it are are similarly clear in spelling out the doctrine.

Occassionally, it is also put forth that if there is a verse that contradicts a doctrine, then the doctrine must be revisited and the supporting verse or verses reinterpreted.

I like the last one. I disagree with the first two on the basis that they do not even meet their own burden of proof; however, since I am discussing Scriptural matters with Sola Scriptura adherents, I am willing to entertain these rules so long as their own doctrines meet this exact same burden of proof.

So far, no one has been able to prove the "rules" from the scriptures and I know that this particular doctrine fails the test, but I am willing to see how the other doctrines fare under these rules.

Evangelist, it would be a lot easier for me to see things your way if you can successfully apply the rules you gave to me to your own doctrines. Since they are your rules and not mine, this should be easy for you.

quote:

---

Evangelist said: That is why they are called sinners and not born again believers with another nature in thier spirits which came brand new born from Almighty all Holy God which gave us a all holy born again pure , justified , eternal redeemed spirit!

---

Prove that statement from the Bible, starting with the born again believers. Three plain verses stating that our old spirits are killed and then replaced with brand new spirits that are pure, justified, eternal redeemed spirits as mentioned above and, most importantly - permanently sinless, free from the effects of the deeds of the body.

If you like, you can break this into two separate doctrines and prove them individually - whatever is easiest based on your proof texts.

I.e. Doctrine 1, that our old spirit is replaced with a different spirit, and,

Doctrine 2, that our new spirit is encased in an shield that keeps the sins of our body from affecting it.

I look forward to your response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by evangelist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith_at_Large

One of the problems with inter-denominational Bible studies is that sometimes the individual/denominational traditions traditions create a bias which affects the interpretation of scripture. This is normal and to be expected, but it can create a lot of communication problems.

Another issue is when "rules" are unequally applied to given favour to one group at the expense of the other.

A common set of rules that has been frequently imposed on Catholics on this forum is that for a doctrine to be formed it must meet certain criteria.

1. That any doctrine must be plainly stated in the Bible so that there is no confusion or ambiguity.

2. That any single verse used in support of a doctrine must be witnessed by no less than two other verses which agree with it are are similarly clear in spelling out the doctrine.

Occassionally, it is also put forth that if there is a verse that contradicts a doctrine, then the doctrine must be revisited and the supporting verse or verses reinterpreted.

I like the last one. I disagree with the first two on the basis that they do not even meet their own burden of proof; however, since I am discussing Scriptural matters with Sola Scriptura adherents, I am willing to entertain these rules so long as their own doctrines meet this exact same burden of proof.

So far, no one has been able to prove the "rules" from the scriptures and I know that this particular doctrine fails the test, but I am willing to see how the other doctrines fare under these rules.

Evangelist, it would be a lot easier for me to see things your way if you can successfully apply the rules you gave to me to your own doctrines. Since they are your rules and not mine, this should be easy for you.

quote:

---

Evangelist said: That is why they are called sinners and not born again believers with another nature in thier spirits which came brand new born from Almighty all Holy God which gave us a all holy born again pure , justified , eternal redeemed spirit!

---

Prove that statement from the Bible, starting with the born again believers. Three plain verses stating that our old spirits are killed and then replaced with brand new spirits that are pure, justified, eternal redeemed spirits as mentioned above and, most importantly - permanently sinless, free from the effects of the deeds of the body.

If you like, you can break this into two separate doctrines and prove them individually - whatever is easiest based on your proof texts.

I.e. Doctrine 1, that our old spirit is replaced with a different spirit, and,

Doctrine 2, that our new spirit is encased in an shield that keeps the sins of our body from affecting it.

I look forward to your response.

---

First off, thank you for responding and in keeping with the rules established.

Doctrine 1:

First of all the bible correct way to see this truth is that the replacenment is the spirit been (crucified) which is what Roman 6:6 has explained about what happen to our old spirit , because our body doesn't die when you come to Christ as a new born believer nither your soul, so your spirit died like Jesus died in a spiritual manner unless you think Jesus never died like Muslims still believes, then that would be a different lie!

That last part is irrelevant - of course Jesus died, and was resurrected, entirely. The first part presumes that Jesus did not completely resurrect, I am not comfortable with that idea.

Eph 4:2, 3 is another proof called as the old spirit , as (old man) alo see Col 3:9.10 2 tim2:11 and Gal 2:20 all fit together about the proof our old man or old spirit death like the death of Christ on the cross!

Problem #1, John 6:6 does not specific what our "Old Man" is, but "man" is not "spirit". Our old man is our old nature, not our old spirit. Problem #2 is that Jesus rose from the dead, so if this were our "spirit" it would have to rise with Christ as promised:

Romans 6:4 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

LIKE Christ was raised up, so were we raised up to new life, spirit and all. Just like Christ.

Ephesians 4:2-3 does not match this discussion, the unity of Spirit is the unity we are all to have as brethren in Christ. Did you perhaps mean another verse?

Colossians 3:9-10 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

The biggest problem with this verse is that it really does not support your position. If the "old man" with his deeds were your spirit and not your old nature, then those sins committed by your flesh and blood body would not have been washed away. Your spirit cannot commit adultery without your flesh, nor can it commit any other sins of the flesh without your flesh.

Heck, your argument all along has been that your spirit cannot commit sins of the flesh, so your interpretation of this verse would create a huge problem for you.

The new man is not a new spirit - again "man" does not equal "spirit", any where. But the knowledge that is given is written upon our heart - not spirit. This fits perfectly with "nature", but fails with "spirit".

2 Timothy 2:11 speaks of US being dead in Christ and also alive in Christ. So this again proves you wrong. If your spirit did not return to life with Christ, then this verse is wrong. You cannot have died with Christ if you remain dead. The "you" cannot change focus in the same written sentence - either the "you" is your "spirit" or you as a person. Either way, whatever died is now alive - NOT replaced.

Galations 2:20 So who was crucified with Christ? You said your old spirit was crufified with Christ and stayed dead - and yet here Paul is claiming that he, Paul, IS Crucified with Christ. Paul IS not was. "I AM crucified with Christ". So yet again your theory fails rather miserably.

Can you not see this? How can your spirit be dead and gone when it should have risen with Christ, just as HE rose from the dead.

Do you believe as some that Christ never actually rose from the Dead? Was HE replaced by a new Christ? Or perhaps you think Jesus' spirit was replaced with a new spirit?

The new man is also mention in those verses to prove the (new man) is the brand new different spirit we recieved from God which is also born of God.

No. New man is our new nature, not a new spirit. The deal was that it had to plainly state it, not use euphemisms - and frankly, if we substitute "spirit" every time we see "man" or "you", the passages just get silly very quickly.

2Co:5:17: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
I like this verse better because it more clear to see the new spirit as the (new creature) as the different perfect spirit from God!

New creature is not a new spirit. We are creatures. A creature can be pure spirit like an angel, or a living being like us. A living creature has a flesh and blood body and a spirit. The spirit in a human being is not a separate creature.

the best scripture to back up the excahnge new spirit is this:
1Jo:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

No. There is no mention of a new spirit here, or any mention of replacement of the old spirit, only that God's seed is in the born again Christian. This fits perfectly with the Parable of the Sower - God sows seeds of faith.

Now, if you want to use this for the second doctrine, you have a may be. It does not say that we are incapable of sin, or that sin cannot affect us, it only says that the born again Christian does not sin.

I can certainly see why you would interpret this to mean that sin isn't counted against us because so many do not seem to live up to the clear statement that born again Christians do not sin. But it does not say that the spirit won't sin, it says that the person who is born of God won't practice sin. There is an action involved in the Greek, "practices" (poieo: to make, do) with the "not" - we will not do or engage in sin.

You said it yourself, you don't believe that a spirit can physically commit sin, and you don't believe that your spirit is involved in what your body does, so it would be rather hypocritical of you to suddenly switch your position to have spirits capable of engaging in sin and then not being culpable (guilty) of that sin.


The new different spirit is called by John( born of God) which als lines up with John 3:3!
So let deal with those bible verses to our born again spirits!

You need to help me with this. Where does it say that being born of God means that your spirit alone is born of God?

The Bible says we are born again. But if your spirit is replaced with newly born spirit, then we are not born again. There is no rebirth in your theology, only birth of an entirely new creature. And if a new creature, then your existing body is wasted flesh that will also be replaced - so where does the original person go? Hell? Since the sins go with the spirit and not the nature in your theology, then the original person that was born to your mother is still damned, but a new creature with a brand new spirit is awaiting the resurrection to be freed from the hell-bound person.

That does not make sense.

For now, lets keep 1 John 3:9 in mind for future reference because I think that this is the lynch pin of what you are trying to get across.

The 2 doctrine:
We will deal with next will be based on these scriptures so you can get ahead start to research will be:
Eph 1:13 2 cor1;2;22 Rev 7:3


Look up the right seal and what it mean and how the Holy Spirit is doing the seal not a sign, but a protection!

one love

---

quote:

---

4972 sphragízo (from 4973 /sphragís, "a seal") – properly, to seal (affix) with a signet ring or other instrument to stamp (a roller or seal), i.e. to attest ownership, authorizing (validating) what is sealed.

4972 /sphragízo ("to seal") signifies ownership and the full security carried by the backing (full authority) of the owner. "Sealing" in the ancient world served as a "legal signature" which guaranteed the promise (contents) of what was sealed.

(Sealing was sometimes done in antiquity by the use of religious tattoos – again signifying "belonging to.")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by evangelist

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikejuli

This should be interesting.

---

I will be when I deal with the sunjects at large so take notes Mike!

one love

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by evangelist

In the mean time my catholic friends, G4 is there to bible drop kick you in your face until I come back to heal you and help set you free by your choice and with God grace with much love from my part!

one love

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikejuli

quote:

---

Originally posted by evangelist

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikejuli

This should be interesting.

---

I will be when I deal with the sunjects at large so take notes Mike!

one love

---

As long as you abide by your own criteria I will be interested. in all the years of posting you have failed to do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith_at_Large

quote:

---

Originally posted by evangelist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith_at_Large

One of the problems with inter-denominational Bible studies is that sometimes the individual/denominational traditions traditions create a bias which affects the interpretation of scripture. This is normal and to be expected, but it can create a lot of communication problems.

Another issue is when "rules" are unequally applied to given favour to one group at the expense of the other.

A common set of rules that has been frequently imposed on Catholics on this forum is that for a doctrine to be formed it must meet certain criteria.

1. That any doctrine must be plainly stated in the Bible so that there is no confusion or ambiguity.

2. That any single verse used in support of a doctrine must be witnessed by no less than two other verses which agree with it are are similarly clear in spelling out the doctrine.

Occassionally, it is also put forth that if there is a verse that contradicts a doctrine, then the doctrine must be revisited and the supporting verse or verses reinterpreted.

I like the last one. I disagree with the first two on the basis that they do not even meet their own burden of proof; however, since I am discussing Scriptural matters with Sola Scriptura adherents, I am willing to entertain these rules so long as their own doctrines meet this exact same burden of proof.

So far, no one has been able to prove the "rules" from the scriptures and I know that this particular doctrine fails the test, but I am willing to see how the other doctrines fare under these rules.

Evangelist, it would be a lot easier for me to see things your way if you can successfully apply the rules you gave to me to your own doctrines. Since they are your rules and not mine, this should be easy for you.

quote:

---

Evangelist said: That is why they are called sinners and not born again believers with another nature in thier spirits which came brand new born from Almighty all Holy God which gave us a all holy born again pure , justified , eternal redeemed spirit!

---

Prove that statement from the Bible, starting with the born again believers. Three plain verses stating that our old spirits are killed and then replaced with brand new spirits that are pure, justified, eternal redeemed spirits as mentioned above and, most importantly - permanently sinless, free from the effects of the deeds of the body.

If you like, you can break this into two separate doctrines and prove them individually - whatever is easiest based on your proof texts.

I.e. Doctrine 1, that our old spirit is replaced with a different spirit, and,

Doctrine 2, that our new spirit is encased in an shield that keeps the sins of our body from affecting it.

I look forward to your response.

---

First off, thank you for responding and in keeping with the rules established.

Doctrine 1:

First of all the bible correct way to see this truth is that the replacenment is the spirit been (crucified) which is what Roman 6:6 has explained about what happen to our old spirit , because our body doesn't die when you come to Christ as a new born believer nither your soul, so your spirit died like Jesus died in a spiritual manner unless you think Jesus never died like Muslims still believes, then that would be a different lie!

That last part is irrelevant - of course Jesus died, and was resurrected, entirely. The first part presumes that Jesus did not completely resurrect, I am not comfortable with that idea.

Eph 4:2, 3 is another proof called as the old spirit , as (old man) alo see Col 3:9.10 2 tim2:11 and Gal 2:20 all fit together about the proof our old man or old spirit death like the death of Christ on the cross!

Problem #1, John 6:6 does not specific what our "Old Man" is, but "man" is not "spirit". Our old man is our old nature, not our old spirit. Problem #2 is that Jesus rose from the dead, so if this were our "spirit" it would have to rise with Christ as promised:

Romans 6:4 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

LIKE Christ was raised up, so were we raised up to new life, spirit and all. Just like Christ.

Ephesians 4:2-3 does not match this discussion, the unity of Spirit is the unity we are all to have as brethren in Christ. Did you perhaps mean another verse?

Colossians 3:9-10 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

The biggest problem with this verse is that it really does not support your position. If the "old man" with his deeds were your spirit and not your old nature, then those sins committed by your flesh and blood body would not have been washed away. Your spirit cannot commit adultery without your flesh, nor can it commit any other sins of the flesh without your flesh.

Heck, your argument all along has been that your spirit cannot commit sins of the flesh, so your interpretation of this verse would create a huge problem for you.

The new man is not a new spirit - again "man" does not equal "spirit", any where. But the knowledge that is given is written upon our heart - not spirit. This fits perfectly with "nature", but fails with "spirit".

2 Timothy 2:11 speaks of US being dead in Christ and also alive in Christ. So this again proves you wrong. If your spirit did not return to life with Christ, then this verse is wrong. You cannot have died with Christ if you remain dead. The "you" cannot change focus in the same written sentence - either the "you" is your "spirit" or you as a person. Either way, whatever died is now alive - NOT replaced.

Galations 2:20 So who was crucified with Christ? You said your old spirit was crufified with Christ and stayed dead - and yet here Paul is claiming that he, Paul, IS Crucified with Christ. Paul IS not was. "I AM crucified with Christ". So yet again your theory fails rather miserably.

Can you not see this? How can your spirit be dead and gone when it should have risen with Christ, just as HE rose from the dead.

Do you believe as some that Christ never actually rose from the Dead? Was HE replaced by a new Christ? Or perhaps you think Jesus' spirit was replaced with a new spirit?

The new man is also mention in those verses to prove the (new man) is the brand new different spirit we recieved from God which is also born of God.

No. New man is our new nature, not a new spirit. The deal was that it had to plainly state it, not use euphemisms - and frankly, if we substitute "spirit" every time we see "man" or "you", the passages just get silly very quickly.

2Co:5:17: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
I like this verse better because it more clear to see the new spirit as the (new creature) as the different perfect spirit from God!

New creature is not a new spirit. We are creatures. A creature can be pure spirit like an angel, or a living being like us. A living creature has a flesh and blood body and a spirit. The spirit in a human being is not a separate creature.

the best scripture to back up the excahnge new spirit is this:
1Jo:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

No. There is no mention of a new spirit here, or any mention of replacement of the old spirit, only that God's seed is in the born again Christian. This fits perfectly with the Parable of the Sower - God sows seeds of faith.

Now, if you want to use this for the second doctrine, you have a may be. It does not say that we are incapable of sin, or that sin cannot affect us, it only says that the born again Christian does not sin.

I can certainly see why you would interpret this to mean that sin isn't counted against us because so many do not seem to live up to the clear statement that born again Christians do not sin. But it does not say that the spirit won't sin, it says that the person who is born of God won't practice sin. There is an action involved in the Greek, "practices" (poieo: to make, do) with the "not" - we will not do or engage in sin.

You said it yourself, you don't believe that a spirit can physically commit sin, and you don't believe that your spirit is involved in what your body does, so it would be rather hypocritical of you to suddenly switch your position to have spirits capable of engaging in sin and then not being culpable (guilty) of that sin.


The new different spirit is called by John( born of God) which als lines up with John 3:3!
So let deal with those bible verses to our born again spirits!

You need to help me with this. Where does it say that being born of God means that your spirit alone is born of God?

The Bible says we are born again. But if your spirit is replaced with newly born spirit, then we are not born again. There is no rebirth in your theology, only birth of an entirely new creature. And if a new creature, then your existing body is wasted flesh that will also be replaced - so where does the original person go? Hell? Since the sins go with the spirit and not the nature in your theology, then the original person that was born to your mother is still damned, but a new creature with a brand new spirit is awaiting the resurrection to be freed from the hell-bound person.

That does not make sense.

For now, lets keep 1 John 3:9 in mind for future reference because I think that this is the lynch pin of what you are trying to get across.

The 2 doctrine:
We will deal with next will be based on these scriptures so you can get ahead start to research will be:
Eph 1:13 2 cor1;2;22 Rev 7:3


Look up the right seal and what it mean and how the Holy Spirit is doing the seal not a sign, but a protection!

one love

---

Excellent start. And I agree that it is vitally important to get the right meaning of "seal" and not let any religious philosophy get in the way. Context is everything:

Ephesians 1:13-14 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

So in Ephesians 1:13, the seal being discussed is the mark of ownership. It is clearly identified as such. There can be no other interpretation possible for this passage in light of the full sentence.

I will skip to Revelation 7:3 just for brevities sake as you have included three whole chapters for 2 Corinthians - but that should provide some great context for the passages - I will do that last.


Revelation 7:3 3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Again, clearly the mark of ownership. Just like in Ephesians.

So I am guessing that you found something in 2 Corinthians to reflect the other meaning of seal. In the Bible, the other meaning is used for tombs to seal in the stench of rotting corpses. I am not sure why you are so quick to equate Christians with the "whited sepulchres" that Jesus called the scribes and pharisees - white-washed tombs with rotting corpses sealed inside.

The principle usage in the New Testament for the word seal (sphragizo) is exactly what I said it was:

sphragizo:

Short Definition: I set a seal upon
Definition: I seal, set a seal upon.

quote:

---

4972 sphragízo (from 4973 /sphragís, "a seal") – properly, to seal (affix) with a signet ring or other instrument to stamp (a roller or seal), i.e. to attest ownership, authorizing (validating) what is sealed.

4972 /sphragízo ("to seal") signifies ownership and the full security carried by the backing (full authority) of the owner. "Sealing" in the ancient world served as a "legal signature" which guaranteed the promise (contents) of what was sealed.

(Sealing was sometimes done in antiquity by the use of religious tattoos – again signifying "belonging to.")

---

Source

And yes, though less common, this same word is used to seal a tomb. In Matthew 27:66, this is to make the tomb secure. But this does not match with anything you have been speaking about. And again, I don't like being equated with a whited sepulchre.

Paul equates baptism with circumcision and the sign of circumcision is the seal of righteousness that belongs to God's covenant, so to turn around and say that God changed everything and did not seal Christians the way that He had sealed His first people does not make sense.

I am open to the Truth, but you need to provide verses that actually say what the doctrine is. Remember, you dismissed all our verses supporting Purgatory because they did not specifically say "purgatory" and did not spell out the doctrine perfectly. You need to provide verses that say it, not just imply it if you really want them too.

Now we can go through 2 Corinthians, but again, this will not meet the burden of proof as established in the OP.

Just to be clear - the point of this exercise it not just to prove the doctrines, but to prove them using the methods you impose on Catholics.

I do believe that many doctrines are provable through some of the methods you are seeking to employ here, but that is not the criteria.

You have persistently refused any Catholic Doctrines if they did not meet the established criteria. So you must use those same criteria to establish your doctrines, OR admit that the criteria you have been imposing on others are not valid and allow for a broader means of doctrinal development.

Please present a specific example, other than an actual tomb, where a verse or passage explicitly states that our spirits are shielded from the effects of sin.

1 John 3:9 is a good starting point, but does not say it. But it does provide support for another verse or passage if that states that we are protected. It would work not as a witness, but as a support.

---

quote:

---

The committee comprises 30 specialists, surgeons and professors or heads of department, from various countries, who meet once a year.

The current president is professor Jean-Louis Armand-Laroche.

It allows an assessment to continue over several years in order to observe the development of the patient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwellmysoul

http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Faith-Healers-Will-Steve-Walk

If you wish your faith healing to be seen as intellectually honest, then we would suggest that you supply documentation by medical boards, proving miracles, as Catholicism has done.

The Church even appoints doctors to the International Medical Committee who are known atheists.

List of Approved Lourdes Miracles

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

quote:

---

The committee comprises 30 specialists, surgeons and professors or heads of department, from various countries, who meet once a year.

The current president is professor Jean-Louis Armand-Laroche.

It allows an assessment to continue over several years in order to observe the development of the patient.

---

How Lourdes Cures Are Recognized as Miraculous

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf

These standards exist for miracles attributed to persons awaiting sainthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwellmysoul


What proof do you have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwellmysoul

"Our" purgatory?

Talking to the dead?

What, in your belief, happens to your "born again spirit" upon the death of your body?

Does your "born again spirit" go "nighty night" until the 2nd Coming of Christ?

---