Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

I set up the debate page with a "Yes" and "No" format, but I will not participate. I have made my view known on other debate pages listed on this debate page under the See also section. May God bless you all. Pax vobiscum. --Dataclarifier (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

Good. Be a slacker. My response will serve as the response of the community, and if you try this stunt again, I'll pursue getting it deleted with the assistance of RobS. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 22:22, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

The title of this debate is unacceptable

Neither I nor RobSmith will accept a Debate whose title is based on such a loaded premise. We reject the very notion that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is the same church that "Jesus founded on the a rock" and that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against." Shobson20 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

The question, as stated, makes little sense, needs to be shortened, and re-phrased.

My guess is DC wants to use it as another spamfest. Fine. But once the spam is posted here, it should not be allowed to be cut and pasted unto other good faith Debate pages, IMO. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:06, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

Look at the top of this page. He already told us he wouldn't be participating, even though he's the one who set it up. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 23:16, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

He's making a statement. If nobody signs up in a few days, a speedy tag could be hung. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:20, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

So a debate page can be deleted for the sheer reason that no one participates, if such is the case? —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Thursday, 23:23, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

Good question. I don't know. But if the creator of the page states it was created in bad faith and nobody participates, that certainly would be cause to hang a speedy tag, IMO. It could be defined as nonsense spam. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:26, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

This is practically the definition of bad faith

Please end it. --LawfulLibertarian (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

Yes. It's redundant of at least two earlier debates. They think by their many words they shall be heard. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:29, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

IndependentSkeptic

Dataclarifier may not be willing to participate. I am. At least once.
First the creator ot the page did not state it was created in bad faith.
Second (and I hope finally) I posted on the Debate Page what I consider the most devastating response I ever found to the blasphemous garbage-mouth objections posted by VargasMilan and RobSmith against the promises of Jesus Christ and against his Church. I joined because of the Bible, and like Dataclarifier (Michael), I too have found the Catholic Church to be the most biblical Church. It's a Full Gospel Church. Nuff said! Oh Yeah! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

This debate will not add anything new that has not already been said on other pages. But if it becomes helpful to save a few more souls in what promises to be another spamfest, so be it. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:31, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

Just remember, by grace are ye saved, not spam, distortions, and lies. You're only making the chain heavier of the lost with all your spam postings and convoluted logic. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

As Solomon said, much study is a weariness of the flesh. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:35, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

"By grace are ye saved". Exactly! The Catechism says the same thing!
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three, Section 1, Chapter 3, article 2: Grace and Justification
You really ought to read it. The Bible backs it up completely. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

No it doesn't. The Catechism says grace is not grace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:46, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

You lie! No such text in the Catechism. I've read it. You can't quote box any such passage anywhere in the Catechism.

Oh, the logic is inescapable! Only someone like yourself blinded by confirmation bias can't see it.
Look at John 9:39-41. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

Catechism teaches grace is merited. It's already cited in mainspace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 11:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

Not the initial grace of salvation. No one can merit that. You just won't admit it. That's the teaching of the Catholic Church. That's the teaching of the Catechism. Apart from Christ there is no meriting salvation. Only He saves. Only through Christ can we do anything. Only united to Him can we bear fruit. "For apart from me you can do nothing". We can't do it! Again, look at Grace and Justification.

You lie about what the Catechism says. But you keep repeating the same lie. You are spamming Falsehood.

I will waste no more time with you. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

If grace is merited, grace is not grace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

The grace of God is essentially the "good news", which is what the term "gospel" is translated into. Catholic catechism denies the good news, i.e. the gospel, and reverts back into law and Judaism. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:09, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

Ye are like unto whited sepulchers....… RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:25, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

This page should be locked if the disruptive trolling continues

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:44, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

This page has turned into an incoherent mess

Replete with Dataclarifier's signature redundant spamming, which IndependentSceptic has now adopted. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:52, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

The spamming of -1,289 bytes and doubling down with another -2,301 bytes in an edit war here marked in red is making the page incomprehensible. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:53, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Mistaken reversion

My reversion this morning was a mistake by my super-sensitive touch screen. This error has been corrected.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Proposed revision of mainspace Debate page - orderly and organized

RobSmith proposed some new additional Rules for this Debate. I cite in particular these, as relevant to a revision of the mainspace page to remove spam, and disruptive insertions into original postings, as vandalism:

Rules

• Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

• [...]

• [...]

• [...] Spamming is not allowed in either the Protagonist, Antagonist, or Open discussion sections. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

• [...]

• No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

In support of these I proposed on my talk page an additional rule:

• Original postings are to be left intact. No inserting of commentary or challenge into an original posting made by another user, and thereby disrupting, interrupting or breaking up the flow of the thought or argument of the posting. Any editor can remove it, especially the original posting editor, as an attempt at spamming or vandalism, obscuring the point of the posting.
  —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Protagonist section must be made in the Antagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Protagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.
  —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Antagonist section must be made in the Protagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Antagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.

In accordance with these rules proposed by RobSmith and myself I have revised a copy of the Debate mainspace page as follows.
(This is not spam. RobSmith said he had unlocked the page. It's still locked. All double-brackets enclosing identifying signatures of users posting comments have been removed from the copy below to preemptively defeat a potential accusation of "forging electronic signatures" on a page the user "never posted to"—meaning this Debate talk page.)
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Misleading RobSmith commentary - 1 Kings 11:12-13 "turn away" - and "preacher of the gospel" applied to himself 2Tm 2:7; 2 Co 10:14; 2Tm 5:17-18

Debate page is still locked to prevent editing. Note posted at [View source] states any edit proposed should be first discussed. O.K. I propose the following edit be added right after RobSmith's partial quotation of 1 Timothy 5:18 to "not muzzle the ox".

RobSmith characteristically misleads readers with comments that deflect from the point of the actual context of the reference being made, taking it out of context, in this case deflecting and implying as a mistaken typo the actual reference to 1 Kings 11:12-13 that the kingdom was "Torn away". It says

Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.
—RSVCE ("rend away" KJV)

But RobSmith says "Torn away" must be a typo, that it says instead "turn away". The actual text of KJV verse 9 says "because his heart was turned from". While there are many different versions of the Bible, none of them says "turn away" in 1 Kings 11:9-13.
And not only that, but RobSmith also claims to be a "preacher of the gospel" in accordance with Matthew 28:19, which in the context of the passage was addressed to "the eleven disciples" who were those remaining of the Twelve Apostles whom Christ had "ordained"/"appointed" and named as apostles. (Luke 22:29; 6:13). But he refuses to answer and say unequivocally that he is an accredited ordained preacher, making his claim doubtful at best. The term "preacher of the gospel" in the New Testament was applied only to those ordained as preachers of the gospel and like Paul ordained as apostles.

1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
—KJV

2 Timothy 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
—KJV

I've already quoted other Bible passages from the New Testament about the apostles ordaining elders as preachers of the congregations in the book of Acts. Paul's additional reference to not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain is RobSmith's answer to the question "Are you an acknowledged ordained preacher?" That's RobSmith's evasive and slanted abuse of scripture taken entirely out of context as if it is referring to all of the responses of correction on these Debate pages as attempts to "muzzle" him, to "silence" him, to put forth grounds to discredit his right to insist on his own interpretations and applications of the Bible as from God having called him to preach and teach the word, quoting Matthew 28:19, and 1 Timothy 5:18 "you shall not muzzle the ox".
In fact, St. Paul was citing that passage as applied to himself regarding his rights and the rights of ordained elders (presbyteroi/priests) to receive a salary or monetary support ("honor") as an ordained apostle and preacher of the gospel.

2 Corinthians 11:8-9 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
—KJV

1 Corinthians 9:6-18 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?
8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?
Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.
—NKJV

RobSmith deceitfully uses the word of God. His interpretations of scripture cannot be trusted.
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

I really think this response edit must for the sake of truth be included on the Debate page, right after RobSmith's quote of 1 Timothy 5:18a (his leaving out of v 15b), which he applies to himself in refusing to answer if he is an accredited ordained "preacher of the gospel". Given his past performance up to this day, I believe he will oppose including it, as an embarrassment to him for making false claims about himself. He has a right to witness to the gospel according to his own understanding, but no right to claim to be a "preacher of the gospel" if he hasn't been acknowledged by any church as "appointed and ordained" a preacher. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

So let me get this straight now, Paul withstood Peter to his face, is ordained by God, but Peter has all authority" RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

Peter was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself Who gave to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and to loose, and heaven confirms his authority, "shall be bound in heaven, shall be loosed in heaven". --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

Yet Paul withstood him to his face. Paul was disobedient to God's authority? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

TLDR; this spam seems a little off-point to the Debate question. And talk about deceitful, give me one simple piece of evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace, and we can continue this discussion. One piece of evidence, not a bloc of spam. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

• that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit.

Yes, the fleshly kingdom was torn away from Solomon.

Yes, Solomon's heart turned away from the Lord.

The subject under discussion was Solomon's salvation, not his fleshly kingdom. You are spamming above, making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mistakenly thought you were discussing spiritual matters, not fleshly, when I mistakenly referred to you spamming the discussion with fleshly matters as a typo. I should have known better. You have no spiritual discernment. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:14, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You have a reasonable amount of time to produce evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace in the wilderness, preferably with one or two scriptures in support. Then, in accordance with the agreement we both have with User:Conservative, debates are not supposed to be on talk pages.

P.S., you exhibited bad faith in (a) violating the Rules you yourself proposed; (b) biased editing in your revised version. For example, the Protagonist position is based upon the law being a curse, while Roman church doctrine is based upon law. You edited out at least four references, along with the supporting evidence and context, to that point. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:31, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

(Edit interrupted by Edit conflict) Korah's rebellion (Jude 11) is rooted entirely in his perversion of the "good news" gospel statement of God that the whole nation is holy, and Korah's interpretation as a pretext for the perversion of that gospel by rejection of the authority of Moses and Aaron appointed by God as shepherds over the whole people of God— Numbers 16 whole chapter,

Numbers 16:3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said, You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?

The Protestant Reformation said the same thing. Evidence that you distort scripture still remains. If we are disqualified, so are you. We stand by our proposed edit as a definitive summary. Nothing needs to be added. It's the truth. Good bye. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

Was Israel under grace or under law" RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

More bad faith: I never referenced Matthew 28:19. You are trolling. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

Proposal: Debate: Who is ordained to preach and teach the gospel? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:44, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

More bad faith squirming by RobSmith—Mark 16:15 says the same thing as Matthew 28:19. Yep. More of your persistent strategy of misleading distortion in virtually saying that Mark 16:15 has nothing to do with Matthew 28:19. Anyone who can read can see that it does. They can see that much. We stand by what we said about your abuse and misuse of scripture. Your interpretations and insinuations from the Bible cannot be trusted. You use the Bible deceitfully. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

One says teach, one says preach. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

Is User:RobSmith an acknowledged accredited ordained preacher of the gospel? --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

I have a ministry. I have been involved in prison ministry and ministry to the homeless for many years. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:26, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

(Edit interrupted by Edit conflict) Ah-hah. You say you have a ministry. You do not say you were ordained an acknowledged accredited preacher of the gospel. I have a Christian ministry too. But I'm a layman witnessing to the gospel, and so is Dataclarifier, doing what we can, but we are not ordained ministers to preach and teach the gospel as "ambassadors of the Lord" 2 Corinthians 5:20.
For understanding clearly RobSmith's strategy of interpreting scripture: See Loaded question, Misrepresentation, Putting words in someone's mouth, Confirmation bias and Fallacy of invincible ignorance. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You're full of bull. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

And in my prison ministry, in my part of the country I encounter many Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers who thought they were baptized into salvation as an infant. In prison, they have much time to think about that, and for the first time, be exposed to God's truth and God's word. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:35, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

• Psalm 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

I see the wreckage of human lives you create with your catechism and infant baptism. God has called me to clean up the messes you guys make. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:47, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You are misleading again, by a lying implication. You are actually saying, that these prisoners' ignorance of the faith and their sin is the doctrine of the Church! That is a lie. They chose to be ignorant, to do as they pleased, to rebel against their upbringing, to sin against the preaching of the Church and her holy doctrine, to dishonor their parents and grieve them in spite of their pleading to get out of the gangs and come back the the faith of the saints and angels.
There are also Catholic prison chaplains, ordained to ministry and reconciliation, who are expert in scripture and are devout followers of Jesus Christ. You suggestively imply that not one of them is in the prisons ministering to Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers by exposing them again to God's truth and God's word of reconciliation and healing that they heard in their parochial schools and at Mass. You impugn their ministry. Your deceitful interpretations of the word of God are misleading them away from the fullness of truth into a distortion of the truth of the Bible, the same Bible which led me and Dataclarifier from Protestantism into the Catholic Church as the most biblical Church on the face of the earth having the Fullness of the Gospel, not a distorted shriveled "withered" part of it—as NishantXavier said, maybe "50%, 80%, or even 90%" but not all of the truth revealed by God.
Answer!. Are you a fully accredited acknowledged officially ordained preacher of the gospel associated with any recognized established Christian ministry organization, congregation, sect, church, or denomination—or are you conducting your own personal ministry as a layman? Don't ignore the question! Are you a legitimately ordained minister of the gospel? Are you a Catholic? Are you an ordained Catholic preacher of the gospel? Don't try to squirm out of answering with a direct "yes" or "no". Dataclarifier and I are sure we know the answer (so does his mother). --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)