User talk:NishantXavier

Welcome!

Hello, NishantXavier, and welcome to Conservapedia!

I am a contributor named DavidB4. I just want to say hello and offer any assistance you might need! Also, we have some guides which might help you get started and learn your way around if you need them.

• How to edit a website like Conservapedia - An intro on how to use Wiki code (which can be very useful if you haven't edited wikis before)
• Editor Quick Reference guide - A basic intro to how things work here
• Conservapedia's Manual of style - Extensive guide of good practices for writing and editing wiki pages

Please take a look at our rules when you get the chance. You also might want to look at the Guidelines of editing and collaborating here.

Useful links

• How to edit a wiki
• CP Commandments
• CP Guidelines
• Style Manual
• Editing Etiquette
• How to create and maintain high-quality articles
• Report Problems
• List of Templates

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Also we have a community portal where you can ask general questions, introduce yourself, or just comment. If you do post messages, please sign them by placing "~~~~" at the end of each one.
Thanks for joining our community, NishantXavier! We look forward to working with you!
--DavidB4 ^(TALK) 16:46, 16 April 2020 (EDT)

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. NishantXavier^{For 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 NishantXavier^{For 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. RobS^{Live 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. NishantXavier^{For 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. NishantXavier^{For 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.

• https://www.academia.edu/8236816/Jesus_in_humanity_is_the_primordial_sacrament_of_salvation. The author says, "The Incarnation, as a matter of fact, was a sacramental act as Jesus in his humanity is the root sacrament of God from which all other sacraments proceed."
• https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2010/04/06/the-church-the-sacrament-of-salvation/
• https://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/our-catholic-faith/the-universal-sacrament-of-salvation/

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? RobS^{Live Free or Die} 11:54, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

For all future discussions regarding Bible interpretations, etc. isn't it better to just refer to the Conservative Bible Project? —Liberaltears^{May 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. RobS^{Live 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. —Liberaltears^{May 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. RobS^{Live 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. RobS^{Live 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. RobS^{De 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. RobS^{Live 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. RobS^{Live 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. NishantXavier^{For 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. RobS^{Live 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? NishantXavier^{For 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. RobS^{Live 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. RobS^{Live 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. NishantXavier^{For 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. RobS^{Live 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? RobS^{Live 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. NishantXavier^{For 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. RobS^{Live 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. NishantXavier^{For Christ the King} 11:08, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Christ existed before Jesus was born (John 1:1, 1 Corinthians 10:4, for example). RobS^{Live 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. RobS^{Live 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. NishantXavier^{For Christ the King} 11:27, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Jesus is a man; Christ is a spirit. RobS^{Live 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. RobS^{Live 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. RobS^{Live 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

RobS^{Live 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. RobS^{Live 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. NishantXavier^{For 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. RobS^{Trump 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?

RobS^{Trump 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. RobS^{Trump 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. RobS^{Trump 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. —Liberaltears^{May 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. —Liberaltears^{May 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". RobS^{Trump 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... —Liberaltears^{May 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. RobS^{Trump 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? —Liberaltears^{May 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! —Liberaltears^{May 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. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 01:45, 28 June 2020 (EDT)

This is the meaning of faith - accepting God's word as is. RobS^{Trump 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. —Liberaltears^{May 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. RobS^{Trump 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. —Liberaltears^{May 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. RobS^{Trump 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. RobS^{Trump 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"? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:08, 28 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. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:37, 28 June 2020 (EDT)

As Jesus said (and I quoted to Dataclarifier 6 months ago):

• My word is not in you.

RobS^{Trump 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?) RobS^{Trump 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. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:54, 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. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:18, 28 June 2020 (EDT)

All right, I will answer and "address specific facts".
(For some reason I was unable to enter this posting edit after 10:00 am 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 said "What good will it do?, you're just wasting your time", and he 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", 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 very same 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 and block 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. RobS^{Trump 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. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:53, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

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? —Liberaltears^{May 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. RobS^{Trump 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. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 14:17, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Dataclarifier stands by his rejection of scripture

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

• Essay:_Water_baptism_cannot_save,_the_Church_cannot_save,_Born_again_by_faith_alone#Opposition_Analysis

You say,

The argument seems to be:

The Bible, or Word of God, is not authoritative;

• Essay:_Water_baptism_cannot_save,_the_Church_cannot_save,_Born_again_by_faith_alone#conclusion:_the_analysis_of_the_argument_is_supported_sola_scriptura

Your analysis of the argument is a fairly accurate summary

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