User talk:NishantXavier

I want to have a pleasant and respectful discussion on the Gospel of Saint Matthew the Apostle, a work very important for Christians, that has a 2000 year history of Church Tradition and Christian Scholarship.

Nishant Xavier NishantXavier (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

NishantXavier, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi NishantXavier! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jesus. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Not all Christian denominations worship Jesus as God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi George. Thanks for the message. I'll be careful next time. I wasn't trying to criticize others. I was just trying to continue the passage and complete the thought. It said, Most Christians believe Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son. So, I continued with, therefore Christians worship Jesus as God. I wasn't making a value judgment on liberal Christians or those denominations that don't worship Jesus. But maybe I should have prefaced it with the same "most Christians" to be accurate.

I'll take more care next time. Thanks, Nishant X. NishantXavier (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

All right, George. I will. God bless you. NishantXavier (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22 March 2021 07:29:15 (UTC)

References

Thanks, I'll read it, and try to abide by it. I'm not here to bash anyone. I look forward to a pleasant dialogue with others of different views. NishantXavier (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22 March 2021 07:29:15 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is

This is in response to your post on the Leonora Piper talk page which has been reverted. Kazuba, I'm sorry to drop into the middle of this but I saw your post and it intrigued me. I think one of the greatest mysteries in the Internet is "What is Wikipedia for?" Quite a few people have tried to edit Wikipedia believing it to be the place to put your findings and your research so that others can see them. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia was built for. Others try and post what they have seen to be the "truth", again they will find themselves getting reverted because that's not a goal of Wikipedia. I guess the best way to describe it is "The Largest Collection In The World". Wikipedia collects all the other knowledge and puts it in one place so it can be referenced. You express above your love and talent for research - I thinks that's wonderful. We need people like you because we already have enough people like me (I can't find my socks on my feet). The issue would be putting that research on Wikipedia, so long as it's in a book or over-sighted article, fine. If not, you'll get push-back. Also, we have to present both sides of an argument. There's no way to quantify how famous a person is, so Wikipedia tries to stay away from determining who's more or less popular. To say that a thing was very popular is one thing, to compare it to other things that may also be popular is different. Even statements like the ones in the section on "Phinuit" are a bit too far. There are statements that refer to "Phinuit" as a doctor and that his French wasn't very good... That's intimating that "Phinuit" is a real person who could be a doctor and know French. Since there's never been any evidence proving this all we can do is refer to it as "the entity Mrs. Piper referred to as Phinuit". These are some of the restrictions placed on us by Wikipedia, they make it so the stuff we add to an article is concrete and cited to other sources so Wikipedia doesn't get in trouble for "making up stuff". I understand your indignation, I have an article about my father on this site and I can't add several things to it because they are not written down anywhere. I lived with the man for 15 years... was raised by him... ate his cooking... but I can't say "he had one brown eye and one green eye" because it's not written somewhere else. Please don't loose heart, try and stick around and if you need help presenting an argument, please leave a message on mytalk page and we'll work it out together. Padillah (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, why don't we discuss this, either on your talk page or on mine? You want me to produce a scholarly source saying most Christians believe Jesus is the Christ promised in the Scriptures. Is that it? Will a citation from an Encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Brittanica suffice for it? There should be freedom given also for the scholars who represent our viewpoints, not only to those who represent the contrary. NishantXavier (talk)

Also, I have a question about the Gospel of Luke, since you're following that discussion. Would the below count as a scholarly source? It is from Zondervan Academic: "The following post is adapted from Robert H. Gundry’s online course, New Testament Survey." https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-book-of-acts God Bless. NishantXavier (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Gundry is basically a biblical inerrantist, so his views are WP:FRINGE.

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You're just re-defining every non-liberal Christian as fringe. That's itself fringe. Liberal Christians itself, who respect conservative Christians, just like we also respect them even if we disagree, would disagree with you. Gundry makes solid and reasonable historical and critical arguments. NishantXavier (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

From the Article: "Evidence within Acts supports authorship by Luke:

Just as his Gospel opens with a dedication to Theophilus, so also does Acts. Vocabulary and style are very similar in the two books. Though it does not prove that he wrote Luke-Acts, frequent use of medical terms agrees with Luke’s being a physician. By his use of “we” in narrating parts of Paul’s journeys, the author of Acts implies that he was a traveling companion of Paul. Other traveling companions do not fit the data of the text. For example, Timothy and several lesser-known ones are mentioned apart from the “we” and “us” of Acts 20:4–6. According to Paul’s letters, neither Titus nor Silas (still other traveling companions unmentioned in Acts 20:4–6) accompanied him to Rome or stayed with him there. Yet the narrative of his voyage to Rome makes up one of the “we”-sections.

By such processes of elimination Luke remains the only likely candidate for the authorship of Acts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishantXavier (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, that's the very opposite of WP:RS/AC, therefore an academically WP:FRINGE view. Wikipedia sides with the academia, see WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

But, friend, Zondervan Academic IS Academia. Robert Gundry's views may not be majority opinion, but they are an acceptable minority opinion and not fringe. Even the other article on Luke-Acts authorship essentially conceded this. So they should be allowed to be stated, as an acceptable minority view.

Gundry makes good scholarly arguments based on careful analysis of Luke's texts in portions peculiar to him, and in areas where he relates what Peter or Paul said: "Together with the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Hebrews, the book of Acts contains some of the most cultured Greek writing in the New Testament. On the other hand, roughness of Greek style turns up where Luke appears to be following Semitic sources or imitating the Septuagint.

Some scholars regard the speeches and sermons in Acts as literary devices improvised by Luke himself to fill out his stories. That some ancient historians followed such a practice is true, but not to the extent that has sometimes been claimed.

Although Luke need not have given verbatim reports of speeches and sermons, it does seem that he accurately gives the gist of what was said. Support for such accuracy comes from striking parallels of expression between Peter’s sermons in Acts and 1 Peter and between Paul’s sermons in Acts and his letters.

These parallels can hardly have arisen by chance; and no other evidence exists to indicate that Luke imitated or used in any other way the letters, or that Peter and Paul imitated Acts when writing their letters. The only adequate explanation: Luke did not make up the speeches and sermons, but summarized their contents so accurately that the characteristic phraseology of Peter and Paul is evident in Luke’s reporting as well as in their letters." NishantXavier (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, that's a WP:FRINGE view: Peter did not write anything from the Bible, that's the WP:RS/AC. He was an illiterate peon who could not produce highly educated compositions. Wikipedia's allegiance is to the mainstream academia, neither to Christianity, nor to Judaism. In this case that means that the scholarly consensus of mainstream Bible scholars (the WP:CHOPSY views) are presented as fact and as the WP:NPOV view. By the way, your talk page is crammed with blue links, you should read each and every one of them, these explain the rules of this website, which you seem to ignore. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I read the links. I agree with the rules. What I'm questioning is whether they apply here. Please see this portion of 1 Peter that agrees authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. That means some scholars defend Petrine authorship and so that remains an acceptable and not fringe view. What am I missing?

"Alternatively, one theory supporting legitimate Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot disagrees, suggesting that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter,[5] and some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work.[6][7] On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[8] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is enough evidence to conclude that Peter did, in fact, write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[9] allusions to several historical sayings of Jesus indicative of eyewitness testimony (e.g., compare Luke 12:35 with 1 Peter 1:13, Matthew 5:16 with 1 Peter 2:12, and Matthew 5:10 with 1 Peter 3:14),[10] and early attestation of Peter's authorship found in 2 Peter (AD 60–160)[11] and the letters of Clement (AD 70-140),[3] all supporting genuine Petrine origin. Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter NishantXavier (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

English Liberal Christian New Testament Scholar John Robinson in Redating the New Testament

I'm reading the works of Liberal New Testament Scholar John Robinson right now and they are excellent. Here's the wiki excerpt on Redating the New Testament from his Wiki page:

"Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness".

Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly basing his judgement on the sparse textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew as being written sometime between AD 40 and the AD 60s, Mark sometime between AD 45 and AD 60, Luke sometime during the AD 50s and 60s and John sometime between AD 40 and AD 65 or later. Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus' death; that Paul authored all the books attributed to him; and that the "John" who wrote the fourth Gospel was the apostle John. Robinson also suggested that the results of his investigations implied a need to rewrite many theologies of the New Testament.

In a letter to Robinson, the New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd wrote, "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton[;] the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud." Robinson's call for redating the New Testament – or, at least, the four gospels – was echoed in subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem and work by Claude Tresmontant, Günther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linnemann, Harold Riley, Jean Carmignac, and Bernard Orchard.

Robinson's early dates for the gospels, especially those for John, have not been taken up among most liberal scholars of Biblical historicity. Some conservative and traditionalist scholars, however, concur with his dating of the synoptic gospels.

References

WP:TE

I advise you to refrain from WP:RGW in respect to methodological naturalism, such POV-pushing is not tolerated, we are not called to rewrite the ground rules of post-Enlightenment historiography, but merely to obey them. Take such protests to your own blog or Conservapedia, this is not the place to foment revolution in mainstream history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with methodological naturalism. My question was about metaphysical naturalism? Am I bound to hold to it, as a student of history, in order to do history? I thought you would disagree, as you agreed on that topic that many Jews and Christians make very good mainstream historians. NishantXavier (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Metaphysical naturalism is a red herring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

One can agree with methodological naturalism without assenting to metaphysical naturalism. Therefore, Jews and Christians can do history well. NishantXavier (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Argue no further about the Christian POV unless you realize that you fail WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Very well. We'll agree to disagree then. I respect the rules and don't think I'm breaking any. I will follow the rules as I can follow methodological naturalism also as a Bible student. I have seminary education and think it's not unreasonable to say I'm fairly well read on Bible matters, having consulted and gone through a large variety of scholars, from liberal and modernist to conservative and traditionalist. I have my own views arrived at after serious study and am prepared to defend them if allowed to. If not, so be it. I respect the historical approach and follow it in my own writings. NishantXavier (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"I have my own views" Nishant, practically every Wikipedian has his/her own views on any number of religious, political, or philosophical matters. The big question is whether we can properly summarize what our sources say without inserting our own POV. So far, you have shown a willingness to search for available sources instead of arbitrarily changing or removing text to match your views. That is a pretty good start. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dimadick. I agree about the importance of referencing sources and not interjecting our own opinions. I'll try to continue as you say. NishantXavier (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's latest report on Christian population worldwide

According to https://www.gordonconwell.edu/center-for-global-christianity/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2020/12/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2021.pdf there are 2.545 billion Christians out of a 7.875 billion world population today, which comes to around 32.3%. As per the same study, the projections are, by 2025, that there will be 2.66 billion Christians while the world population will have grown to about 8.19 billion people. It'll be interested to look at future reports from the same organization as and when they come out.

Poverty in India and expected progress by 2030. A government UBI could help reduce poverty

Unfortunately, "Some 220 million Indians sustained on an expenditure level of less than Rs 32 / day — the poverty line for rural India — going by the last headcount of the poor in India in 2013."https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/economy/how-india-remains-poor-it-will-take-7-generations-for-india-s-poor-to-reach-mean-income--68898 A Q-UBI for 20% of India's population, about 5 Crore families representing 25 Crore people, has been proposed in the past. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/universal-basic-income-congress-rahul-gandhi-lok-sabha-election-poverty-5642541/ It remains to be seen if the government of India will take up the proposal in the future. It could definitely significantly speed up poverty alleviation efforts in India if implemented. NishantXavier (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You might want to add such sources to Poverty in India. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion Dimadick. I asked a question about adding it on the talk page. I'll add the two sources shortly. God Bless. NishantXavier (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Gospel of Luke

hello, I would like to know what is your evidence that the Gospel of Luke was written before 55? thanks. Tuxzos22 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tuxzos! Dear Friend, it was summarized in the below article I wrote for One Peter Five. 1P5 liked my article, so they approved it for publication. God bless you, Dear Tuxzos. I use Capitalization for Emphasis sometimes, lol:

"Sir William [Mitchell Ramsay] said about Saint Luke in particular, author of Luke and the Acts to Theophilus (who may have been the high priest Theophilus ben Ananus), “You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian and they meet the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.” Other scholars commenting on his work have agreed: “Ramsay, after a lifetime of research, ranks Luke as the greatest of all historians, ancient or modern. The Gospel stands the same test that the Acts has undergone. It is not only the most beautiful book in the world, but it is written with the utmost care and skill.” The Gospels are early historical records ...

External evidence is absolutely demonstrative that St. Matthew the Apostle himself wrote the Gospel of Matthew, wrote first, and wrote well before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is attested to by Bishop Saint Papias, who knew St. John the Apostle; Tertullian in Africa; Saint Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons in Europe but well acquainted with the Tradition of the East, having spent a significant time in Asia; and several other witnesses. Thus we have the Unanimous Witness of Three Whole Continents and virtually the entire Early Christian world that Saint Matthew the Apostle is the First of the Evangelists and wrote his Gospel well before 70 A.D ...

Saint Irenaeus records:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome [thus before A.D. 67 when both those Apostles were killed in Rome - Nishant Xavier], and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Adversus Haereses BIII, C1) ...

St. Jerome tells us on St. Peter:

"Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee … pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius (A.D. 42) to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero (A.D. 67) … then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him[.] ... Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world" [De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), #1, Simon Peter] ...

First Syllogism: (1) St. Matthew the Apostle wrote when St. Peter (and St. Paul) were preaching in Rome. (2) But St. Peter began to preach in Rome in 42 A.D., and St. Peter was martyred by 67 A.D. (with St. Paul). (3) Therefore, St. Matthew wrote the First Gospel between the years 42 and 67 A.D.

Can we narrow it down further? Yes, since St. Matthew wrote before St. Luke, we have, in addition ..

Second Syllogism: (1) St. Matthew the Apostle wrote before St. Luke the disciple (one of the 72) and Evangelist, the disciple of St. Paul the Apostle. (2) But St. Luke wrote Acts before 61 A.D. and the Gospel of St. Luke before 55 A.D. (3) Therefore, St. Matthew wrote well before 55 A.D. as well ...

The proof of premise 2 can read in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Gospel of Saint Luke. Briefly, it may be summarized as follows: (i) St. Luke wrote Acts when St. Paul was still alive (thus before 67 A.D.) and almost certainly during his Roman imprisonment (thus the abrupt ending of Acts) (round A.D. 61), and (ii) the Gospel was certainly written before this time, therefore well before 61 A.D

Next, can we arrive still further in our consideration of dates? Yes: St. Luke, so the Church Fathers tell us, and it is internally evident, is “the brother, whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches (2 Cor. 8:18). The secularist Encyclopedia Brittanica admits: “The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (II Corinthians in the New Testament) was written from Macedonia in about 55 CE.”

We conclude, therefore, that the Gospel of St. Luke was widely distributed already by this time."

Excerpts taken from link: https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/

Your thoughts, my dear Brother/Sister (I believe God is Universal Father and all of us are Brothers and Sisters! I'm from India!) Tuxzos22? God Bless.

Wow, thank you literally, I already knew the words of the tradition, but not the reference to Paul, there are also the Anti-Marcionite prologues if you are interested, but for me personally they are enough to conclude that there is something wrong with the late dates. Tuxzos22 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful, Tuxzos. I agree. Would you disagree with any of the steps in the following Logical Reasoning?

I. Saint Irenaeus said Saint Matthew wrote before Saint Peter died, which was in A.D. St. Irenaeus is a Credible Historical Witness. Therefore, St. Matthew wrote before St. Peter died. But when did St. Peter die?

II. St. Jerome says St. Peter preached in Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D. But St. Jerome is a Credible Historical Witness. Therefore, St. Peter died before 67 A.D. Therefore, St. Matthew wrote the First Gospel before 67 A.D. But when did Saint Luke write?

III. Saint Luke wrote Luke before he wrote Acts, because Acts makes mention to the former treatise to Theophilus. But St. Luke likely wrote Acts before A.D 61, when Saint Paul was still alive in his Imprisonment, as is suggested by the abrupt ending of Acts 28 (otherwise St. Paul's Martyrdom under Emperor Nero in Rome in A.D. 67 would have been mentioned, if it had already happened). Thus the Gospel of Luke, written before Acts, was written before 61 A.D.

Can we narrow it down still further? Yes, imho.

IV. Saint Paul, in the Epistle of 2 Corinthians, makes mention of the Gospel distributed in all the Churches, and the beloved brother praised in all the Churches because of them. This is a manifest reference to the Gospel of Saint Luke, who was Saint Paul's Beloved Companion, of whom he once testified: "Luke alone is with me. Having taken Mark, bring him with you, for he is useful to me for the ministry." (2 Tim 4:11) in writing to Bishop Timothy. Now, if the Gospel of Saint Luke was already distributed when 2 Corinthians was written, it was probably written some years prior to that.

V. So, the Final Question in Dating Saint Luke's Gospel is this: "When was 2 Corinthians" written? I quoted the Encyclopedia Britannica saying it was written in 55 A.D. Thus the Gospel of Saint Luke pre-dates 55 A.D., dear Brother Tux. Do you disagree with any of these Five Steps?

Please let me know where you disagree, Mere Bhai (Indian Way of saying "My Brother"). God bless you, Tux.

@Tuxzos22: I'm afraid this cannot be established through syllogistic reasoning, but only through publish or perish. Sorry to be so blunt, but as a rule of thumb peers give thumbs down to such claims, they are generally speaking unpublishable in mainstream scholarly journals.

Let me restate the broad academic consensus about the writings from the New Testament: 7 (seven) epistles are orthonymous (i.e. certainly written by Paul), the Book of Revelation is homonymous (written by somebody called John who got conflated with John the Apostle by later Christians), all other books from NT are either pseudonymous (i.e. forgeries), or falsely attributed by later Christians, or of uncertain authorship (the Deutero-Pauline epistles).

You might not have heard of this consensus inside evangelical colleges and universities or other fundamentalist schools, but it is taught as fact in every major university from US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. Your won't see recent Bible scholarship books published from Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, or Cambridge University Press claiming otherwise. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@NishantXavier: difficult question, on an academic level I would only like point IV (Luke is also mentioned in Philemon 24, a letter academically accepted as authentic). on a personal level all the points are helpful but with caution, the tradition of the patristic authors can contradict each other and are somewhat late... I believe that the evidence (for me personally should not be more I don't care, I care if an unbeliever cares) should be more solid, I for one use logic why would Christians be so clumsy to first copy the three gospels, all three anonymously without giving their names or anyone else's, all three 50 years after the death of Jesus along with the recent death of the apostles Peter and Paul, and when they had the fabulous power to falsely attribute the three to authors with little authority and finally in the three gospels they never make Jesus speak forcefully of circumcision, food, Sabbath etc, things that would refute the historical and documented Judaizers enemies of Paul and the church, but decided to complicate their lives even more and did not write that? wow! those christians were useless! :) Tuxzos22 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I heard it, thank you, I was checking Xavier opinion, which is not on the side of the modern academic consensus, and it is difficult to write it in an article. Tuxzos22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi George and Tux. Any thoughts on John Robinson's authority as a historian, and on his arguments (in "Redating the New Testament") for early dates?

@NishantXavier: he is usually described in his reviews as independent, neither conservative nor liberal, his arguments are either little commented or not in the modern academic consensus, his argument of silence of the year 70 by Christian authors does not please me, I am not a supporter of the arguments of silence and I do not want to be hypocritical, even though it benefits me, it is also surprising how John seems to assume a temple still standing in Revelation 11, and how the authors or author of 1Clement continues to speak of Jerusalem even after its destruction, layers for the Gospels, the Pauline letters, the Petrine letters and the Epistle of Barnarbe [note], Robinsom's arguments do not contribute much at the academic level, because a forger would have the intention of ignoring that important event, but for the other letters both canonical and non-canonical if they can serve many arguments, especially in the Epistle of James. i hope that my opinion, which was neither exhaustive nor complete, will be useful to you, peace. [note]the date of the death of Barnabas is not entirely reliable, but the scholars who discard his authorship usually ignore it, anyway the argument of the silence of Robinson does not serve much to this letter because it is not silence. Tuxzos22 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tuxzos22:Hi Tux. Agreed. I would not start with the destruction of the Temple. I would start with the death of St. Paul.

(1) St. Matthew wrote when St. Paul was preaching. St. Paul died in 67 A.D. Therefore, Matthew wrote before 67 A.D.

(2) St. Luke wrote Acts before St. Paul died, otherwise Luke would certainly have mentioned Paul's Killing/Martyrdom under Emperor Nero.

(3) Therefore, likewise, Luke wrote Acts before 67 A.D. But Luke was written before Acts was written. Therefore, Luke's Gospel pre-dates 67 A.D.

What do you think of these 3 statements, Tux? I know I'm India, but I should probably try to publish this in some Western Journal. Maybe some day. NishantXavier (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but at an academic level you are not saying anything new, your arguments and conclusion are already known and disapproved by the academic consensus, for it to be published in Wikipedia I don't see a short term future, but for it to be published in the Western Journal it could become a reality. good luck with that ;) Tuxzos22 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

English Liberal Christian New Testament Scholar John Robinson in Redating the New Testament

I'm reading the works of Liberal New Testament Scholar John Robinson right now and they are excellent. Here's the wiki excerpt on Redating the New Testament from his Wiki page:

"Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness".

Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly basing his judgement on the sparse textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew as being written sometime between AD 40 and the AD 60s, Mark sometime between AD 45 and AD 60, Luke sometime during the AD 50s and 60s and John sometime between AD 40 and AD 65 or later. Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus' death; that Paul authored all the books attributed to him; and that the "John" who wrote the fourth Gospel was the apostle John. Robinson also suggested that the results of his investigations implied a need to rewrite many theologies of the New Testament.

In a letter to Robinson, the New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd wrote, "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton[;] the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud." Robinson's call for redating the New Testament – or, at least, the four gospels – was echoed in subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem and work by Claude Tresmontant, Günther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linnemann, Harold Riley, Jean Carmignac, and Bernard Orchard.

Robinson's early dates for the gospels, especially those for John, have not been taken up among most liberal scholars of Biblical historicity. Some conservative and traditionalist scholars, however, concur with his dating of the synoptic gospels.

References

The Great Warning (2024 film) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The Great Warning (2024 film). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Killarnee (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Killarnee. Ok. NishantXavier (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Great Warning (2024 film)

Hello, NishantXavier. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Great Warning (2024 film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively, please note that articles are meant to represent the viewpoint of the entire body of reliable sources on a subject, and should not give special weight to scripture or other works from antiquity, which are usually considered to be primary sources on Wikipedia. One of your contributions to Gospel of Matthew appeared to place undue weight on the claims made by one of these primary sources, which should be used in the context of additional research by relevant subject experts. Claims made by these sources should generally be directly attributed, and not repeated in Wikipedia's own voice. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view, as well as the welcome page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Remsense 🌈 论 17:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Remsense. It's not a question of giving undue weight to anything. It is about showing the Patristic Testimony of the Early Church - as many Modern Conservative Scholars still hold, the opinion of a few Liberals notwithstanding - is credible, solid and historically reliable. I could cite many Modern Conservative Scholars who still abide by these dates, and thus it seems to me to be entirely within Wiki's rules and guidelines in the pursuit of Truth. Wikipedia Founder Larry Sanger recently became a Christian, so it is clear Big Boss over here finds the Gospel of Matthew credible and written by 1 of the original 12 Apostles etc. NishantXavier (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sanger is no longer boss around here. The Wikipedia Community gave him the lie by enshrining WP:GEVAL into WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, while conservative Christians may be WP:CITED, they don't write mainstream history, because biblical inerrancy is an outright anti-historical stance. The historical method gives the lie to them. Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream history. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Gospel of Matthew. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, the style of your edit isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is appropriate for a sermon. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. There is a major Ideological or Intellectual Battle going on for the last 150 years between (1) Conservative Christians and (2) Atheist Liberals. Even your own former Agnostic Liberal, founder of Wiki, Larry Sanger, testified recently after coming back to Christ: "Sanger says that his journey to orthodox Christian faith happened only with “time, study and… humble reflection.” “I certainly did, eventually, come to better appreciate my own sinfulness and why one of our deepest obligations is to be thankful to God for adopting me into his family and forgiving my many sins." Sir William Ramsay, an Oxford-educated archaeologist and former liberal, had a similar journey, after his own study, time and humble reflection and powerful on-the-ground investigation. As documented here: https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/

We need to spend time, study and humble reflection before we arrive at the complete Truth. If you profess strict (3) Secular Neutrality between (1) Christianity and (2) Atheism then give equal space and equal rights to both rather than favoring Atheism to damage Christianity. If the Evidence supports the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ really did speak of the Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem before 70 AD, then Wiki should reflect that, because Wiki should stand for the objective Truth, irrespective of whether it leads others like Larry Sanger to accept Christ or not. Thanks. NishantXavier (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Most Bible scholars are Christians. So, there's no atheism vs. Christianity match. You could count all atheist mainstream Bible scholars on your fingers.

But that aside, it seems you want to waste our time with preaching. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH.Please search another venue for your faith. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you already did. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If most Bible Scholars are Christians, then so much the more do we have the right to cite them when they date the Gospels early, and note the alignment with the dates assigned for the Church Fathers, and upheld unanimously by ALL SCHOLARS, whether Christian or Atheist, for around 1850 out of 2000 years. Ask yourself why John Robinson castigated your late dating theories as "a tyranny of unexamined assumptions", and an almost wilful blindness" and you might learn something new yourselves. Don't have time to waste anymore. Going out for Breakfast. Bye. NishantXavier (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Ad antiquitatem is a sophism. It isn't an excuse for not citing modern mainstream historical sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, your mistake is thinking that Sanger will remain a meek, unintelligent, dogmatic Christian. People who can think on their own tend to become heretics. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Not really. And did you take some of my edit rights away? Why not have a fair and honest discussion without stooping to such low blows? I can easily prove the facts I state with appeal to multiple witnesses. It is not a fallacy, but a basic legal principle, of both Old and New Testaments, that "by the word of two or three witnesses shall every fact be established". That is why there are 4 Gospel Records, so the facts in them may be known to be beyond doubt, especially because those 4 Apostles/Apostolic Men were Martyred for proclaiming the Truth that Jesus Christ is Risen.

And no, people who end up thinking cease being liberals or heretics and become conservatives and orthodox. Sanger and Sir William Ramsay are examples. Don't know what you're talking about when you claim to have more power than Sanger. You only have the power God has given you. God will see and judge, and those who judge unjustly here will be judged justly by Him on Judgment Day. Do as you will. We who speak the Truth fear nothing. NishantXavier (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a pulpit for preaching your religion. That applies to any religion or lack of it, including atheism. These are the WP:RULES of the game. I could not change these rules even if I wished. So, if you use Wikipedia for preaching Jesus Christ, I don't see how you could get away with it. The Abrahamic God is not an authority at Wikipedia, a Muslim could as well threaten with Allah's wrath, a Hindu with Shiva's wrath, and so on. Secularism means that Wikipedia is neutral in respect to religion and atheism. It is not neutral, but heavily biased for mainstream science and mainstream history. As long as you're fighting against mainstream historical information, you have already lost your fight. A neutral statement that conservative scholars disagree is allowed; preaching is not.

Wikipedia has many Christian editors, and some Christian admins. But they've all understood that Wikipedia is not meant for preaching. Those who could not understand it, are already blocked.

Here at Wikipedia I have opposed obnoxious atheists who were trying to preach atheism. So, Christianity has not been singled out for special treatment.

those who judge unjustly here will be judged justly by Him on Judgment Day is not WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but a subjective opinion. It is merely your own opinion. And Wikipedia is based upon WP:RS, not upon the opinions of its editors. Hell would break loose if we'd allow Christians, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Buddhists to preach their own religion through Wikipedia.

There are quite many venues wherein when you insist on preaching, you'll be shown the door. People don't like to be buggered by aggressive religious propagandists. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

So be it. You are neutral, then, between (1) Christianity and (2) Atheism. Be consistently neutral then. I've read and edited Wikipedia and other Wikis in accordance with their respective policies for a long time myself too btw. And, btw, neutrality isn't always correct. (1) Neutrality between Globe Earth and (2) Flat Earth would be wrong, because one is TRUE and the other FALSE. And btw, the Prophet Isaiah is the first to say, "He sits on the GLOBUS (Latin Vulgate) of the Earth", in Isaiah 40:22, and the inhabitants thereof are like Grass-Hoppers in His Sight", demonstrating Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge in Isaiah 40:22, another confirmation the Bible is True, and those who deny the Bible as False or wrong as are themselves as false or wrong as Flat Earthers who mocked Isaiah 40:22, 700 BC. But so be it. Secular Neutrality is fine for now. Just be consistent with secular neutrality. If some Good Conservative Sources or references suggest Jesus Christ prophesied around e.g. 42 AD that the Temple of Jerusalem would fall within a Generation (and a Generation is some 30 to 40 years or so), and then it finally happened around 70 AD, Wiki should just report on those facts - Wiki is like a newspaper, an online journal to be sure, but still essentially the same - that should just report on the best facts according to the best available sources. If Wiki does this, it will follow the mainstream consensus pointing toward the Truth which sets us free. Also, has any poll been done that you could point to, that say 60% of Scholars accept a post 70 date and 40% accept a pre 70 date? I doubt it. NishantXavier (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

External Evidence from the Fathers for Matthean Priority: Published Research at Respected Conservative Christian Publication One Peter Five - internal and external evidence alike corroborate Matthean Priority and Matthews Gospel being written by 67 AD at very very latest

"External Evidence from the Fathers for Matthean priority (St. Matthew writing first) The first and most important dispute in Gospel studies between conservative and liberal scholars is whether (1) the Patristic Tradition, universally accepted for 1,800 years, of Matthean priority or (2) the recent theory, of Markan priority, requiring a lost Q document, which has no ancient historical attestation, is correct. This latter theory was promoted during the Kulturkampf in Germany by Otto von Bismarck for political reasons, as an anti-Catholic endeavor to reduce the authority of the papacy (which is especially evident in the Gospel of St. Matthew). Let’s examine where the evidence points.

External evidence is absolutely demonstrative that St. Matthew the Apostle himself wrote the Gospel of Matthew, wrote first, and wrote well before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is attested to by Bishop Saint Papias, who knew St. John the Apostle; Tertullian in Africa; Saint Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons in Europe but well acquainted with the Tradition of the East, having spent a significant time in Asia; and several other witnesses. Thus we have the unanimous witness of three whole continents and virtually the entire early Christian world that Saint Matthew the Apostle is the first of the Evangelists and wrote his Gospel well before 70 A.D.

Saint Jerome had even seen the original Gospel of Saint Matthew — which had been carried by St. Bartholomew the Apostle to India — in the library of Caesarea, in the Hebrew dialect. “The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it” (De Virus Illustribus, 3, on Saint Matthew).

Saint Irenaeus records: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (Adversus Haereses BIII, C1)

Since having an idea of when St. Peter preached and when he died would help in outlining dates for the first Gospel, and also the others, we can investigate when this took place. St. Jerome tells us on St. Peter:

"Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee … pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius (A.D. 42) to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero (A.D. 67) … then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him[.] … Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world."

The time of St. Peter’s preaching being known, we can arrive at broad dates to begin with:

First Syllogism: (1) St. Matthew the Apostle wrote when St. Peter (and St. Paul) were preaching in Rome. (2) But St. Peter began to preach in Rome in 42 A.D., and St. Peter was martyred by 67 A.D. (with St. Paul). (3) Therefore, St. Matthew wrote the First Gospel between the years 42 and 67 A.D." From: https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/ NishantXavier (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Positing what you copy/pasted from an apologetic blog as the unvarnished truth is not going to fly. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

"we're Armed with the Truth"

If that's your attitude diff, you're WP:NOTHERE, and Wikipedia is not the right place for you. Here at Wikipedia, we're 'armed' with scepcis and some humility. And rejecting queer folk out of a phantasized "Truth" is despicable, in my view; it's your views and phantasies, fueled by God-knoes-what, masquerading as Biblical absolute truth. Get real, wake up, face your fear, and become a Mensch. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Let me clarify an important point: As Christians, we are called to love all people — including those who identify as ‘queer’ or ‘trans’ — with the same compassion and dignity that Jesus Christ taught us to show to every human being. Our disagreement is not with persons, but with certain ideologies and actions that we believe are harmful, especially to children. No one has the right to perform irreversible medical procedures — including so-called gender-affirming surgeries — on minors who are not mature enough to give informed consent. Protecting children from harm is a moral responsibility shared across belief systems. Indeed, even some prominent atheists and liberals — like J.K. Rowling, Bill Maher, and Richard Dawkins — have publicly expressed concerns about radical gender ideology and its impact on youth. While they may not agree with Christian teaching as a whole, they at least recognize this particular danger.

As for me, I’m skeptical of the skeptics — but I’ll give credit where it’s due. Truth deserves to be spoken boldly, especially when it protects the most vulnerable. NishantXavier (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

In the real world, Christians outnumber atheists by a massive margin — approximately 2.6 to 3 billion Christians compared to an estimated 150 to 130 million atheists worldwide. In other words, Christianity is nearly 20 times larger than atheism globally — around a 95% to 5% ratio. Do you really think you can get away by silencing Christian viewpoints on here? Many Christians on here who are Wikipedia editors just like you and I agree with me, but they are scared of what appears to be a Dominant Atheist Minority. Whatever happened to choosing mainstream and majority views, not fringe and minority ones. Your Atheism itself is a fringe minority view rejected the Majority of hte Human Race - 8 Billion + non-atheists, lol. The vast majority of the world (around 60%) is Abrahamic Monotheist and an overwhelming Majority (around 90%) is at least Theistic in the broad sense. The time of Atheistdom has come and waned. The time of a Global Triumph of Christendom and of Traditional Religion is coming back soon. The impetus is inevitable. Try to slow it down, if you want, but its ultimate triumph is unstoppable. It is demographically certain. It is certain for other reasons too. You really should give at least Equal Freedom to Christian Truth and Atheistic Errors so that Truth will calmly logically and methodically triumph over Error. But in actual fact, none of us have any obligation toward Atheistic Errors. All, however, have the duty to embrace and accept known Truth. NishantXavier (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I read this. I feel compelled to say... So?

None of this has much to do with Wikipedia. We are not your battleground on which you can fight against the great wrongs your perceive. We are not a place where you can preach the gospel according to you. We are not a place for you to promote your polemic viewpoints. None of this is appropriate for Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia. Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please keep reading it until it sinks in. If you feel motivated to respond to my comment here in some way that disagrees with the idea of us being an encyclopedia, then go back and read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia again. And again. And again. And again. As of now, you're just not getting it. I hope you do. I really do. But, as I said below, right now you're on a path heading to the exit door of Wikipedia. Best of luck, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I read it. I agree Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and I will strive to be more mindful of that fact going forward. I do hope that when I add content reflecting Encyclopedic views from learned Authorities and recognized Scholars - praised on other Wikipedia articles themselves - that content should be allowed to remain, because otherwise we have Tyranny, not Democracy. I hope we are all Good Democrats here, not Tyrants. NishantXavier (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

If an overwhelming majority of the world's population — including credentialed scholars, historians, and religious studies experts — adhere to some form of theism or Christianity, then suppressing or sidelining those views in the name of neutrality ironically violates Wikipedia's core content policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:RS. I also suspect most of you are Americans or Westerners. That's fine of course, but I am an Indian, and as an Indian bring a new perspective to the discussion in an increasingly Globalized World. My view should be heard out and respected too, just the same as anyone's view should be, when he or she can back it up with references to academic sources highly esteemed in the published literature. NishantXavier (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Second, what you've stated in the above paragraph appears to be much of what you've already said elsewhere, and thus going around in circles. I choose not to participate in that. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will appeal. NishantXavier (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

On what grounds? If your position is that you're right and we're all wrong, you're not going to get traction. I've seen this probably hundreds of times now. Editors come here believing they know the truth and come with no citations or weak citations and then refuse to consider that just maybe...MAYBE...they're not doing things the way Wikipedia says it should be done. They will cry foul, insist they can appeal all the way up to Jimbo Wales himself and that this great injustice is going to be undone if they can only find a willing ear. In the last desperation, if they can't find a willing ear they will claim the whole system is skewed/flawed/broken, and leave in a huff...but often not before they get indefinitely blocked.

You are on a slippery slope. From a cursory review, literally nobody is agreeing with you and everyone is telling you that you are doing things wrong. I strongly suggest you take a step back, take a breath, take a break, and reconsider how you want to proceed here. If what you are after is 'truth' here on Wikipedia, you are going about it in absolutely the wrong way. I'm sure you'll insist you're right, and you're going to appeal to find some individuals who are willing to agree with you, but don't ever say you haven't been warned. The path you are on right now leads just one way...out the exit door of Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I will consider. I have never argued, "I am right and everyone else is wrong". What I have done is say things like "Here are 3 top authorities, even from recent times like the last 20-60 years, who argue for the position that the Synoptic Gospels pre-date 70 AD". Yet, some take issue with that. Why? That is for them to tell us. Nobody can accuse me of having veered off-topic as far as citing those Authorities are concerned. NishantXavier (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The point is, which you still don't seem to be getting, that nobody agrees with you. Instead, your response to that is that you plan on appealing and that you've been treated unfairly. This isn't going to work. You talked once of Christians outnumbering atheists 20:1. Let's do the experience difference between you and I on similar grounds. You have 220 edits. I have north of 90,000 edits. I have more than 400 times experience than you do on this project. I am telling you your intent to appeal and the belief you are being untreated fairly...isn't going to work. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, very well. I appreciate the advice. Thank you. You do have vastly more experience on this Platform than I do, as your 90,000 edits to my merely 220 sufficiently demonstrate. I will work to learn as I go on. I will also publish some research on Gospel sources that I've done offline and the academic consensus, I'm sure, will shift to early Gospel dates fairly soon. But let's see how to do that in a reasonable and slow way. Thanks and God Bless. NishantXavier (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

First, publishing your research here isn't going to fly. See Wikipedia:No original research. Second, you've now been indefinitely blocked. See your block log for the rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Page blocks

You have been blocked from Gospel of Matthew and Talk:Gospel of Matthew for persistently using inferior/primary sources, bludgeoning the talkpage, and showing scant respect for other editors and their attempts to explain Wikipedia's principles to you. Preemptively, if you choose to reply to this notice, please don't ask God to bless me. That would be objectionable to me, as I don't believe in him. Bishonen | tålk 20:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC).

I think this is unfair treatment. I will be appealing in all appropriate forums in time. I have violated no rule. I have simply requested that Conservative Christianity be granted the same rights and accorded the same freedom that Atheistic Liberalism seems to be granted around here ... If you don't want to be blessed by God, I won't ask Him to bless you. There. See how simple that was? But leave that.

I deny that citing 3 Conservative Scholars who agree with Early Gospel Dates constitutes "bludgeoning" in any form, rather it's a perfectly suitable form of framing the debate between Conservatives and Liberals. All anyone who disagreed would have to do would be to offer up 3 similar Scholars who argued for Late Gospel Dates and we'd be all set. If someone is scared of debating this on Wikipedia pages, they shouldn't be, because what is mainstream can only be arrived at by looking at all sources, and the debate will continue off Wikipedia pages anyway. Even if Wikipedia gives more weightage to what is mainstream than to what is Truth, the stunning Truth may well be that the "majority of scholars" who just get away by saying "the majority of scholars" What majority (60%?90%?51%? 49%?" may well not be a majority at all or at most a very slim majority. Take 10 sample testimonies from Top Scholars at random and then assess which view is truly the Majority. NishantXavier (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for being not here to help build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NishantXavier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I respectfully request reconsideration of the indefinite block. I understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground and regret if my tone or style came across as combative. My intention was to advocate for fair scholarly representation, especially of conservative and religious perspectives, in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

If I overstepped with repetition or appeared dismissive of other editors, I apologize. I now realize that emphasizing balance must be done with more diplomacy and careful listening, and I commit to doing that if unblocked.

I remain committed to building a high-quality encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and I will seek mediation or consensus in the future instead of escalating. Thank you for your consideration. NishantXavier (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I wish you all the best in your humanitarian mission work. God (but not talk page access) be with you. asilvering (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi! Thanks for posting this request. While it does address some of the main points, an administrator might not be automatically convinced, especially since the tone might come across as too artificial, and since it doesn't address other issues like your comments about LGBTQ+ folks. A good compromise you could suggest to increase your chances of a positive review is an conditional unblock, which could for example take the shape of a voluntary topic ban on religious, political and social issues. By editing in other areas, you could demonstrate your ability to work with other users in a more collaborative way. Would that work for you, and are there other topics you might be interested in? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes. I am Nishant Xavier. And fully non-anonymous. Here is my linkedin profile. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nishant-x-jeyaraj-frm-7ba7b01aa/ I am deeply interested also in humanitarian Mission Work, for e.g. uplifting the Poor or ending or reducing Poverty, as for e.g. St. Mother Theresa of Calcutta did so wonderfully in my home Country, India. I also have Top Degrees (from NIT/IIM/FRM from GARP) in Engineering, Management and Financial Risk Management (FRM). See: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6889967390436810752/ for the Snapshot and the Proof of the same, and my desire for others too to become FRMs. So I can definitely contribute on those topics too. But one of my main areas of interest is also Religious Mission Work, which does include Religious Teaching also. But I'm ready to leave that aside for a while, until for e.g. I become an IIT or IIM Professor of Philosophy or of Theology, like Professor William Lane Craig is, and as I know I can become in 1-2 years. I have a published book online at: https://www.amazon.in/dp/9362528916 I am looking to write a similar book specifically only on the Gospel Records one day vindicating their earlier dates by using the Best Academic Sources, and references to unimpeachable Historians with the best and highest credentials.

Thanks and God Bless. As for the LGBTQ+ issue, I affirm unconditionally that I agree with the Bible and Catechism on that, that all such persons must be treated WITH LOVE AND RESPECT, and strive to practice the same myself, regardless of the fact that we believe that genital-mutilation surgeries of youth are not good. Even overall Liberals like e.g. Elon Musk now believes that same point as we do also, because his own son (Redacted) was "killed by the Woke Mind Virus" as he put it recently. Do you think Musk does not love his son? Of course he does. And we love all LGBTQ+ persons the same way, but we only respectfully disagree with the idea of genital-mutilating surgery - permanent and potentially harmful - always being the best thing to do ...NishantXavier (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

No number of "God Bless"es make your last paragraph any less hateful. Kaotac (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

You are calling the views of 2+ BN Christians - including 750 MN African Christians - hateful. Don't you realize this sounds extremely hateful and bigoted on your own part? My dear brother Kaotac, you really need to change your ways, and acknowledge the New Reality, of Black-African-Dominated-Christendom. The Christendom of today is largely Black and Brown - and still White of course in many places - and it's very well known Black Christians, like Brown Christians, and many White Christians too - don't want Promotion of Transgender Surgeries for Minors. That's a very respected mainstream view, while 18+ year Adults can do as they sources. Do you want me to cite sources for this? I can find them

1. WPATH Standards of Care (Version 8) - "The World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s latest SOC explicitly states that patients must have “reached the age of adulthood, which may vary based on where that TGD person lives or is seeking care, to be a candidate for gender‑affirming surgery.”

2. Stanford OB/GYN Summary of WPATH Guidelines - “Age of majority (<18)*” is listed as a criterion for surgery, alongside other requirements (12 months of hormones, capacity for informed consent, etc.)"

So it is not only Black and Brown Christians - 2+ BN strong today, while Europe is in liberal decline, demographically and otherwise, because of Western Woke Darwinist and Marxist Atheism - that I can cite. I can also cite some of the Best Most Respected Clinics in the Western World.

What will you say to that? I hope you will agree one can (1) LOVE TRANSGENDER PERSONS VERY MUCH (2) RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH MINORS CHANGING GENDER? Right? May God guide us all. Amen. NishantXavier (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

This reply is a clear example of why you are too filled with hatred to be able to work neutrally here. Claiming that it's okay because lots of people agree with you doesn't make your position less hateful.

This isn't the place for you to preach your beliefs, it's an encyclopedia. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are not yet familiar with Wikipedia policy, I suggest you read about talk page access. By default, blocked editors have access to their talk page, and are expected to use it to appeal their block, or to provide related clarifications that admins might look for before unblocking. However, talk page access can be removed if the editor repeats the behavior for which they were blocked, or, more generally, keeps using their talk page for making comments unrelated to their block. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 07:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)