Changes

:''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)

:''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)

:: 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]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]} 19:34, 17 February 2020 (EST)

:: 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]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]} 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)

:::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]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]} 19:58, 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]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]} 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)

:::::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)

::*''"biblical Christianity."''  

::*''"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]]):

::(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]]):