Mark 2:1-12
AND again he entered into Capernaum after ''some'' days. And it was noised that he was in the house; and straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive ''them'', no, not 80 so much as about the door; and he preached the word unto them.
And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken ''it'' up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy. Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this ''man'' thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, ''Thy'' sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of
And when they saw ''it'', they all murmured, saying, That was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore ''him'' fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
==What does this phrase mean?==
Explain this phrase, '' without the necessity of it being factually and historically true''.
Does this mean (A) the gospel ''is not'' "factually and historically true", or (B) the Bible is not "factually and historically true"?
Without a response in 24 hours, the entire subsection will be reverted. It appears more of an attack on Protestantism and not an explanation of Salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:44, 17 February 2020 (EST)
===Wow===
Look at this:
{{Quotebox|[[Relativism|Relativist]] interpreters emphasize that "the true value of the Gospel" lies primarily in its profound psychological and emotional impact, in '''''the telling of the story''''', without the necessity of it being factually and historically true, as a powerful means of causing spiritual transformation through personal identification with "the struggle and triumph of the mythical Jesus invented by Paul and the Gospel writers...}}
Just what the beejeezuz does
{{quotebox|...the struggle and triumph of the mythical Jesus invented by Paul and the Gospel writers...}}
mean?
Seriously, I'm about to recommend to an Sysop with Oversight powers to nuke all your contributions since day one if you don't engage on Talk pages properly. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:54, 17 February 2020 (EST)
::The meaning of the above quoted parts is explained in the linked articles included in the contributed material. The authors of those articles made those assertions, I did not.
:''From my talk page''<br>I have just received the alert to your note and am immediately responding with an ''apologia'' to explain. I sincerely regret that the documented historical fact of gnostic influences in ''some'' (not all) of North American Protestantism as detailed in Philip Lee's book, favorably reviewed, fully verified and competently sourced was perceived as a rant, regretting especially that it is perceived as anti-Protestant. That was not my intention. I have not gone and checked where the material I contributed on the subject researched by Phillip Lee and reviewed and summarized by a respected Protestant pastor, Christian apologist and author was deleted or retained. I am not responsible for the research of others, only for my desire for balanced articles offering a spectrum of views. As long as the summarized material re Philip Lee's book containing historical fact established by his research is retained in some or at least one or two of the most relevant articles, I have no objection. I really do not doubt that you can exercise reasonable judgment as to which articles it is most appropriate. I was only attempting to be as thorough as possible in relating the documentation to as many articles as seemed to me to be relevant, especially those on the recent resurgence of Neo-Gnostic influences, for the sake of informing our readers, who may not read all articles on heresies, Christianity, Protestantism and apostasy, so that at least at those particular relevant articles that they do access they can be more informed. Again, I feel no need to "check" what articles the particular "''Gnostic Protestant''" sections were removed from. I do not believe you attempted any "historical revisionist cover-up" in removing some, or even most of the postings of the material regarding the warning of Gnostic influences in modern liberalist Protestant doctrine in North America. I hope this makes sense. Best regards. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:26, 17 February 2020 (EST)
:::Dataclarifier says, ''I am not responsible for the research of others, only for my desire for balanced articles offering a spectrum of views.''
:::If you post it on CP, you ''are'' responsible for the "research of others"; for example, posting excerpts of ''Mein Kampf'' to offer "a spectrum of views" to support of your blatantly anti-scriptural ideology wouldn't be acceptable. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 19:07, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
:: Philip Lee is one man's opinion (regardless of haw many letters he has after his name). Philip Lee is not the Word of God. When discussing biblical subjects, we should cite the Word of God. Your contribution seems to question whether God spoke through the Apostle Paul. That sort of speculation probably should be confined to Essay space. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:34, 17 February 2020 (EST)
:::Actually, Lee is not alone, he is representative of many who perceive neo-gnostic influences in Protestantism, opposing authority of Church and State, opposing Catholicism, rejection of the good of material creation and marital relations as being a snare to the soul, lack of preaching on the bodily resurrection, the idea that moral behavior is optional. These are not part of biblical Christianity, only of those elements tending toward heresy. Do an online search on "Gnostic influences in the Protestant Reformers". That should explain why I included the material. I didn't really think that more than one representative source reflecting a summary of many others who also found the same influences was necessary. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:51, 17 February 2020 (EST)<br>See the following link, and you should be able to see what I mean:<br>https://www.bing.com/search?q=gnostic+influences+in+the+protestant+reformers&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=1fd7f74606f94e4990890c97ca4933b4&cc=US&setlang=en-US&plvar=0 '''Gnostic Influences in the Protestant Reformers''' <br> I hope this explains what I meant by "representative" of many researchers. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:55, 17 February 2020 (EST)
::::Fine. God-haters are a dime-a-dozen. His smut doesn't belong in a scriptural article with the [[Template:Christianity]] in it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:58, 17 February 2020 (EST)
:::::Take a look at [https://www.biblehub.com/2_corinthians/2-11.htm 2 Corinthians 2:11] and [https://www.biblehub.com/1_peter/2-15.htm 1 Peter 2:15]. I want Christians prepared and aware of exactly what are some of the arguments of Satan, so they can be ready and able to engage in spiritual combat. The danger of neo-Gnosticism is real. Bible believers need to know this! '''''I don't want them ignorant and helpless when confronted by specious arguments that mask as Christianity by not knowing how to recognize the enemy and be caught unaware and not knowing how to answer.''''' I sent no one into combat untrained and unprepared. Think about that! --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:24, 17 February 2020 (EST)
::::::Your external scriptural links do not support the context of what you posted in mainspace, Explain this:
:::::::*''the mythical Jesus invented by Paul and the Gospel writers''
::::::and '''WHY''' you posted it in a mainspace article with the Template:Christianity in it? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:42, 17 February 2020 (EST)
:::::Here's your problem, Dataclarifier: Below you deny the authority of scripture. Above you use (more properly, misuse) the words of Paul to deny the authority of God's word spoken through Paul and attack biblical Christianity. Many editors are getting fed up with your nonsense. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:16, 17 February 2020 (EST)
:::::Simple question: Does the [[Roman Catholic Church]] regard the Apostle Paul as an authoritative source of the Word of God? <big>'''Yes or No?'''</big> (no speeches or spamming). If yes, stop posting attacks on the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 20:57, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
====Another example of spamming and trolling====
Dataclarifier says,
*"I sincerely regret that the '''documented historical fact....verified and competently sourced...'''"
*"I have not gone and checked where '''the material I contributed ...'''was deleted or retained."
*"'''I am not responsible for the research of others..."'''
Anyone care to try and decipher what Dataclarifier said or means? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 13:00, 12 June 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier: You don't have to answer here. Just remember the word of Jesus and the biblical truth:
*''But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.'' - Matthew 12:36
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 13:18, 12 June 2020 (EDT)
:And if you cannot give account for the words you have posted, the grace of God is your only hope to save you from judgement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 13:26, 12 June 2020 (EDT)
===Illustration of a circular argument===
Here Dataclarifer adds to mainspace,
:''the mythical Jesus invented by Paul and the Gospel writers''
When asked to justify this insertion, Dataclarifer posts links to the writings of Paul, 2 Corinthians 2:11 and 1 Peter 2:15.
I am going to lock this page until Dataclarifier answers this simple question, ''Does the Roman Catholic Church regard the Apostle Paul as an authoritative source of the Word of God?'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 07:45, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
===Qualifying the source===
::*''"biblical Christianity."''
::(A) You've proven by multitudinous mainspace and talk page postings that you don't know what "biblical Christianity," is; (B) by your own words, you've '''denied''' what "biblical Christianity" is,<br> from [[Essay:_Water_baptism_cannot_save,_the_Church_cannot_save,_Born_again_by_faith_alone]]):
{{quotebox|::"You say,
:::''The argument seems to be:
:::*''The Bible, or Word of God, is not authoritative;
:::*'''''Salvation''' is dependent upon church membership;
:::*''While baptism qualifies a person for adoption into God's family, it is no guarantee; '''salvation''' still must be earned by good works, or at least the sacrificial death of Jesus is insufficient to cleanse one of certain sins.''}}
::Dataclarifier's response
{{quotebox|"Your analysis of the argument is a fairly accurate summary,"}}
::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:11, 17 February 2020 (EST)