User talk:NishantXavier/Archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The 12 Apostles, the 72 disciples, 120 brethren in the upper room, 500 eyewitnesses of the Resurrection

Thanks David and everyone. Is anyone interested in collaboration to do more useful research, especially uncovering such evidence as may be helpful in apologetic and evangelistic endeavors. We could collectively work on expanding articles on (1) the 12 Apostles, (2) the 72 disciples, (3) the 120 brethren in the upper room who were filled with the Holy Spirit, (4) the 500 eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, (5) Modern great Evangelists for Christ.

The Great Commission, the Great Evangelists of the last (or any) centuries, the Great Prospects for Christianity

If anyone is ever interested on doing detailed studies in any of these areas, with a view to winning more souls for the Kingdom in future, please contact me. You can contact me using my user details on Conservapedia. Christianity has lost some ground because Christians are not as focused and as united as we could and should be. This is the greatest of all callings, the greatest of all commissions, the one task the Lord gave us. I want to train or work with 1000s of others single-mindedly focused on edification and evangelism.

Other topics: Christian History, List of Popes, Accomplishments of the Catholic Church, Hospitals, Charities etc

Two great books to read for anyone interested in pursuing these subjects on a scholarly or semi-scholarly level are:

(1) How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280 by Prof. Thomas Woods and (2) How Christianity Changed the World https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280 by Alvin Schmidt.

If the material from these books could be well ingested and surmised or reproduced online by one who has internalized it well, that is great.

My favorite pages on Conservapedia (there are a lot!). All subjects of continued research such as dates of Gospel etc

https://www.conservapedia.com/Gospel_of_Matthew https://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Commission https://www.conservapedia.com/Gospel_of_Mark https://www.conservapedia.com/Gospel_of_Luke https://www.conservapedia.com/Gospel_of_John https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ https://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity https://www.conservapedia.com/Jesus_Christ https://www.conservapedia.com/Saint_Peter https://www.conservapedia.com/Saint_Paul https://www.conservapedia.com/Pope_Linus https://www.conservapedia.com/Pope_Clement

Fighting and Winning against Communist Terrorism of the Chinese Communist Party is the defining challenge of our time

"The Chinese Cold War officially started on May 29, 2019 when Chinese Communist state media called for a people's war against the United States.

In January 2020, the Chinese Communist Party government plainly demonstrated criminal intent by attempting to buy up the world's medical supplies, limiting all exports of their own, while refusing to communicate to the rest of the world the truth about the outbreak in Wuhan. A DHS report relates, "We further assess the Chinese Government attempted to hide its actions by denying there were export restrictions and obfuscating and delaying provision of its trade data" [1]. "In January, according to the report, China increased its imports of surgical facemasks by 278 percent, surgical gowns by 72 percent, and surgical gloves by 32 percent. Meanwhile, it slashed its global exports of a host of medical products: surgical gloves by 48 percent, surgical gowns by 71 percent, face masks by 48 percent, medical ventilators by 45 percent, intubator kits by 56 percent, thermometers by 53 percent, and cotton balls and swabs by 58 percent." China has long since thus squandered the right to be treated as a good-faith actor by openly warring in such a way with the free world. https://www.conservapedia.com/Chinese_Cold_War

Article on Saint Francis Xavier, one of the Greatest Missionaries of all time, who baptized nearly three million people

"On 7 April, 1541, he embarked in a sailing vessel for India, and after a tedious and dangerous voyage landed at Goa, 6 May, 1542. The first five months he spent in preaching and ministering to the sick in the hospitals. He would go through the streets ringing a little bell and inviting the children to hear the word of God. When he had gathered a number, he would take them to a certain church and would there explain the catechism to them. About October, 1542, he started for the pearl fisheries of the extreme southern coast of the peninsula, desirous of restoring Christanity which, although introduced years before, had almost disappeared on account of the lack of priests. He devoted almost three years to the work of preaching to the people of Western India, converting many, and reaching in his journeys even the Island of Ceylon. Many were the difficulties and hardships which Xavier had to encounter at this time, sometimes on account of the cruel persecutions which some of the petty kings of the country carried on against the neophytes, and again because the Portuguese soldiers, far from seconding the work of the saint, retarded it by their bad example and vicious habits." From: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06233b.htm

Temporary list of some great Christian Missionaries of all ages after the Apostles. To be continually expanded periodically

https://www.conservapedia.com/Saint_Patrick https://www.conservapedia.com/Francis_Xavier https://www.conservapedia.com/Saint_Boniface https://www.conservapedia.com/Billy_Graham https://www.conservapedia.com/Reinhard_Bonnke https://www.conservapedia.com/Daniel_Kolenda

The List of Popes is the succession list of the Popes or Bishops from Rome from Saint Peter to Pope Francis

Non-Catholic Ecclesiastical Historian Philip Schaff wrote:[1]

"St. Peter (d. 64 or 67) St. Linus (67-76) St. Anacletus (76-88) St. Clement I (88-97) St. Evaristus (97-105) St. Alexander I (105-115) St. Sixtus I (115-125) St. Telesphorus (125-136) St. Hyginus (136-140) St. Pius I (140-155) St. Anicetus (155-166) St. Soter (166-175) St. Eleutherius (175-189) St. Victor I (189-199) https://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_Popes

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...."[2].

Our Lady of Fatima and Her Great Miracle of the sun should be a good reason for all non-Christians to convert

Our Lady of Fatima appeared to 3 shepherd children on May 13, 1917. She promised them a public miracle from God on Oct 13, 1917, so that the world may believe in Her Son, that He was the Son of God. All of Fatima in Portugal was astir at the prophesy, and many skeptics came as well on the foretold date, confidently expecting the prediction would be falsified, and nothing would come of it. But instead God worked a wondrous Miracle, showing supernaturally to those present the Sun moving miraculously, and (though it had been raining and many were drenched) the wet becoming dry instantly. This was a demonstration of the Power of God in the manner of Ancient Prophets, of Christ Himself, and of the Apostles. The Mother of God showed that God still worked such miracles for those who believe, and that all may believe. All Christians should investigate Our Lady of Fatima, and much can be written about this. The important takeaway is this: God in the fullness became flesh and was born of a Virgin according to the prophesy of the Scriptures. God and His Mother, Jesus and Mary, are still the most important witnesses of the Truth of the afterlife and how we should live this life. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 18:01, 12 May 2020 (EDT)

Parting gift of thanks

Dataclarifier and I returned just this once to thank you for your very precious and consoling defense of the Holy Gospel handed on from the Apostles. Be assured of prayers for your strength, continued dedication, protection from the enemy, for your consolation, for fullness of wisdom and divine joy to penetrate you, and for you to have from God Almighty the supreme gifts of Perfect Faith, Perfect Hope, Perfect Charity, and Perfect Perseverance in Jesus through the intercession of Mary at the hour of your death as birth into the Beatific Vision. We leave here a gift for you to cherish. [1] [2]
Pax vobis, Semper fidelis --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2020 (EDT) and Dataclarifier.

Dear Independent Skeptic, thank you for the message. Please be assured of my prayers for you and Data Clarifier as well. May all the Angels and Saints in Heaven, and the Holy Souls in Purgatory, pray for you. May Jesus, Mary and Joseph abundantly bless you with every blessing, in this life and the next. I do hope Data Clarifier doesn't leave, and that he comes back. I think the vitriol being directed towards him by some is totally uncalled for. I hope we can have a civil discussion here on Conservapedia and among editors a collegial and fraternal spirit going forward. God Bless You NishantXavierFor Christ the King 17:29, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Thank you, from both of us. Dataclarifier didn't want to "leave you hanging" without an "appreciative acknowledgement". He has permitted me to sign on and say that he was very touched and consoled by your comment above. So was I. He says to tell you, "10-4, Buddy! The Lord hands on the baton to you. Semper fi."
He said your response above was "a real balm to the spirit", and says he is deeply grateful, and welcomes your prayerful intercession. I and his doctor have both urgently recommended for health reasons no further involvement in Conservapedia. He agreed, and wishes you well. So do I. Keep the faith! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Personal note. You know, don't you, that it was no accident that you showed up when you did. Jesus is Lord. We won't be back. Peace be with you. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
  • the vitriol being directed towards him
This is one one of the first scriptural truths any student of the bible should learn, As you sow, so shall ye reap. RobSLive Free or Die 08:16, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Wow, I'm humbled by your confidence in me, and grateful for your prayers. Shouldering the burdens you bore so courageously and for so long here will be difficult, but I will try to manage that responsibility, dear brothers in Christ and His Church. I understand duty and life calls elsewhere, but I still do hope that, Lord willing, you will check in every now and then with posts. But I will do my best to continue to represent the Cause of Christ the King, and the Truth, here. I wish we could all get along in a holy way one day. May Our Lord and Our Lady richly bless you. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:24, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Follow me on Twitter

Anyone who wants can follow me on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/Xavier_DMercy we can keep in touch. You can also send me your Twitter profile here. Alternatively, you can email me at nishantxavier2019@gmail.com or let me know your email in this space. God bless, All. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:06, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Request for 2 or 1 articles on Jesus/Church is the sacrament of salvation

Dear NishantXavier: an unexpected posting per your invitation. I was not raised Catholic. The Dataclarifier statements on your Debate page: Does Baptism regenerate or is it symbolic? that "Jesus is the sacrament of salvation" and "The Church is the sacrament of salvation" made me ask exactly what that means. RobSmith says there is no sacrament of salvation in the Catholic Church and that there are more than 7 sacraments, all manmade. When I asked, I got a smile in answer and the recommendation to simply "Look it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." I have a copy, but decided it would be faster to online search "Jesus: the sacrament of salvation"]. 3 links especially looked good.

Do you think you could condense or summarize in your own words this Catholic concept into one (or two) articles for Conservapedia? Jesus is the sacrament of salvation. The Church is the sacrament of salvation. I really think you have the gift to be able to do it simply and succinctly. But question is, do you have the time? Please think about it. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

Question: Does salvation come from God or Man? RobSLive Free or Die 11:54, 15 June 2020 (EDT)
Second question: Who provides salvation, Jesus or his bride, the church?
Seriously, stop and think for a minute what you posting here - that salvation comes from man, and not God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:44, 30 June 2020 (EDT)

For all future discussions regarding Bible interpretations, etc. isn't it better to just refer to the Conservative Bible Project? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:00, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

Probably not. There's no evidence it was divinely inspired and probably did as much to kill CP's Alexa rankings as Ratwiki did. RobSLive Free or Die 12:12, 15 June 2020 (EDT)
What do Alexa ratings have to do with Bible versions? The CBP, as described on the main content page, is technically supposed to be the best Bible version given its conciceness. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:26, 15 June 2020 (EDT)
Read the reviews. No one believes those claims. They are all highly critical, and many consider it blasphemous. RobSLive Free or Die 14:27, 15 June 2020 (EDT)
We're back to the question of pride -- the original sin; man thinking he can revise or replace the Word of God. Compare Matthew 4:6
  • it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone
with Psalm 91:
  • he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
A few words changed the entire meaning, and alerts believers to Satan's misuse of scripture. It is the Word of God that keeps us in all thy ways. RobSLive Free or Die 14:39, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

Locus of dispute

Here I identified the locus of the dispute:

:::::Simple question: Does the Roman Catholic Church regard the Apostle Paul as an authoritative source of the Word of God? Yes or No? (no speeches or spamming). If yes, stop posting attacks on the Word of God. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:24, 17 February 2020 (EST)
IMO, the unanswered question above from 10 weeks ago reveals the locus of the dispute: While Dataclarifier's knowledge of Roman Church history is impressive, his own understanding of Roman Catholic doctrine sometimes conflicts with what Roman Catholic doctrine actually is. Here he cannot answer if the Epistles of Paul are the divinely inspired word of God. RobSLive Free or Die 20:57, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

IMO opinion, these troll editors must address these core issues in open discussion pages and/or mainspace articles before they are allowed to spam CP with more non-biblical, extra-biblical, and anti-biblical nonsense. RobSLive Free or Die 12:39, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

Dear Independent Skeptic, sure that sounds like a great idea for an article. I'll see when I can get down to it. A Sacrament, in our understanding, is a Visible Sign through which God communicates His Grace to us. Thus, for example, Baptism and Holy Communion, all instituted by God, are Sacraments. In this way, by analogy, some call the Church, the Bride of Christ, as "the Sacrament of Salvation" because She is a visible sign offering to all the world the possibility of finding salvation in Jesus Christ Our Lord, through the means He has instituted. So I hope that briefly explains it.
Regarding the other issues, yes of course the Catholic Church considers the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle to be the inspired Word of God. Regarding the Conservapedia Bible Translation project, I think it is a good idea and parts of it have come out well. I like the Douay Rheims among Catholic translations and the King James among Protestant ones. Today, we can have a Bible version in modern English, but we should be very careful in translating it. For e.g. the Logos/Verbum/Word in Jn 1:1 has Old Testament references where the Word of God appeared to the Patriarchs as a Person. Our Lord Jesus is the Living Word of God. So translating Logos as something like "Perfection" for e.g. is probably not ideal, and the traditional translation imo should be maintained. For other texts, it's worth examining the Greek/Hebrew texts to see if better translations are possible. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:06, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
That's good to hear. Now tell Dataclarifier if he is asked "Does the Roman Catholic church regard the Epistles of Paul as divinely inspired?", to answer the question without adding 5,000 bytes of irrelevant nonsense and two dozen external links to scriptural and non-scriptural sources that have nothing to do with the question or subject under discussion. He can spare himself and everybody else a lot of time and trouble. RobSLive Free or Die 00:42, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

I can't tell Data Clarifier anything, nor commend him anymore for all the good work he has done, since you and some others have unjustly and unnecessarily chased him off this site with your harshness and your rudeness. Why don't we all behave nicely toward each other for a change? NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:47, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Not me. I have been more than accommodating, and have suffered numerous personal slights and insults since my first engagement with him. I've tried to educate him on proper editing practices, and he spits in my eye with more insults. I documented only a portion of his bad faith editing and vandalism of talk pages here [3] Being the Christian that I am, I'm swift to hear, slow to speak, slow unto anger. But I ain't no door mat either who has to sit still for his lies and smears about me. He's welcomed back anytime. My objective has always been twofold: help him become a better editor, and share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him. RobSLive Free or Die 01:23, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Scroll down to the bottom of this singular edit. This sort of editing is worthy of a ratvandal. Never mind the reason why he did it. RobSLive Free or Die 01:32, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

I have a request. Let's let bygones be bygones and move forward toward co-operative editing in the future. In Our Lord's Prayer, we say, "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us". Do we mean it? If yes, let us let go of perceived offenses against us, and wish each other well. That's all from me about this. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:45, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. He's an experienced Wikipedia editor, as I understand; he should know by now that spamming and trolling isn't the way to respond when you're on the losing end of an argument. RobSLive Free or Die 01:49, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
  • Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
God does not say, "wait 400 years and then your sins shall be as white as snow".
So the question is, How do we lay hold of so great a salvation? RobSLive Free or Die 02:03, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and your Lord and Savior and be baptized. And if you have, then confess your sins and receive His Body and His Blood in Holy Communion. I don't know why you need to keep going back to the Old Covenant. Christians are not under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant signs prefigured that Christ will come in the future. The New Testament Sacraments manifest that Christ has already come and that the Blood and Water from His side wash us in Baptism, His Body and His Blood feed us in Holy Communion, and that those who receive the Sacraments have Eternal Life. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:10, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Not to be argumentative, but that is not what this scripture says. Salvation has always been available. Jesus came in fulfillment of the scriptures. From everlasting to everlasting. RobSLive Free or Die 03:30, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Scripture says, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16). Under the Old Covenant, circumcision was obligatory. Now, it no longer is, but Baptism is obligatory. Baptism is the "circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11-12), the circumcision not made with hands, by which sins are put away and we are raised up. If Calvinist Protestants are right about "OSAS", then all Catholics are saved, because Baptism saves, and all Catholics are saved, because whoever believes and is baptized are saved, and we believe and are baptized. Before the Blood of Christ was actually shed, Baptism couldn't have had its full efficacy. Since the time of the Great Commission, it most certainly has it. Our Lord in Jn 6 says those who do not receive His Body and His Blood are not secure in their salvation. On the contrary, those who eat His Flesh and drink His Blood - in Holy Communion - certainly are. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:08, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Christ existed before Jesus was born (John 1:1, 1 Corinthians 10:4, for example). RobSLive Free or Die 11:20, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
As to circumcision, it is a covenant God made with Israel; we catholics are outside that covenant. RobSLive Free or Die 11:25, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

That sounds Nestorian, differentiating Jesus and Christ. Jesus Christ is the eternal Word of God, the Lord and Creator of all flesh, with His Father and His Holy Spirit. The New Covenant however was established about 2000 years ago, because of Christ's Redemptive work on Calvary. By His Blood, we are justified, sanctified, and will be glorified. His Blood is communicated to us in the Sacraments, especially Baptism and Holy Communion. To believe in Him and to love Him, the Lord Our God, with all our hearts, is our foremost duties. And to love Him is to keep His Commandments, especially His Commandments to receive the Sacraments. He Himself commanded all to be baptized. He Himself commanded all to receive His Body and His Blood. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:27, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Jesus is a man; Christ is a spirit. RobSLive Free or Die 11:38, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Jesus Christ is One Person. He is God made flesh. That is the Catholic Faith: "1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith ... 3. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity ... 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. 29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting ... 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ." https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Christ existed before Jesus was born in the flesh. RobSLive Free or Die 12:10, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
  • all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ
they being Israel in the wilderness. RobSLive Free or Die 12:16, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
  • Wherefore, if I have found grace in thy sight, show me now thy way - Exodus 33:13
  • Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a Rock - Exodus 33:21
RobSLive Free or Die 12:20, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Addendum: A minor point, Moses prays after finding grace, show me now thy way; Satan leaves out keep thee in all thy ways; Jesus says I am the way. These may seem minor in context to what we are discussing now, but to a serious student of the bible, they are very important. RobSLive Free or Die 16:43, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

We can discuss the dispute in more detail on any of the debate pages if you wish. I'm going to work on some other things now. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:36, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

Sure, if you choose to dispute that all drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But it's likely a loosing proposition, even by Roman Catholic teaching. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:21, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

Dear NishantXavier: I asked Dataclarifier, "What is this about RobSmith's statement that 'Christ existed before Jesus was born' and 'Jesus is a man; Christ is a spirit' and 'Christ existed before Jesus was born in the flesh', and that you said 'That sounds Nestorian, differentiating Jesus and Christ'," and I also said, "It sounds more like the New Age teachings you told me you used to believe before your conversion rather than Catholic, since Smith claims to be 'catholic, small c', and was raised Catholic and says he knows Catholic doctrine but says the Catholic Church deviated from true Christianity."
He laughed and said to look at the articles Cosmic Humanism, Liberal Catholic Church, Cosmic Christ, and Neo-Gnosticism and anything on the doctrinal teachings of Theosophy about "the Christ", and that as far as he could tell Smith's Christology was not Anabaptist, and that Nestorianism had a lot in common with Gnosticism in the 4th century. He also suggested looking at the articles Putting words in someone's mouth and Specious reasoning and Hypocrites.
I read the articles and accessed online sites about Theosophical doctrine about "the Christ", and I thought I ought to notify you that it might help explain what Smith said about Christ and Jesus and his claim to be "catholic small c", but he said that you were probably already aware of this, and not to bother, and leave Conservapedia alone and forget it and do what Fr. Mitch Pacwa said about concentrating on knowing the true teachings of the Church and the whole Bible so that when you encounter a counterfeit you'll know it immediately and have nothing to do with it and not get led astray or become embroiled in "interminable controversy". What you said about "going to work on other things", is probably best. I thought of what Jesus said in Matt 15:14. But I couldn't help it. This morning I wanted to warn you anyway. Hope it helps. Anyway, I hope this doesn't generate more trouble for you. I'll just leave it at that and try to stay away.
Best wishes. God bless you. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

Two questions:
  1. What does that Rock was Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:4 mean?
  2. What does as well as in Hebrews 4:2 mean?
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:50, 27 June 2020 (EDT)
See what I mean? All I asked was what do four simple words mean, and what does another three simple words (two of them being redundant) mean, and I can't get a response. And when I do get a response, it's totally off topic and fills a page with 100,000 bytes. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 22:43, 27 June 2020 (EDT)
So what is there to dispute now? That Christ is a spirit? That Jesus was born of a woman? Sorry, but none of that conflicts with Roman Catholic doctrine.
The Bible is not an intellectual exercise. He catcheth the crafty in their own craftiness. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 22:52, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

For future discussions involving references to the Bible, it's probably best to use the Conservative Bible Project, as it likely the most concise version free from bias. Regardless of what RatWiki, Alexa ratings, etc. will say, it does seem very insightful. Also, does anyone else want to help finish translating the Old Testament? I know I have some reading to do, but would love to help where I can on it. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:26, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

I know I previously had mentioned this, and one of the more obvious reasons against using the KJV is the fact that English has changed over the centuries (since the translation then); for a common example, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" really means "Thou shalt not murder". Since it's possible that some wording in the KJV may mean otherwise from what readers nowadays may intuitively interpret it as, it's better to use the CBP. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:37, 27 June 2020 (EDT)
I've read, used, and studied dozens of translations. KJV is still the best. It's problems are few, and very well known. English Standard Version (ESV) is also commendable.
The problem is, we don't have enough editors with an understanding of the bible, and those that do, don't want to get involved.
I have no problem with a Commentary, but a supposed "translation" is a bit of stretch.
Let me give a simple example why it's presumptuous to even think we're capable of translating the bible: the other day I needed links to righteousness and God's Law. After 13 years, we still don't have articles on two of the most important precepts regarding biblical teaching. I laugh when I see Wikipedia and others describe CP as "from a Christian perspective". RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:09, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
Conservapedia pages still generally delve into topics from a conservative Christian viewpoint, even if some specific topics on Christianity aren't fully covered. Besides, one of the important mottos here is utilizing the best of the public, and I don't see an exception when it comes to translating the Bible. Besides, it's not as hard as trying to build a perpetual motion machine without getting arrested for violating the laws of thermodynamics or something... —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:24, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
That's why a Commentary would have been so much better. We could have thrashed out salvation, righteousness, justification, baptism, etc etc. in article pages, and inserted what was necessary line by line and chapter and verse in a parallel Commentary. That may have created controversy, as all Commentaries do, but it would have avoided all the negative criticism of trying to re-write the Bible. That can't be repaired now. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:32, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
What do you mean it can't be repaired? Besides, haven't you been on this site when the project started such that you could've made a difference in terms of how it went? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:37, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
If there are problems with the Conservative Bible Translation, then improvements can be made as needed. Nothing's that hard for the best of the public, after all! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:40, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
I warned Andy not to do it, as other long time editors did as well. He did it anyway. The whole premise of thinking you can 'translate' the bible begins from a premise that you do not accept God's word 'as is'. That is exactly what the Bible teaches about sinful man - they don't listen, they refuse to hear what God says. And when they don't like what God says, they want to change it.
The best improvement to CBP is to scrap it, and ask God for forgiveness. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:45, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
This is the meaning of faith - accepting God's word as is. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:47, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
Now hold on a second. I thought the whole concept of translating the Bible is to fully understand God's word, whereas most Bible versions are inaccurate interpretations (especially the NIV). From what I understand about this specific project, the idea was that modern Bible translations were full of liberal bias. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:21, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
(ec)Liberaltears: The only Christian groups who believe that are Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses who do not use the Bible as the foundation of their faith, but instead rely on Church tradition. All 're-translating' the bible does is open the door for critics. Then who are these 'experts' entrusted with 'translating' the Bible? someone like Dataclarifier, who has no biblical understanding whatsoever and wants to push the pre-1962 Vatican II Ecumenical Council bigotry that the Roman Catholic Church is the "true church" (same as Mormons claim) and any dissenters are "cults".
Christianity is about salvation from sin, judgement, and death, not about membership in a "true church". And the way we find this salvation is through the word of God. Nobody gives a rat's pituite about debates over who Tertullian and Martin Luther was - none of that has any bearing on finding salvation. Only the Word of God can make men whole. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:12, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
Now wait a minute RobSmith. You seem to express criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings, yet the argument in your first paragraph against trying to translate the Bible is similar to the church's teachings a couple centuries ago against letting ordinary people understand the Bible themselves. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:39, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
Ok, I see your point. Long story short, that's why a Commentary would have been a better path. A 're-translation' tosses out the basis of what is commonly known. It's too revolutionary. A Commentary could have given either straightforward spin on interpretations of critical passages, or weighed various scholarly views, or even come down on one side or the other after reviewing various interpretations and understandings. But to toss out all previous translations was a mistake. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:47, 28 June 2020 (EDT)

IndependentSkeptic's intervention

Oh wow! I just went back through all RobSmith's comments here and on all the talk pages about Infant Baptism and the Debate pages and the rest and combed through all of it for several hours, and not once does RobSmith actually say "Christ" became a man, "Christ" was born of a woman, "Christ" bled, suffered, died on the cross, but only "Jesus". He never says "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ", but only "Jesus". And as for his two questions "what's the meaning" of 1 Cor. 10:4 and Heb. 4:2, if by now he still doesn't know and has to ask, the biblehub.com commentaries on those verses are clear about the real meaning, and it ain't what Smith insinuates and implies about the "Christ". From the comments he just made above, it's obvious he's too full of himself, and like Martin Luther thinks he is "wiser than all the doctors of Christendom"—including all the contributors to Conservapedia. 'Nuff said. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
IndependentSkeptic: Whatever your point is, it's moot. Dataclarifier vandalized discussion pages, forged signatures, and changed times of postings. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:03, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
IndependentSkeptic: Then answer my question: Was the Gospel preached to Israel in the Wilderness? Secondly, Where does Moses say "Go forth, baptizing"? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:08, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
IndependentSkeptic: Oh, and your lame, "Here, click on this link to biblehub" - the same technique Dataclarifier uses - which SUPPORTS my argument and neither you nor Dataclarifier ever bothered to read and/or understand, won't cut it. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:18, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
(The following was earlier posted further down the page. It was altered and moved here by RobSmith.)
All right, I will answer and "address specific facts".
(For some reason I was unable to enter this posting edit under my own ID as IndependentSkeptic because editing this page was "reserved for administrative privileges", so I got Dataclarifier's permission to use his ID on his/our home computer, since as a previous CP contributor he has long had from Andy "administrator privileges", and he can no longer see well enough to edit. Just before I did, I told him what I was going to do, and he groaned and rolled his eyes and shook his head, and told me to look up Proverbs 9:7-8 and said, "Don't say I didn't warn you!" In any case this is my final and definitive answer to RobSmith's demands for answers. He will probably call it "spamming" and "incomprehensible" and TLDR "Too Long, Didn't Read". Notice that he also referred to me as "Septic" not "Skeptic".)
You said above "Paul does not use the term 'Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus'." I went to Strong's Concordance:
Paul says "Jesus Christ" in Romans 1:1,3,6,7,8; 2:16; 3:22; 5:1,11,15,17,21; 6:3,4,23; 7:25; 13:14; 15:6,16,17; 16:18,20,24,25,27; 1Corinthians 1:1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10; 2:2; 3:11; 5:4 (twice); 8:6; 9:1; 15:57; 16:22,23; 2Corinthians 1:1,2,3; 4:6; 5:18; 8:9; 11:31; 13:5,14; Galatians 1:1,3,12; 2:16 (twice); 3:14,22; 5:6,14; 6:18; Ephesians 1:1,2,3,5,17; 3:1,9,14; 5:20,23,24; Philippians 1:1,2,6,8,11,19,26; 2:11; 3:20; 4:25; Colossians 1:1,2,3; 1Thessalonians 1:1,3; 2:19; 3:11,13; 5:9,23,26; 2Thessalonians 1:1,2,8,12 (twice); 2:1,14,16; 3:6,12,18; 1Timothy 1:1 (twice),2,16; 4:6; 5:21; 6:3,14; 2Timothy 1:1,10; 2:3,8; 4:1,22; Titus 1:1,4; 2:13; 3:6; Philemon 1,3,9,25.
Paul says "Christ Jesus" in Romans 3:26; 8:1,2,39; 15:5; 16:3; 1Corinthians 1:2,30; 4:15; 15:31; 16:24; 2Corinthians 4:5; Galatians 2:4; 3:26,28; 4:14; 5:15; Ephesians 2:6,7,10,13; 3:11,21; Philippians 1:1; 2:5; 3:3,8,12,14; 4:7,19,21; Colossians 1:4,28; 2:6; 1Thessalonians 2:14; 5:18; 1Timothy 1:12,14,15; 2:5; 3:13; 6:13; 2Timothy 1:1,2,9,13; 2:1,10; 3:12,15; Philemon 6,23.
You asked the meaning of And the Rock was Christ" in 1 Corinthians 10:4 and the meaning of "as well as" in Hebrews 4:2.
"And the Rock was Christ" means that it was a type or representative sign of Christ to come, not Christ Himself. That's what it means.
"as well as" means that we as well as the Israelites in the wilderness were given the "gospel" or "joyful proclamation" of the "promise of rest",
Ok, I'm going to cut you off there. Let's review.
  • when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down, - Heb. 1:3. God rested. See also It is finished - Jn 19:30.
  • although the works were finished from the foundation of the world, Heb. 4:3. The Spirit of Christ existed before Jesus was born in the flesh. Salvation, and redemption by grace, through faith, has always been available, from the beginning. This can be succinctly summarized as believing (or accepting on faith) that God can make the dead live again, as he did Isaac. Righteous Abel's blood cried from the ground. Faith in the resurrection made Old Testament saints righteous.
  • they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief, Heb. 4:4. unbelief = no faith. They didn't believe God's word.
  • he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works - Heb. 4:8. See again, It is finished.
There is so much more that can be said here, but for now you must believe (believe = accept God's word on faith) that the gospel that was first preached to them in the wilderness is the same gospel preached in the New Testament. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 05:43, 30 June 2020 (EDT)
they in Canaan and we in Heaven, which includes the "gospel" or "joyful proclamation" of the promise of God to Moses to "raise up" a Prophet like Moses: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him." The "Gospel" of the promised Prophet points implicitly to the Lord Jesus Christ, whose words include the Great Commission, implied but not explicit to the people of Israel in the wilderness and their descendants, the whole of Israel who included the twelve apostles to whom Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, (1) baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (2) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always". He is the Prophet foretold in the "gospel" preached to the people in the wilderness the Prophet Who said, "Except a man be regenerated by water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And whoever will not give heed to these words of God which Jesus spoke in his name, God himself will require it of him. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:26-31).
The same meanings are explained on the biblehub.com commentaries links for each of the verses 1 Cor. 10:4 and Heb. 4:2.
Barnes' Notes on 1 Corinthians 10:4 says: "And that Rock was Christ - This cannot be intended to be understood literally, for it was not literally true. The rock from which the water flowed was evidently an ordinary rock, a part of Mount Horeb; and all that this means is, that that rock, with the stream of water thus gushing from it, was a representation of the Messiah.
"(3) that rock was a striking representation of the fulness of the Messiah.
"And the rock was Christ: that is, it signified Christ, it was a type of him."
Bengel's Gnomen on 1 Corinthians 10:4 says: "The people did not know, what the rock was; therefore Paul long after adds, but the rock was Christ."
Matthew Poole says: "...that rock did signify or prefigure Christ".
You asked the meaning of as well as in Hebrews 4:2.
Barnes' Notes says: "According to this it would seem that the 'gospel,' as we understand it, or the whole plan of salvation, was communicated to 'them' as well as to 'us. But this is by no means the idea. The discussion has reference only to 'the promise of rest,' and the assertion of the apostle is that their 'good news' of a promise of rest is made to us as really as it was to 'them.' 'Rest' was promised to them in the land of Canaan - an emblem of the eternal rest of the people of God. That was unquestioned, and Paul took it for granted. His object now is, to show that a promise of 'rest' is as really made to us as it was to them, and that there is the same danger of failing to secure it as there was then."
Meyer's NT Commentary says: "...there, earthly rest was promised; here, spiritual and everlasting rest (Hebrews 4:6-10)."
So the rock was Christ only as a type and prefigurement of the Messiah. The "gospel" preached to the Israelites in the wilderness was not the plan of salvation but only the promise of "rest" in the promised land of Canaan as only a type and prefigurement of the rest of God in heaven from the time of his finishing of the original creation, "a rest that remains for the people of God" (Hebrews 4:9-11), which those in the Old Testament did not receive but had to wait for, "that apart from us they should not be made perfect" (Hebrews 11, esp. vv 39-40 "And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.").
You claim to know the scriptures, and you said, "Paul does not use the term 'Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus'." The Bible shows he does, more than 200 times! This makes you a liar, since you claim to not be ignorant of scripture, and therefore might have been expected to know better, because if you were ignorant of scripture it would have been only a simple mistake. But you are not, and it wasn't.
Moses said that God will condemn those who will not listen to the Prophet to come like him whom God will "raise up". This is the implicit teaching of Moses in support of the words of the Prophet proclaiming the Great Commission to go forth and baptize. The New Testament testifies that Jesus is that Prophet. Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. Jesus said to reject those who will not listen to the Church "as pagans and (enemy-traitor) tax collectors". He commanded to baptize people to be regenerated and born anew by water and the Spirit as the obligatory necessity to enter the kingdom of God and to teach all that He commanded the apostles. He gave the Holy Spirit to be with us forever, and to lead us into all truth. Paul said the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and that the wisdom of God is known to the principalities and powers in heaven through the Church (Ephesians 3:10). The Bible commands to obey the leaders who keep watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:5-6). The Church is the body of Christ and we are baptized into him into his death and resurrection and those who do not remain in him will be cast out and burned (John 15:6; Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:28-29). That's what the Bible teaches. But I gotta tell you that Dataclarifier provided an even better outstanding rebuttal of your doctrinal position in the irrefutable list of scriptures you stubbornly reject as "garbage" and "horse hockey" in his provocatively titled essay page Essay: Water baptism cannot save, the Church cannot save, Born again by faith alone.
You demanded answers. You got 'em buster! Rant and rave all you like. You can't change them. That substantial list of plain and clear and unambiguous scriptures you have dismissed, is a "gospel of wrath" only to those who will not obey and who stubbornly reject the teaching of the Word of God, and is a "gospel of mercy" only to those who are baptized and obey what He commanded and remain in Him.
I strongly suggest you take NishantXavier's advice to debate Bible topics on some other page and get off his talk page instead of disruptively squatting here like a cyberbully and treating it as if it's your own talk page, which is isn't.
I'm no proxy stooge for Dataclarifier (Michael Paul Heart). I speak for myself. I happen to finally agree with Dataclarifier because his excellent use of scripture as proof of what it actually says can't be denied, based on his formidable fund of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and scholarly biblical research sources, and I will participate in the sacramental worship and life of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which is the temple of the Holy Spirit and the pillar and bulwark of the truth and the Dwelling Place of God built of living stones, "rocks" of truth and defender and protector of the Bible against its abuse and misuse. This should do it. I won't be back.
May God bless NishantXavier and strengthen and protect him from your "unjust vitriol". Dataclarifier says that NishantXavier is a competent apologist for the Gospel of Truth in full accordance with Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium. The word of the Lord is a fire that breaks the rocks. The truth of the Bible with the undeniable words of the LORD Jesus Christ Himself, Christ Jesus the Lord, as faithfully declared here will burn you, anger you, and leave you no peace until the day you relent, repent and make reparation for all you have stated in opposition to it, and there isn't anything you can do about it. I fear for you. I will pray for your soul. May Our Lady Mary Ever-Virgin intercede for you and draw you by the grace of God to the truth. Amen. --IndependentSkeptic--Dataclarifier (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
In this trolling response everyone can read for themselves Datacarifier says, " the Rock was Christ....was ....not Christ Himself" -- a denial of scripture. Next he says "as well as means that we as well as the Israelites in the wilderness were given the "gospel"....which includes....the promise of God to Moses to "raise up" a Prophet" -- Sorry, there is no promise to "raise up a Prophet" in the Great Commission or New Testament Gospel.
Dataclarifier is inventing things out of his butt now. As Jesus said, If the salt looses it's savor, it ain't fit for the dunghill. This pretense to piety get's old after a while. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:42, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
One more example of bad faith editing and spam: I specifically cite Galatians chapter one where Paul said
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ
Note to readers: This is exactly what Dataclarifier is doing with his spam response -- calling you unto another gospel, which is no gospel and perverting the gospel of Christ.
And he lies in his opening line, he is not addressing SPECIFIC questions, he buries his perverted gospel under spam. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:53, 29 June 2020 (EDT)


  • That which is flesh (Jesus) is flesh; that which is spirit (Christ) is spirit.
  • God (and/or Christ) is spirit.
  • The flesh profiteth nothing.
  • The spirit gives life.
Comment: that Rock was Christ IS Christ Himself.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:40, 29 June 2020 (EDT)


Not to belabor the point, but the scripture itself gives us the test to validate whatever point IndependentSkeptic supposedly thinks he found (but evidently IndependnetSkeptic is just as unknowledgeble of the Bible as Dataclarifier is)
  • Whosoever denies that Jesus is the Christ, this is the spirit of anti-Christ
Christians are instructed to "try the spirits" or "test the spirits". Sorry, but Dataclarifier failed when he denied the authority of scripture at least four times in discussion, and particularly the authority of Paul, as he did in his "Cosmic Christ" screed and elsewhere. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:37, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
As Jesus said (and I quoted to Dataclarifier 6 months ago):
  • My word is not in you.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:41, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
So, no answer, again.
Since it is undeniable now, at this point, that the GOSPEL was preached to Israel in the wilderness, the next question is, "What do we mean by Gospel?" Before proceeding, it ought to be patently obvious the Gospel preached to Israel in the Wilderness was not the Great Commission.
So, let's re-examine Paul's words at Galatians chapter 1:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
(Note to Mr. Smartypants IndependentSkeptic: Paul does not use the term "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus". Are you going to ally yourself now with Dataclarifier and condemn Paul to hell as well, along with me and Martin Luther?) RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:48, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
Hmmm, no answer, again. This is the same old garbage you'd expect from a liberal communist -- cannot address specific facts in a discussion so they resort to personal attacks against me. This has been the case with Dataclarifier since day one, and now his stooge proxy, IndependentSeptic. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:54, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
(The 13:23, 29 June 2020 IndependentSkeptic final definitive response to challenges by RobSmith was earlier posted here. It was altered and moved out of sequence by RobSmith.)
Is it really necessary to block Dataclarifier? I know he tends to have a habit of posting large paragraphs on talk pages, though for the most part, I don't believe that he acts out of bad faith. Also, why did IndependentSkeptic say two weeks ago here that he "won't be back" yet still come back to comment on talk pages? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 13:57, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
I did it temporarily while I read his spam posting and formulated a response. This user has a habit of spamming, trolling, and altering other users responses and signatures. He's unblocked now.
Even the link above to his Essay, a supposed "Debate", contains alterations to other users postings.
Bottomline: He's a bad faith editor and resists more experienced editors efforts to help him. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:12, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
IMO, if both these users spent some time learning rules of etiquette they wouldn't have half the problems they have. Even if it means learning the rules from their adversaries, like I did. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:17, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
Illustration: See what I mean here. Not 33 minutes after I completed my response @15:40, 29 June 2020 (EDT), User:IndependentSkeptic removed my posting. These editing practices are slimy and underhanded. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 22:10, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

A personal note

Once the Word is inside you, once you are baptized in the spirit,

  • the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.

I do not need Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther to respond to these trolls or these attacks on the gospel of Christ. I don't need to consult biblehub, wait thee days or 8 months, to cut and paste commentaries that support EXACTLY what the Holy Spirit guides me to say. And the idea that someone dedicated so much to pre-Vatican II doctrine uses Protestant commentaries whom he alleges supports his idea of Roman Catholic doctrine is beyond ridiculous.

The Word of God is not bound; and despite User:Dataclarifier and User:Independent Skeptic's attempts to do so, will fail, per the Word of God. And I give God the glory for anything I have done to bring about His Kingdom on Earth. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 22:37, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Simple illustration: I just read at catholicism.org The Good Old Days: Catholicism in the U.S. Before Vatican II which opens with,
  • "Men of every generation will regard the days of their youth wistfully. A certain number think of the past itself as superior to the present in at least some ways. They are often not wrong to do so. Today, grandfathers who were children in the 1940s and teens in the 1950s are correct if they remember life in the U.S. then as better, or at least more pleasant, than now. ..."
Now contrast that with the Word of God:
For my money, I'm going to throw that alleged "church teaching" on the ash heap, which ignores the Word of God and misleads people, and stick with the Word of God, delve into it, immerse myself, and get baptized in it. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:14, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
On another personal note, I just violated a vow I made to myself. It is just too damn easy to be critical of churches, and I know people of all shades, stripes, and religions. As a general rule, I back away from criticizing churches and often bite my tongue even when I see egregious error (unless it's something like Mormonism, which denies everything). So I rely on the Word of God, especially when dealing with proud men:
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
"Preaching". Hmm, preaching what? Preaching the same gospel that was first preached to them in the wilderness. I pray to God every waking minute of every day to use me to bring to nought the understanding of the prudent and destroy the wisdom of the wise. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 06:23, 30 June 2020 (EDT)

Dataclarifier stands by his rejection of scripture

Reading through all his spam responses, Datclarifier's own words still condemn himself:

You say,

The argument seems to be:

The Bible, or Word of God, is not authoritative;
Your analysis of the argument is a fairly accurate summary

And he doubles down again by posting a link to it above. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:08, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Side note: Even Wikipedians don't like pattern abusers, and one of the patterns they detected was humorously called "megalomaniacal editing". One of the characteristics that showed you might have it was "You say you're going to leave—but then you don't!" Even a superficial inspection shows us that Dataclarifier suddenly leaves so he doesn't have to "clarify" inconsistencies in the hopes that by having no record of correcting himself, he can at later times carry through a precedent while being able to rely on the momentum of appearing to be a successful (undefeated?) verbal combatant. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 17:09, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
That's sort of my objective - to cause a few short circuits and blow a few fuses. It's up to Dataclarifier, if he want's to enter into God's rest. He can do so right now, he doesn't have to wait until judgement, which he's not gonna like anyway. He can enter in right now by faith, faith being accepting what God says in God's word, not what Bogomil, or Tertullian, or Innocent III or any of a dozen other men say. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 06:46, 30 June 2020 (EDT)

If Protestantism is true, then all practicing Catholics are saved!!!

Protestantism claims "one act of faith in Christ is sufficient to make us "once saved, always saved". But every practicing Catholic has made "one" (and in fact, many) act(s) of faith in Christ and Him Crucified, in Him as Our Lord and Savior, in Him as the Son of God. Hence, if Protestantism is true, then all Catholics are saved! So please don't try to add your unnecessary works to our saving Faith! Lol. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:08, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

The doctrine of eternal security (once saved, always saved) is not held by all Protestants. Calvinists commonly refer to the doctrine of eternal security as "the perseverence of the saints". I know Calvinists and some Baptists hold to the eternal security doctrine, but outside of those two denonominations and/or types of Protestants, I am not sure how prevalent the doctrine is. I know Methodists don't hold to the doctine of eternal security.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
Actually, we're rushing ahead of ourselves. First the authority of scripture must be established; then discussion and doubtful disputations of its meaning can be entertained. The problem here is Tertullian has replaced the Word of God, from which 2,000 years of "scholarship" then has been added. These people simply have to be called back to the Word of God,
Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” - Matthew 15:7-9
A Christian believer has to decide in his own heart, using the faith of Abraham, whether or not God spoke these words and if they are true. Once they secure that conviction based upon faith, then they can toss out all the "doctrines of men" since Tertullian and focus on immersing themselves (getting baptized) in the spirit or word. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:02, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
It is pretty plain in the test - it is Jesus's baptism (spirit baptism) that saves, not John's baptism (water baptism).
These people are walking in the flesh, incapable of discerning between spirit and flesh. That wall must be broken down. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:16, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
None of that matters. It does not matter what Protestants think or believe. And it does not matter what Catholics think or believe. Only what God says matters. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:56, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Anyway, to respond to the earlier posts:

IndependentSkeptic: Dear friend, thank you for the information. Yes, that statement is very problematic. As you note, it implies "Christ" is a different Person who just happened to be united to Jesus, and who then perhaps could also be so united to many other different persons, as Theosophists etc hold.

LiberalTears: Just curious friend, are you a Christian? On the Conservative Bible Project, I think it is a good idea, but the translation can be improved. I think there should be reference to patristic commentaries which explain why certain words are translated verbatim. "Logos" being translated as "Word" and not as "Thought" or "Reason" etc is one common example. In the Old Testament, there are references to the Word of God appearing to men.

Rob Smith: implying Jesus and Christ are two different entities or Persons is definitely Nestorian and heretical. You should believe and profess the Athanasian Creed. It is a perfect summary of the Apostolic and Biblical Faith. Your misunderstanding, unfortunately, is not a perfect summary. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:18, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

I never implied that at all. I quoted Jesus, that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit. If you have a problem with that, that is between you and the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:42, 2 July 2020 (EDT)
To be carnally [fleshly] minded is death; to be spiritually minded is life and peace. If you are not spiritually minded, my friend, you are walking in the ways of death. This is the problem: your friend Nestor, Tertullian, et al lead you away from the Word of God. Study the word, not that extraneous carnal garbage. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:48, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Rob Smith: Friend, we are discussing faith. According to you, what is necessary for salvation? Just to believe Our Lord Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, correct? Well, all Catholics believe that. I certainly do. Therefore, all Catholics are saved, and I certainly am - even according to Protestantism! NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:54, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi NishantXavier, to answer your question, I suppose there ought to be a clear definition on what it means to be a Christian (and I mean a real Christian, not the in name only/Cafeteria/"the Bible doesn't actually oppose abortion" etc. nonsense). I do certainly believe in God, make strong personal efforts to sin as little as can be, repent, pray for others every night (and do also sympathize with Catholicism), though I haven't yet finished reading too many books from the Bible (Genesis gets boring in the later parts, while Exodus is quite an exciting read), nor have I ever got a very good chance to go to church and understand as much as I should (I might just be able to email you the details sometime soon). —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:34, 2 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't see how you can say the later parts of Genesis are boring. Read Genesis 38. In all my years, I've never heard a single sermon on Genesis 38. Yet Jesus is called "the Lion of Judah", and Tamar is listed in the bloodline of Jesus by Matthew.
Read the chapter. And remember, this all occurred before the law was given by Moses (as Joseph's quote how can I do this wicked thing and sin against God? when tempted by Potiphar's wife) and there was no formal prohibition against adultery.
Now we know what Jesus was writing in the sand in the Pericope Adulterae, probably his own bloodline.
"it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

25When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.

26And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I..."
It's almost comical, "Let her be burnt...on second thought.... maybe not."
So here we have compassion, mercy, grace, forgiveness. The letter (law) killeth, the spirit gives life - 2 Corinthians 3:6.
There is nothing boring, at all, about God's grace, compassion, and mercy. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:36, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

All right, Liberal Tears. Good to know and God Bless you. For an idea of what it means to be a Christian, I think a consensus would be: "believing in Our Lord Jesus as God and Savior, loving Him with all our hearts and striving by His Grace to live according to His Teaching". Catholic Christians in addition hold that Holy Communion is very important. In Holy Communion, we receive Him into our hearts, and become more fully cleansed from sin, and more thoroughly filled with His Spirit, and with all His Gifts of Grace. I hope that helps. Feel free, of course, to email me any time. God Bless NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:53, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Your faith needs to be grounded on what God says, not what Tertullian, Bogomil, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, the Pope, John Hagee or anybody else. That's Dataclarifier's problem - he's spent a lifetime reading all that extraneous garbage and never bothered to learn the scriptures. He that has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit teaches! RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:05, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

Jesus Christ in the Holy Bible: "Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in me and I in him, and I will raise him up on the last day". You need to return to the Catholic Church, my friend, for His One True Church alone, can give you the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion.

For others reading, please don't believe the Protestant error that Holy Baptism is meaningless. If not Baptized, please be Baptized immediately. You should be Baptized, as the Lord said, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And you will receive remission of sins. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:09, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

I've been baptized in the spirit many years now, and thank and praise God for it. I have no idea what I ever did to receive such a blessing. As such, I've been a member of the catholic universal fellowship of Jewish and gentile believers also for a very long time. My salvation is assured. I don't need to receive Christ again every time I take a crap. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:21, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
Remember: that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit. Christ is an eternal spirit, he is not a piece of bread that gets tossed out in the draught. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:23, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
(Response to NishantXavier) If that's the general idea, then I certainly have some flaws. First, I have a hard time understanding the exact relation between God and Jesus Christ (are they the exact same spirit?). Second, I'm not super forgiveness-centered in regards to some things in my life; given some bad experiences because I actually had the audacity to stand up for what's right to a world corrupted by Hollywood values and moral relativism, I always felt that the real evil, awful people in life (that so many idiots I'm surrounded with apparently can't tell are of narcissistic, bad character) always get away with everything and ought to be punished. For me, I sometimes just don't get why I have to try forgiving them, especially after how awful some of them have been (CP administrators who have the ability to access deleted revisions can go on my talk page and possibly understand, I trust they won't leak anything). Third, because of all those ridiculous issues, I always feel that I've never made a strong enough effort to handle them better and fear that God may view me on the Day of Judgement as having been a bad person in some respects. Fourth, I used be an atheist (I was raised as such) and do have sometimes have some troubles having a very strong faith, and dunno if God actually was reaching out to me (when I was very young) and that I was living in denial; I remember that around two times when I was sick, I had some weird, scary dreams with something possibly related to diamonds and water? Thinking back to that, maybe it was the pearly gates of Heaven? I'm not exactly sure. Anyways, God Bless you too NishantXavier! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:32, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
  • I and the father are one. - John 10:30
  • The same was in the beginning with God. - John 1:2
As to forgiveness, since God has sent his son to forgive us, we ought to forgive others. In fact, this really is necessary to find salvation. As to judgement, that's what salvation is, being saved from Judgement Day.
  • being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him - Romans 5:9
Forgiveness indeed is a big part of Christian life (forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those...) or the parable in Matthew 18 beginning at verse 23 that ends So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses..
The Bible, and the Gospel, is all about forgiveness. All have sinned, yet God gave his only begotten son, reconciling the world to himself. An unforgiving spirit is a terrible thing, and will impede both your relationship with God and with other people.
Forgiveness is what sets Christianity apart from all other so-called 'faiths'. We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Islam, by contrast, is all about vengeance and payback against the enemies of God. By killing a non-believer you're doing God a favor.
Next to Pride (thinking you are something you are not), IMO an unforgiving spirit the next most damnable sin (by that I mean in numbers of people who fail to grasp hold of God's salvation). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:06, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
I do understand the importance of forgiveness, though should it necessarily be expected in the same manner out of everyone, regardless of context? After all, for some who have really been mistreated and abused in life and may not be able to find as much warmth in their hearts because of such (but are still decent people), should they simply be expected under Christian standards to be able to forgive those that ruined their lives? If that's the case, then the conclusion is that the bar to overcome in order to reach Heaven is harder for those who already had it hard in their lives. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:16, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
You'll recall the next morning after Dylann Roof killed 9 blacks in Charleston (I think it was), the survivors immediately proclaimed their forgiveness of a racially motivated scum bag. Those people are strong Christians. I don't think God requires it to be instantaneous like that. I'd probably harbor a grudge, hatred and resentment for days, weeks, maybe even years - knowing I have no choice but to forgive in the end, simply cause I don't want to die as a hate-filled, unforgiving person (selfish reasons) and cause God requires it of me as part of the deal we have worked out to save me. They used the occasion to make a strong statement about who Christ is and what Christianity is, and not out of any selfish motives. And they likely know from experience, and from faith, that making a public statement of forgiveness of the racist killer who killed their loved ones was both the healthiest thing they could do for themselves, and more importantly, serve God and spread the message of the Gospel of Christ. To the Greek, foolishness....' RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:30, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
To understand the relationship between the Father and Son, I'll thumbnail it as best as possible (though there can be or is much more to it): The Father is the Supreme judge; the Son is our Advocate or defense attorney on Judgment Day. Satan, the accuser of the brethren, reads off the charges. Our Advocate stands in the breach (see Psalm 106:23 for example) and simply says to the Father, "he's with me". RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:30, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
Here is where the gospel was preached to Israel in wilderness, Exodus chapter 32:
31 And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
Greater love hath no man than this, that he layeth down his life for his friends. Moses stood in the breach. We have an Advocate with the father. The Spirit of Christ was in Moses for him to do this. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:42, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

All right, Liberal Tears. You can try saying the Lord's Prayer. It may help you forgive. Remembering God has mercifully forgiven us can be helpful when trying to forgive others. Remember on the Cross He said, after being spat on, scourged, whipped and crucified, "Father forgive them, for they know not what to do". Anyway, I will pray for you. I hope here on CP we can have a space where we take time together to pray for each other. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 03:12, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

Rob Smith, you can receive Baptism in Spirit within the Catholic Church. But you cannot receive Jesus in Holy Communion outside the Catholic Church. When Jesus comes to you in Holy Communion, He remains with you unless you commit a mortal sin again. If you do, you can be cleansed in the confessional. Then you can come close to Him again. John 6 is very clear. Read it its in the Bible. Also 1 Cor 10 and 11 on Holy Communion. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 03:12, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

No he doesn't. He's cast out in the draught. Read your bible.
Are ye also yet without understanding? 17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? - Matthew 15:16,17
And no magic hocus pocus (Hoc est Corpus) will make it any different. You're walking in the flesh, my friend. They that are in the flesh cannot please God - Romans 8:8. Who you gonna believe, God or some Pope? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 03:26, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

Law vs Grace

I don't mean to confuse anybody, and this may seem a non-sequitur to the foregoing, but I'm going to add it here anyway.

A Jewish friend of mine died yesterday, and he asked that his remains be disposed of in accordance with orthodox Jewish law, which has some pretty stringent applications. I raise this point here cause we're going to advance to the 300 level of scriptural interpretation for a moment on the subject of Law vs Grace (remember, we know the Gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness before Moses gave the Law).

From day one, God's perfect Law had some contradictions. Beginning with a prohibition of any manual labor on the Sabbath. There was also an instruction not to come at any unclean thing, like a corpse for example. In a population of 3 million in the wilderness however, people died daily. So what was to be done when a person died on the Sabbath and the undertakers were forbidden to work?

Here we have the phenomena analogous to a Living Constitution. Moses had to pass judgement, and amend the Law of God with an exception. Thank God we blood-washed born again Christians are NOT under Law, the Law is a curse and cannot redeem.

So now, ask yourself, is the Church you are attending preaching Law, telling you the Word of God is a rule book? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:35, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

The New Law contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that grace: such things are of secondary importance, so to speak, in the New Law; and the faithful need to be instructed concerning them, both by word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what they should do. Consequently we must say that the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law.—one thinker.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|(talk)]]
It's a hard saying. Who can hear it?
You must get the word inside you.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:02, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

O Separated Christians, Return to your Mother!!!

Well! I see there is quite a lot of Catholic-Protestant debate that goes on at Conservapedia, more than I anticipated or expected at first. In order to discuss the doctrinal issues that still make full Communion between Catholics and our Evangelical brethren not possible at this time at greater length in a structured manner, I'm gonna start some debate pages on those topics. We can discuss the topics there. This writer has written articles for the Catholic Traditionalist publication One Peter Five on these subjects. Shoutout to Michael! You may like this one; hope you do: it is at https://onepeterfive.com/christians-return-mother/

We will continue in the proper place. I'll be back with the link when the debate page is created: NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:20, 6 July 2020 (EDT)

The issue is not now, nor has it ever been, what large bodies of believers think or believe. The issue is what the Word of God says and how an individual reacts to it. Scholarship and church doctrine corrupts the Word of God, so that God's message to us never gets out.
IOWs, debating church doctrine corrupts the Word of God. The debate needs to focus on God's word, and not historically what Roman Catholics or Protestant church doctrines teach. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:14, 6 July 2020 (EDT)

Here is the page. It focuses on Biblical exegesis, Rob Smith, so you may like it too. :) Mainly Gen 3:15 and Rev 12:1, showing Mary is the Woman Who is the Promised Enemy of Satan, along with Christ Her Son, and that Christ Our Lord has Crowned His Mother Gloriously as Queen in Heaven with 12 stars. https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_O_Separated_Christians,_Return_to_your_Mother NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:20, 6 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi NishantXavier, I'm not sure that these debates over Biblical interpretations would necessarily resolve the strong disagreements and have a net constructive impact, though I do appreciate your efforts to discuss them over. It could potentially bring IndependentSkeptic back from retirement, but I think that on these types of issues, no one's going to fully convince each other on the exact right way to understand Scripture. And speaking of debates, does anyone want to refer to this one I started a while ago? I was somewhat disappointed then that no one went on there. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:36, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
You got 2,000 hits. Encouraging people to engage seems to be the problem. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:40, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
NishantXavier: Warning - Debate topic comments by Sysops administrators that are copied and removed from personal talk pages or article talk pages and then posted verbatim to the proper Debate pages, has been a pretext to "earn a block for vandalism and deleting". Copying verbatim to any Debate page any debating comment which includes the electronic signature of the user posting it left intact has been a pretext to "earn a block for forging signatures" on a page that the user did not directly post to. Responding with irrefutable scriptures in context that clearly, plainly, simply on the basis of sola scriptura and the King James Only approach actually support Catholic doctrine has been a pretext to "earn a block for spamming and trolling". We urgently suggest leaving intact debate comments posted here on your talk page, and responding to them with a simple "see response at O Separated Christians, Return to your Mother." If you choose to credit the user there on the Debate page, then remove from the copied comment the brackets [[ ]] that make the name an electronic signature to avoid being charged with 'signature forgery'.
RobSmith has a talent for "encouraging people to engage" in "interminable debate" by refusing to accept as a simple answer courteous responses made with clearly stated points presenting a position he disagrees with, and in response making contentious statements that are intended to provoke an irresistable "necessary response" which he then refuses to accept, using sophistical casuistry by cherry picking scripture as proof texts he thinks the "opposition" is helpless to answer, and creating "the problem" he presents himself (above) as advising against. Be warned.
In response to Liberaltears, I have not been "brought back from retirement". Having read to Dataclarifier the comments made above, he said that a single final definitive warning to NishantXavier had to be made. "Look what happened on the Talk:Infant baptism page and the Debate:Infant baptism page, and my own User talk:Dataclarifier page and Archive 01. Warn him, that if he goes ahead RobSmith will find a way to block him because he's Catholic, in case he hasn't figured it out already, what is about to happen!"
This should do it. Having given this final warning, no need for us to return. God be with you.
—IndependentSkeptic response using Dataclarifier ID because when I attempted to save page under my own ID I found "editing this page is restricted to Users and Administrators" --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
Anybody care to translate into English?
Dataclarifier/IndependentSkeptic: I realize you can't see the forest from the trees when other Wiki editors try to assist you, but even your last posting to your own Archive page here of three red links is redundant spam of the red links in the subsection immediately above (red links lower our Google results).
Apparently you have difficulty receiving instructions. I'm sure God probably has the same opinion in your interpretation of the Bible. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:28, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier/IndependnetSkeptic: Explain this comment:
  • "Copying verbatim to any Debate page any debating comment which includes the electronic signature of the user posting it left intact has been a pretext to "earn a block for forging signatures" on a page that the user did not directly post to."
How, pray tell, does an electronic signature get on a page that the user did not directly post to? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:35, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
Ok, Learn by doing. I'm going to illustrate the problems with your behavior on a page I will delete after you acknowledge your error. See Essay: Satan is God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:44, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
What? No response? It's been up 48 minutes already with 16 views. That's 1 viewer every 3 minutes who think Dataclarifier believes Satan is God. That will be 174,720 views in one year. I allowed your vicious lies and forgery for 7 months, and you are criticizing me now for bad faith? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:34, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
Oh, no response yet? You want to keep ignoring other users objections to your bs slanders and charges? It's been two hours and 36 views already. I got to leave for a couple of hours, but we'll see if you got the cahoonies to man up to you mistakes and your vicious slanders and smears when I get back. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:08, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
I think you're going somewhat too far, RobSmith. Dataclarifier may have had a bad habit with posting large amounts of information and doing certain things without realizing that they're a bad idea, though I really don't believe he acts out of sheer bad faith. Besides, this "essay" can arguably be considered a sarcastic mockery; Dataclarifier may hold strong views on Christianity differing from that of other CP editors, and these things can still be discussed in a constructive manner without misconstruing one anothers' words. Also, off topic, can you please block this liberal troll? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 16:18, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
Ok, enuffs enuff. But I doubt I made my point. He's like a little child. Each time he was blocked he was warned, "Don't touch the Hot Stove!" "Don't touch the Hot Stove!" "Don't touch the Hot Stove!" and he does it anyway. Then he brings it up here and plays the victim. He's no different that a troll who threatens to stab Trump supporters, than blames Trump supporters when he gets fired from his job. I have no idea if our original discussions are intact, and his Essays and Debate pages carry material quoting me that were never discussed. He's deleted postings and tampered with signatures. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:08, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
I understand the point you're trying to highlight, RobSmith, though how is it fair to compare Dataclarifer to violent leftists who threaten Trump supporters? Besides, I doubt that Dataclarifier's politics would be left-wing or left-leaning. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 19:31, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
He makes accusations. He violates site policy. He's warned to stop repeatedly. He ignores warnings. Then he plays the victim and makes more accusations. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:53, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
You said it here: "these things can still be discussed in a constructive manner." He steadfastly refuses. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:55, 6 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the information, Data Clarifier and Liberal Tears. DC, I hope there is a friendly debate on the talk pages of the debate pages. LT, it's true a theological debate that has lasted centuries will not be very easily resolved. But these are objects of scholarly study and sometimes it can happen that some consensus is arrived at as joint study deepens.

God Bless, All NishantXavierFor Christ the King 20:43, 6 July 2020 (EDT)

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. - 1 Corinthians 1:21
Never were truer words spoken in reading Dataclarifier's contributions. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:52, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
What did I tell you, Rob? DataClarifier is practicing Megalomaniacal editing: You say you're going to leave—and then you don't! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:54, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

Nishant: Question

I just read you piece, On the Precious Blood of Jesus, the Price of Our Salvation where you write,

  • "A simple way to go on making super-abundant satisfaction for our sins and the ongoing sins of all the world is to offer up the Precious Blood of Jesus to the Eternal Father."

Douey-Rheims says:

  • Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit

So now that Christ died once for our sins, I guess that wasn't enough. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:20, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

Have you read what St. Peter wrote, on how we are to go on making spiritual sacrifices in 1 Pet 2. Christ died once for our sins, and we offer spiritually His Precious Blood to the Eternal Father, so that it may be applied to others, both sinners that they may convert, and to the just, that they may become perfect. Do you think you have no need of the Precious Blood any longer? If you do, then it is because Priests and people are offering it up that you receive it. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:18, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

Come, let us study the Word of God together: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202&version=KJV

"5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

What are these spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ? Nothing but the sacrifice of the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ offered up spiritually. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:20, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

A final thing: I see Evangelical Christians as Christian brothers and sisters, that should be evident and obvious. I think we can co-operate, in the pro-life Cause, in defeating Communism, in working for the good of marriage and family, for the re-building of Christendom, for World Evangelism etc. My apologetic articles on Catholic-Protestant issues are designed to further mutual understanding by theological study of the disputed issues.

Our Lord Jesus Bless you. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:22, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

Good answer. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:37, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

There's something I'd like to add, if I may:

Indeed, as the sufferings of Christ overflow to us, so, through Christ, does our consolation overflow. When we are made to suffer, it is for your consolation and salvation. When, instead, we are comforted, this should be a consolation to you, supporting you in patiently bearing the same sufferings as we bear.

Or Christ has suffered every torment known to man through his saints, effecting a great salvation (and consolation). VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 11:11, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Rob. When you were a Catholic Christian, did you ever pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet, for e.g. One of the prayers in that Chaplet is: "Eternal Father, we offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your Dearly Beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in Atonement for our sins, and those of the Whole World". This is a way all Christians can fulfil St. Peter's command to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ - i.e. the spiritual sacrifice of His Body and His Blood, which He offered for the remission of our sins. St. John the Apostle says Our Lord is "the propitiation (or atonement) for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world". (1 Jn 2:2). Now, if He is the Propitation or Atonement for our sins and those of the whole world, the fruit of that Sacrifice must be spiritually offered for all the ongoing sins of "the whole world". That is the way that sins will decrease, sinners will convert, the just will become even more holy etc by the Precious Blood. I'm sure Evangelical Christians agree with me that the Precious Blood of Jesus is very powerful, and when we invoke it, it cleanses our sins.

And a kind request to all, especially all who're posting on my home talk page here. Please don't bully Data Clarifier or others. I understand there may be legitimate differences, but I hope we can discuss it in a pleasant manner and resolve it. No body should be shooed away from this site. That exhibits bad form imo and seems to be graceless. If we are Christians, let us show it by being kind, meek, gentle, open, welcoming, in a word, loving, to all. Our Lord said: ""By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (Jn 13:35). Do all men see this?

[Edit: Just saw Vargas Milan's post: I agree with the well-expressed, "Christ has suffered every torment known to man through his saints, effecting a great salvation (and consolation)"]

In Our Lord Jesus, Nishant Xavier. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:15, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

May Our Lord Jesus Bless all of us Christians and make us all One in His Holy Spirit under our Mother Mary in Truth and Charity forever. Amen. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:30, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

Dataclarifier was never bullied. He's a slimy little weasel troll who inserts Satanic crap into Conservapedia piled under tons of nonsense.
As to my catholic youth, all I remember is,
  • As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:35, 7 July 2020 (EDT)
Okay, you use that word again, "ongoing"; so expound on the meaning of
  • Christ also died once for our sins
  • While we were yet sinners, Christ died, and Jesus's words,
  • It is finished.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:47, 7 July 2020 (EDT)
Let me get more to the point: what does this passage from Hebrews mean (in fact, the whole of chapter 10 for context):
we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Verses 11 (and 1) seem to contradict your thesis that masses and offerings must be made on an ongoing basis.
Also, use the first three verses I posted as supporting evidence to this refutation. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:00, 7 July 2020 (EDT)
-1996 days waiting for a response

Vargas comments

Let me try to assist if I may: Ezekiel 18:4 reads "All souls are mine." The human soul is not just a responsible legal agent but an agent of spiritual health. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 04:00, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
Let me digress for a moment from the question I put to Nishant and add a comment on Ez 18 - that is a very important chapter in the Bible that marks a significant turning point. We learn that God reserves the right to amend himself. This essentially is key to understanding dispensationalism. (I'm not going to go into the reason why he amended the law he laid down in Deuteronomy right now, but this is a very significant teaching in the Bible often overlooked or misunderstood.) RobSTrump 2Q2Q 04:45, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
Let's recap this discussion: Nishant says sacrifices have to offered for ongoing sins; Rob (and the Bible) say Christ died once for all. Any dispute here? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 04:51, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
These outward sacrifices symbolize their true meaning. Psalm 51:16-17 reads:
"Sacrifice gives you no pleasure,
were I to offer holocaust, you would not have it.
My sacrifice is this broken spirit
you will not scorn this crushed and broken heart."
Hebrews 13:16 reads:
"Keep doing good works and sharing your resources, for these are sacrifices that please God."
These outward sacrifices are the means by which the perfect sacrifice of Christ's Passion is administered to us. The Holy Apostle gave an example of this. Romans 6:3 reads:
"You have been taught that when we were baptized in Christ Jesus we were baptized in his death;..."
VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 10:13, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
Once, for all. We have a High Priest. (Let's hold off on "baptism" for now, whether it refers to John's baptism (water) of Jesus' baptism (spirit). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:05, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
One reason the Word of God should never be tampered with is because it seems sometimes God speaks with deliberate ambiguity - and not an ambiguity that contradicts itself. For example:
  • once for our sins
  • one sacrifice for sins for ever
  • once for all
Does God mean Christ died once for all time, once for all sins, or once for all sinners? No matter how you read it, all three are true. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:20, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
But we must continue to offer sacrifices, for example, of a contrite heart, with respect to spiritual health if we become overburdened by spiritual illness, or in the form of exercising grateful generosity to maintain health, if we can follow that verse in Hebrews the way I described, even while Christ has uniquely satisfied purchase of us from the wages of sin.
And though of course in many ways the purchase maintains the health, always somehow united in our soul in some respect, flowing by its nature from one to the healing of the other and in fact while us hoping they always remain united!
But as a social necessity as well as a form of compassion (rhetorically speaking, if I may, in the person of the formators of the church) "we" must find ways to present these sacrifices in the physical realm in such a way that we remain united in community with men and women of all stations. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 13:46, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
What we're discussing here, and in Nishant's article, is transubstantiation for ongoing sins. This is refuted by all the scriptures I cited, including he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:11, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
It's been three days already. Nishant said,
  • "A simple way to go on making super-abundant satisfaction for our sins and the ongoing sins of all the world is to offer up the Precious Blood of Jesus to the Eternal Father."
God said,
  • he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever
I asked about the need for "ongoing" sacrifices. Rather than answer a simple question, we've had two new off-topic subheadings created and an entirely new Debate page. Sorry, but this places me in a quandary; my instincts are to walk away from such foolishness and trollery. But the Holy Spirit sometimes leads me to allow the spirit of God to act through me and say,
  • I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:25, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
What Nishant, and Dataclarifier as well, fail to see is, this pious sounding flowery rhetoric (a) denies who Christ is and (b) contradicts the Good News of the gospel (he hath perfected them for ever). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:40, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
The idea of transubstantiation, as XavierNishant presented it, presupposes the premise that the Holy Sacraments are sacrifices.
I have: "By virtue of this one single offering, he has achieved the eternal perfection of all whom he is sanctifying." (NJB) In Greek, the word for perfection is τελειότητα teleiotes, which is different from the English use, meaning: being perfect for the purpose for which it was intended.
I think this means for a man's soul as an accountable moral agent, who is delivered from the wages of sin so long as his faith remains. But a man's soul as an agent of spiritual health may require remedial or preventive sacraments which symbolize the sacrifice of a contrite heart or a sacrifice of worldly goods to maintain a heart in a spirit of grateful generosity. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 08:38, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Very good comments. The problem is not God's word, the problem is the English language which doesn't have a better word for perfection. We see the same problem in Genesis where God says to Abraham, Walk thou before me and be perfect. But your contribution here is spot on. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:28, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
"Fitting" is the only English word I can think of that comes close, but it still doesn't quite "fit". RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:59, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Glad to be of help! Before we continue on to transubstantiation, I think we should probably get an adequate definition and summary topics of the term "sacrament". VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:39, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Conservapedia: A sacrament is a special religious rite in some Christian churches. VM

[the subject was changed. VM]

Is there a Purgatory before Judgment day

Going to start a debate thread on this subject shortly. Just wrote on article about it. I will be answering questions directed to me on my home page along side that. For now, note that Our Lord Jesus' Words of Institution can be translated, "Offer this as My Memorial Sacrifice". See: "The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as “Bible Christians” insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the sacrificial character of Jesus’ instruction, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25), which is better translated, “Offer this as my memorial offering.”

Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church “the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist.

“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7)." https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass

Done: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day#The_First_Proof:_Direct_Proof_from_1_Corinthians_3:13-15

Nobody cares what an early Protestant historian says. We need an understanding of what God says for today's world. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:23, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

God's Word says "Offer this as My Memorial Sacrifice (Mat 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Luk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:16-18; 1 Cor 11:23-30; Heb 13:10).

"During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, “Do this in memory of me.” In Greek, this statement reads, “Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.” There are two.aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites “you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs” (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

You're going down a rabbit hole without the proper foundation. (A) the Exodus cite is not in Greek, it's Hebrew; (B) no matter how you cut it, do this in memory of me is symbolic. Christ himself is saying so in that verse. Christ died once, for all. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:27, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

The second key.aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat." https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-mass-a-sacrifice NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:33, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

All that maybe true, but it's still only symbolic. Transubstantiation is anti-scriptural. Christ died once for all. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:38, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
  • by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Are you going to deny the validity of this verse? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:41, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
NishantXavier, in many "Bible Christian" churches as you clumsily present the description of those to whom you pretend knowledge, what you call the Eucharist is celebrated there as "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper" or "The Sacrament of Holy Communion"!
You are completely wrong!
VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 14:03, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
This is starting to look like a Dataclarifier mess. I ask a pretty simple question about the Bible and he moves on to another topic. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:13, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
Vargas, is this the impression we want to set on potential future newbies who may have differing views? Maybe it's better to avoid statements like "You are completely wrong!" —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 14:22, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Oh really? Do you expect us to throw out JESUS' WORDS in Today's English Version of the Bible to soothe your scruples, which matches its translations by equal number of times used in both the Greek and English body of vocabulary, which reads in Mark 12:27,

"He is the God of the living, not of the dead. You are completely wrong!"

—which, once again, just like DataClarifier, seems to perfectly encapsulate a natural reaction to you and NishantXavier's inspiration in using any kind of resources to interpret the Bible other than to heap up of sacks of literary ballast in an effort to maintain an equal tallness at all times?

I'd be starting to think we're in "purgatory" already, if Rob weren't in the same room with me, whie I'm watching him bear your stupidity and moral crassness with the patience of a "saint". VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:09, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

I'd phrase it this way, "transubstantiation is anti-scriptural", note: not non-scriptural, which has a completely different meaning. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:47, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
What's with the harshness, Vargas? If you have a valid point to get through, can't you do it without being so brash? So I apparently can't make a mostly valid argument without feeling your wrath; no wonder Dataclarifier and IndependentSkeptic left. Is this seriously what you got promoted to do? Spend most of your time on talk pages and trying to suppress others' views you disagree with, some of which may just be thoughts out of curiosity? Besides, the Today's English Version (aka Good News Bible) doesn't seem to be for fit for a real understanding of Scripture; the Conservative Bible Project is likely much better for that. Also, out of topic, did you see this page I created a few hours ago (it took three hours of work)? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 15:56, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

You may be angry because you were caught failing to appreciate Jesus' actions and at me for pointing it out, yet that doesn't make the things you said about me any less untrue or less undeserved. What did you think was going to happen when you wrote this? Admit it, you had malice aforethought, didn't you? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 08:53, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
On that same subject, did you see Chris Martensen's latest video? Martensen has become quite the respected authority on all-things covid. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:21, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
Hmm, I haven't seen that video yet until you just externally linked it. I'll probably watch it sometime later today, or tomorrow. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 16:31, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
Martensen has done a daily broadcast every day since January 23, 2020 when the Wuhan story broke. He always carries the latest covid news. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:54, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

@Vargas Milan: Are you Catholic or Evangelical? What I said is correct. Most Protestants deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This was one of the core ideas of Protestantism, epitomized by Zwingli and other reformers. You can ask Rob, a Protestant, whether or not he believes in Christ's Real Presence if you don't believe me.

@Liberal Tears: we are Encyclopedia editors. We should be able to discuss these issues in a scholarly manner politely and pleasantly as you said.

@Rob: Our Lord said, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood". Those with strong Faith know He said what He meant and meant what He said. In John 6, Our Lord says His flesh is food indeed and His Blood is drink indeed. He gave us this in Holy Communion before His Sacrificial Death. Christ died only once, but the sacrifice of His death is presented to God many times in the Mass. The Bible says, "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these" (Heb 9:23), what are these better sacrifices with which the heavenly things are purified? The sacrifices of the Mass offered to God in every Catholic Church. We do not sacrifice Lambs anymore or kill animals; only the one and True Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, is mystically made present in the elements so that His Body and His Blood can be offered to the Eternal Father. This offering draws all its efficacy and power from the one offering of the Cross that sanctifies us. I have given clear proofs from the Hebrew and the Greek. Those interested in truly studying - not superficially passing over - the issue can read them. Our Lord has given to His Church the clear and express command to offer His Body and His Blood as His Memorial Sacrifice. Read 1 Cor 10 and 11. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 22:27, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

He also said the flesh profiteth nothing. You lack spiritual discernment. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 06:14, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
Christians are commanded to exercise discernment, which neither your doctrine of transubstantiation, doctrine of purgatory, or rejection of the scripture in favor of herd mentality and Roman Catholic doctrine does. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 06:17, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Your flesh (man's flesh) profits nothing. Christ's flesh (God's flesh) profited everything, because the Sacrifice of that flesh and blood is what saved. If God did not become Man, man would not have been redeemed. Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God - it is the Son of God Himself Who says it - you will not have life in you. The salvation of those who knowingly reject the Sacraments is insecure at best. If you want to obey the Son of God, you should listen to His Word, and do as He commanded: Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Have you ever read 1 Cor 10 and 11 in your life? Do that, and you will see Holy Communion is not some "symbol" (as virtually no one one believed for the first 1500 years), but is the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ the Lord. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:27, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Good answer, but it still doesn't answer the fact that Christ died once for all. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:36, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
Nor have you addressed he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified which refutes your doctrine of purgatory. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:41, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Read the Gospel. The Lord - not Nishant Xavier - said to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. His blood washes away sins when we receive Him in holy Communion. It washes away venial sins. That's why the Lord says those who drink His Blood will have eternal life, because you can go to heaven without Purgatory if you die receiving Viaticum (Holy Communion just before death; surprised the page doesn't exist; will create it later) well.

Vargas Milan has shown you clearly from the Bible we are to go on offering sacrifices. It's in the Psalms and even Heb 9:23. No one is denying Christ died only once. We are offering the same Sacrifice He offered in union with Him. He offered it in a bleeding manner, we offer it in a non-bleeding manner. If you watch this video, https://youtu.be/7hnRBja4pCk?list=RDCMUC11Nn9nGy1pscf6qzrk0h_w you may understand NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:58, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

So then it is only symbolic. Deny this and you deny that Christ died once for sins as well. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:04, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Editorial comment

This is the same technique Dataclarifier employs. The discussion begins on "ongoing" sacrifices"; the question is never addressed but purgatory gets inserted; then questions on purgatory are not answered and the discussion morphs into the validity of the Word of God, at which point I get accused of being a Protestant and anti-Catholic bigotry, of which I am neither.

Suggestion: try focusing on the original topic under debate. I am not debating Catholicism versus Protestantism. I am sharing, and defending the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:52, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

One further comment: When I share the Word of God, I am doing precisely what you say the Great Commission requires. If citing the scripture is anti-Roman Catholic doctrine, so be it. Roman Catholic doctrine in the 21st century, as presented by Nishant, Dataclarifier, and IndependentSkeptic, is not founded upon scripture. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:56, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

The Great Commission is a Commission to baptize non-Christians, not to attack already Baptized Catholics Christians. So that is a misunderstanding. I'm going to be a little busy now working on Conservapedia Election Predictions. If you want to discuss a specific issue, create a debate page for each question, and then come call me on my home page, and I'll get to it in time. I've done about 15 states and I want to finish the 50 States soon. Btw, I just got promoted and now have edit rights to work on contributing to articles during the "night time", which is still afternoon time to me. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 03:36, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

I don't think you understand the gospel. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:16, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Question: Do you baptize them at gunpoint or give them the word first? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:17, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

That's because you yourself misunderstand it, owing to your anti-Catholic prejudice. To evangelise non-Christians and invite them to come freely receive Baptism and the remission of sins and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in that Sacred Sacrament is at the Heart of the Gospel and God's call to His True Church. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:20, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

How do you evangelize if you don't know the word? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:40, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Also, we revere the Word as much or even more than you do. It is the inspired, inerrant Word of the living God. We also have all of it. All 73 books, not just 66 like you have. Read the early Councils that settled the Canon - Council of Carthage, Council of Hippo, Council of Rome under Pope St. Damasus - all of these have 73 inspired Books. All those Books, and those Books only, consitute the Sacred And Inspired Word of the Living God NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:29, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Bla bla bla. If you knew the word, you could answer what he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified means. But you can't. All you can do is answer with blocs of spam and church history. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:44, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Let me repeat myself: I am not here to debate Catholic doctrine versus Protestant doctrine (whatever that is); I'm here to share the word of God with both believers and the unsaved. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:46, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Let me continue in that vein: What does, I planted, Apollos watered in relation to the Great Commission mean? I'll answer for you: A sower went out to sow seed....the seed is the word of God. The Great Commission is about sowing seed, i.e. the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:50, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Putting baptism before the word is putting the cart before the horse. Hear and learn the word first, allow the seed to take root, then we'll discuss baptism. The gospel is not about baptism. It is about salvation. You have the two entirely confused and mixed up. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:00, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Nobody is putting Baptism before belief here. You are just confused? Have you ever led a non-Christian like a Muslim to belief in Christ Crucified and to Holy Baptism? If you had, like I have, you would perhaps know how important it is to preach Holy Baptism, as the visible, external sign, that your sins have been internally forgiven. Holy Baptism is very important and nobody nowhere is ever going to stop me from preaching the Gospel to every creature. When a non-Christian asks to be baptized, he has to confess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, in order to receive Holy Baptism. We first evangelize then baptize. You are quite confused here or confusing others. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:54, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

What does I planted, Apollos watered mean? Does that mean Paul sowed the seed and Apollos baptized? Paul evidently didn't execute the Great Commission if all he did was evangelize and leave it to somebody else to baptize.
And it cannot be said definitively that Apollos baptized.
Go ahead, ignore this scripture, as well. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:01, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? We know St. Paul baptized some people from Scripture. St. Philip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch. There is nothing to argue here - we agree both Baptism and Evangelism is important. But evangelizing non-Christians, not disturbing Catholic Christians, who were Christians for 1500 years before your Protestant sect even existed. Christianity did not begin in the 1500s A.D. It has existed since Christ. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 10:11, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

The Word is the seed. The Great Commission is to sow the seed. You cannot evangelize if you do not know the word. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:16, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Catholicism and Protestantism have nothing to do with the point I'm making, or what God says in his word. I am here to discuss the Word, not Protestantism or Catholicism or 1500 years of church history. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:18, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I do not care what Protestantism teaches. I do not care what Catholicism teaches. I care what God teaches in his word. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:20, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
  • "Christianity did not begin in the 1500s A.D. It has existed since Christ. "
Bingo. Christ existed since the foundation of the world. Can we agree on that? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:23, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Yes, of course. Jesus Christ is the Creator of the world. Please summarize what you believe the Gospel to be? Is it to believe (1) Jesus Christ is God? (2) To believe He is True God Who became True Man (3) To believe He died on the Cross for our sins (4) To believe He rose again? etc. We have 12 Articles of Faith in the Apostles' Creed we've always professed for 2000 years. We hold that the Full Gospel is taught only by and in the Catholic Church. Evangelicals may have 50 to 60% of it, Orthodox Christians have 80 to 90% of it, but only Catholic Christians have the full 100%. That's why Our Lord Jesus said "Go and tell it to the Church" (Mat 18:17), promising to bind and loose in Heaven, where He came from, whatever His Church binds on Earth. Please summarize 3 or 4 essential beliefs of the Gospel. I already proved to you, if Protestantism is true, all Catholics are saved. If Protestantism is true, I'm going straight to Heaven when I die! Whoo! But I know it isn't. And I know there'll be a Purgatory, so I fear my Protestant friends will have to spend a long time in it. If you read my article, I showed you a way to even avoid Purgatory for Catholics. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 10:28, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

  • In the beginning was the word....and the word was made flesh...
  • Before Abraham, I AM.
  • That Rock was Christ...
  • The gospel was preached to us as well as unto them (Israel in the wilderness)
  • Melchesidek, King of Salem
  • Wherefore, if I have found grace in thy sight, show me now thy way
  • I am the way
  • There is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a Rock
I could go on, but this is who Christ is. I defer answering "what you believe the Gospel to be" until after we identify who Christ is. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:38, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Nicene Creed. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 10:41, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Jesus Christ is True God, Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, the Word become flesh: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven [here bow], and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man [end of bow]. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."NishantXavierFor Christ the King 10:42, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Great. Only problem is, that text is not in the Bible. I'm here to discuss scripture. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:45, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
For the love of God, Please, focus on scripture, not extra-biblical texts or the Catholicism vs. Protestantism debate. It only confuses things.RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:48, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Digression: Nicene creed

See, this is what happens when you substitute the inerrant Word of God with the words of men. You get stupid contradictions like this:

  • " born of the Father before all ages"

No, Jesus was not born in the flesh before all ages. He was born of Mary much later.

The Nicene creed was merely a conference of men trying to agree on something or other and reconcile translations from different cultures, backgrounds and idioms. Most importantly, it is not the inerrant Word of God. As such, putting you faith in the words of men, such as the Nicene creed, is an error. Put your faith in God and in God's word. It will translate itself into whatever language or culture it's preached.

Disagreements between large bodies of believers, say Roman, Orthodox, Protestant and Judaism, are in nearly all cases manifestations of the sin of Pride. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:03, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Furthermore, the so-called Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed are no different than the concept of a Living Constitution. RobSTrump 2Q2Q
The Word of God itself says it is living and active; the Nicene Creed says the "Lord Jesus Christ [was] born of the Father before all ages". That simply is not true, per the Word of God. Jesus was not born until the Roman census of Caesar Augustus. These pious sounding phrases and words of men, that people accept as gospel truth and substitute for, or ignore completely, the scripture, have the effect of deceiving people. It is that living and active quality of the scripture I call upon to strike down the deceptions and ignorance of men. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:39, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

You demanded scripture. Here is scripture! Eat it!

  • The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15
  • The Church is the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12
  • Through the Church the manifold wisdom of God is known. Ephesians 3:10
  • God has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets (those who speak in the name and by the authority of the Lord), third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators. 1 Corinthians 12:28
  • Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Hebrews 13:17
  • Jesus built his Church and not even the powers of hell shall prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
  • Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. (The Church) 1 Peter 2:13
  • Be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you. 1 Peter 5:5-6
  • For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Romans 13:1-2
  • Any one who goes beyond and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work. 2 John 9-11
  • As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11
  • Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones (angels and saints). Jude 8
  • Children it is the last hour, and as you have heard that Antichrist is coming, so now many Antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. 1 John 2:18-29
  • These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own passions, loud-mouthed boasters, flattering people to gain advantage. Jude 16
  • Whoever rejects Jesus and does not receive his sayings has a judge; the word that Jesus has spoken will be his judge on the last day. John 12:4712:48
RobSmith's Refusal to hear these words of the Bible the word of God
  • He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God. John 8:47
  • He who despises the word brings destruction on himself. When anyone turns away from hearing the word of God, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 13:13 and 28:9
RobSmith clearly manifests the sin of Pride in refusing to hear the word of God which commands obedience to the established authority and doctrine of the elders of the catholic Church, the body of Christ that Jesus established and remains with and is led into all truth forever by the Spirit of truth whom Jesus has sent, which cannot be overcome by Satan and the powers of hell, the Church that the Scripture commands all believers to obey.
Ah ha! Good!
  • Any one who goes beyond and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God;
Let's talk about the Doctrine of Christ. Tell me, from scripture, What is the Doctrine of Christ?
Again, use ONLY scripture. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:32, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I'll even give you three clues to get started:
  • That Rock was Christ...
  • Wherefore, if I have found grace in thy sight, show me now thy way
  • I am the way
Here's a fourth:
  • Moses stood in the breach
Then reconcile for me, please
  • No man hath seen God at any time
with
  • The Lord spake unto Moses face to face
I hope you really are IndependentSkeptic cause me and Dataclarifier have been over this ground before, and he couldn't show me where the so-called successors of Peter have not gone beyond.
  • Any one who goes beyond and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:45, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Any response that does not use scripture and/or you invoke any non-scriptural reference will be interpreted as a rejection of the validity of the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:49, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Purgatory goes beyond the Doctrine of Christ. Transubstantiation goes beyond the Doctrine of Christ. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:50, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Elapsed time waiting for a response: 5 years.
Fine! Only Scripture
Obey the Church. Whoever does not listen to the Church is to be rejected as false and a traitor. Matthew 18:15-17
  • Jesus built his Church and not even the powers of hell shall prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
  • Whoever rejects Jesus and does not receive his sayings has a judge; the word that Jesus has spoken will be his judge on the last day. John 12:4712:48
  • Whoever does not listen to the Church is to be rejected as false and a traitor. Matthew 18:15-17
  • You're being redundant.
  • Whoever rejects Jesus and does not receive his sayings has a judge; the word that Jesus has spoken will be his judge on the last day. John 12:4712:48
  • You're being redundant.
  • The Church is the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12
  • The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15
  • Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Hebrews 13:17
  • Through the Church the manifold wisdom of God is known. Ephesians 3:10
  • Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. (The Church) 1 Peter 2:13
  • Be subject to the elders. "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you. 1 Peter 5:5-6
  • For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Romans 13:1-2
  • Any one who goes beyond and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God
The Doctrine of Christ is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Doctrine of the Catholic Church is the Doctrine of Christ. The authoritative doctrines of the Catholic Church are not non-scriptural: the authoritative doctrines of the Catholic Church are not anti-scriptural. The Teaching authority of the Church to publish doctrinal teachings and to clarify and authoritatively interpret scripture and establish the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed is scripturally established by Scripture Itself. This is not circular reasoning. The authority of the Church Jesus established firmly on a Rock is based not on the Bible but on what eyewitnesses to Jesus taught, based solely on his and their authority to teach, authority from God, a doctrine plainly recorded in the Bible, as shown above (twice).
Your own comments and interpretations oppose the Doctrine of Christ regarding the Church—you oppose His Own Words about the Church.
Your own comments and sophist insinuations and interpretations of the Bible divorced from the whole context of the Bible, in order to make it seem to say what it does not say as a whole, are examples of Cafeteria Christianity based entirely on a specious reasoning hostile to the authority of the Church and even by your own standards of "validity" are "man-made". By your own standard of demanding "scripture only" your own words are outside of scripture and have been added to scripture, and by your own argument your own words therefore have no authority, and by your own standards they are "man's opinions" and therefore by your own standard of going only by the Bible your comments have absolutely no validity! Hypocrite!
By rights you should make no comment at all. Just quote scripture.
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal [You must be spiritually born.] RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:53, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
You don't. You add to Scripture. You suggestively imply that the Bible opposes the Church, the Church supported by the Bible in establishing its divine authority established by God, and you oppose what God has established. You condemn yourself on that basis alone, a standard you yourself have set up and have constantly violated. You yourself go beyond the Doctrine of Christ because you go beyond and outside of the Doctrine of the Church by your anti-catholic opposition to the Church.
  • The worst are anti-catholic Protestants. You have no charity or truth in you.
(It Burns, doesn't it!)
Catholics believe the Bible, they believe Jesus' words, they obey the Church, and all that the Church has revealed and taught from God the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16; Jn 16:12-15), because God has taught the Doctrine of Christ that we are to listen to and obey the Church, in all things having to do with faith and morals. I believe the scriptures, that's why I came to believe in the Catholic Church and why I've been accepted into the Catholic Church as a member of the Body of Christ by the holy baptism of water and the Spirit without which no one can enter the Kingdom of God. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
  • "Doctrine of Christ is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church"
Where in Strong's Concordance does the term, "Catholic Church" appear appear? It doesn't. You have not even broached the subject or question. What is the Doctrine of Christ?
You should go to Wikipedia. They like that kind of reasoning: "A leftist is a liberal. A liberal is a leftist." "The Doctrine of Christ is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Doctrine of the Catholic Church is the Doctrine of Christ." You say that, not only with no Biblical foundation, you're only point is to condemn me and send me to hell while refusing to explain the gospel.
As a scriptural expert you think it would be easy to answer, What is the Doctrine of Christ?, which according to you, is the basis of the Great Commission. But than you can't answer that question. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:11, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
You should leave the argument to Nishant, so far he's done a little better than you. I think not only your alleged doctrine, but your style of presentation, is a bad influence on him. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:14, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
IndependentSkeptic says:
  • "Catholics believe the Bible"
then answer yes or no, Do you believe:
  • he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:16, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
-1993 days waiting for a response

Independent Skeptic has shown clear and many proofs that Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium all go together. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant myth, as much as OSAS and other popular Protestant myths. The Biblical model is Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. Read Acts 15 and we see the holy Apostles gather as the first Bishops with the Presbyters or Elders of the Church (Priests) to pass a Judgment on Circumcision. They exercise the power of binding and loosing, with St. Peter at their Head, and St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem co-presiding. This Council took place in Jerusalem historically around 48 A.D. It shows the early Church did not go by private interpretation, but by Church Judgment. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 18:24, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Also, you have misunderstood what the Church Council's Creed means. Our Lord Jesus is the Son of God in eternity because "With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee." (Psa 110:3, DRB). Before the world began, He was eternally begotten in the glory of the Father. In the fullness of time, when He the Eternal Word became Incarnate Flesh, He was born in time of the Virgin Mother. It is well said, He Who was born in Eternity of a Father without a Mother, is subsequently born in time of a Mother without a Father in the Sacred Liturgy. All that is part of Apostolic Tradition, handed down to the Church, and interpreted by the Magisterium. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 18:26, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Lastly both Creeds, Apostolic and Nicene, profess that the true Church is Catholic. The Apostolic Church is the Catholic Church only. As America has a series of presidents from Washington to President Trump, so the Catholic Church has had an unbroken series of Popes from St. Peter and St. Linus to Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. Pope St. John Paul II was instrumental in the defeat of Communism in the USSR, as President Raegan, President Trump and Gorbachev have conceded. The Catholic Church is an immense force for good in this world, with Her Charities, Her Orphanages, Her Hospitals and so much more. And above all, She preaches the Gospel, and fulfills the Great Commission, having reached 1.35 Billion Catholic Christians worldwide, 1 in every 6 persons on Earth. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 18:29, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Bzzzzt. Wrong. You can't discuss scripture or defend you faith without inserting non-scriptural concepts such as Protestantism, magisterium, etc etc. Neither one of you have any mastery of the scriptures. Neither one of you should pretend to have any scriptural knowledge or understanding with non-believers.
Secondly, I do not care, and am not interested in what any creed says. I am only interested in the word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:35, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I asked a simple question, What is the Doctrine of Christ? Neither one of you have even attempted to answer that question, despite uploading a couple thousands bytes. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:38, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Nope, it's correct. And you went to the Creed, so we answered it. You haven't even answered the question I asked you, about 3 or 4 essential beliefs of the Gospel. I don't think you want to go there.

Because, if believing Jesus is the Son of God, and Our Lord and Savior, is sufficient to be OSAS, then all Catholics are already saved! Lol, and so you can stop trying to add your works to our Faith!!!NishantXavierFor Christ the King 18:39, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Nope. You brought that creed garbage in, and I disposed of it. If I let you slide off topic, i.e. bring non-scriptural, extraneous readings like Dataclarifier has a habit, we'll be spinning our wheels for ever.
You decide. Make up you mind now. I will discuss scripture - nothing else. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:00, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

I already answered your erroneous claims from Scripture, and asked you a sola Scriptura question you have not yet answered. For the nth time, what are 3 or 4 essential articles of Faith of the Gospel? If you're not answering this, there's no point. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:03, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

You answered nothing. Answer again: What is the Doctrine of Christ? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:17, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Need some help? How about:
  • God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:29, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

I've explained the Gospel. You have not. Name the 3 or 4 essential beliefs I asked you for many times. I've already told you what is the Catholic Gospel. (1) That God is a Holy Trinity, (2) That Jesus Christ is God, (3) That Jesus Christ Our Lord, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, became Man. (4) That if we worship and serve Him as true God made true Man, we can be saved. (5) That Jesus Christ was Conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mother Mary. (6) That Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins. (7) That God raised Him from the dead so that we, too, may live. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:24, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

No you haven't. Go back to the beginning of this discussion. I asked about "ongoing" sacrifices. You've danced around the issue for days. You've done a 'Dataclarifier' to avoid discussing the Bible. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:46, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

My dream for Conservapedia and World Evangelism by 2030

As a former BNY Mellon employee, I think it is very important to set attainable targets and then work year-on-year to achieve them. Here's my dream for Conservapedia. (1) that it will cross 1 Billion page views by year end. (2) That we will have 1 Million Users and (3) 10 Billion page views by 2030. Creating content should be done with that in mind, to attract many new users and viewers to our site. Also, very polemical disputes between Administrators and Senior users will be off-putting to junior users. Let us work on furthering the Conservative and Christian Cause that we all agree with. With regard to our slight differences, let's discuss them irenically in a friendly manner, with the aim of arriving at a joint consensus to promote. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:03, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Rejection of the Word of God is not a slight difference.. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 06:23, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Anti-Catholic Protestants are the worst. You have neither Truth nor Charity. Catholics don't reject the Word of God; but Anti-Catholics sure do. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:23, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God. And the word was God. The Word has never been replaced by anything.RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:38, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
That's true! And you can never replace the Word of the Lord made flesh, who said to Simon, You are Peter (Rock) and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. As the Father has sent Me so I send you. And we have seen and testified that the Father sent His Son as the Savior of the World. The Church is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the pillar and foundation of truth, built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, and the Church is the Body of Christ, Who is with us always, even to the end of the world. And it is through the Church that the manifold mystery of God might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavens, the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. And He sent on us the Holy Spirit to be with us for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, and He shall lead you into all truth. All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth, and whosoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives Me receives Him Who sent me, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur the judgment of God. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch over your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Go and make disciples of all nations, (1) baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (2) teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Even now there are many antichrists who have come. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. Moses said, "A Prophet like me shall the Lord raise up, and whosoever will not hear the words that He shall speak in My name, I will demand it of him." --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
Cute how you Scotch taped that all together. But this,
  • The Church is the temple of the Holy Spirit
is non-scriptural. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:15, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
It's in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, and in Ephesians 2:22, "you" is plural, the many. 1 Corinthians 12 says "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
You're wrong, and a liar. God is not a communist. He is not speaking to a collective, and you are perverting God's word to say he is.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Neither does this occur in scripture:
  • principalities and powers in the heavens
It occurs in Ephesians 3:10.
Principalities and powers refers specifically to earthly human governments and regimes (unless you are referring to Satan, but he's not in the heavens).
That's your interpretation, the "words of men" and commentaries and scholars apart from the word of God. It doesn't say that it refers specifically to earthly human governments and regimes. You have added to the word of God.
You took the bait hook line, and sinker. I'm using KJV. There are no Satanic powers in the heavens; there are however Satanic powers sitting in heavenly places, for which you evidently have become one of its spokesmen. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:02, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Let me build on this cause it gets to the gist of the problem as I see. Ephesians 3:10-13 is recreated below verbatim from King James:
10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
  • The italicized places does not occur in the original. It is placed there by King James translators for grammatical effect.
  • What are principalities? Principalities refers to civil authorities or human governments. Principalities do not exist "in the heavens".
  • What are powers? Powers are large economic entities in society that generally pay taxes to support principalities or civil governments, such as Google or Facebook.
  • What is meant by "principalities and powers in heavenly places?" The most obvious example is the Sanhedrin. Another good example is the Magisterium, or Vatican, or Roman Curia or whatever name you wish to call it. Verse 10 speaks of dark and Satanic forces taking over religious or "heavenly places." IndependentSkeptic's misuse and misunderstanding of this verse is a testament to this having occurred.
  • The entirety of verse 10 puts on notice to these dark and Satanic forces that occupy "heavenly places" that God's church (by "God's church" I am not referring to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church) exists on Earth and is here to oppose them;
  • According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus. See above, Vargas Milan's comments on "perfection" which nails it.
  • In whom we have boldness and access - we have access to God now, not after purgatory, to fulfil our purpose to oppose these dark Satanic forces that sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Sanhedrin, or within Roman Catholic teaching.
  • access with confidence by the faith of him. Hmmm. faith, not water baptism.
The whole problem with the CBP is that it was built on the assumption that Protestantism, after 500 years, abandoned the Word of God in the same way as the Roman Church did over 1500 years. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:57, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Principalities and powers in heavenly places is the same as spiritual wickedness in high places, which we have in both the SCOTUS (no further comment needed) and the Magisterium, which not only denies access to the Word of God, but thinks it can replace the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:35, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
No, it literally says "the heavenlies" not "governments" (on earth). --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Now you are deliberately distorting and misquoting me. You are being deceptive, again. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:32, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Let me draw you a map:
principalities = human governments
powers = corporate entities
heavenlies = religious institutions
My interpretation illuminates; your interpretation elevates corrupted religious institutions. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:38, 12 July 2020 (EDT)


IndependentSkeptic: Now, if you accepted my translation or rendition and adapted it to your patchwork above, it would read something like this:
"And it is through the Church that the manifold mystery of God might be made known to the governments and corporations that corrupt religion, the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look,"
which comes closer to actually making sense. But I don't believe you intended it that way. I think you really mean to deceive. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:50, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
It still says "heavenlies". --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
The Sanhedrin sat in the heavenlies. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:30, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
No scriptural passages anywhere in the Bible state that the Sanhedrin sat in the heavenlies.--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
Stop embarrassing yourself. You know nothing of scripture, and have no spiritual understanding. You have never been born of the spirit. You only mislead and deceive people. You are a fraud.
Time and again we see this from many of these writers: flowery, pious sounding rhetoric couched in reams and reams of sentences all about the "mysteries" of God. Nishant does it below, when the discussion is about his assertion of ongoing sacrifices of the "Precious Blood of Jesus Our Lord" morphs into something about sacrifices of praises. Just stop. Please, just stop. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:32, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

With regard to World Evangelism, as explained in the Great Commission article, there is a good chance for a billion-soul-harvest in the next decade, although there are many divisions Satan is bringing in trying to stop it. So many think Christianity will grow from 2.5 billion strong to only about 3 billion strong by 2030. But I think there is a good chance Christendom can reach perhaps 3.5 billion by 2030 and hopefully 4 Billion by 2033. Those are great targets and may seem difficult to some, but Internet Evangelism now and in the next decade opens up nearly unlimited possibilities for the Gospel to reach every where in the world if only Christians are united and work together. I continue to pray and work for Christianity to reach those targets, as the Bible says a large number of servants is the glory of the King. I've already, by the Grace of God, helped lead former non-Christians, like one of my good friends a former Muslim, to the Lord Jesus and to Holy Baptism on Twitter. There are huge opportunities for the Gospel today. Realizing and taking advantage of those opportunities requires Christians to learn to work together and also to stop the petty bickering. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:03, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

""We are living in urgent times. We are living in historic times.

We are in the middle of the greatest battle for souls! Souls, souls, souls! And the enemy is busy trying to distract the church and divide her so that we will not gain greater ground and win souls for Christ.

Stop the small dissensions and stop the immature bickering! It’s time for the Church to rise up with truth and love in the greatest hour of earth’s history. Now is the time for the Church to stand united and win in these battle for souls." http://b100lim.org/3-major-signs-of-the-billion-soul-harvest/ NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:03, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

  • Bulleted list item

It is unBiblical to reject of ongoing sacrifices

I have shown countless proofs, including from the Greek, that Holy Mass is an ongoing sacrifice. I can show it from Psa 4:6 and Heb 9:23, from 1 Pet 2:5 and countless other places. Here are some Bible verses on ongoing sacrifices.

Hebrews 13:16: Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. Romans 12:1: I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

Hebrews 13:15: Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.

1 Pet 2:4-5: As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

We are to make ongoing spiritual sacrifices for the ongoing sins of all the world. These spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:49, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Psa 4:[6] Offer up the sacrifice of justice, and trust in the Lord: many say, Who sheweth us good things? Heb 9:[23] It is necessary therefore that the patterns of heavenly things should be cleansed with these: but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:51, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Hebrews 13:16 has nothing to do with transubstantiation.
Romans 12:1 has nothing to do with transubstantiation.
Hebrews 13:15 specifically says "praises", not a consecrated host alleged to be the body of Jesus.
1 Peter 2:4-5 again, nothing to do with "the sacrifice of the mass".
1 John 2:2 sounds poetic, but not relevant to the subject.
The question has to do with the transubstantiation of the host during a mass. On the whole, you made an valient effort, but unfortunately you did not read the question. I'd have to grade between a C- and and D+.
Let's restate the question:
  • The bible says he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, and every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, why then do we have to make "satisfaction for our sins and the ongoing sins of all the world"?
I'll let you answer that question regarding "ongoing" sins first. Then you have to answer why we have to make "satisfaction for our sins"?
I'll even add a comment here: Do you even see the serious error, WE have to make satisfaction for OUR sins? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 03:32, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
If we have to make satisfaction for our sins, what do we need Christ for? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 03:36, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
If we have to make "satisfaction for our sins", there is no Gospel of Good News. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 03:39, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
So evidently Christ died for nothing cause we still have to make satisfaction for our sins. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:17, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
Now don't come back and tell me you believe the Bible or understand the Gospel, cause you don't. And then you cite the teachings of your renegade church as the basis of your faith. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:25, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
You said, "Do you even see the serious error, WE have to make satisfaction for OUR sins?" Now take that same literalistic reasoning and apply it to these scriptures about who saves who:
Acts 2:40 "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."
Romans 11:14 "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them."
1 Corinthians 7:16 "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"
1 Corinthians 9:22 "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
Colossians 1:24 "and [ "I" ] fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church"
1 Timothy 4:16 "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
James 5:15 "the prayer of faith shall save the sick"
James 5:20 "he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death"
1 Peter 3:21 "even baptism doth also now save us"
Jude 23 "And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire"
You reason that Jesus is the only Savior, but not the Church. But these verses do not mention Jesus as the one who saves. According to you this is a "serious error", since "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved". The "serious error" is only in your distorted interpretation of scripture as opposing the Church sent as the Savior of the world, whose members will do greater works than Jesus did, according to his promise in John 14:12. The Church is Jesus, His Body, the Savior. The doctrines of the Church are His Doctrines, taught by God the Holy Spirit through His ambassadors to whom He has given the ministry of reconciliation as the Savior of the world and speak in place of Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
  • Christ died once for all;
  • (quoting you above): Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
The big question is, How many years off my sentence in purgatory for the prayer of faith (James 5:15) since Christ didn't die once for all. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:26, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Helps: Re-read your own statement

Nishant wrote: "satisfaction for our sins and the ongoing sins of all the world is to offer up the Precious Blood of Jesus" You are not talking about offering praises as in Hebrews 13:15, or offering your bodies as in Romans, or any other sacrifice you list off above. This is disingenous to misrepresent the facts in this thread discussion. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 03:52, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

LOLOL. I'd have to grade myself between A+ and A. What is your body without the body of Christ? Absolutely nothing. Therefore, when you offer your body as a living sacrifice, unless you offer it in union with the Body of Christ, God will not accept it. That's what it means offer spiritual sacrifices tahat are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. I've already showed you the Greek for the Words of Institution are "Offer this as My Memorial Sacrifice". Christ Himself commanded that His Memorial Sacrifice be offered again and again until the end of time. You're trying to refute Christ. It won't work. Neither can you answer Heb 9:23, which says it is New Covenant Sacrifices that purify the Heavenly things. In 1 Cor 10, it is clearly said that the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion, the Cup of the Table of the Lord, is a true and proper sacrifice to the Lord, of which we partake.

1 Cor 10:16 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?"

See also Heb 13:10 10 "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle."--NishantXavierFor Christ the King 06:52, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Well, you simply have not reconciled "ongoing sins of all the world is to offer up the Precious Blood of Jesus" with he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever. I'll put my money on God over your statement. Let's move on, cause it ties in with purgatory as well.
Why do we need Christ if we must atone for our own sins? Doesn't this sound like the doctrine of the anti-Christ? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 04:35, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

We offer up Christ's Sacrifice in every present moment. We gain graces for the Church, conversion for sinners, sanctification for the just, and every other grace by prayer through offering up the Body of Christ as a Living Sacrifice, and our own bodies in union with it. We offer all our good works, our prayers, our sacrifices (read the Life Offering I promoted in my article) in union with the Sacrifice of the Cross: "TEXT OF THE LIFE OFFERING My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my of my entire life for the adoration and supplication of the Holy Trinity, for unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father and priests, for good priestly vocations, and for all souls until the end of the world. O my Jesus, please accept my life sacrifice and my offerings and give me your grace that I may persevere obediently until my death. Amen."

These are the kinds of sacrifices Hebrews in particular speaks of, in the passages that I quoted above. It is the Sacrifice of Christ which we offer our good works up in union with, for with such sacrifices God is pleased, as it is written. Also, in the Psalms, God says to offer up the sacrifice of justice, and trust in the Lord. Do you offer sacrifices to the Lord when you pray to Him or do you not? --NishantXavierFor Christ the King 06:52, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks. I guess you don't need God than after all, since you're doing such a great job yourself. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:45, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Everything we do is by the Grace of God and for the Glory of God. Everything the Church offers derives from the Sacrifice of the Cross, and manifests the splendid power of that Sacrifice. What is a Sacrifice that doesn't transform the lives of those who participate, that doesn't make Saints out of sinners? The Sacrifice of Calvary, which is offered in a non-bleeding manner in the Holy Mass, causes us to ever remain in constant remembrance of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ Our Lord. That is why it is offered daily in the Catholic Church. Recall that it is written Anti-Christ will have power against the daily Sacrifice. Thus, the Protestant movement was a step toward Anti-Christ, because (in their own denominations) they did away with the daily Sacrifice of Holy Mass. We however preserve it to this day. Read also Mal 1:10-11 which says God will accept Sacrifice in every Gentile country, during the time He receives none from the Jews in Jerusalem, i.e. in the Messianic era after their Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 10:56, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

No it's not. You don't need God's word, you got Magesterium. You don't need Jesus's blood, you got your own sacrifices. You don't need God's salvation, you got purgatory. You don't need the Good News of the Gospel cause you can do it yourself. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:38, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Wrong. We didn't learn to offer the Holy Sacrifice otherwise than from the holy Word of God. Read the holy Bible and you will learn that it is not the hearers of the Word of God who are justified, but them that do the Word the God. Do you know which Apostle said that? The Protestant churches, I agree, hear the Word of God. However, the Catholic Church actually OBEYS OR DOES the Word of God, by offering the Lord's Body and Lord's Blood, as His Memorial Sacrifice, according to His Divine Command, on the Night before His Sacrificial Death. If you do it to together with us, you will be just. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:40, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

We have "got" the Magisterium which has faithfully preserved all through the centuries God's Written Word and defended it against the falsifications of heretics. We have Jesus' blood mystically present in reality enabling us to partake of the divine nature in our own sacrifices of dedicated worship of Him, and in our own physical bodies offered to him as sacrifices in purity and vessels of service as our reasonable spiritual worship, sacrifices which are united to Him Who is in the Father and the Father in Him in His body and blood and bestowed by Him on us in baptism and eucharist and the other five sacraments ordained by Him in giving them infinite divine value to save souls, including infants, and uniting us to Himself in love, a union of eternal life broken only if we will to choose to remain not in him and fall away. We have God's guarantee of the infallibly irrevocable salvation of all those in purgatory because those members of His body being purified after death are being perfected for ever by being sanctified by Him in baptism and perseverance in good works which God has prepared for us beforehand that we should walk in them even unto death for Him. We have the Good News of the Gospel of salvation in the Church that He established with God's authority as the sacrament of salvation sent by Him as the Savior of the world to baptise and teach under the power of Jesus' real presence always with us and the fulfillment of the Holy Spirit promised by Him to be with us forever, leading us into all truth in the Church which is the temple of the Holy Spirit, the pillar and foundation of the truth of God, through which alone the manifold wisdom of God is made known to the principalities and powers even in heaven. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Right, Independent Skeptic! Catholic Christians have 100% of the Faith. Evangelical Christians have like 50% of the Faith. Instead of trying to take us away from our 100% fullness of Truth and wholeness of the Faith, they should at least try to bring non-Christians to that 50% that they have. We Catholic Christians already know the Truth and will be saved through having it. If according to them, only one act of faith in Christ is sufficient to save for all time, then all of us Catholic Christians are saved! And they should stop trying to add their works to our Faith!!! NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:43, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

  • If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
  • "O LORD, open the eyes of these men that they may see."
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:48, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

He hath perfected for ever

There are many verses that proclaim the Good News of salvation, aka the Gospel. We've had one floating on this page for days. Yet none of these editors picked up the ball and ran with it. Instead, they focus on denying God's Word (i.e. the Gospel of Jesus Christ) with Magisterium.

Your anti-Catholic accusations are false. Why don't you learn what Catholic doctrine is, rather than attacking a strawman? Catholic doctrine is not that the Gospel is not the Word of God. Catholic doctrine is that heterodox sects were not authorized to interpret the Gospel by Christ, but the Lord gave only the Keys of Heaven to St. Peter, the first Pope, and authorized the Church, i.e. the Bishops together with the Church, to interpret it. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:42, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Here is Dei Verbum, from Vatican Council II. The very meaning of that is, the Word of God. "10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

The real test comes now if they will proclaim the Gospel of salvation with this verse, or attack me personally, or revert to comparing Roman Catholicism with Protestantism.

But there it is, the Good News in a thumbnail:

  • by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified

Do you believe it? Are you motivated to share this message from God with non-believers and win souls for Christ? Or are you content to keep spinning your wheels, shrugging your shoulders at God's word, and making pointless arguments that cannot be backed up by God's word and God's truth? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:53, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

I answered that above.
"We have God's guarantee of the infallibly irrevocable salvation of all those in purgatory because those members of His body being purified after death are being perfected for ever by being sanctified by Him in baptism and perseverance in good works which God has prepared for us beforehand that we should walk in them even unto death for Him." see Ephesians 2:10; Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13 "Whoever perseveres to the end will be saved." --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
So Jesus' sacrifice was in vane and you still have to work off your sin debt. Thanks for clarifying that up. You're preaching the doctrine of anti-Christ. RobSTrump 2Q2Q
You all heard if from the horses mouth: Christ did not die once for all. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:37, 12 July 2020 (EDT)


Do you believe Heb 9:23, that Christ purifies the heavenly things, with "better sacrifices" than the OT sacrifices? As for Heb 10:14, "For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.", yes, it's perfectly true. By one sacrifice, He perfected us. And as we are continually being made holy, as the latter portion of that verse says, we must continually offer that one same sacrifice, for Christ to make us holy.

Yes, I'm glad to see you agree we must be motivated to share the Message of the Good News with non-believers and win souls for Christ. That's good; if Christians did that more, instead of bickering with each other, the world would be a better place, and many more souls would be saved. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:49, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

The structural flaw of Dataclaifier's argument

At Infant baptism Dataclarifier says, "...only properly interpreted and understood according to the mind of Christ by the leaders of the magisterium...". Dataclarifier evidently is lifting mind of Christ from 1 Corinthians 2:16 where Paul says, we have the mind of Christ. Dataclarifier excludes "we", meaning the laity, from possessing the mind of Christ. Under this doctrine, those outside the magisterium are restricted from being spiritually born (ye must be born from above) and consigned to a carnal existence while in the flesh. They are forbidden from having the mind of Christ.

I know I know I know what the response will be, "Rob, ordinary people can't have the mind of Christ, they must follow the instructions of the religious leaders and authorities based on thousands of years of scholarship and instruction bla bla bla....". Please, try and do better than that, you should actually try to defend your errant teaching and doctrine. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:18, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Next response will be, "Sure, ordinary people can have the mind of Christ, as long as its in accordance with Matt 15 bla bla bla. They should listen to what the successors of Peter say and not the Holy Spirit." RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:28, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Strawman. Data Clarifier knows well that both the Priests and the Laity receive the Holy Spirit. The Laity at Baptism and Confirmation, and the Priests also in those as well as in Ordination. But Priests have a special charism that enables them to teach. Recall that St. James says not many should become teachers, because those who teach will be more strictly judged. Those who are given the grace to teach receive a special divine assistance from the Holy Spirit. This applies especially to the Successors of St. Peter, whom God made the Rock of His Church on Earth, and gave the Keys of Heaven, to bind and loose on Earth. How do you understand that passage? How can God promise to bind it in Heaven if it wasn't guided by Him i.e. by His Spirit? NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:51, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Hahahaha. The laity receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. They teach you that at seminary?
Let's not stop there. Is it the spirit without measure? If so, why do they need a refill at communion? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:55, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
To RobSmith: Thou hast said it. You really "should listen to what the authorized successors of Peter say" in the Body of Christ under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit forever with the Church leading into all truth. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church Jesus founded on a Rock, the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth of God, the one Church built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets and sent by Jesus as the Father sent Him, as the Savior of the world. You need to believe in the scriptures:
  • Obey the Church. Whoever does not listen to the Church is to be rejected as false and a traitor. Matthew 18:15-17
  • Jesus built his Church and not even the powers of hell shall prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
  • Whoever rejects Jesus and does not receive his sayings has a judge; the word that Jesus has spoken will be his judge on the last day. John 12:4712:48
  • Whoever does not listen to the Church is to be rejected as a pagan (Gentile) and a traitor. Matthew 18:15-17
  • Whoever rejects Jesus and does not receive his sayings (including Mt 16:18; 18:15-17; and Revelation 2:7,11,17,28; 3:6,13,22) has a judge; the word that Jesus has spoken will be his judge on the last day. John 12:4712:48
  • The Church is the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12
  • The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15
  • Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Hebrews 13:17
  • Through the Church the manifold wisdom of God is known. Ephesians 3:10
  • Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. (The Church) 1 Peter 2:13
  • Be subject to the elders (presbyteroi = priests). "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you. 1 Peter 5:5-6
  • For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Romans 13:1-2
If you reject the teaching authority of the church Jesus founded, you reject the scriptures that testify to it and to Him.
If you reject the authority of the scriptures testifying to the established authority of the church He built on the rock to teach the doctrines of God and rightly divide and interpret the word of God and Christian tradition handed on from the apostles of the word received not from men, but as it is, from God, you reject the word of God which supports it and Him.
If you reject the word of God you reject Him.
If you resist God you fight against Him. If you gather not with Him you scatter the sheep.
And if after having once been with him and tasted of the heavenly gift and partaken of the powers of heaven you then fall away (as you have) you are condemned. You can still be brought back from your error by the Church.
You cannot renew yourself unto repentance (Heb. 6:6), it must be done by the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation in the Church administered by a priest of the Church who has the authentic authorized ministry of reconciliation entrusted and given by God to the Church. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Time and again all you preach is bondage. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:19, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
One other note: IndependentSkeptic/Dataclarifier loves to toss around "authority of scripture" before he condemns to hell whoever he's preying on, whereas early on he (a) denied the authority of scripture several times and reposted his denial on several pages; and (b) repeatedly has not demonstrated any skill in the use of scripture; in fact his/her/them's misuse of scripture is easy to document, time and time again. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:09, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Matthew 18:15

  • if thy brother shall trespass against thee

As IndependentSkeptic documents above, IndependentSkeptic thinks he's "The Church". This is the sin of pride. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:17, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

So—you absolutely reject the testimony of scripture: that the Church built by Jesus on Rock has the authority of God to baptize by water and the Spirit, teach doctrine, and preach salvation and reconciliation in the stead of Christ as if God Himself is speaking and save souls as the Savior of the world, whose Elders we are to obey and be subject to, Jesus remaining with us to the end of time and the Holy Spirit with us forever leading into all truth, and that those who will not listen to the one He has sent as the Savior of the world reject both Him and He who sent him and are by his command to be rejected as pagans, and traitor "tax collectors" in league with the pagan world. If you believed the word of God, you would believe the Church, for the word of God testifies to the authority of the Church. Your pride will not allow you to accept it. Repent, and believe the Full Gospel good news that Jesus has established his Church solidly on Rock and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. She the Bride of Christ is ready to welcome you home. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
No. You absolutely reject the testimony of scripture as I documented right here. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:27, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, you still have not responded to these scriptures about who saves who:
Acts 2:40 "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."
Romans 11:14 "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them."
1 Corinthians 7:16 "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"
1 Corinthians 9:22 "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
Colossians 1:24 "and [ "I" ] fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church"
1 Timothy 4:16 "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
James 5:15 "the prayer of faith shall save the sick"
James 5:20 "he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death"
1 Peter 3:21 "even baptism doth also now save us"
Jude 23 "And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire"
You reason that Jesus is the only Savior, but not the Church. These verses do not mention Jesus as the one who saves. According to you this is a "serious error", since "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved". The "serious error" is only in your distorted interpretation of scripture as opposing the Church sent as the Savior of the world, whose members will do greater works than Jesus did, according to his promise in John 14:12. The Church is Jesus, His Body, the Savior. The doctrines of the Church are His Doctrines, taught by God the Holy Spirit through His ambassadors to whom He has given the ministry of reconciliation as the Savior of the world and speak in place of Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20.
"It's hard for you to kick against the pricks!" --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
You're just trolling and spamming now. Is Dataclarifier using your account? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:43, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
No. I use my own ID. Dataclarifier is asleep. You still have not responded to the above scriptures about who saves who. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
If this weren't a private talk page, I'd revert your spam. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:39, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Look, you've repeatedly stated, as Dataclarifier has, that "the Church" gives salvation. I prefer to think of that statement as ludicrous rather than blasphemous. Don't push me. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:48, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Additional comments: Because I don't have administrator privileges, the only time Conservapedia makes available to edit is from about 10 am through to just before 2 am. So when I had something to say immediately outside those time limits, I got permission from Dataclarifier to use his ID. But when I did, I stated that's what I did.
He personally doesn't think there's any point in him posting to Conservapedia any more. Not only because RobSmith insists on futile "interminable debate" and stubbornly ignores or rejects what scripture says about the infallible divine authority of the Church being faithful to scripture and tradition by the ministry of the magisterium as defending and explaining the message of the full Gospel of Christ Jesus the Lord, but primarily because his vision has partially failed and the possible complications of eye surgery to remove the "sludge" of shifting "floaters" blocking his vision might possibly have caused the complication of permanent blindness with no sight. He elected to put up with the inconvenience of progressively losing his "reading vision" and not take the risk of surgery. The Wolfe Eye Clinic specialists said that with aging (he's almost 74) the vitreous humor that is the watery firm bulk of the eyeball begins to break down and produce the floaters, "like firm gelatin that breaks up into smaller movable pieces on the dish when a finger is pressed into it." There were two options: surgery or no surgery. Some have it worse than others. He decided to not take the surgery. The full assessment exam was 2 and a half hours. We drove him home.
As for me, I'm glad I found the scriptures about the Church and the necessity of obedience to the elders of the church "which have the rule over you", which I posted above on this page, and then read the Church Fathers from the 1st through the 8th centuries. Their consistent understanding of the Bible is clearly Catholic, not Protestant, and definitely not sola scriptura, as NishantXavier pointed out in his excellent comments on Acts 15 (the Council of Jerusalem). I finally read the whole Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's the most Bible-based Church on earth! The Catholic Church says that God made the Church the source of salvation, his own mystical body, which is consistent with the doctrine of Christ that he taught the apostles and that they taught and preached to the people and that was later written down by the Evangelists in the Gospels and Paul's letters and James and Peter and Jude and the Revelation to John in the New Testament and handed down from the apostles by faithful men guarded by the Holy Spirit within them, and that the whole body of the members of the Church together with their leaders united with Jesus as the Head save people by the authority of Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Great Commission, from then to now. When they save someone (in the examples of the scriptures listed above), it's really Jesus in them as members of his Body united to him and moved by him in charity in the Church by the Holy Spirit, and the sacraments ministered by the members of his Body who save, because it is Jesus acting in the sacraments with the personal action of the washing of his blood of his cross in them that saves in the sacraments by the power of the Holy Spirit. When these people save, in the scriptures about who saves who, people who save others, and Jesus is not mentioned, Catholic doctrine teaches that it is Jesus through their good works of effecting salvation and offering sacrifices of worship and reparation for sins in union with him for the salvation of the world. He does the work of salvation by them. It all makes sense. That's why I became Catholic.
And that's why sola scriptura (using the Bible alone) can not explain how the Bible can on the one hand teach that individuals who are not Jesus can save souls, themselves and others, when on the other hand salvation is by Christ alone "apart from the Church". --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm sorry to hear that Dataclarifier's vision is partially failing. I'll continue sending more prayers every day for our Father in Heaven to ensure the best for you and Dataclarifier! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:27, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Thanks. I told him. Be sure of our prayers for you and Nishant and Vargas and Rob. May Jesus Christ in the Church be praised and glorified now and forever. Amen. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Amen! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:46, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Comment: DC & I/S need to switch to Dark Mode on your browser, youtube, Facebook, and anywhere else that has it. The brightness of the screen is not good for your eyes. RobSTrump 2Q2Q
Leave? How can we miss him if he won't go away?
Sympathetic to DataClarifier or not, IndependentSkeptic certainly didn't waste any time to use his malady discussion to bludgeon those who insisted DC's (and his own) theological claims not go unexamined. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:12, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

These types of debates always drag on and on, never ending. Aren't there other topics to debate about, such as whether pineapple belongs on pizza? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 16:30, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

There it is again, Rob. All four of them always cut and run if they're afraid they're going to have to show any kind of deference, like to the Biblical witness-authors whose books I've just now spent a long time gathering to have their passages quoted here. So far we solved a problem in interpretation caused by a double meaning of the word "perfection". It's strange. Reading and discussing to solve problems may be difficult, but we may not be able to learn well at a fast pace with understanding in any other way. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 17:15, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Did you see his Scotched taped perversion of scripture above? LOL. That is what he calls quoting or using scripture, which only underscores my argument of his misuse of scripture. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:43, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Vargas, do you really think that it reflects well to display a harsh, condescending attitude on others who may hold some differing views? I was only suggesting that we could move on from a potentially time-consuming debate that goes nowhere if it could be something more productive. Your type of attitude appears to be what drove Dataclarifier out of CP, and now the latter may not come back ever (maybe due to potential increasing blindness, correct me if I'm wrong). Also, after your half-rant of a response here, it seems that you doubled down by assuming that I "may be angry". Just for the record, I always find humor in your responses, sometimes because you do have a good sense of humor, other times because your attitude demonstrates what could be confirmation bias. So apparently it seems that I can't enter these debates over Bible interpretations without facing your wrath, because valid differing points just cannot be responded to by you in a more constructive, respectable manner. Also, you never responded to the second half mentioned in my post on your talk page here. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 17:58, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
It's IndependentSkeptic who deserves remonstration. Rather than respond to the point that this subheading was created for, he disrupts the point by posting redundant spam - a blockable offense. It is IndependentSkeptic being incivil. How should people react to such persistent rudeness and incivility? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:08, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
If what IndependentSkeptic posted is considered spam, then what about Vargas' post here? Besides, it seemed that IndependentSkeptic posted relevant points while Vargas was just being condescending towards me for daring to discuss mostly valid points he strongly disagrees with. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:17, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
That's about your speed. Denouncing Jesus' words is irrelevant because you "discussed mostly valid points". And then you denounce the translation for "lack of understanding" (not even relevant to its use here) even though the editor was a major translation theorist who developed a new category of translation theory. Why would I even bother to look at your three sentences of "points"? It's just "fruit from a poisonous tree". You were just "doubling down" presuming you could sail through with your negative attribution to me made out of whole cloth, with no evidence, without it being disproven. Isn't that a kind of trolling?
And what about what about? You call my Scripture references spam, even though I/S does the same thing to issue new streams of discussion away from the river every time before the old ones have even finished, while I was building on success after reconciling RobS to one of your major positions, and if not, showed the thinking where you could take steps to get there. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 06:52, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Also RobSmith, I just want to politely, though firmly note that, in your words, IndependentSkeptic "disrupts the point". Your response to my response is shifting the focus to IndependentSkeptic, where I was referring to VargasMilan's conduct. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:20, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
[Yes...and badly at that. Maybe he was just embarrassed for you. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 06:57, 13 July 2020 (EDT)]
I/S reposted a spam posting from here, which bore little relevance to what was being discussed on that thread above. Here, he made an assertion that the church was going to excommunicate and send to hell somebody who has a dispute with their brother. Think I'm fooling? See for yourself:
To RobSmith: Thou hast said it. You really "should listen to what the authorized successors of Peter say" in the Body of Christ under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit forever with the Church leading into all truth. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church Jesus founded on a Rock, the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth of God, the one Church built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets and sent by Jesus as the Father sent Him, as the Savior of the world. You need to believe in the scriptures:
  • Obey the Church. [my bolden added] Whoever does not listen to the Church is to be rejected as false and a traitor. Matthew 18:15-17 [my bolden added]
So what does Matthew 18:15 say?
if thy brother shall trespass against thee
IndependnetSkeptiuc thinks he's the church if thy brother trespasses against him, he thinks he's got the authority to brand them false and a traitor. This is about as naked an abuse of scripture as it gets, but really I've seen worse. This user should not be allowed around small children. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:20, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Bottomline: I created this thread with two lines to give I/S-DC the opportunity to correct or clarify his misuse of Matthew 18:15. We're no closer to that happening, but he was allowed to spam, disrupt, and sow discord among the brethren. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:38, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
In fact, let's just ignore what Jesus said about forgiving thy brother 70 x 7 if he sins against you. Let's just get the successors of Peter to send him to hell for not bowing the knee to the successors of Peter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the garbage DC & I/S have filled CP up with for months? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:51, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
Let's read the whole context here (ESV):
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a] in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. 21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.
Now (a) Where is there any truth whatsoever in User:IndependentSleptic's misuse of this scripture? (b) "where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am also" -> This is the definition of the church. (c) IndependentSkeptic postulates, based upon verses 15 & 16, that me personally, RobSmith, should be excommunicated and sent to hell, whereas Jesus Christ our Lord specificly instructs IndependentSkeptic in verse 22 to forgive his brother at least 490 times.
Where does this man have any claim to Biblical knowledge and authority to teach our children? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 06:32, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
It is absent. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:25, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
if he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH—He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the CHURCHES. (Revelation 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22). And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46). He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48). Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. (John 8:43).
IndependentSkeptic read me what you wrote (above). He would have to wait til 10am to respond. I don't. And I can still see enough through the "fog" in my eyes to respond (it isn't easy) and desperately beg you, for the sake of your soul, to obey Jesus' word, and do what he says, to listen to the Church and hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.
Little groups of two or three that get together to decide for themselves what the Bible means, if they are gathered together in the name of the Lord, Jesus is there in their midst, true, but if they refuse to hear his word to hear what the Spirit says to the Churches, the word that he himself has spoken, the same shall judge them in the last day. The Spirit said through Saint Peter, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). He also warns against those who "wrest" or twist the scriptures to their own destruction and draw others to fall from their stability in the Lord.
I fear for you. I beg you to do what Jesus says and listen to the Church. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls" (Hebrews 13:17)—"submit yourselves unto the Elder" (in context of 1 Peter 5:1-9, the "shepherds" of the Church), and look at the warning in Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood". Little groups of two or three gathered in the name of the Lord are not the Overseers of all the flock which is the Church of God. The Shepherds, the Elders, are, "who have the rule over you".
NishantXavier said it well in pointing out that when there was a debate over doctrine the issue was submitted to the elders of the church in Jerusalem and they made a decision binding on the church—they didn't say "Go and read the Bible and decide for yourselves."
I pray for you. I beg you to "listen to what the Spirit says to the CHURCHES" as Jesus said, because the Lord Jesus said, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day". Lord have mercy. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2020 (EDT) (composed just before the NishantXavier comment below, between 07:00 and 08:06 CDT)
I want to quickly add and emphasize that the Church by the inspired mercy of the Holy Spirit in her acknowledges the truth of invincible ignorance. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2020 (EDT) (8:29 CDT)
DC: Above Nishant says the Holy Spirit is given at baptism. You wanna take a swing at that one and try to support it with scripture? (you and me may have been over this ground and, if my recollection is correct, you may have agreed with me that it is not).
I'll try to make our interactions swift, to the point, and brief cause I know the stress the ultraviolet rays from the screen put on one's eyes. So, I'm willing to do my part to make our interactions productive for young students to observe.
If you are so all-fired convinced that your Magisterium is on the right track with Bible interpretation, you shouldn't need them anymore. You should be able to take your guidance from them in private study, measure it up against the Word of God, and by-pass any reference to them when posting here on questions of biblical understanding and biblical interpretation. We are not interested in hearing you regurgitate catechism that anyone can read for themselves with a few clicks. We're interested in hearing your understanding. To keep repeating "My understanding is their understanding" is like talking to a brick wall. Come out from under you shell. Show yourself. God's not gonna send you to hell for it.
We know your stance. The Pope's always right. Good. Fine. You don't have to keep repeating it. Now tell me, is IndependentSkeptic correct in his understanding of Matthew 18, verses 15 and verse 22?
And if you don't want to read through all his garbage, then post up what verse 15 means and what verse 22 means.
Look, this request is no biggee. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:50, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
No problem. read NishantXavier's comment below "Excommunication in Mat 18:15-18 itself shows there is Only One True Church..." --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
I did. Your misunderstanding of scripture is not a trespass against me. If I took that complaint to two or three witnesses or the church as a whole, I'd be a false accuser - a liar. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:32, 13 July 2020 (EDT)


Excommunication in Mat 18:15-18 itself shows there is Only One True Church, and that this Church is Visible and Apostolic, and can be identified easily by all; moreover, that this Church has the Keys of Heaven to bind and loose on earth, to issue binding dogmatic and disciplinary pronouncements. Which Church meets the requirements of the Biblical Church? The Catholic Church of course. She is visible, Apostolic, One, and issues binding doctrinal and disciplinary pronouncements including excommunication, like how Martin Luther for e.g. was excommunicated from Her. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:25, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Read verse 15. A misunderstanding over scripture is not a sin against thy brother. Get real. Did you really go to seminary? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:52, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Matthew 18:15 (KJV):
“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”
Rejecting the Pope is not a trespass by your brother against you. To allege that it is, is to make yourself God - idolatry and pride. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:04, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
The point of the whole verse is listening to the decisions of the Church on any controverted issue. You, brother, offend by rejecting the Church. Her decision in such an offense is already a matter of record. And you refuse to listen. I fear for you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
You didn't read the verse. It speaks of a private interaction between two individuals. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:32, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Listen to the Church. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
You said, "Rejecting the Pope is not a trespass by your brother against you." The Pope is a member of the Body of Christ, and my brother and yours. "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
(a) The church is not involved in this case. (b) If I say "F--- the Pope", that is not a trespass against you. It may be against God, but it certainly is not against you. If you go and tell two or three people I sinned against you by saying that, you are making yourself God - pride, idolatry, and blasphemy. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:45, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
"And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." 1 Corinthians 12:26-27. "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Is this the hill you chose to die on? You're misquoting scripture, again. 1 Cor. 12:26-27 makes no reference to trespasses, at all. That is not what is being discussed in that chapter, at all. You are twisting and perverting scripture, again. You are being deceptive.
I hope your weak conscience can bear this truth. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:48, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Rob Smith, still waiting for you to summarize 3 or 4 essential beliefs of the Gospel

Can you do this? Can you summarize the articles of faith of which, by placing faith in, and by making an act of faith even once, everyone can be "once saved, always saved". Is it (1) Our Lord Jesus being the Son of God. If so, all practicing Catholics are saved. Hurray! (2) Is it the Holy Trinity? If so also, all practicing Catholics are saved. Yay! (3) Is it that Jesus died for our sins? Great! (4) Is it that He rose again? Greater still! At any rate, all good Catholics are assured of salvation by faith in Christ and His Divinity, in His Lordship and Death, in His Resurrection from the dead. Cite Scriptural verses for any of your claims, like a good Sola Scriptura adherent. Let's see where this goes. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:28, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Sure, we'll get to that. Once we agree upon the ground rules. However, we don't. Gospel is a Biblical term. My understanding of Gospel comes from scripture. You, DC, and I/S however have another understanding from elsewhere. We're not speaking the same language. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:26, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
We've cited the clear language of scripture, clear plain and simple, and you still refuse to listen to it. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
No you didn't. You proved yourself a prideful idolater. But that is a sin against God, not me. I have no recourse. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:47, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
  • if thy brother shall trespass against thee
What would that be? Stealing. Lying. Adultery with one's spouse. Rejecting Roman Catholic doctrine is not a sin against other Roman Catholics. Any Roman Catholic who alleges that it is a false accuser. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:54, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Rejecting the precious Faith is a sin against us because it is the Faith that comes from Christ Himself Whom we love. That is your trespass and wound against us all. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm speaking of the Roman Catholic Faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ who guaranteed by His Precious Promises the truth of His Church. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Good. Whatever. But rejecting the faith is not a tresspass between thee and him alone. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:09, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
It is an example of the general principle stated by Paul in one particular instance, "And when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." 1 Corinthians 8:12. You trespass against and wound us all. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Between us and you alone on this page. Nishant and we others have admonished you. You won't listen. The judgment of the Church is already known. You won't listen to the Church. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
We have not even discussed the difference between a trespass and sin. A trespass is a lower class of infraction against the law than sin. Yet you're ready to excommunicate somebody based upon the testimony of a liar, when in verse 22 Jesus commands you forgive the offender seventy times seven. Go figure.
Is the hill you chose to die on? RobSTrump 2Q2Q
"If he comes to you and repents, you shall forgive him" You haven't repented your trespassing offense. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
So to make it a tresspass by reporting it to the church makes one a false accuser. There is no doctrine of excommunication in these verses. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:11, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
DC says when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
Okay. You got me there. I sinned and wounded your weak conscience. I failed to live up to my commitment to be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:31, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

If this debate can't be resolved, how about going on to this one? It seems like this discussion just drags on and on. Also, did anyone see my post on Talk:Main Page here? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:46, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Actually, we appear to be making progress. DC is focused on scripture. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:51, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Nishant Xavier, you claim, by doctrine: "At any rate, all good Catholics are assured of salvation by faith in Christ and His Divinity, in His Lordship and Death, in His Resurrection from the dead."

But doesn't the Douay (Catholic) Bible in Ecclesiastes 9:1 read:

"All these things have I considered in my heart, that I might carefully understand them: there are just men and wise men, and their works are in the hand of God: and yet man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred:..."

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 12:08, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

So what do you mean? All good Catholics are assured of salvation, an ASSURANCE by means of faith in Christ and His Divinity, in His Lordship and Death, in His Resurrection from the dead.

OR

All good Catholics are assured of salvation, a SALVATION by means of faith in Christ and His Divinity, in His Lordship and Death, in His Resurrection from the dead.

I think the chief Catholic doctrinal source of philosophy, Aristotle, calls that an AMPHIBOLY, a rhetorical device used to perpetrate fallacies.

I have a second question. Do you think expressing a doctrine about PROPITIATION with an AMPHIBOLY is a PROPITIOUS way to set the ground rules (presumably what you refered to as an ESSENTIAL belief) of what is conveyed to be a collegial discussion? Or is it more like you placing something slippery in front of a colleague who's walking with you and sincerely seeking understanding to add to his faith?

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 14:27, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

You'll probably try to change the subject again, so let me ask you this, too: If conveying that sentence to a colleague were a kind of offering to the Lord, do you really think God would pleased by an offering like that? Or would it rather be, if you prayed about it, you'd likely offer something different? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 14:41, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Nishant says Roman Catholics receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. He also says he was a seminary student. I think that sums up the problem right there. Of course once receiving the spirit without measure (John 3:34), he can't explain why he has to keep refilling the gas tank at holy communion. I'd ask him the same question I asked DC way back when (which DC tried to hide in all his spam repostings), What is the meaning of John 8:44?
  • Ye are of your father the devil
If he can't explain it in spiritual terms, he's a Nazi. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:11, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Who's a Nazi? the Nazis were anti-Catholics and anti-Semites among their other crimes and sins. The Pope wrote a special Encyclical in German called Mit Brenneder Sorge just to condemn them. You don't want to understand and I'm not obliged to explain at depth. Being the seed of Satan refers to anti-Catholics, who have enmity with the Woman and Her Seed (Gen 3:15). The Woman is Mary, the Seed is Christ; the Rest of Her Seed (see Rev 12:17) are all true Christians, Mary's Children (Jn 19:26-27 as well). The seed of Satan have enmity with the seed of the Woman. The seed of Satan are those who remain in unregenerated original sin and add to it the commission of many mortal sins. The seed of the Woman are those regenerated of the Holy Ghost in water Baptism and who receive increase of grace in the other Holy Sacraments. Holy Communion is not for the remission of mortal sin; it is for the increase of sanctifying Grace. The more and more often a person receives Holy Communion devoutly, the higher and higher his place in Heaven. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:59, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

That is not the question. The question is point blank -- What does John 8:44 mean?
Ye are of your father the devil.
The question is not about Mit Brenneder Sorge. The question is for you to explain to us the meaning of Christ's words, Ye are of your father the devil. The question is about your understanding of a biblical verse. Please answer this question and do not avoid the question as you did above. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:06, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

The verse means those in mortal sin are spiritual children of the devil, as those in the State of Sanctifying God are spiritual children of God. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:22, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Close, but not quite. Christ is speaking to a specific group. Here's the full context:
I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Christ is telling them that, just because someone performed a religious ceremony over them as an infant - in this case circumcision - that does not make them a child of God. My word is not in you. And your response using Mit brennender Sorge to a scriptural question rather than the word of God testifies My word is not in you. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:23, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

You're not still on this are you? Circumcision and Baptism are different. Go and reread the 10 Scriptural Proofs I gave that Baptism saves, Baptism regenerates, Baptism justifies, Baptism makes adopted sons of God and so much more. Then show me where circumcision did the same. But even Baptism, as great as it is, must be completed by Holy Communion. "Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you will not have life in you" says the Lord. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 12:42, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

@Vargas Milan: It was a point I made reference to in topic 13. If one act of faith in Christ Crucified is sufficient to make a person "once saved, always saved", as many Protestants hold, then all practicing Catholics are saved. Because all Catholics have made not one but many acts of faith in Christ and in Him Crucified. Hence, we are all saved, if Protestantism is true! If Catholicism is true, we have the Sacraments and are more secure in our salvation. Now, answer my question to you from above. Are you Catholic or Evangelical, Vargas?

No, you presented an amphiboly (double-counsel) as an essential of your faith. I asked you if you thought God would be pleased by that statement if it were offering you were presenting.
And for my being a Protestant or Catholic? For one thing, that's private, and for a second thing, how is it even relevant? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 09:39, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

As for what I meant, I said, if OSAS is true, all Catholics are saved. All Catholics have made at least one act of saving faith in Christ Crucified. Therefore, if according to OSAS that is sufficient for final salvation, then all Catholics will attain final perseverance and be saved. That was the argument. I am aware of course that real Catholic theology distinguishes justification and perseverance. Attaining justification is not an assurance of attaining perseverance. But someone who is justified by God's Grace, who co-operates in his own soul's sanctification, and who perseveres till the end, will be saved. Is my response clearer now? Regarding Holy Communion, I cited a link in explanation of the Sacraments. Ok, you want that to be private; so can you explain if you see Holy Communion as literal or symbolic? We Catholics consider it literal. Some Evangelicals consider it symbolic. Thus, Rob, for instance, considers it symbolic. We believe Mat 26, Mark 14, Luk 22, Jn 6, 1 Cor 10 and 11, Heb 13 etc are all clear that it is literal. Hope that clears up the second issue. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 10:12, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

You wrote: "we have the sacraments and are more secure in our salvation"? Don't you remember on July 8 when I said what you call the eucharist, Protestants call the sacrament of Holy Communion or the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that you were completely wrong? How can you forget it? LiberalTears went into orbit! VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 09:59, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

@Rob Smith: If you deny Holy Communion is the real Body and Blood of Christ, you commit a sin against your neighbors who communicate, and against the Holy Church, the Bride of Christ, as well. That is why in the Gospel the Lord tells St. Peter and the Apostles to use the power of the keys and excommunicate such persons. But Mother Church is merciful and calls you to return to Her Communion. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:03, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

If you cannot explain the meaning of John 8:44 in spiritual language, you are a Nazi. Do you want another swing at it? You already have strike one. I do not take spiritual advice from spiritually blind people and Nazis. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:17, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Correct, NishantXavier! In fact, Hitler was an anti-Catholic who may actually have been influenced by Martin Luther's teachings that included none other than anti-Semitism. Also, I should note that there's almost no point trying to constructively debate with VargasMilan; see here and here. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:33, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
See my above response to Nishant, cause this applies to you too if you closely align yourself with these fleshly and Satanic interpretations of scripture. Do you want a chance to explain John 8:44 in spiritual language? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:17, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Enmity! against the Woman and her seed, against the Church, against her sacraments, against the scriptures proclaiming the authority of the Church, and against brothers who have made and repeatedly make devout and sincere acts of faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ their Savior Who is Lord of the Church and Head of the Church in the Church as His Own Body. That's why I fear for RobSmith and VargasMilan. Pray for them!
May God the Almighty Father through Jesus Christ His Son and the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Mother Church as His Bride and His Body have mercy on them by Her intercession through the sacrifice of the Cross offered up through the ministry of His priests and people in solemn worship for the salvation of the world by granting them the priceless gift of the grace of repentance and reconciliation to "come" (Revelation 22:17). Amen.
Thanks to the faithful members of Christ Himself on this page, NishantXavier and Liberaltears, for your indefatigable witness to the truth of the Gospel of Christ in the Church to the world. I remain faithfully yours in Christ. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
In the name of Jesus Christ - Satan, I rebuke you. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:23, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Matthew 5:11-12; 12:28-37. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Get thee behind me. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:09, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Don't try to hide my spiritual victories just because some of them had an effect against you. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 09:45, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

We really need a Christianity by Continent category and Christianity by Country at Conservapedia

https://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity_in_Africa https://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity_in_Asia https://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity_in_Australia https://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity_in_Europe https://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity_in_South_America https://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity_in_North_America

Using <references/> or {{reflist}}

Hi NishantXavier, I noticed in your page creations that you sometimes use ==References== but forget to use either <references/> or {{reflist}}. The two functions are essential because when used, they direct all the referenced sources to the place the function(s) are set in; this is essential for many CP pages where the "External links" section follows the references. In the latter case, if neither <references/> nor {{reflist}} is placed below the "References" section, then all the cited sources will simply go to the bottom of the page. For page creations where nothing follows the "References" section, this may not seem like a big deal (since in such situations, even without either the former nor latter function, all the sources will go to the bottom of the page at what happens to be right at the "References" section), though it's better to make a habit of using those functions as needed. Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:14, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the information, LT. I'm still a bit of a newbie to all the details of Wiki editing, so thanks. Btw, can we add a new Category ourselves or should we ask one of the Administrators to do it? I want to add a Christianity by Continent for each of the six articles I just created from Christianity in (1) America, North and (2) South, to (3) Asia, to (4) Africa, to (5) Europe, to (6) Australia. I want to put them in one category? NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:17, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

And then I want a Christianity by country tag for each of the 203 countries on earth, and the 203 odd articles that will need to be created for them! NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:20, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Glad to help where I can! And about categories, you can indeed create them; any page title beginning with "Category:" will be in the "Category" namespace, and whatever you put after the colon will be the title for such. For example, if you want to create Category:Christianity in the United States, them it's as simple as adding a brief description on the category page and publishing it. That way, the page exists, so that every time you use that category for a content page, it will be included on the "Categories" section on the bottom of that page as a blue link (and not a dark red link). —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:42, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for adding
to the India article, so I could see how it was to be used. I'll add it in future articles like that. It comes below all existing references, right? For e.g. in the Christianity in Africa article, there are Seven References. Ok. Can you also add the Category: Christianity by Continent to one of the articles so I can see how to do it. Then I will tag that Category for all the other Continents. Thanks NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:52, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
No problem! And yes, {{reflist}} is used in the "References" section below all existing references that are cited with <ref></ref>. And about category links, all you need to know for the most part is that whenever one of them are directly linked, they are shown at the bottom of the page, whether they are put on the top of the page or at the bottom. And just a side note about wikifying links: for category and file links, straight-up wikifying them will utilize them in their intended functions; if you ever need to wikify them so that they appear in the form of a direct link, put a colon in front of the title, then wikify it. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:10, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Also, since you requested an example, see how I did it here. Also, note the usage of the {{DEFAULTSORT:}}; the function is used to organize pages in the categories they are included in; this is especially necessary for CP pages on people, as it is used to specify that the page will be sorted by last name and not first name. If you ever need help with certain functions, I would recommend going onto another CP page where such is used; that's how I learned formatting here over time. Hope this helps! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:14, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. I asked a friend David, who is an adminsistrator, and he said he would do it. Yeah, that's a good way to learn. I used to do that myself. Going through the old pages and looking at the code of how it was written. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 07:31, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Someone please guide on creating a redirect for "Saint Linus" to "Pope Linus"

The second Pope or Bishop of Rome after Saint Peter is commonly referred to as Saint Linus. The page is Pope Linus. I want to redirect the one to the other. Kindly instruct me on how to do that. Also, while creating the articles for Christianity in England and Christianity in Ireland, I saw to my amazement that the pages for Pope Saint Celestine I (instrumental in St. Patrick's Apostolic Mission in Ireland) and St. Augustine of Canterbury weren't created. So though the Conservapedia Project 150 Million for Christ the King is now on my mind and must be completed urgently for Andy now, I want to get to this one day. It's very interesting and I love doing it, because I also learn a lot while compiling such articles, but it would be helpful if some of these earlier redirects are done. So please help on that. Once I finish redirecting the pages, I will write the article fresh for those great Saints whom every Christian student should learn about. These are the Giants of Christian Faith who brought the Gospel and Holy Name of Jesus Christ to many of the countries in which we live. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:14, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Vargas, you're very welcome to ask whatever you want of me here. Please highlight or number your questions, and post them here below; so that I will surely see them and just as surely answer them. I cannot guarantee that we will agree. :) But I can guarantee that I'll give yuor question my best shot. :) God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:16, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Ok, looking through it quickly, I see that Pope Saint Alexander I is one of the last Popes for whom an entry is created and every Pope after that till maybe Pope Pius IX across nearly 1800 years and over 200 Popes are empty. Guess 200 articles are coming up soon! Conservapedia should easily cross 50,000 content pages by year end at this rate! Saint Augustine of Canterbury is now done. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:25, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Why do people instinctively reject the Word of God?

Why do people instinctively draw back from the Good News or reject the Word of God?

Because it requires us to humble ourselves and trust God. It contradicts the maxim that we are in control of our own destiny. It can contradict, if we are not careful in education, the conservative value of personal responsibility. It requires us to put our faith in God, and not in ourselves.

The Bible calls this lack of faith in God, or seeking to do for yourself what only God can do, pride. This is the original sin. An instinctive reaction that we know better what to do for ourselves than God does, and we don't need God's protection and guidance. It is the subject of the parable of the prodigal son. All of humanity is the prodigal son. We are born with this instinctive rebellious, prideful self-defense mechanism that draws back from hearing the word of God.

This explains the widespread rejection of scripture, and why organizations such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, or the Roman Catholic church seek to water down or make more palatable the Word of God. (They basically teach, you can have your sin, i.e. remain prideful opening the door to other sin, and be religious too).

This explains why many of the Israelites carcasses fell in the wilderness.

There is no question whether advocates of Roman Catholicism understand or accept the Word of God. They do not, as is abundantly clear from these discussions over months. The rejection of God's word for man's word is clear from their own mouths. They do not know or understand the Bible, and cannot answer a question about the Bible without reference to Catholic Catechism, the Nicene Creed, or Papal encyclicals. This is a clear rejection of scripture, and manifestation of a prideful stance against God's word. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:01, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

It clearly bothers you a lot, that the scriptures we cited are so clear and plain and simple a child can understand their meaning.
Matthew 5:11-12; 12:28-37. "On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." You still have time to repent and return to the truth. "Behold, now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation." Come back home. "Even now there are many antichrists. They went out from us, but they were not of us." The Church is Jesus Christ. Those who separated are not. And those who did not know are not guilty of separating. Those who did know, are (like you). (Hebrews 6:6; 10:26-30). The word of God is like a fire breaking the rocks. It will burn you until you relent, repent and make reparation "for all the harsh words which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me." --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
It doesn't matter at this point what scriptures you cited. You have (a) rejected the inerrant word of God and reposted your rejection in multiple places; and (b) persistently rejected the word of God with the words of men in catechism, encyclicals, and creeds. You're not a credible witness. You pervert scripture and make a mockery of it now in the way you use it. RobSTrump 2Q2Q
"On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Even a child can understand that. --Dataclarifier (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
The Catholic Catechism, the Nicene Creed, the Councils, the Athanasian Creed and Papal encyclicals all written by men of God revere and defend the scriptures against abusers of scripture who twist its meaning to their own destruction, as Saint Peter "Rock" warned (the first Pope). --Dataclarifier (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, 14 therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.”
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:46, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

What is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? One definition reads, "ascribing to the Holy Spirit the works of Satan." In English we have the contracted word "blame". This can be understood to be blaming the Holy Spirit for Satan's works.

How would blaming the Holy Spirit for Satan's work take shape? Misusing the Word of God would certainly by one form. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:19, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Another form is saying the Church does Satan's work and that the spirit in her is Satan. Matthew 12:28-37 "On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." --Dataclarifier (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Hi Dataclarifier, since I doubt that this debate will necessarily resolve some disputes, I was wondering if there was perhaps something else on CP you could work on. I noticed in the Conservative Bible Project that Exodus is almost fully translated, with the old editors having left Chapters 36-40 unfinished. Do you want to work on translating those parts? Even adding in some side notes for the "Analysis" sections throughout the CBP would be constructive, helpful, and neat. Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 14:25, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Wish I could, but I can hardly see now. By the way, my 93 year old mother said about RobSmith, "He's a nut. He's a nut. He's a nut. He's not even an acorn." You know, acorns are bitter, until the acid is washed out of them. (Sorry, I've got to quit. Peace be with you.) --Dataclarifier (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Can't you have IndependentSkeptic help you on it? Also, I hope your mother is well! God Bless! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 14:34, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Hi Liberaltears and NishantWarrior. Since the Conservative Bible Project is Andy Schlafly's project, neither Dataclarifier nor I think we should meddle in his work. Dataclarifier did one clarification on the word "tahash" skins in Exodus 25 by a brief statement, with a link to his article Badger skins (Bible) for more in-depth treatment about the controversy. But about Dataclarifier and I attempting a Conservative translation of Exodus 36–40, we would rather encourage Andy to finish the work himself since it's only right that his work should not be changed or altered and it would be difficult to "get inside his mind" exactly on how he feels those chapters should be treated and commented on to avoid atheistic and liberal bias. Quite frankly, both of us are tired and retired, and like Saint Francis who after years of service to the Lord in public and to the brotherhood of his Order retired in quiet to a hermitage, we would like to do the same. What comments we both contributed up to this date of this posting were prompted by an evident need for a scriptural-based exposition of the authority of the Church in support of you and NishantXavier. We think you're doing a bang-up job of apologetics. Keep up the good work. We'll look in on you frequently, but don't expect much more from us. Oh, and Dataclarifier says thanks to Liberaltears for the subtext heading of his ID signature "May Dataclarifier be well". It's really much appreciated (probably irritates RobSmith no end!). Peace be with you. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:46, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
Why is the preaching of the cross foolishness to the prideful? Cause it requires them to humble themselves and trust God. Dataclarifier speaks nothing about humbling yourself before God, only about humbling yourself before men (i.e. the church). Dataclarifier claims men can save, (i.e. the church). This is pride and rebellion against God, and borders on blasphemy. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:06, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is seeing the work of God and attributing it to Satan. The Pharisees did that. Anti-Catholics in the past have sometimes done that; they've seen the work of God, the Church founded by God, and attributed it to Satan, with bizarre attacks and name-calling. The Church doesn't need to answer every argument. She knows in the end She will conquer and prevail over the gates of Hell, according to Her Lord's Promise. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:20, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Christ has already done that. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:26, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
Jesus: "And if any one will not receive you (plural) or listen to your (plural) words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you (plural), it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrhah than for that town." Matt 10:14-15
Jesus: "And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros = rock/stone), and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the powers of death / gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. 16:18-19
Jesus: (said to his Jewish disciples) "if he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, let him be to you (plural) as a Gentile and a tax collector (to the Jews a pagan and a traitor to the people of God). Truly I say to you (plural), whatever you (plural) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (plural) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt 18:17b-18
Jesus: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (plural); and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age ("aeonos" = millions of years)." Matthew 28:19b-20
Jesus: "Truly, truly, I say to you (plural), unless one is born anew / from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:5
Jesus: "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you (plural) another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you (plural) know him, for he dwells with you (plural), and will be in you (plural)." John 14:16-17. Jesus: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:6. Jesus: "I have yet many things to say to you (plural), but you (plural) cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you (plural) into all the truth" John 16:12-13a
"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you (plural). As the Father has sent me, even so I send you (plural).' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you (plural) forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you (plural) retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:21-23
"So those who received his word were baptized...And they devoted themselves to the apostles' (oral) teaching and fellowship, and to the breaking of bread and the prayers." Acts 2:41-42 (the New Testament had not been written)
"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumsized according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved' (sola scriptura). And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. So being sent on their way by the CHURCH...When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the CHURCH and the apostles and elders." Acts 15:1-2,4a "Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole CHURCH to choose men from among them and send them...'it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us' (magisterium)...and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation." Acts 15:22,28,30b-31 (this has been called the Council of Jerusalem—the New Testament had not been written)
Paul: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the CHURCH of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood." Acts 20:28
Paul: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." Romans 13:1-2
Paul: "I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given to me by God to be a minister / official ambassador of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." Romans 15:15-16
Paul: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slave or free" 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 "Now you (plural) are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the CHURCH first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators..." 1 Corinthians 12:27-28
Paul: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2
Paul: "So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:20
Paul: "As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to to that which you received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9
Paul: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10
Paul: "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy TEMPLE in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." Ephesians 2:19-21
Paul: "to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known..." Ephesians 3:9-10
Paul: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the CHURCH; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" Colossians 1:18-19 "holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God." Colossians 2:19
Paul: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the traditions that you received from us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Paul: "know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and bulwark / foundation / ground of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15
Paul: "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2
Paul: "exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15 (written to the bishop of Crete). "avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law / Old Testament, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious / an heretick, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful: he is self-condemned." Titus 3:9-11
Hebrews: "A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses (see Matthew 18:16). How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10:28-29
Hebrews: "We have an altar from which those who serve the tent / tabernacle have no right to eat." Hebrews 13:10
Hebrews: "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you." Hebrews 13:17
James: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24
James: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi = "priests") of the CHURCH, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." James 5:14-15
Peter: "Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:5.
Peter: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every HUMAN INSTITUTION, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." 1 Peter 2:13-15
Peter: "be subject to the elders (presbyteroi = "priests"). Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.' Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you." 1 Peter 5:5-6
Peter: "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE." 2 Peter 1:3-4 (Eucharist, the promise of eternal life in John 6:53-58)
John: "Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not of us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us." 1 John 2:18-19
John: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." 1 John 4:14-15 (the Catholic Church confesses that Jesus is the Son of God in the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed and in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. John 20:21 testifies that as the Father sent Jesus as Savior of the world He sent the apostles as Savior of the world in His Body the Church).
John: "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work." 2 John 9-11 (this includes the doctrine of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church that Jesus built on a rock)
John: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the CHURCHES." Revelation 2:7,11,17,29 3:6,13,22
Any child aged 8-12 can understand the plain and simple clear meaning of these scriptures without interpretive explanations and commentaries. They don't need commentaries. They can see for themselves that they mean what they say. It is Jesus Himself Who said, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?" "If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day."
It is enough that together we have repeatedly said the truth so plainly set forth in the scriptures about the CHURCH. We will let the Holy Spirit have his work and deal with your soul and your conscience. It may be that what we have said here—NishantXavier, Liberaltears, IndependentSkeptic, Dataclarifier—will bring back one who has wandered from the truth of the CHURCH the Body of Christ, for "if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." May God open your heart to the plain meaning of these scriptures. --Dataclarifier (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
First Warning: You are trolling again and being redundant. You have contributed absolutely nothing to this discussion but spam. Next disruption of this nature will earn a 10 minute block. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:42, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
Caught in the very act. Dataclarifier says above: "'it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us' (magisterium)" If God meant to say "magisterium" he would have said "magisterium" instead of the simple pronoun "us". In fact, if God meant to use the word "magisterium", he would have laid a doctrine and understanding of this non-biblical word in the Bible. But he didn't. "Magisterium" is a doctrine of men.
This action above is just one example of the fraud, forgery, and trolling Dataclarifier has inserted throughput dozens, if not hundreds, of mainspaces articles in Conservapedia. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:06, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Amen. The Bible is very clear about the Church. Bible Question for Rob: (1) How many times, and in (2) how many passages does Our Lord Jesus Himself mention His Church, in the Gospel within the Bible? And what does He say, and what can be learnt from His Word about His Church? Meditate on that. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:41, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Ye are of your father the devil. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:54, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Participate in Conservapedia's Great 150 Million Souls for Christ Our King Project

Please participate in this project: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King I'm very grateful to our good friend Liberal Tears for having participated. Does no one else want to confess Christ before men, and gain Christ's promised blessing, of being confessed by Him before the Father? Let us strive to do our part to make people interested in publicly giving their life to Jesus. The Church on Earth is strengthened greatly whenever any person gives their life to Jesus. I recommend the life offering on my home page for those who want to make a complete life offering as a model offering. You can pray in your own words also. These are the words of the Life Offering: ""My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my of my entire life for the adoration and supplication of the Holy Trinity, for unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father and priests, for good priestly vocations, and for all souls until the end of the world. 

   O my Jesus, please accept my life sacrifice and my offerings and give me your grace that I may persevere obediently until my death.  Amen."
You don't have God's grace yet? You are not saved. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:53, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
You don't have to pray for God's grace - it's a standing offer from God you just need to accept. It has been available from God for a longtime. All you need to do is end your rebelliousness. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:02, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Lol. You're clearly an anti-Catholic to the max. If Protestantism is true, as I conclusively proved, I am "once saved, always saved", long, long ago. I have given my life to the Lord a 1000 times. I know I will be saved. But if Protestantism and especially Calvinist OSAS is true, then I am saved. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:24, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Oh, you know you will be saved, you don't know now. You're not saved right now. You are still in your sin. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:34, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
You keep referring to Protestantism. I don't know what Protestantism is. I never studied Protestantism. I only studied the Bible. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:48, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
You sound like Don Quixote chasing windmills with your recurring references to Protestantism. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:49, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

My home page is not the place for you to aggressively pitch your own heretical version of Protestantism. You are a Protestant whether you believe it or not, as anyone who protests against Christ's Catholic Church is a Protestant. Jesus Christ clearly said what is to be done to one who simply stubbornly refuses to listen to His Church (Mat 18:15-18). I have been saved, I am saved, and I will be whether you believe it or not; Salvation is a process of Theosis. Anti-Catholics like yourself do great harm to all Christianity. I can't guarantee future responses to your further polemics here. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:52, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

To bad. I have been 100% clear from the beginning - I am here to discuss the Bible, not politics. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:55, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

You are here to try to convince me of your anti-Catholic Protestantism, and somehow poorly and ridiculously try to explain away the fact that your false religion was founded in the 15000s and 1600s by some poorly educated, ill-informed anti-Catholics. Anti-Catholicism is a false religion and is not Christianity at all. Non-Catholic Christians who are in good faith are considered to be in partial communion with the Church; but anti-Catholics are not. Anti-Catholics believe "Christianity" began in the 16th century and that nobody knew the Faith in Christ before their ridiculous and novel heresies. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:57, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

You're just paranoid. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 21:27, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
My doctrine is as old as Moses, and it's not my doctrine. It's my employer's. Where do you get this 1500 year stuff from? Is that what they teach you in seminary, rather than the Word of God? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 21:30, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Necromancy

The Bible is unequivocal - we are not to try to communicate with the spirits of the dead. All our prayers are to be directed to Jesus and the Father. And its only through Jesus we have access to the Father. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:07, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Your polemical accusations grow more and more ridiculous and demonstrate a great Biblical ignorance. We ask the Saints to pray for us, because we are not Sadducees and know they are alive. Heaven is not dead as modern Sadducees think; the Saints and Angels there are alive and praying all the time!

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Rev 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:22, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Are you justifying necromancy now?
See, here's the danger once you depart from scripture. You get drawn into things like defending or advocating necromancy. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:37, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
Who's a saint? Am I a saint? Are you a saint? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:43, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Your polemical accusations are as bizarre as they are ridiculous. Are you a Sadducee now? Do you deny angels and spirits and the Resurrection? Answer me.

The Angels and Saints in Heaven are clothed in white and living and alive in God no matter what you think. They offer prayers in Heaven. Both the Saints of God chosen from among men and the Angels in Heaven pray for those on earth. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:55, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

A 'saint' is a 'sanct', one who is sanctified. To be sanctified is to be set apart. Are you quarreling now with the Biblical definition of saint? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:00, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
Are Christians sanctified, set apart from the world (kosmos)? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:05, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
What is the meaning of 'church' (ekklesia)? Answer: 'church' literally mean 'called out ones'. Called out to be separate. Come ye out, and be ye separate, from Exodus or 'a going out'.. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:10, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
Christians have been called out of the world to be separate, or set apart, or sanctified from the world. All Christians are saints or separated from the world. My kingdom is not of this world RobSTrump 2Q2Q

You don't even know the Bible properly. I showed you Priests in Heaven clothed in white offering sacrifices and prayers to God. St. John the Apostle sees Martyred Souls (don't tell me these are not Saints in Heaven) who are praying to God and then clothed in white. Are you a Sadducee? Answer my question. You deny that the Saints in Heaven are alive, yes? God refuted this when the Sadducees asked Him in the Gospel, HE said Abraham and Isaac where living in the time of Moses, for God is the God of the living. But you are ignorant of this. I know the saints on earth are alive. But the Saints in Heaven also are alive; and the Saints in Heaven pray for those on Earth, Protestant ignorance of the Bible passages notwithstanding. Go back and read Rev 5,6 and 8 and other passages and then get back to me. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 20:15, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Vatican bureaucrats don't determine who a saint is. We make that decision ourselves, whether to answer God's call to come out of the world (kosmos) and be separate. And when we make the decision to follow God, and not man or earthly wisdom, God recognizes us as saints, his 'called out ones' or church. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:19, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
Why don't you focus on learning the Doctrine of Christ, since the Doctrine of Christ is older than Jesus. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:22, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
The New Testament tells us that both the gospel and Christ existed in the Old Testament, before Jesus was born. While your pert answer to the question, "What is the Doctrine of Christ?" maybe literally be true, it's also naïve for a student, and downright deceptive for a teacher.
My advice: you need way more study and understanding before you're ready to assume the role of a teacher of God's word. Fortunately, you seem more content with the role of pitchman for the Roman church, so it doesn't appear to be a problem. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 20:43, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Participation

After careful consideration and prayer, notwithstanding my declining to participate (my talk page), I have relented, and have contributed my own witness testimony on your 150 Million Souls project page (took me almost 6 hours, 22:00 to 03:40 CDT). It's an adapted compilation and redaction of the parts of my testimony to Christ Jesus that I have posted on other talk pages. God be with you. Pax vobis. Semper Fi. --Dataclarifier (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Wow Data Clarifier! So happy and truly honored that you decided to give your testimony for Our Lord Jesus and His Church. Thank you for your important witness. Now we have 3 and just 12 to go for the first year. If there are 15 within this year, I'm going with the faster plan, to arrive at 150 million by 2030. So it looks great. Thanks again so much for contributing. May Our Lord Jesus and His Holy Mother, your Archangelic namesake St. Michael, and all the Saints in God's Glorious Light, bless and keep you forevermore, in this life and in eternity to come. I bless you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thanks again, DC. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 04:52, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Sheesh, you guys sound like a bunch a Protestants, "testimony", "evangelize"; since when do Roman Catholics give testimony and evangelize? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:11, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Lol. Which Church evangelized Europe to the Faith? Guess someone has never heard of St. Patrick, Pope St. Gregory the Great, Saint Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, etc who evangelized Ireland, England and Germany respectively, among countless other Saints. All Protestantism did was take an already Christian Continent and divide it needlessly. As for testimony, St. Paul often gave that in the Bible when he recounts the miraculous things the Lord did in his life. I've seen the sick cured in Charismatic Catholic centres, and I know what the Lord can do; and I know that the Lord is pleased with His Catholic Church, and will always remain with Her His One True Bride until the end of time. 21:47, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

This has really been getting out of hand and it needs to stop. Both of you guys take a note of this: [4] Also, read the book "Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical." It's a debate between Catholic priest John Waiss and former Catholic-turned-Evangelical James G. McCarthy. This will show how to have a civilized debate. By the way NishantXavier, I'd like to see you debate an Eastern Orthodox person sometime and learn their historical perspective, especially on the Great Schism. Shobson20 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

If Protestants cease to be Anti-Catholic, there won't be a problem. Claiming Catholics don't Evangelize is demonstrably false when Catholics Evangelized Europe to the Holy Name of Jesus Christ and to the Gospel and Christian Faith in the first place. As for Eastern Orthodoxy, I've written about it in the past, I'll provide it below; some Orthodox Christians, after reading the article on it, wrote to tell me they came back to the Catholic Church. With Orthodoxy, it's a very minor thing. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son (Filioque). Their own Church has professed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. In 2025, there is a planned Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025 which should re-unite the Orthodox Churches with the Catholic Church.

You've been just as argumentative and dogmatic. You need to take some notes from the video I linked to. If you want to win people over, this is not the way to do it. Look at all of the "bad ways" in the video and if that's what you're doing, stop. RobSmith needs to stop, too. I read the Waiss/McCarthy book I mentioned before, and I think you could benefit from learning how Fr. John Waiss communicates with Jim and compare that to what you're doing. I know RobSmith gets under your skin, but at least one of you should be the more civilized person in the room. Shobson20 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

I get told "you're of your father the devil", "you're a Nazi" and other horrendously ridiculous things like that. I think I've been rather mild in comparison. I do get angry sometimes, I admit, when Catholics are attacked unfairly; instead of a reasonable discussion on doctrine. But here I've emphasized Christians should work together for the Common Christianity that we do affirm. Nor has my response to the above been inaccurate. Saying that the Catholic Church does evangelize is a historically demonstrable fact and a current reality. There are 1.35 billion Catholics in the world, more than all non-Catholic Christians put together. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 22:43, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

I don't know why RobSmith said that. Catholics do evangelize (They brought Catholicism to Japan). Arguing from numbers is an argumentum ad populum fallacy, so don't do that. Also keep in mind that a large part of the growth in the Catholic Church is through reproduction since Catholic families have lots of kids. Keep in mind also that many of those people are Catholic in name only such as Nancy Pelosi, Stephen Colbert, and Conan O'Brien. There are even ordained priests who go against Catholic doctrine like James Martin: [5] Do you follow pro-life Catholics like Abby Johnson or Lila Rose? Shobson20 (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
I said it cause I learned in Catholic religion class that Evangelicals were cultists - a sentiment echoed by Dataclarifier in numerous main space articles. You can't evangelize if you don't know what the Doctrine of Christ or gospel is. Go figure.
These born-again "evangelicals" don't even know what a sanct is. Until I'm addressed properly as Saint RobSmith, we have little to talk about. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:20, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Thank you. Yes, I follow pro-life Catholics like Abby Johnson and Lila Rose. I also love pro-life Catholic Judges like Amy Barrett and William Pryor. They'll be great on all conservative issues. Yes, some Catholics don't abide by the teaching of the Church on doctrinal and moral issues; that's sad, but sometimes they are denied Holy Communion till they repent; as they should be. I'm also very pro-Evangelical in general and support Evangelical Christians like Billy Graham, Reinhard Bonnke, President Trump and VP Mike Pence. Thanks for asking. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:17, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Oskar Schindler was Catholic. The anti-Catholic weapon to compare Catholics to Nazis is stuff like this: [6] and out-of-context photos like this [7] of Catholic priests doing the "Heil Hitler" salute. Shobson20 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Here's the promised article on Filioque: "Pope St. Damasus, quite likely in a synod before the year 380 A.D., used the Filioque in a response to the Macedonian heresy: “We believe … in the Holy Spirit, not begotten nor unbegotten, not created nor made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, always co-eternal with the Father and the Son” [14].

Note the special value of this ancient testimony of the 4th-century Roman Church, world-renowned for its Catholic orthodoxy and defense of St. Athanasius contra mundum under Pope St. Julius, et al. It is incidental and undesigned. It presupposes the dogmatic truth of the Filioque in a controversy against Macedonian heretics (who blasphemed against the Divinity of the Holy Spirit). And it shows that the dogma of the Holy Spirit’s divinity is no less certain than the dogma of the Filioque ... Dear Orthodox Christians: A word from our hearts to yours — if we wish Christianity to successfully combat and entirely overcome the new paganism of the culture of death, of abortionism, contraception, divorce, pornography, and other forms of immorality and lawlessness, if we hope for the worldwide Church to receive more conversions from paganism and baptize more individuals into Christ and the Triune God, and make them members of the Church, the time to reunite is now and quickly.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary, the first defender of Christian civilization, alone warned the world about the dangers and errors of communism and the great persecutions threatening the Church and all Christendom. The history of the last century bears sad testimony to the truth of her words and the urgency of her calling. The time is ripe and the hour is now for the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches to profess the Filioque dogma and unite with the Catholic Church for the glory of God.

The world cannot resist the power and grace of a reunited Christendom. Victories in the pro-life movement, victories against Christian persecution, against Islamism, communism, and secularism await us." https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/

Go ahead, keep denying the Word of God. What fellowship hath light with darkness? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:25, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
Hi NishantXavier, I would personally advise against getting into a meaningless debate with Shobson20; this guy was initially jealous (sin of envy) when you were promoted to the "edit" tag and he hadn't yet been (see here). After being promoted by Andy and thus no longer needing to be envious, he went about on some anti-Catholic rhetoric and seems to cherry-pick examples to argue that Roman Catholics are somehow ignorant of Scripture. In this thread here, when I pointed out that he (Shobson20) wasn't as productive as we were, he didn't fully refute my points. So now he's accusing people like you, Dataclarifier, and IndependentSkeptic of not abiding by Scripture, despite posting what are obvious signs of envy, not to mention calling people like us "zealots" when he, Conservative, Wikignome72, and VargasMilan are much more zealous in their anti-Catholicism. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:21, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
You know NOTHING about me, and you're making a lot of assumptions. The fact that I made a night mode edit request 7 months ago and never got and answer when you got an immediate answer means it was not unreasonable for me to raise my voice a little. I'm trying to wind this debate down, because it's been unproductive, and you attacking me is just adding more fuel to the fire. It's especially uncalled for after I just made some more cordial comments. What I said before about Catholics leaving Catholicism after studying the Bible in earnest was true. You can read about it in "Far From Rome, Near to God" or you can read the testimonies of former Catholic priests on https://bereanbeacon.org/ And BTW, Dataclarifier started this whole thing in the first place. Shobson20 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm attacking you? I only used your words and assertions to prove my points. And about "adding more fuel to the fire", your anti-Catholic baiting attempts seem to do just that, and more so than me refuting your points. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 00:17, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Liberaltears: Oh, now you're judging Shobson's sin. Thanks for the insight. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:26, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
So are you more focused on what I judged him on or on the fact that I judged him? You are kind of just ignoring the point I'm making via an excuse. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 23:29, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

I think it's indisputable you passed judgement on his sin. Now you want to change the subject. Are you setting an example of grace, compassion, and mercy? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:38, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
By contrast, look at the enormous screed Dataclarifier posted in the section immediately a couple of sections above; where does Dataclarifer give the gospel of grace, compassion and mercy? The entire screed is condemnation and wrath. Is this the gospel Conservapedia should preach? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:12, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Ah, I see. So only devout Catholics are going to be lectured on grace, compassion, and mercy, though not the over-zealous anti-Catholic baiters. Also, you just accused me trying to "change the subject", and proceed to shift the focus of this discussion to Dataclarifier, because of course. 😂 —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 00:17, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
You're missing the point. You probably would have done better to agree Shobson may have been treated unfairly and move forward. Instead, you rub his sin in his face as if you were God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:22, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
He's the one who participated in rubbing Catholic-baiting sentiment over our faces, though I don't see you admonishing him over that. Also, of course I'm somehow missing the point, <sarcasm>because let's not forget how it was actually I who played more of a role in initiating this discussion more than Shobson20 did</sarcasm>. And not just that, you are more focused on me addressing the sin rather than the sin itself. <sarcasm>Of course, I still probably must be missing the main point</sarcasm>. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 00:34, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:45, 18 July 2020 (EDT)


I fully support Liberal Tears, having read many of his constructive edits, and am glad he got a well-deserved promotion after waiting for it for so long. I don't know much about Shobson, but I was happy when he got promoted as well. Let's try to be happy for each other and build each other up, not tear each other down. Conservapedia needs constructive editors, who all see themselves on the same side as promoting the conservative cause, and who are able to work together and, if needed, to politely disagree. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:40, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Hear Hear! Shobson20 (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Thank you! God Bless you, brother Shobson! NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:02, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Thank you NishantXavier, Shobson20, and God Bless! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 01:37, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

God Bless you, brother Liberal Tears. Let's all strive to be peacemakers everywhere so that we may be and be called the Children of God. If we are Children of God, we should, as St. John the Apostle says, love one another as brothers and sisters. So let us do that and all will be well. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:49, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

The views of our Evangelical Christian brethren on Holy Communion

Hi Shobson. Would you like to tell us your personal belief on Holy Communion? In my view, the difference of approach on this issue is probably the main difference between Catholic and Evangelical Christians. Catholic Christians and Evangelical Christians together affirm (1) that Our Lord Jesus is the Son of God (2) That God is a Holy Trinity (3) That Our Lord Jesus died for our sins (4) that He rose from the dead the Third day etc. Where we seem to differ begins from Holy Communion. In light of John 6, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11, would you say that Holy Communion is literal or symbolic? The way we read the Gospel of John Chapter 6, it seems fairly clear Our Lord is saying His words must be taken literally; we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, in order to have life in ourselves. Your thoughts about that?

Lord Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:25, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Why do you ask these pointless questions? It doesn't matter until you find God's salvation. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:31, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
And you are not saved or have the Holy Spirit cause somebody sprinkled water on your forehead. Get real. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:32, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Catholics are already saved, even by Evangelical standards. According to Evangelicals, non-Christians need to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior to be saved. We do, therefore we are saved. You are just inconsistent because of your anti-Catholic double standards. You still have not answered my question. What must a person believe to be saved? Answer this specific question with 3 or 4 specific articles of faith.

The Lord Jesus said: "Jn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:35, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

No you don't. You deny the Word of God, It is finished, Christ died once for all. You created a whole Debate page with "proofs" of your doctrine of anti-Christ, that Christ died for nothing and you must still work off your sins in purgatory. Your testimony of faith is not true. 23:44, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
Furthermore, when the veil is lifted from your eyes, we can discuss the meaning of eat of my flesh as Christ, a living sacrifice. Until then, ye are yet carnal.
Basically, Christ is prophesying his death as a living sacrifice. There are several passages of the gospels where the meaning goes unnoticed cause we all know how the story ends, for example take up your cross and follow me. This verse is often cited by gospel preachers, but when Jesus spoke it, the hearers at the time didn't know what he was talking about or receive it the way we do today because he had not yet been made a living sacrifice. Eat of my body and drink of my blood speaks of Christ being a living sacrifice. It falls into the category of fulfilled prophecy (a prophecy spoken by Jesus). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:57, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

If you don't receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion, you will not have life in you according to the Word of the Savior Himself. You clearly reject the plain Word of the Gospel, in favor of your own self-invented heresy, because of your anti-Catholic bias. Very bad. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:47, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. I guess you proved God is a liar with your purgatory debate page. Congratulations. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:49, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

Again, you deny the words of the Apostle that some are saved only through fire: "This doctrine is plainly taught by St. Paul the Apostle.

Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

St. Basil the Great teaches:

I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies, after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world; and if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest. (Homilies on the Psalms 7:2)" https://onepeterfive.com/purgatory-saved-fire/ NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:52, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

No, you don't understand the difference between spirit and flesh, between the carnal mind and being spiritually minded. You don't understand 1 Corinthians 3 cause the veil has not been lifted from your reading of scripture. Go back to Jesus, that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit, also God is Spirit and they that wordship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 1 Corinthians 3 says right at the beginning that it is addressed to the carnally minded. Are ye not carnal? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:05, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

No. St. Paul distinguishes two types of Christians in 1 Cor 3:15. Good and Holy Christians will go to Heaven to receive a Reward for their Good Works from the Lord on that Day. Bad and Carnal Christians will have to suffer loss and see their works burned up; they shall be saved only through fire. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:28, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

That's close; the question is, Is salvation present or some future event? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:38, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Continuing in 1 Cor 3

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
One says I am of Luther, and another I am of Peter, or I am Catholic and another I am Protestant.
Read Dataclarifier's writings and digest them. Are ye not carnal? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:36, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

You guys, please stop repeating yourselves

You guys are repeating the same things over and over again both NishantXavier AND RobSmith are getting extremely repetitve. Why can't you guys just agree to disagree already? Shobson20 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

I directed the question to you. He tried to answer and then didn't answer. If we've arrived at an impasse, I'm fine with letting it go. He wants to answer but doesn't answer. Can you answer the two questions (1) What are the essential beliefs for salvation? (2) What is your belief on Holy Communion? Rob, please allow Shobson to give his own answer on this one. I'm curious to hear it. Thanks. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:51, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

I think that Catholics have their traditions pre-conceived when they read the Bible and read them into the scripture, whereas I think "how would I read this knowing nothing except what it says?" 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 is used as the proof text for Purgatory, but I think Catholics already have this Purgatory doctrine conceived in their minds and read it into the text. I believe, however, that it is in reference to the Judgment seat of Christ where our Heavenly reward is determined, and that the burning is merely a metaphor for fact that our worthless deeds "burn up" but our Godly deeds survive and bring reward. Then I also ask "Does that interpretation contradict other verses?" As an example, I look at James 2:24 which is so often used as a proof text for "Faith and Works" based salvation, but then I remember Ephesians 2:8-9 which says faith and NOT works and realize that the "faith and works for salvation" interpretation contradicts the "faith NOT works" verse. Adding works also contradicts Romans 11:6 because it negates the concept of God's Grace. But then I find this answer to the James 2:24 problem [8] [9] and suddenly I have an interpretation of James 2:24 that makes sense in light of the others. Shobson20 (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Ok, you're speaking about (3) Purgatory, and the (4) Faith or Works issue. Can you kindly begin with (1) and (2) above. What do you believe are the essential beliefs for salvation? Is it the Deity of Christ? The Holy Trinity? Christ's death on the Cross? Please answer that. And then next, I asked about Holy Communion as Q. (2).

Regarding Purgatory, what Catholics do is (I) we read the whole Scriptures before arriving at a doctrine, (II) we also examine Apostolic Tradition, and 2000 years of Christian history. Now, already in 2 Macc 12:43-46, it was said prayers for the faithful departed are good and pleasing to God. And 1 Cor 3:13-15 confirms that when it says some are saved through fire. There are other passages also, such as where Our Lord and St. Peter speak of a Prison of Spirits from which Souls are released. In light of all those passages, and going by how the Church Fathers have interpreted them, we arrive at Purgatory. Salvation is by Grace through a Living Faith that Works by Love. St. James had said faith without works is dead. A living faith has works, a faith that works by love. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:56, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Please see: "The Second Proof: The Prison of Spirits St. Peter speaks of: St. Peter the Apostle twice proves Purgatory when he speaks of a mysterious Prison of Spirits, in which the Gospel was preached, and from which souls can be delivered. Now, this cannot refer to Heaven, for Heaven is not a Prison. But neither on the other hand can it refer to Hell, for there is no deliverance from Hell. It necessarily follows therefore that this constitutes proof of some third intermediate state between Heaven and Hell, which Holy Mother Church aptly calls as Purgatory.

1 Pet 3:[18] “Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, [19] In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:” and “1 Pet 4:[6] For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit.

Bp. Challoner justly comments on 1 Pet 3:19, “See here a proof of a third place, or middle state of souls: for these spirits in prison, to whom Christ went to preach, after his death, were not in heaven; nor yet in the hell of the damned: because heaven is no prison: and Christ did not go to preach to the damned.” From the article at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:03, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

I think I answered question 1 with the comparison between faith not works vs faith and works. I believe that it is faith not works, period. Jesus made the final sacrifice and we don't have to do anything (Hebrews 7:27). James 2:24 is said by some to claim that a real faith will produce good works or that we affirm to others that our faith is real by showing it through our works, Hence "I will show you my faith by my works." As for question 2, I think it's a memorial hence the "in remembrance of me." I think that Jews would have perceived a literal eating of flesh and drinking of blood as carnal or as Augustine said "This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." [10] [11] I know that Patristics is a common go-to for Catholics, but basing too much on the interpretation of others is puts one in danger of eisegesis. I also know that plenty of Protestants have studied Patristics without becoming Catholics. I also know that there have been Catholic priests with this kind of traditional Catholic education who later left Catholicism. Sorry, but there was a paragraph from my previous edit that somehow got lost. Shobson20 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Ok. That's on faith and works. Your thoughts on the Prison St. Peter mentions, from which some were delivered? We'll come back to Patristics in a minute. In the article, I cited Five Fathers on Purgatory (1) St. Augustine (2) St. Basil (3) St. Chrysostom (4) St. Cyprian (5) St. Gregory the Great. But we'll come back to that, discussing the Lord Jesus and His Apostles first. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:49, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

I'd rather not open too many cans of worms (too many have been opened already) but here's an article I found about the "imprisoned spirits" [12] At this point I'd much rather let others do the talking for me. Our method of studying God's Word is to look at the scriptures first and analyze them without any other baggage, then to analyze the cultural and historical context in which they were written (which is why it is highly unlikely that the "eat my flesh, drink my blood" verses were meant to be literal since it would have been so abhorrent to the Jewish audience). Also, learning and analyzing the original language is important too. How church leaders after the Bible was written and the canon of scripture was closed is a distant third. If the way a "church father" appears to read the scripture contradicts a more plain reading of it, it is rejected. Patristics is not my thing, I leave that to others. Shobson20 (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

The article says there is "no inkling of Christ visiting a mysterious Purgatory-like underworld". That's exactly what there is, especially if we take it take it together with 1 Pet 4:6. The writer claims Our Lord Jesus did not speak in the Spirit after being put to the death, contradicting the passage. He claims Our Lord spoke only through Noah. Problem is, that's not what St. Peter says. The Apostle says the Lord was put to death in the flesh and THEN WENT to preach in Spirit to the spirits in prison. By showing that they are spirits, he shows that they had died long ago, and that Jesus Himself went to preach there in Spirit i.e. after His Death. Now, look at 1 Pet 4:6 ""For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." It says the Gospel was preached even to the dead; that although they were judged in the flesh, yet they lived to God in the spirit. So these persons were saved, who were once disobedient in the days of Noah, and imprisoned spirits till Christ came. That's Purgatory. NishantXavierFor Christ the King

Those in Purgatory wouldn't need to have the Gospel preached to them since they are just waiting for their sins to be purged. The meaning of 1 Peter 4:6 is highly disputed, but until you read Purgatory into it as well as 1 Peter 3:19 I didn't make any kind of connection. This is why I think that despite what you said, you have to assume Catholic doctrine in advance to read the doctrine into the passage. Shobson20 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Wait wait wait...You mean Christ did not purge the sins of those in Purgatory? Have we been sold a bill of goods with this gospel? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:16, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Nishant: As Jesus said,

  • Let the dead bury the dead

and God said to Adam and Eve,

  • In the day you eat of it ye shall surely die.

You still have the carnal veil over your eyes if you think Peter's reference is to the death of the flesh. It is the spirit that gives life. Ye must be born of the spirit. The prisoners Peter speaks of are prisoners of sin, fully expounded by Paul in the book of Romans. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 02:29, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

  • To be carnally minded is death, to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
The gospel was preached to the carnally minded who have the veil over their eyes and are prisoners of sin and Satan. Those passages have nothing to do with physical mortality. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:27, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Final thing: Our Lord said "Blessed are the Peacemakers; they shall be called Children of God"

Let us labor to be Peacemakers everywhere, for we know what Our Lord Jesus taught in His beautiful Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. To be called children of God, we must labor to be Peacemakers everywhere. God bless all of us. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:03, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Five Church Fathers on Purgatory for those students interested in studying the subject historically

St. Basil the Great teaches: “I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies, after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world; and if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest.” [1]

St. Cyprian eloquently argues based on this prison, "It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.” [2]

St. Augustine persuasively states: “But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come.” [3]

Pope St. Gregory, the Great Dialogist, answers in the affirmative, saying, “we must believe that before the day of judgment there is a Purgatory fire for certain small sins: because our Saviour saith, that he which speaketh blasphemy against the holy Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.66 Out of which sentence we learn, that some sins are forgiven in this world, and some other may be pardoned in the next: for that which is denied concerning one sin, is consequently understood to be granted touching some other. But yet this, as I said, we have not to believe but only concerning little and very small sins, as, for example, daily idle talk, immoderate laughter, negligence in the care of our family (which kind of offences scarce can they avoid, that know in what sort sin is to be shunned), ignorant errors in matters of no great weight: all which sins be punished after death, if men procured not pardon and remission for them in their lifetime” [4]

St. Chrysostom comments: “Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.” [5]

[1] [Homilies on the Psalms 7:2]

[2] [Letter 51]

[3](City of God 21:13)

[4] Dialogues, Book 4, Chapter 39: Whether there be any Purgatory etc?

[5] [St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Phillipians, 3.]

And here's a Protestant rebuttal for those on the Protestant side [13] You can contact this guy from here: [14] Shobson20 (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Shobson. I actually emailed that person when you gave me the link last time. His name is Jason. His response was: "jasonte@aol.com Jul 16, 2020, 2:57 PM (2 days ago) to me

Hi, I haven't read the article you linked, and I don't have time to write a response to the subjects brought up in the portion of the article you quoted. I've written an overview of the issues related to purgatory, and you can find a lot of other material by doing a search of the Triablogue archives: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/purgatory.html"

To that, I responded: "What is the response to 1 Cor 3:13-15, which is the heart of the matter? The Bible clearly seems to distinguish two sets of Christians (1) bad Christians, whose works are burned up and who suffer loss; they themselves are saved, but only so as by fire; and (2) good Christians, who receive a reward from the Lord for their good works done in Him on that Day.

Our Lord mentions a prison from which souls do not go out till they pay the last farthing. St. Peter mentions this spiritual prison was visited by Our Lord in spirit after He died; and many were liberated from there. Heaven is no Prison; no one is liberated from Hell; hence, this Spiritual Prison is a Third State, or Purgatory.

St. Augustine did not emphasize it strongly because the heresy that denied the necessity of prayers for the departed had not yet arisen. All admitted prayers for the departed were needed. So there was no need to maintain it strenuously. St. Thomas says prayers for the departed prove Purgatory; because those in heaven have no need of our prayers, and those in hell cannot profit from them. Hence, as in 2 Macc 12:13-16 and 2 Tim 1:10-16, the prayers of the righteous Maccabees for thier departed Jewish friends, and St. Paul's prayers for his departed Christian friend, prove the doctrine of Purgatory?

How do you answer St. Basil's words? I notice he is not quoted in your patristic study. Nor is Pope St. Gregory of Great, who teaches Purgatory, as I mentioned in my article.

May Our Lord Jesus Bless you in your labors and studies. In Him, Nishant Xavier. Be blessed." And I haven't heard back since. God Bless you. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:11, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Non-scriptural; moot. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 02:33, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Nishant keeps asking about "articles of faith" or some such. How about this: Christ died once for all, and Whosever denies that Jesus is the Christ, this is the the spirit of anti-Christ.
By preaching a doctrine that says Christ did not die once for all, you are denying that Jesus is the Christ.
Is it really shocking to discover that the spirit of anti-Christ and Satan has been working to oppose the gospel for 2000 year already? Why don't you just dump this church history rot and focus on God and his word? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 02:39, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Who are you? Jesus commanded, "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches". You say "Don't listen to the church" "Don't listen to what the Spirit says to the churches". The Bible says the church is the bride of Christ, led into all truth for ever by the Spirit of truth. You deny it. Christ commands obedience to authority of every human institution. You say no one is to obey men because the church is a human institution. Paul commands keeping the traditions. You say no. NishantXavier and Dataclarifier focused on God and his word with lots of scripture supporting the authority of the church. You insist they don't. It is clearly evident who gave you authority to contradict the scriptures and the church and the words of Christ. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
  • Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Hmmm, I don't see the word church in there; in fact, I read in the word of God a long history of apostate churches, beginning with Israel in the wilderness. Marvel not, see 2 Kings 22. The Roman church is not the first congregation where the Word of God was lost. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:17, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Every word that comes from the mouth of God includes the word that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church he built on a Rock. That word was not uttered in the Old Testament and was not given to any apostate church before Jesus was born, "The mystery hidden for ages in God" Ephesians 3:9-10. But now it is given by Jesus. Jesus himself uttered it. Jesus commanded, "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches". --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
The word of truth cannot ever be lost by the one Church built on a Rock that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
"The mystery hidden for ages in God" is the gentile church. You are making something out of that verse that is not there. You are twisting and perverting the word of truth. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:10, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith is not the church. He has no authority. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm a child of Jesus. That's all the authority I need. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:22, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Every baptized member of the Church including the Pope is a child of Jesus. RobSmith is not the church. He has no authority. Jesus commanded, "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches". --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Oh, so when I was adopted into God's family, I was given no power. Thanks. Maybe I'll think twice next time. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:20, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Again, the Church proclaims every word of God. She teaches dogmatically that Christ died once for all, and that, through the Sacrifice of the Mass Jesus Himself as High Priest leading His people in worship of God and joining them to Himself as one Body offers to God the Father on the altar the one eternal sacrifice from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat, giving His people his flesh and blood so that through Him we join together in unity with Him and the Spirit of truth in worship and receive the benefits of His sacrifice from His altar, eating his flesh and drinking his blood and partaking of the divine nature of his flesh and blood and having eternal life only through his sacrifice once for all through all ages. Listen to the Church. Everything she teaches is truth. Christ promised it. The Holy Spirit forever. Leading into all truth. Obey the authority. Established by God.
You (RobSmith) use scripture in contradiction of scripture in opposition to the scriptures proclaiming the authority of the Church by the word of Christ—"every word that comes from the mouth of God". --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
No it doesn't. The doctrine of Purgatory directly refutes who Christ is, what his purpose and mission is, why Christ came to earth, why Christ died, and the saving grace of God. You have to be deliberately ignorant or blind and brainwashed to not see that in the word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:04, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Jesus commanded, "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches". The church teaches purgatory as a divine biblical doctrine: 2 Maccabees 12:44-45; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches".
The churches east and west teach purgatory as a mercy of God for those who are already saved by the blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God and are being prepared in purity of holiness to enter heaven once every vestige of the damage of sin is finally removed from their souls, since "nothing unclean shall enter there". "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches". Those souls in purgatory have already, irrevocably, eternally, been saved by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross. They are saved according to the word of God in the Bible: heaven is their eternal destination and reward.
NishantXavier's Debate page on Purgatory cites irrefutable words of scripture which explicitly support the church doctrine of purgatory as taught by the most ancient churches of the east and west. "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches".
It is you, RobSmith and those who back you, "who have to be deliberately ignorant or blind and brainwashed to not see" in the word of God the words "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches" "saved as by fire", and the divinely inspired words of the Bible, even before Jesus was born, of the faith of Israel in saying "if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fell asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." Prayers for the righteous dead is thus obviously a part of the "gospel preached to Israel" before Jesus was born.
Jesus made atonement, once for all (not solely for the elect alone but for the whole world, John 3:17), yet John still says "everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure" (1 John 3:3), and Paul himself says "becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already made perfect; but I press on to make it my own" (Phil 3:10-12)—Paul was already saved by faith in Christ, but he knew he was not yet made perfect. He also said "in my flesh I complete what is lacking/is behind/is remaining in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col 1:24)—yet Paul was already saved by faith in Christ, but he still had to be made perfect.
It is you RobSmith "who have to be deliberately ignorant or blind and brainwashed to not see" in the divinely inspired word of God the words "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches" and "saved, yet as by fire". The doctrine of Purgatory directly testifies to who Christ is, what his purpose and mission is, why Christ came to earth, why Christ died, and the saving grace of God in purifying those who love him and believe in him by faith in him. They are "saved, yet as by fire." "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches". --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2020 (EDT)
You don't know what the church is. Now you are denying the blood of Christ - the same as denying the divinity of Christ. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:23, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
Christ died for all sins. There are no leftover scraps to be worked off in Purgatory. You deny who Christ is.
To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord - there is no mid ground. You deny God's word. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:26, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
The comment below was moved by Conservative as debate not belonging here, but RobSmith's debating comments (above) were not moved. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
You still persist in denying what scripture says. Those in purgatory are present with the Lord, but in justice they are temporarily deprived of the Beatific vision, and their grief at not fully choosing to please him by their works (Rom 2:6-11) torments them like fire as all their imperfections like wood, hay, or chaff are burned but they themselves are saved (1 Cor 3:15), because Christ died for their sins and by the power of his blood in the fire of his love commands they be purified, as the church teaches "the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire" (Matt 3:12). Jesus commanded, "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches" "Obey the elders". You say "Don't listen to the church" "Don't listen to what the Spirit says to the churches" "Don't obey the elders" "Don't listen to the traditions". Paul himself commands keeping the oral and written traditions and to keep away from any brother who is not in accord with the tradition delivered (2 Thes 2:15; 3:6). The tradition includes what scripture commands: "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches" "Obey the elders who watch over your souls". It doesn't say they will live impeccable, sinless lives (1 John 1:8-10). NishantXavier and Dataclarifier focused on God and his word with lots of scripture supporting the authority of the church and the church doctrine of purgatory that purifies the church. You insist they don't know the scriptures. You say I don't know what the church is. The Church is the one body of Christ, "which he purchased with his blood" "and "gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish", as "the pillar and foundation of the truth", with one Head and one shepherd to "feed his sheep" with guardians the Holy Spirit has made to feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood, leading into all truth forever (John 14:16-17; 16:12-13). "Everyone will be salted with fire" (Mark 9:49). "Those who went out, were not of us." (antichrist) 1 John 2:18-19. You clearly persist in denying what scripture says. It is clearly evident who gave you authority to contradict the scriptures and the church and the words of Christ. You won't even listen to Conservative. He said to do your debating on the debate pages (see below), and you still persist in doing it here. If any one deserves to be blocked, it's you, for your defiance and your rejection of his reasonable counsel as a brother Christian, and your clearly evident incivility and violation of Conservapedia ethics and standards of reasonable editing. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
I suggest you move the entire portion of this section, beginning with RobSmith's "Non-scripture. Moot" provocative debate comment (above), and all through from there down to the end of the portion I contributed here in response to him that you moved. Just to be fair. The entire portion is debate, including his remarks. Thanks. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

Please stop having debates on talk pages. Conservapedia has debate pages

Conservapedia has debate pages. For example, here is a debate page: Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?.

What I see now is a whole bunch of repetitive and poorly organized material on talk pages dealing with Catholic vs. Protestant issues that is not bringing web traffic. This needs to stop. I stopped reading this repetive material and I am others have as well.

If you are going to have debates, for the sake of Conservapedia readers, have them on debate pages. Nobody wants to read poorly organized and repetitive material.

So please stop having debates on talk pages. Conservapedia has debate pages.

Thank you.Conservative (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Addendum: Re: Catholic vs. Protestant debates on talk pages

I posted the below message to RobSmith and it refines my thinking on this matter.

RobSmith, I know you do your best to bring in web traffic which Conservapedians appreciate.

I have a small request.

Conservapedia has debate pages. For example, here is a debate page: Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?.

Having a debate on a specific issue, would make the debate exchanges more organized and debates with debate titles on the page would be more organized.

I would also suggest setting up debate guidelines. Because right now the back and forth between the Protestants and Catholics is getting repetitive. And because it is on talk pages, it tends not to be very organized.

What I see now is a whole bunch of repetitive and poorly organized material on talk pages dealing with Catholic vs. Protestant issues that is not bringing web traffic.

If you are going to have debates, for the sake of Conservapedia readers, have them on debate pages. Conservative (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Hear!Hear! You said it!
If RobSmith posts further debate comments on this or any other talk page about the same things again, delete his butt. You won't get him to stop. He's proved that again and again. It's a mystery to me why you continue to retain him on Conservapedia. What's his hold on Andy? Dataclarifier told me he originally blocked RobSmith mainly because he was a detriment to Conservapedia, constantly bullying and incessantly insisting on having the last word. If I were you, I'd get rid of him, permanently. He's no asset. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier was acting in an unreasonable way - especially near the end of his tenure. It was impossible to work out having a readable and objective article on topics dealing with Protestant vs. Catholic issues. If Wikipedia can work out Protestant vs. Catholic issues on a number of topics, it can be done. But it was impossible to do this with Dataclarifier as he often took a "my way or the highway" approach near the end of his tenure at Conservapedia. Dataclarifier set off this whole Protestant vs. Catholic conflict at Conservapedia. Frankly, it never had to occur. Debate pages and working out having objective pages on matters dealing with Protestantism vs. Catholicism issues would have been much better.
I don't know enough about the posts of User: NishantXavier and User:IndependentSkeptic to comment intelligently on these editors. Frankly, because the material was not on debate pages, I decided that I was not going to read a lot of poorly organized and repetitive material.Conservative (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't know who came up with the Conservapedia debate pages concept. I suspect it may have been Andy Schlafly who is the owner of Conservapedia. If so, this is definitely one of the things that Andy Schlafly got right. Debate pages look far more encyclopedic and they tend to be more intellectual than a bunch of unorganized material and repetitive material on talk pages. Conservative (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Oh, I wish you had read the material here. The only real point of contention was "Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?" Scriptures were presented that on the face of it appear to say "yes" with the promise of Christ to send the Holy Ghost forever leading into all truth. The opposition said "no".

What would happen if a debate page with that highlighted title ("Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority...") or a similar one were set up, and all the debate comments made here were transferred verbatim there and then removed from this page, leaving them intact on the debate page?

Would that constitute "forgery of signatures" on a page the users did not originally post to? If RobSmith contributed to that debate page, I don't think he would stop. And you would have there what you have here. If RobSmith and NishantXavier were both excluded from participating on that debate page, I think you would have a real debate representing Conservapedia's encyclopedic attitude.

Dataclarifier is now totally out of the picture. And I'm not going to participate either. I'm convinced that NishantXavier is RobSmith's new targeted whipping-boy now. And he won't stop. Look what happened after Dataclarifier's warning to NishantXavier on this talk page. RobSmith did exactly what Dataclarifier said he would do, except blocking NishantXavier (so far).

Take a look at the whole basis of the argument. Just read the whole page here, once. Do you really think shifting RobSmith to a debate page will work? I doubt it. God bless you, Conservative. And Andy. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

I have decided to not get involved in any more internet drama - period. It is a waste of time. I decided to briefly act as a referee on this one.
Lastly, I thought if things moved to debate pages (or articles talk pages), it would help cause things to be more organized, less repetitive and possibly more cordial/intellectual.Conservative (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Point of Order (since my name was mentioned): while Nishant has adopted the Dataclarifier technique of spamming to squirm out of embarrassing questions and move the subject with irrelevancy, he's very civil and doesn't violate site policy by edit warring, etc. Neither does Nishant claim the gospel is all about threatening to send people to hell for not listening to the Pope, so he get's extra brownie points for civility. 18:06, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Postscript

My main criticism is that these Protestant vs. Catholic exchanges are not on talk page articles relevant to the topic. They are not on debate pages. They are on User talk pages which is the worst places for these exchanges to take place.

When these exchanges take place on user talk pages, they tend to be unorganized, repetitive and "no holds barred". There are no rules or conventions when it comes to user talk pages. But article talk pages tend to be more topically relevant and organized. Debate pages tend to also be more organized and less repetitive. Conservative (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Not if RobSmith has his way there on those pages as he does here. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
If you bring your material to debate pages, it will also garner web traffic because title pages of web pages are more search engine friendly.Conservative (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
What do you think? Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Sounds like a circle jerk. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:01, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
I created a non-denominational debate page here: Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:29, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

I participated in your debate page.Conservative (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Conservative. I appreciate the proposal. There is a standing debate on the subject of Purgatory, and any who wish can continue a cordial debate on the talk page of that debate page. https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day I believe Catholics and Evangelicals agree on the basics of the Gospel: That Jesus Christ is Our Lord and Savior, that He is God Who became Man. That He died for our sins. Rose from the dead the Third Day, will come again in glory to Judge the living and the dead etc. On some deeper doctrines, like Purgatory, there is some disagreement. I believe careful Biblical exegesis of the Prison mentioned by Our Lord and St. Peter, the fire mentioned by St. Paul etc, will lead to Purgatory. But let's take that to the debate page. God Bless, everybody. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:26, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

I just finished setting up the non-denominational debate page:
Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?
I myself will stay off it. That should be it. Peace be with you all. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
C'mon I/S, NX, shows your Bible skills. You guys are the experts. You have a massive doctrine outside the Bible. You claim it is built upon the Bible. Gimme some kind of explanation at Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18 that makes reasonable sense, and I'll start believing one or both of know what your actually talking about. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:40, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
Bottomline: If you cannot explain the apparent contradiction between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18, any other use of scripture, particularly Matthew 18, is fraud because you do not know or understand scripture. C'mon. Step up. Qualify yourself as knowledgeable before you start misusing scripture (God does not particularly care for people using his word to mislead people). Prove yourselves worthy of handling the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:52, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Looks great. I just saw it. Thank you. I commented briefly, and will try to participate more as the discussion broadens. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:53, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Thank you. When I couldn't find your comment on the Debate page under the heading "Reader Response Answers and Comments" I wondered where it was, until I saw the Talk page had been activated. Should I remove the Debate page space heading reserved for comments, and expect the readers to know that they can post on the Talk page? --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
I see that's what you did with your own Debate pages. I'll go ahead and revise the Debate page top notation. Peace be with you in the light of Christ. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
Note: Conservative revised the format of the Debate page I set up so that all comments on the Debate question can be posted directly onto the Debate page, not the talk page, and so, in response, I revised the top of page instruction, that Debate comments should not be posted on the Debate talk page. No problem. Thanks, Conservative. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
I added to the Debate page three fundamental questions for consideration: Differences and contradictions; Sinful behavior; Satanic influence and power:
  • Differences and contradictions:
    —Do heresies and charges of heresy prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13?
    —Do Christian divisions and multiple divided denominations opposing each other prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13?
    —Do the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13?
    —and Do moral scandals and charges of scandal and hypocrisy and corruption against Christian leadership, against Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, Reformers, Pastors, Ministers, and leaders of Christian Sects and Cults, prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and John 16:13?
  • Sinful Behavior: Does sinful behavior against the Christian doctrine and scriptures invalidate the Christian doctrine and scriptures and the promises of Christ? Is behavior identical with doctrine? If so, why? If not, why?
  • Satanic influence and power: Does Satan dominate and rule the Church and all the churches? If so, why? If not, why?
Peace be with you all. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
Let me emphasize what Conservative said: These debate questions are to be addressed on the Debate page. Not here. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
I just added a couple of pictures and captions to the debate section in my portion of the debate.Conservative (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
Since the Roman Catholic Church denies Christ and the Bible (Christ died for northing, hence you have to spend time in purgatory and all the bible passages about Christ and God's grace are null and void by Church teaching), why would you bother even debating a biblical basis for the Roman church? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:53, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Two things

Hi NishantXavier, there are two things that I ought to mention. Firstly, if you haven't seen this already, this diff shows exactly what RobSmith's up to; for the second to last part, he enclosed the paragraph between <!-- and -->, which hides the content; in that paragraph is an example of the type of hypocrisies displayed by anti-Catholic Christians. The fact that RobSmith tried to hide that (too bad I spotted it and reverted that attempt!) shows what the Catholic-baiters on this site are probably trying to push, and it's something we'll need to watch out for.
Secondly, I'm just curious, how are you coming along finishing the sections for the Senate predictions? You mentioned here 2-3 days ago that you'll finish it in 3-4 days, though no need to rush or anything. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 21:37, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. Yes, anti-Catholic behavior saddens me. Christians could accomplish a lot more for the Cause of the Gospel and for Christ our King if there wasn't anti-Catholic bigotry. Anti-Catholics want to pretend that Christianity began not in the first century but in the 16th century or later.

I've done about 18 of the 35 elections, from Alabama to Michigan. I'll be completing the others shortly. Others are welcome to add their input as well. At any rate, it should be done in a couple of days more at the most. As you noted, there still is a lot of time to go, though. Hope that clears it. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 22:23, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Alright, awesome! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 23:20, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Regarding whether man can see God Face to Face, this cannot be done completely in this life itself. It is a reward for the pure of heart, as the Lord Jesus said, that they will see the Light of God in Glory for all eternity. This is called the Beatific Vision, i.e. The Blessed Vision of the Just, and it will cause them to have Eternal Happiness forever and ever. In this life, we cannot fully see God as He is in Eternity. But we can see, as it were, a reflection of His Power and His Attributes, just like we see a reflection of it in Creation itself. And this is what Moses and the Prophets saw. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 22:56, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Ah, I see; interesting. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 23:20, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier said that Exodus 33:11b (the second part of the verse) explains by the literary technique of Semitic parallelism identical to the poetic construction of parallel statements for emphasis in the Psalms the actual metaphor meaning of "face to face", the real meaning, which is "as a man speaks to his friend", that it's an expression of intimate friendship so close that nothing is a barrier to their love for each other. He says, "Pen pals who have confided everything about themselves by letters without ever having 'set eyes on each other' in life nevertheless have so confided themselves to each other that they 'see eye-to-eye' about everything they care about, in the same way they communicate 'heart to heart' without cardiac 'open-heart surgery' to physically put their hearts together in contact, 'in a most touching manner'. He pointed out to me to look at Exodus 33:20 (only nine verses after 33:11), which expressly states most emphatically (KJV) "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." And Dataclarifier added, "Exodus 33:11 says, 'spake unto Moses face to face'. It does not say, 'The Lord saw Moses face to face' or 'showed himself to Moses face to face'. It says 'The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend', which simply means as a personal friend of Moses, speaking intimately. And that's why Exodus 33:11 and 33:20 do not contradict each other. Verse 20 explains that verse 11a is a metaphor, which is what the second part of the verse 11b does by parallel construction. And that's how what John says in 1 John 4:12 is no contradiction, in an allusion to seeing God's face. Jesus himself said, 'he that hath seen me hath seen the Father'. Same thing."
I just had to pass this on to you, what he said. Hope it helps. Peace be with you. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2020 (EDT)

Thank You, Independent Skeptic. Nice Explanation. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:41, 20 July 2020 (EDT)

Debate page formatting

Please take a look at this recent debate: Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?.

The title of the debate page is the proposition being debated.

You will notice that there is a yes/no section.

This is how debates are set up. One side takes the affirmative position and the other side takes the negative position.

Please set up your debate like this.

When you have the debate take place on the talk page, these unfortunate things happen:

1. Many people do not read talk pages. This is especially true of non-wiki users. So the whole purpose of the debate is rendered useless when people do not go to the talk pages.

2. The search engines prefer long form content. When the debate page is broken up with a large portion of it being on the talk page, the content is far less likely to be found. Therefore, there is less web traffic to Conservapedia.

I hope this makes sense to you. I do want the debates to be useful to people. And having the proper formatting of the debate page will help cause this to happen.Conservative (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Conservative. That debate format looks good. We can continue like that. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:42, 20 July 2020 (EDT)
Your welcome.Conservative (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

Doctrine, authority, heresy, behavior. Could you comment on 1 Cor 11:19?

I would appreciate your insight. The controversy these last few months between RobSmith and me here on Conservapedia has highlighted the importance of discernment of truth in light of the scriptures. Both he and I have relied on what we see in the word of God, he to reject Catholicism as false and treacherously heretical and of the devil and I to accept Catholicism as true and faithfully reliable and guaranteed of God. God in the Bible guarantees doctrine, authority, and scripture ("thy word is truth; thy word is forever"), but not behavior. An outward profession of the faith alone by individual leaders and individual members of a Christian congregation is no proof against hypocrisy in either leadership or followers. The biblehub.com commentaries on "heresies", especially in 1 Corinthians 11:19 on the one hand, and in Galatians 5:20 (5:19-21) and 2 Peter 2:1 on the other, seem inconclusive and divided yes and no. The question seems to me directly related to what Jesus said in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, especially v. 30 "Let both grow together until the harvest". A friend of mine once said, "Even Balaam's mule spoke the truth." I'm convinced that the doctrine can be guaranteed to be true, and the authority of the established office of rulership in Church and State (and the Presidency of the United State) can be genuine, but that behavior of individuals appointed or elected to that office of authority can betray the principles of the office without invalidating its authority as authentic. Rebellions of citizens have cast down rulers, but not the principle of leadership and just rule. The coming election of 2020 has been said to be the test of American Democracy and of the Presidency, but not of its legitimacy. What I'd like is some insight from you (your opinion, if you like) on how a Christian is to discern or know which is heresy and which is not, based on 1 Corinthians 11:19. Your view would be most appreciated here in my home. God bless you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

  • In other words, How is a man to know if his own sincere interpretation of scripture is heresy or not? --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
  • How is a man to know if the light in him is not darkness (Matthew 6:22-23)?
  • How is a man to know if he is truly wise and stands firmly secure in God or if he is not in fact a fool and the way that seemeth right to him is not in fact actually the way of death (Proverbs 12:15; 14:12; 16:25; 21:2; 26:12; John 16:2; 1 Corinthians 10:12)?
  • Is there actually an external standard of truth that a sincere man can use to recognize and honestly correct his own unrecognized errors of unintentional subjectivism and confirmation bias, even hidden prejudice and bigotry?

Your thoughts and insight would be most welcome. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

Great Question, Data Clarifier. It is even written in the Scripture, "man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred:" (Ecc 9:1). If a man can hardly judge himself rightly, how can he be expected without divine guidance to judge between two people? But just as in Israel, God did not leave the people without judges, and the high Priest was himself the supreme Judge, so also in the New Covenant God appointed the Bishops of His Church judges in such matters, as we learn from Mat 18:15-18; and the Chief of the Bishops is St. Peter the Rock, who succeeds to the high Priest. So, when two Christians disagree on a matter of doctrine, just as we are told in the Scripture, the Pope and the Bishops must judge between them. And whoever holds to the doctrine judged by the Pope and the Bishops, because what they bind on Earth is promised by God to be bound in Heaven, will be correct.

St. Peter himself teaches in 2 Pet 2:1-2 that many will bring in heresies, being false prophets, and will cause the Way of Truth to be evil spoken of. On account of them, many will speak against Christianity as a whole. These persons will deny the Lord who brought them. St. Peter refutes the idea of OSAS in that worse, by teaching that someone can be truly bought by the Lord, and then deny the Lord. He also refutes Calvinistic limited atonement. St. Peter was very clearly a Catholic Bishop, and the First Chief Shepherd of the Flock, to whom the Lord God Himself gave the Keys of Heaven. So it is clear that there is no room for private interpretation, as St. Peter says in the same epistle, "20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." [2 Pet 1:20]. As we discussed in the past, in Acts 15, the Church issued a judgment binding on all. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 07:26, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

My 2 cents on Dataclarifiers proposition: Personally I think Dataclarifier misinterprets or misunderstands my position or attitude toward the institution of the Roman Catholic church and its teachings. As I see it, this is borne out Dataclarifier's reading of scriptures where he almost universally assigns a meaning to the word "you" as to a collective and never to an individual's personal discernment.
As a scriptural basis to alleviate Dataclarifier's concern's, I'd recommend 1 Corinthians 12. Gifts of the spirit are assigned individually.
Now, we can actually pray to receive one or another of the gifts as well. Here's a portion of that chapter:
  • 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will....
Early in my Christian life I prayed for the gift of discerning of spirits, and much to my shock and amazement God delivered. And this gift carries over beyond narrowly discussing matters of faith, religion, and the Bible. It carries into my personal interests of history, politics, economics, and international affairs. Even personal and business relationships. I give God all the glory for it, it's his gift to me to use for his purposes and no other.
Anyways, to Dataclarifier, whatsoever you ask he will give; start with that list in 1 Corinthians 12 if you seek more or better understanding. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:50, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Hi Dataclarifier, I'm just curious, did RobSmith ever take your words out of context in an obvious manner to construct the same types of strawman attacks over and over while doubling down on smears? That was kind of what happened to me yesterday. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 13:31, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Yes. It sure seemed and seems that way to me too. Look at the articles Misrepresentation and Putting words in someone's mouth. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
(I'm going to have to rest my eyes the rest of the day. sorry. God be with you and strengthen you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I added a revision to my answer, immediately above. God bless you. (gotta quit). --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Hmm, seems like a good article. God Bless, and I'll continue sending prayers for the Lord hopefully to fully restore your eyesight! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 13:40, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
See diff.
"Future of growth, yes". But truth has never been determined by numbers (fallacy of numbers), and growth in conversions is not a reliable barometer of doctrine ("narrow is the gate, and few there be that find it").
My own experience of Conservative has been that he (or all those using his account) have been restrained and respectful in disagreeing with Catholicism. I myself, as a Bible apologist who happens to be Catholic because I believe the Bible, have pointed out discrepancies between Protestant theology and Scripture; just as he/they (as Conservative) have pointed out perceived discrepancies between Catholic theology and Scripture. I never received harsh treatment in response from Conservative, but only the official Protestant argument for the Reformation that Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church on the Rock of Peter with invincible authority from God to bind and to loose with judgment and discipline and mercy, whose leaders and elders Christians are commanded to obey, and that the Holy Spirit was not guiding it with truth because the gates of hell prevailed against it and corrupted it in its doctrines, which true Christians are duty bound to disobey. It's a position I too believed as a fundamental Baptist. But I couldn't reconcile what I read in the Bible with the Protestant position, and so finally based on my knowledge of scripture and history and logic accepted the Catholic Church as the most biblically-based Church on earth. Conservative respectfully disagrees. But he is never disagreeable in his/their disagreement. Both sides have been fairly presented on Conservapedia by me and NishantXavier, and by him/them as Conservative. Conservative has requested of me several articles. One of my best was at his request: Philosophical naturalism, which has since been improved with some slight revision by others, but not by any deletion.
Regarding "rabid anti-Catholic". Just before posting this comment above, I did a page search for the word "rabid" [search tool: Find on page]. It wasn't here in any of the postings by Liberaltears on this page. It appears only in Conservative's posting here above. I'm simply asking, "Where did Liberaltears say that Conservative is 'rabidly anti-Catholic'?" Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
As I was composing the above response to Conservative, the section posted by Conservative was removed, apparently by Conservative, before Conservative saw it. See diff --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
See also Revision history: User talk:NishantXavier (user name removed) (edit summary removed) --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't recall using the word "rabid"; I only mentioned that some editors on CP are "anti-Catholic zealots". Also Dataclarifier, did you see how RobSmith was falsely accusing me of defending pedophilia? Regarding this paragraph he removed that I added back in, he took the phrase in the parenthesis out of context to construct a strawman attack in arguing that I'm somehow defending pedophilia. I pointed out to him the full context here and here, but he continuously doubled down on lies about me. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 17:01, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Don't mischaracterize facts. I took out the reference to pedo priests; you added it back in twice. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:20, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Why would you add it in twice? Because in your twisted logic and reasoning that whataboutism was a defense of pedo priests and the Roman Catholic Church. Admit you were wrong and move forward. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:31, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

The Conservative Bible Project looks like a very good project; although it has to be completed

Anyone interested in collaboration and co-operation on completing the Conservative Bible Project. It looks like a really great project. But it hasn't been completed yet. There is a lot of material still to be translated and truly as is said a great benefit of completing it would be the increased knowledge of the Word of God that would result. Co-operative endeavors to complete the project are also worthy of encouragement. It is estimated that in another decade, some 7.5 billion, up from 4.5 billion now, will be online. Having an accessible online Bible is a very good project. The one caution from my side is words like "Word" (Logos: Greek; Verbum: Latin) should not be translated other than Word. And similarly Holy Spirit should always be translated Holy Spirit as He is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, and not some modern way like "Divine Guide" or so on. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 07:31, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

It looks blasphemous, Satanic, and heretical. Even Dataclarifier and IndependentSkeptic have enough sense to stay away from it. [15] RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:12, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

With sufficient effort, it can always be improved. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:25, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

It is uninspired by the Holy Spirit - a necessary element. It was not created to spread the Word of God or preach he gospel. It was created to attack political opponents. It is wholly a fleshly endeavor. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:19, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

It is necessary for translators to pray much to the Holy Ghost before beginning or while completing the translation. I've seen it, and some of it looks good. The remainder has some portions I object to. With a lot of prayer and effort, it can be continually improved, until the end-product becomes good. 08:25, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I've seen much of Roman Catholic doctrine too. Much of it looks goods. That doesn't mean it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:30, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

All Roman Catholic doctrine is guided by the Holy Spirit. Unlike Protestant doctrine which differs from Lutherans to Methodists to Baptists to Pentecostals to Presbyterians to Episcopalians to Anglicans to Charismatics to Assemblies of God to etc etc etc.

Was the King James Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit? The King James Translation is a Model Translations and Modern Translators should labor in order to closely align their translation with it. Some modern words in modern English may need to be updated, though. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:35, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Well, there you go again. You're more interested in a doctrinal food fight than the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:37, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I'm Interested in Charity and Truth. Unity is the Fruit of Charity. Unity in Truth exists in the Catholic Church. Denominations are unBiblical, we should all be one, of one mind and one heart, as Christians in Biblical times, before Protestantism, actually were. But we'll leave that for now. Catholic and Evangelical translators alike can collaborate on such a project. But it requires a fair degree of expertise in Hebrew and Aramaic, Greek and Latin. It also requires, as was said and I agree, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore much prayer on our part. I don't see it as a short term project. It will require 3 to 5 years at least to do properly. The New Testament can be done in 6 to 12 months. OT will take 24 to 48 months. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:42, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Does God hear the prayers of those in rebellion against him? If so, which ones? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:44, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

God works many miracles in the Catholic Church today. I advise you to learn about some of these miracles, so that you have no doubt God hears the prayers of Catholic Christians. We believe He does not hear the prayers of Anti-Catholic Heretics who hate His Church; except our prayers for their conversion. But He does hear the prayers of ignorant but innocent Christians, who are non-Catholics but not anti-Catholics, and invincibly ignorant of the true Church. God intended His Church to be comprised of one people only, not of 10,000 differing denominations as today. One Body, One Bride, One Church. One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism. Unity is so important to the fulfilment of the Great Commission. Most modern Protestants don't understand how important. Unfortunately anti-Catholicism is not dead either, as we see even here on Conservapedia all too clearly. For 1500 years, there weren't denominations. Now, we have 1000s. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:49, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I've seen God's miracles with my own two eyes.
There is only one prayer of those who are not in Christ that God is bound to accept - the prayer of a repentant sinner (See Psalm 51).
What does it mean to be in Christ? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:54, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

It means to believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It means to believe His Flesh is true food. It means one is sincerely striving to be a true disciple of Christ. We regard Evangelical Christians as those striving to be such sincere disciples. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:05, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Digression: Not to change the subject, but this sentence doesn't make any sense grammatically:
  • " We believe He does not hear the prayers of Anti-Catholic Heretics who hate His Church; except our prayers for their conversion. "
So whom does the exception apply to, anti-Catholic heretics or "our"? Who is "our", the anti-Catholic heretics?
See, this is one reason you shouldn't be tinkering with the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:16, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Hasn't God promised us all things? Why would he impose an exception? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:54, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

A poor digression. Read the example of Job's friends. The prayers of heretics would not be acceptable to God, unless Mother Church Herself offered Her prayers to God for them, as She graciously does. Only after that, do their prayers find acceptance with God. Yet heretics hate the Church and consider Her their mortal enemy. But Mother Church, following the Lord's command, loves Her enemies, the heretics, and prays for those who persecute Her. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:18, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

  • "The prayers of heretics would not be acceptable to God, unless Mother Church Herself offered Her prayers to God for them, as She graciously does. Only after that, do their [heretics presumably] prayers find acceptance with God."
So the church can impede the prayers of repentant sinners. I doubt Roman Catholic doctrine teaches such heresy, but given all the contradictions in Roman church doctrine, it's possible there may be some relic of a ruling somewhere to support this, contradicted by Roman church doctrine elsewhere. Whatever, this assertion directly denies the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:11, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Mat 18:17-18 "17 If he will not listen to them, then speak of it to the Church; and if he will not even listen to the Church, then count him all one with the heathen and the publican. 18 I promise you, all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and all that you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:29, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I read your words to say the only prayers that God makes an exception to hear from Pro-Catholic Anti-Heretics is prayers for the Heretics conversion. My advice, reexamine and reorder some of your instinctive remarks before hitting the upload key. The sentence looks like a Freudian slip. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:27, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

God does not hear the prayers of those who hate His Church. God does hear the prayer of those who genuinely are ignorant, but only because the prayers of the Church interpose for them. That is the sum of the matter. All should belong to His Church. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:29, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Sounds pretty. I bet you even have scripture to support this assertion. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:34, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Do you know who Core/Korah was? He rebelled against the authority of Moses, thus originating an ancient form of Protestantism. Now, read this, "10 Such men sneer at the things they cannot understand; like the brute beasts they derive knowledge only from their senses, and it serves to corrupt them. 11 Woe betide them, they have followed in the path of Cain; greed, that led Balaam astray, has been their ruin; they have taken part in the fatal rebellion of Core" (Jude 10-11)

Good. Thanks. Jesus said,
  • I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak Mathew 12:36
You just said God does not hear the prayers of Catholics with the exception of Catholic's prayers for Heretics' conversion. Much can be extrapolated out of that, beginning with the idea that the prayers really are to Satan with a request that the Heretics join them - given the non-scriptural basis of your claim that makes an exception for something other than the prayer of a repentant sinner.
Now, you can walk back your careless idle words now, or wait until judgement and explain what you really meant to Jesus. Hint: Salvation means you won't have to explain it to Jesus. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:49, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I'm not responsible for your selective misreadings. What I meant to say is that God accepts the prayers of Catholics. He accepts also the prayers of sincere Christians who are not Catholics, provided they are not made with contempt and hatred of the Catholic Church. It's simple, really. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:42, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Why would the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic I presume you mean) enter in at all in the prayer of a repentant sinner to God? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:07, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Bottomline: No church, Roman Catholic included, has anything to do whatsoever between a person's standing in Christ and their relationship with God. It is strictly a personal matter, assuming a relationship exists, between you and God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:11, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Throughout scripture, a person's relationship with God is likened unto a conjugal relationship, intimate and personal. There is no room for third parties. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:16, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi NishantXavier, regarding the CBP, I wouldn't pay too much attention to RobSmith on the matter if I were you. A few days ago, he went on a sewer rat website to trash Conservapedia and used profanity there. And about the project, I'll probably add some side notes for now; when I read much more of the Bible and grasp how some other genius editors translated Scripture, I may attempt significantly improvising the translation if need be and add on to unfinished parts. And THANK YOU NishantXavier for considering finishing the project, we need more editors like you who want to continue the spirit that CP was originally founded on! Otherwise this site will become an unproductive, talk-filled, Wikipedia-like mobocracy run by RobSmith, VargasMilan, Conservative (and his likely sockpuppet Wikignome72), Shobson20, etc. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 11:43, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your encouragement. In order to get things done, we can consider setting daily task scheduling (allocating a certain time for it) and monthly deadlines. I would like Proverbs and 1 and 2 Corinthians to be completed by August end if at all possible. That comes to about 60 chapters in all, 31+16+13. We can do 10-14 days for each. Please discuss with me and we'll share our research and do it. If you discover anything of interest, you can share it on my home page. These days we can do many things using Strong's Concordance for both Hebrew and Greek. I think it'll be great if we can finish 3 books of the Bible within 40 odd days, and then it'll get us going for the other 70 odd books. If we do this in 40 days, we can do the others in about a year and a half. The greatly enhanced Bible knowledge the translators will have is a sure plus when it comes to our judgment; God is sure to be please with those who spent effort and time translating His word correctly so more people could read and live by it. Great. Let's see what we can do. I'll try to make more time available for the project. About 30 mins a day to begin with should be good. Let's see. 12:00, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

How about finishing the last bit of Exodus first? Personally, I think that would be a good place for us to start. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 12:04, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Sheesh. If you guys handle the English language in allegedly translating God's Word the way you do talk page discussions, you'll have a lot of 'splaining to do come judgement. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:17, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
You already will have a lot of "'splaining" to do over your nasty smear that you refused to admit was based on a phase you outright took out of context. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 13:15, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Re: Conservative Bible Project

The conservative Bible Project had one or more heretical passages in it due to the fact that some of its translators did not devote to themselves to the years of preparation that is required to be a competent Bible translator. I know this to be the case because I found a heretical passage in it.

I know for anyone to translate the Bible competently that will have to know Greek/Hebrew to a high level, know Ancient Near East (ANE) culture well and have a strong knowledge of theology.

More importantly, there is no demand for a "conservative Bible". While many want Christians to be the salt of the earth and have a good effect on politics/nations, people don't want politics to strongly influence their religion.

How many people do you know who say, "I wish my church were more like the U.S. Congress"? Or "I wish the Bible was more like the Freedom Caucus in the U.S. Congress". Or "I wish the Bible was more like Donald Trump." Or "I wish my Bible were more like Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge was such a conservative president!".

If you want Conservapedia to grow, create encyclopedia articles.Conservative (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

By the way, one man Bible translations take a ton of effort. Martin Luther's translation of the Bible absorbed his later years.
Futhermore, at the present time, I strongly suspect people prefer a team of competent Bible translators to translate a Bible translation rather than one man efforts.Conservative (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
I was always curious how they would reconcile 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1. This conflict between God and the forces of darkness, between "liberalism" and "conservativism", occurred long before English translators ever got their hands on the manuscripts. But this slow motion train wreck never got that far. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:34, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I believe there will be huge demand for it once it is completed. There is latent demand right now. People want an accurate but modern translation of the Bible, especially one that can be easily linked to online. We should link the CBT here in our own discussions on Conservapedia. Others are not going to trust a Bible version we ourselves do not. But yes, it will require a team of collaborators. It will require deadlines and more professionalism. I'm going to work on finishing Proverbs and 1 and 2 Corinthians to begin with. I have a working knowledge of Greek. But we can all improve together, and dedicate more time for brushing up on Biblical languages like Greek and Hebrew. We can also use the Aramaic Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate imo. Those are ancient translations/versions. Let's see what we can do. It will be a very nice project if it is successfully completed. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:49, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Ok, before you go any further, explain in simple English to me without spamming the apparent contradiction in the two external links I posted above in my previous posting. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:54, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I'm not going to engage in meaningless and unproductive conversations. Go work on improving the Bible Translation or on some other worthy project. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 12:01, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

You said it. Whether God or Satan told David to number the people is a "meaningless and unproductive conversation". Good luck explaining that one, as an alleged bible teacher, to Jesus in judgement. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:07, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
And you'll have to account for your inserting of profanity onto a sewer rat website. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 12:12, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
No. I am saved from judgement. The blood of Jesus covers me. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:14, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Liberaltears: Tell me, what is a more damnable sin, posting sh** in the rat sewer, or saying Satan is God? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:21, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
And if you can't answer this question, I'll have to question your spiritual powers of discernment, in addition to defending despicable sins of church officers you refuse to repent of. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:22, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Ah, I see your logic. So it doesn't matter if you sin because Christ died for them. If that's the case, then what's the need to repent? I suppose everyone would then just got to Heaven regardless of whether they were good Christians or as bad as Hitler. And I never said that "Satan is God". —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 12:27, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Basically, you're justifying your sin by the fact that Christ died for them, without emphasizing on the salvation needed to be cleansed from them. I see. How biblical of you. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 12:33, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
And you're trying to further justify your flaws by claiming that I'm somehow worse? (which happens to be relativism and not objectivity) If you're going to continue repeating the smear, don't ever expect me to cooperate with you on anything again. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 12:36, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't need to justify my sin, and I can't anyways. Jesus does it for me.
  • If we confess our sins, he is just and righteous to forgive us our sins....
  • If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father....
I know you deny the Word of God, but tuff cookies, God said it anyway.
There shouldn't even be a debate here. You posted twice a claim that a person looses their Christian witness if they point out the sins of church officers. You could not be more wrong. Why you go on about it and accuse me of stuff is a mystery. Don't pretend to be some bible expert with this hanging over you. God is willing to forgive you. You must accept his offer for forgiveness. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:39, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Okay, I see that you'd prefer to smear me rather than be truthful and honest. Fine, don't expect an ounce a picogram of cooperation from me again. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 12:44, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
You haven't figured out that the same promise from God that
  • If we confess our sins, he is just and righteous to forgive us our sins....
  • If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father....
applies as much to a church officer guilty of sex crimes as it does to a sinner like me posting in the rat sewer. But I can see why you're confused; you've given up the promises of God for the doctrines of men. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:51, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

NishantXavier, you wrote about the Conservative Bible Project: "I believe there will be huge demand for it once it is completed. There is latent demand right now."

You are either a person with very bad judgment concerning this matter or a very clever and dedicated parodist. I do not know enough about your edits to know which one, but suspect it is the former case and that you are not a parodist.

Please keep the below passage in mind.

The Innis Maggiore Ad Agency, which works with major corporations, says concerning rebranding/repositioning: "When a brand’s meaning is strongly established in the mind, it’s extremely difficult — if not impossible — to change. It is possible to refine, adjust and hone a brand’s meaning when necessary. But repositioning a brand with a wholesale change? Hardly a chance."

As I noted above, the Conservative Bible Project had at least one heretical passage which I found out about due to someone criticizing the project off wiki at a Christian website. And it has a bad reputation because it is perceived as an attempt to inject politics into the Bible and Christian faith.

You are not going to reposition the Conservative Bible Project in people's mind. There will be no huge demand for it.Conservative (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Maybe you should quit being a jerk to NishantXavier. It's almost as if you, RobSmith, VargasMilan, and Shobson20 are part of a CP establishment (something I ought write a future essay on) that disregards the fundamental principles of which this site was founded on. I wonder what the older editors would think if they come back to see that the admins and assistant sysops of nowadays here engage in mobocratic behavior rather than productive and meaningful activity. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 13:20, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Is that the founding principles? To label Protestantism as liberalism and Roman Catholicism as genuine conservativism? Go ahead, come out and say it. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:08, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
It doesn't even really matter any more, given that conservatives must unite with liberals to save two-party democracy from single-party socialists and totalitarianism in the coming weeks, months and years. How incredibly short-sighted and naïve of you. Congratulations. You've done so much to further the devil's work. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:14, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Even if the latter is true (it's obviously not), the fact remains that I've done more than you did in the past week! 😂 —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 14:34, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Liberaltears, latent demand for the Conservative Bible Project? Sometimes you have to be blunt to people to shake them out of their lunacy in a particular area. There have been no subsequent attempts to create a "Conservative Bible" subsequent to the Conservative Bible Project flopping. Nor have their been attempts to create a "Left-wing Bible". From a marketing perspective and a theological perspective, the project was a bad idea.Conservative (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Oh, so NishantXavier is in lunacy? You're attitude will certainly attract more future CP users (sarcasm). —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 14:34, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Liberaltears, I listened to your advice and reworded my above post to User: NishantXavier. Instead of saying that he possibly has very bad judgment or is a parodist, I merely said he has very bad judgment in this matter (or is a parodist). The Apostle Paul did say to have peace with all men if possible. And Jesus did say, "Blessed are the peacemakers."
Second, contact all the Bible publishers and other publishers as well. Ask them to create a "Conservative Bible". Let me know how that goes. I very strongly believe that they will think that is a crazy idea and such a Bible would be a flop when it comes to sales. But go ahead and do it and prove me wrong.Conservative (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
"Publishers" sounds like a group of "experts". The point of Conservapedia is to utilize the best of the public. Don't you know that? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 14:41, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
(ec)LT: It's far too late for any of that. Even if you could smuggle in a copy of the CBP into one of Biden and Pelosi's gulag re-education camps after next January, I doubt you could win many converts among your fellow Liberal Democrat prisoners who once believed in two-party democracy. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:43, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Dataclarifier, put your money where your mouth is. Launch a publishing company and give User: NishantXavier a big marketing budget. If there is a huge latent demand for a "Conservative Bible" as User: NishantXavier maintains, you will make a fortune. And you can take the profits and donate a lot of it to charity if you want. If you don't have enough money to do this, then find investors, launch a crowdfunding campaign, etc.

I don't believe you are a true believer as far as the concept of a "Conservative Bible".Conservative (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

In Dataclarifier's defense, he has enough biblical knowledge and understanding to know the whole inception was Satanic and blasphemous. [16] RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:53, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Mischaracterizing something again, eh RobSmith? I once thought you knew better. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 14:57, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
User:Philip J. Rayment had enough sense to shake the dust from his shoes and bail the first day. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:02, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Enough of this garbage

Watch this 6 minute clip. If you don't understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ afterwards, you are as ignorant as the people on the train. He died that others might live. No religious service or ritual is necessary to bringing you closer to understanding God and salvation. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:24, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Nothing further needs to be added. Nothing. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:32, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Catholic Ecumenism and the Re-Union of Christendom

Well, I happen to think CBT can become a good project. If we disagree, lets agree to disagree on that. Now, onto the hoped-for Reunion of Christendom.

Re-Union of Christendom: Doubtless one of the primary purposes the Council will be occupied with will concern the Re-Union of Christendom: "The Catholic Church is by far the largest, the most widespread, and the most ancient of Christian communions in the world, and is moreover the mighty trunk from which the other communions claiming to be Christian have broken off at one time or another ... As these separated communities when massed together, indeed in some cases even of themselves, count a vast number of souls, among whom many are conspicuous for their religious earnestness, this extension of the term Christendom to include them all has its solid justification. On the other hand, if it is accepted, it becomes no longer possible to speak of the unity of Christendom but rather of a Christendom torn by divisions and offering the saddest spectacle to the eyes. And then the question arises: Is this scandal always to continue? The Holy See has never tired of appealing in season and out of season for its removal but without meeting with much response from a world which had learnt to live contentedly within its sectarian enclosures. Happily a new spirit has lately come over these dissentient Christians, numbers of whom are becoming keenly sensitive to the paralyzing effects of division and an active reunion movement has arisen which, If far from being as widespread and solid as one could wish, is at least cherished on all sides by devout minds ... We may safely leave to the Providence of God to determine what course the present reunion movement shall ultimately take, and meanwhile we may emphasize the substantial point that Catholics and other reunionists have in common: their mutual desire to see the barriers that separate them removed."[5]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Third_Ecumenical_Nicene_Council_2025#Re-Union_of_Christendom

Good luck. Once you realize churches consist of individual believers and not a hierarchical bureaucracy, we'll have something to talk about. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 22:47, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

@Liberal Tears: Exodus sounds like a good place to start. Let me do some reading before I get down to it. Let's try to finish the remaining last few chapters of Exodus by this month end. Also, I think it would be good to have a link going to, for e.g. "Exodus 33_untranslated" with the verse in Hebrew. At any rate, that can be seen to at a later date.

@Rob Smith: The Bible teaches that there are to be Bishops and Presbyters, i.e. Priests in the Church, beside Deacons. The Church is not a loose association of lay individuals only, but consists of Bishops and Clergy that have retained Apostolic Succession. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 22:52, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Wow. Thanks. I guess it doesn't matter what people think or believe, or the relationship they have with Christ. Their job is to salute and say "Seig Heil", huh? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:08, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between your Magisterium and the CCP Politburo Standing Committee in the area of God, religion, morality, spiritual guidance, traditional culture, etc. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:17, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

That's frankly only more evidence of your anti-Catholic Bigotry. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:20, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Hey, you're the guy who rejects scripture in favor of a man - the Pope - who you claim is on a par equal to Jesus in today's world. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:21, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

The Catholic Church is Christian and believes in the Deity of Christ. The Communist Party is an Atheistic Organization and engages in Bio-Terrorism. There is no comparison at all. We believe St. Peter was made the Rock of the Church on Earth and given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven because the Lord Himself declared this plainly in the Gospel. The Vicar of Christ is a Servant of Christ our King. He is like the Prime Minister of the King. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:33, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

If you believed in the deity of Christ, you'd accept his blood offering as cover for all sin, as he says. But you don't. You reject both his blood sacrifice as an atonement for your sins, and his word that that is who is and why he died. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:42, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

If you believed the Word of God, you would believe that some Christians are saved only through fire. You would also stop your cursing/swearing habit that prevents you from coming to know the Truth. WE know the full 100% Truth. You will know it on Judgment Day if you won't hear it from us. Be good to the Catholic Church. You will need our prayers on that day. Thsoe who don't believe in Purgatory have no good hope of escaping it. St. Paul and the Maccabees prayed for the faithful departed because they knew Purgatory exists. Do the Protestant groups pray for the faithful departed? We do. Because the Catholic Church loves even Her enemies, as I told you before; and prays even for those who persecute Her. Purgatory is real, and it exists. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:46, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

You've rejected God's word and Christ's divinity. The more you speak, the more you call God a liar. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:49, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

The only one calling God a liar is you. You seem to call God a liar frequently. Not us. We believe God is Truth therefore we believe in Purgatory. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:51, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Everyone will know the Truth one day. This life is short. It should be spent earning treasures for heaven, laying up treasures where thief cannot enter and moth cannot rust. It should be spent doing good works and saying many prayers, keeping fasts, and growing in holiness. People don't want to do that and therefore they are afraid of Purgatory. Everyone will know the Truth on Judgment Day. No arguing with the Lord at the time. 23:53, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

You can know truth right now. Open your bible and throw the rest of that junk in the trash. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:05, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

RobS, you spoke of "individual believers" making up the Church as you recognized the problem of "the church as institution", but there is a mirror image problem with overconceptualizing opposition to that very overconceptualization, about which I want to give you, or anyone else who can receive it, a heads-up, by the 20th century Jewish theologian Martin Buber. This gifted thinker maintained throughout his life that Christianity was important, and his understanding of Christian beliefs was incorporated as part of the basis of his thoughtful observations.

The development of the function of experiencing and using comes about mostly through decrease of man's power to enter into relation.
How does this same man, who made spirit into a means of enjoyment for himself, behave towards the beings that live round about him?
Taking his stand in the shelter of the primary word of separation, which holds off the I and the It from one another, he has divided his life with his fellow-men into two tidily circled-off provinces, one of institutions and the other of feelings—the province of It and the province of I.
Institutions are "outside", where all sorts of aims are pursued, where a man works, negotiates, bears influence, undertakes, concurs, organises, conducts business, officiates, preaches. They are the tolerably well-ordered and to some extent harmonious structure, in which, with the manifold help of men's brains and hands, the process of affairs is fulfilled.
Feelings are "within", where life is lived and man recovers from institutions. Here the spectrum of the emotions dances before the interested glance. Here a man's liking and hate and pleasure are indulged, and his pain if it is not too severe. Here he is at home, and stretches himself out in his rocking-chair.
Institutions are a complicated market-place, feelings a boudoir rich in ever-changing interests.
The boundary line, to be sure, is constantly in danger since the wanton feelings break in at times on the most objective institutions; but with united goodwill it may be restored.
Most difficult of all is the reliable drawing of the boundary line in the realms of so-called personal life. In marriage, for instance, the line is occasionally not to be fully drawn in any simple way; but in the end it is possible. In the realms of so-called public life it can be perfectly drawn. Let it be considered, for instance, how faultlessly, in the year of the parties and the groups with their "movements" which aimed at being above parties, the heaven-storming sessions on the one hand, and on the other hand business, creeping along the ground (smoothly like a machine or slovenly and organically), are separated from one another.
But the separated It of institutions is an animated clod without soul, and the separated I of feelings an uneasy fluttering soul-bird. Neither of them knows man: institutions know only the specimen, feelings only the "object"; neither knows the person, or mutual life. Neither of them knows the present: even the most up-to-date institutions know only the lifeless past that is over and done with, and even the most lasting feelings know only the flitting moment that has not yet come properly into being. Neither of them has access to real life. Institutions yield no public life, and feelings no personal life.
That institutions yield no public life is realised by increasing numbers, realised with increasing distress: this is the starting-point of the seeking need of the age. That feelings yield no personal life is understood only by a few. For the most personal life of all seems to reside in feelings, and if, like the modern man, you have learned to concern yourself wholly with your own feelings, despair at their unreality will not easily instruct you in a better way—for despair is also an interesting feeling.
The men who suffer distress in the realisation that institutions yield no public life have hit upon an expedient: institutions must be loosened, or dissolved, or burst asunder, by the feelings themselves; they must be given new life from the feelings, by the introduction into them of the "freedom of feeling". If the mechanical State, say, links together citizens alien to one another in their very being, without establishing, or promoting, a being together, let the State, these men say, be replaced by the community of love; and this community will arise when people, out of free, abundant feeling, approach and wish to live with one another. But it is not so. The true community does not arise through peoples having feelings for one another (though indeed not without it), but through, first, their taking their stand in living mutual relation with a living Centre, and, second, their being in living mutual relation with one another. The second has its source in the first, but is not given when the first alone is given. Living mutual relation includes feelings, but does not originate with them. The community is built up out of living mutual relation, but the builder is the living effective Centre.
Further, institutions of the so-called personal life cannot be given new life by free feeling (though indeed not without it). Marriage, for instance, will never be given new life except by that out of which true marriage always arises, the revealing by two people of the Thou to one another. Out of this a marriage is built up by the Thou that is neither of the I's. This is the metaphysical and metapsychical factor of love to which feelings of love are mere accompaniments. He who wishes to give new life to marriage from another source is not essentially different from him who wishes to abolish it. Both clearly show that they no longer know the vital factor. And indeed, if in all the much discussed erotic philosophy of the age we were to leave out of account everything that involves experience in relation to the I, that is, every situation in which the one is not present to the other, given present status by it, but merely enjoys itself in the other—what then would be left?
True public and true personal life are two forms of connexion. In that they come into being and endure, feelings (the changing content) and institutions (the constant form) are necessary; but put together they do not create human life: this is done by the third, the central presence of the Thou, or rather, more truly stated, by the central Thou that has been received in the present.

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:44, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

My final request to NishantXavier and a request to RobSmith

Re: Catholic Ecumenism and the Re-Union of Christendom

Gentlemen, please take this issue to a debate page. Stop going back and forth on a talk page in an undisciplined manner. That is not going to help anyone. Make your cases on a debate page in an organized manner that puts forth your best arguments in a methodical way.

User:NishantXavier, stop making posts on your talk page meant to draw RobS into an argument. Instead, set up a debate page and make your arguments. Have a "Yes" section and a "No" section so each of you can make your best arguments.

It would have been so simple to set up a debate page entitled: Debate: Is the Catholic ecumenical movement valid?

Thank you ahead of time for your cooperation. I hope this is the last time I make my reasonable request. I am a very patient person, but I am not going to repeat myself over and over when I made my reasonable request clear.

I don't want to block you, but if you persists on trying to draw RobSmith into no holds barred "debates" where people don't have to support their positions, I will do it.

Suggestion to RobSmith: Don't respond to User: NishantXavier's posts on his talk page that are designed to be no hold barred "debates" where people don't have to support their positions.Conservative (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. I had created the page on Purgatory for that purpose. Here, on my talk page, I was discussing things like Ecumenism that aren't debate topics per se when the discussion got sidetracked. But all right. We will do it as you say going forward, Conservative. I want to use my own talk page mainly not for debates but to plan out future articles with other interested persons. Right from my first post here, that's what it's been about. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:15, 24 July 2020 (EDT)
For evidence of that, see my first topic, created almost as soon as I joined, after David's kind message to me: "The 12 Apostles, the 72 disciples, 120 brethren in the upper room, 500 eyewitnesses of the Resurrection - Thanks David and everyone. Is anyone interested in collaboration to do more useful research, especially uncovering such evidence as may be helpful in apologetic and evangelistic endeavors. We could collectively work on expanding articles on (1) the 12 Apostles, (2) the 72 disciples, (3) the 120 brethren in the upper room who were filled with the Holy Spirit, (4) the 500 eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, (5) Modern great Evangelists for Christ."
It was I who got pulled into debates. Before that, I was content to have discussions on collaborating to create content. But anyway. Moving forward... NishantXavierFor Christ the King 00:18, 24 July 2020 (EDT)
You and RobSmith don't have discussions on your talk page. You have bitter back and forth free for alls. Stop being the instigator of this.
You are a Catholic. We know this.
Instead of creating arguments, start creating debate pages and online encyclopedia articles. Thank you.
If you want to have discussions with Liberaltears, I would suggest doing it off wiki.
Right now there is a lot of unproductive behavior going on that is not benefiting the public in a significant manner.Conservative (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

I much prefer pleasant discussion. We will keep the debates on the debate page as agreed. I will post non-controversial things on my own talk page, if that's fine. They are not meant to provoke anyone. I generally invite collaboration on articles on my home page. I got involved in the debate things mainly because that's what people seemed to want to discuss. To begin with, I was interested in general Christian evangelism, apologetic articles about atheism, on historical missionaries etc. But let it be. Let's get back to normal conversations and work on useful things for CP. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 05:34, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

That will be better. You can't grow a big amount of traffic to a website with talk pages. They tend to be unorganized, overly emotional and not very informative. In addition, they are not search engine friendly because there is a mishmash of material on talk pages (search engines like material that is topically focused).
In addition, there will less acrimony at the wiki.
The end result will be more encyclopedia articles and debate pages which will be more informative to the public.Conservative (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

NishantXavier, please create your debate pages properly

NishantXavier, please create your debate pages properly.

I had to reformat this page: Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day.

I shouldn't have had to do this. It's not that hard to create a debate page.

Debate pages have a "Yes" section and a "No" section.

Because you did not form your debate page properly, IndependentSkeptic didn't have a place to debate the matter of purgatory and used your talk page as a quasi debate page.

In the future, please format your debate pages properly.

Thank you.Conservative (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

Message from Dataclarifier copied from posting on IndependentSkeptic talk page

I posted this on IndependentSkeptic's talk page and on Conservative's Message page.
I'm going to add my own comment. It's pointless to respond to RobSmith's provocative Catholic-baiting and debate statements pregnant with anti-Catholic responses and misrepresentations, it only generates more debate, which is what he wants. It's not enough for him to simply respond to controversial topics on the relevant debate page(s), he continues to insist on debate with repetitious content on NishantXavier's talk page (and insults as well), just as I warned he would. He revels in the contention he generates. To restrict him to debate pages only would cramp his style, and leave him unsatisfied and frustrated. That's not what he wants: He's happiest with No holds barred and No rules for debate.
@Conservative, even after RobSmith continued to provoke debate on NishantXavier's page you did not move any of RobSmith's debate comments to the relevant Debate pages, though you moved IndependentSkeptic's comment to the Purgatory debate page without including the context of it as being in fact in response to RobSmith's disparaging attack on him ("you don't know what church is") and his strawman attack on the doctrine of Purgatory. This suggests to me that you may not be aware of a lack of dispassionate and impartial judgment on your part. With genuine respect.
(I did warn IndependentSkeptic to stay off Conservapedia, and he wouldn't listen. I respectfully suggest you permanently block him and me, both of us, Block infinity. I am serious, no joke. Then we can get on with our lives. There is life after Conservapedia.) Thanks. With respect. --Dataclarifier (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

You are full of it. I do not Catholic-bait. I stand ready to defend the Bible. You constantly attack the Word of God. When questioned, you' don't know the Word of God. You play the victim and hide behind Catholicism which doesn't require you to know God's word. Worse yet, then you threaten to send me to hell for not being as ignorant of God's word as you are. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:07, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
Incidentally, I found more of your lies and fraud in the Atonement article. If you wish to defend you fraudulent activity, meet me there on the talk page. But it would be awfully stupid of you, since Purgatory denies Christ as our atonement. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:18, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
I really think we've said enough. Both of us. Pax vobis, Semper Fidelis! --Dataclarifier (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

Brothers, Sisters and Friends, let's all try to get along in a collegial, fraternal and Christian manner. I know it's difficult sometimes; and I'm guilty too sometimes of being polemical when faced with anti-Catholic attacks, but I want to be more irenic and pleasant in future discussions. Let's discuss our differences kindly if we can. Otherwise, let's focus on things we agree on, whatever advances the conservative cause, e.g. on pro life, issues, anti-Communist action, religious freedom, evangelism to Christianity etc etc. I want to thank everyone who posted on my home page. It's been interesting exchanging thoughts with you all. I just wish we can all do so in a friendly manner remembering always that all conservatives are on the same side. There are far too many and too important ideological battles with liberals going on for conservatives to be divided among ourselves. God bless you all. I'm going to work on some Christianity by country articles. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 05:30, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

I respectfully request that neither DataClarifier nor Independent Skeptic are ever blocked (sorry, DC!). Both are and have been valuable contributors to Conservapedia. Let's try to sort out the differences in a positive manner. Our Lord Jesus bless us all. If we are Christians, we should be able either to agree completely, or at least to settle down to amiable disagreement. Our Lord Jesus bless us again. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 05:51, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

Fine. I agree. Just tell DC & I/S to stop personalizing it and threatening to send other users to hell for not accepting the Satanic doctrines of an apostate church. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:39, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

You need to stop using words like "Satanic doctrines", "apostate Church", bla bla. They are not conducive to helpful discussion in the least. At all. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:41, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

Bull. That is exactly what it is, as I have proven from the Bible. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:43, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
IOWs, while me, Dataclarifier, I/S, you, LT, Cons, VM, and Shobson are immune from personal attacks on a wiki, Protestantism and the Roman Catholic church are fair game for honest criticism. You NX are to commended, cause you've never responded with personal attacks. OTOH, DC & I/S only recourse when they are on the losing end of an argument is to name names and tell other users they are going to hell for criticizing mother church. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:48, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

You NX are to commended, cause you've never responded with personal attacks Thank you. I strive to set that standard. For me, what the Council of Trent asked in one of its sessions for dialogue between Christians is normative as a guiding principle. Vatican II also seconded this: "o this General Council of Trent, and to those that shall set out, or have already come hither, by what name soever they are entitled, or may be designated, to come freely to this city of Trent, and there to remain, tarry, sojourn, propose, speak, treat of, examine and discuss, any matters whatsoever together with the said synod, and freely to offer and set forth all things whatsoever may seem fit to them, and any articles whatsoever, either in writing, or by word of mouth, and to explain, confirm, and prove them by the holy Scriptures, and by the words, opinions, and reasons of the blessed Fathers, and, if it be needful, even to answer the objections of the general council; and to dispute in a Christian manner, or to confer in charity, without any hindrance, with those who may have been chosen by the council, all opprobrium, railing, and contumely being utterly discarded;"

Let's discuss what agreement we have politely and examine what disagreement we have pleasantly. I ask that the Protestant side also put aside language that would be deemed offensive, hateful, bigoted or intolerant like "Satanic", "apostate", "papist" etc. Similarly, the Catholic side should try to avoid language like "heretic" etc going forward. Both sides should regard each other as Christians and discuss inter-Christian denominational differences politely imo. That would be a recipe for fruitful discussion that could actually deepen mutual understanding further. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 10:22, 25 July 2020 (EDT

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NishantXavier/Archive_1&oldid=1768354"