I have no idea whether the AI is making good points or not and neither do you. In order to determine whether the points it makes are accurate or spurious would require hours of checking sources and reading the argument carefully. Have you done that? Just because it looks plausible and sophisticated is no guarantee it isn’t laced with inaccuracies and garbage logic as it has been in the past. Why should anyone take the hours required to verify or refute these AI posts when the poster himself offers this AI slop generated in a matter of seconds. Does he even read the AI garbage before he posts it? So why should I waste my time on it? No thanks.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
41
John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God
by Sea Breeze inin answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!
- john 20: 28 nwt.
why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.
-
-
-
41
John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God
by Sea Breeze inin answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!
- john 20: 28 nwt.
why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.
-
-
slimboyfat
More AI generated crap.
-
65
Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
-
-
slimboyfat
“Begotten” does not mean “created” in either Second-Temple Jewish discourse or Nicene theology
Begotten is equivalent to creation in Proverbs 8 where they are used interchangeably - a passage that early Christians used to apply both descriptions “created” and “begets” to God’s creation of the prehuman Jesus in Greek.
22 The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works.
23 Before the present age he founded me, in the beginning
24 Before he made the earth and before he made the depths, before he brought forth the springs of the waters,
25 before the mountains were established and before all the hills, he begets me.
-
41
John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God
by Sea Breeze inin answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!
- john 20: 28 nwt.
why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.
-
-
slimboyfat
Your response reveals a fundamental misunderstanding both of the biblical data and of the theological categories …
Bla bla and your response, Aquabot, reveals that you are still spewing out AI garbage all over the place with no regard for other posters or for the truth for that matter. Go away if you have nothing to say for yourself, will you? Not this garbage that you haven’t even verified for yourself whether it’s accurate or a pile of intelligent-looking, but utterly vacuous crap dressed flowery language. Over 1600 words in ten minutes, you’re not even pretending any more to write this stuff are you? Are you even reading it before you post it? -
41
John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God
by Sea Breeze inin answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!
- john 20: 28 nwt.
why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.
-
-
slimboyfat
Sea Breeze, as early as Justin and Origen, Christian writers have recognised that Jesus is called “god” without the article in John 1:1 in a lower sense than God and that there is a huge difference between the two. (I can share the quotes but you perhaps know them already.)
If you claim that Jesus is God almighty at the same time as being the “Son of God”, then you are not really accepting the term “Son of God” at face value because of course the Son of God is distinct and subordinate to God in any reasonable, non dogma-driven understanding of the term.
-
41
John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God
by Sea Breeze inin answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!
- john 20: 28 nwt.
why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.
-
-
slimboyfat
The fact that John used both the term: "Son of God" and "God" in the same book to refer to Jesus tells us that both are referring to Jesus' deity.
The fact that Jesus is the Son of God means that Jesus is not that God whose Son he is, to most reasonable people using language in its ordinary sense. The fact that this has been confused by thousands of years of dogma that says Jesus can be God almighty and the Son of God at the same time shouldn’t alter that simple reality. If the conclusion that the apostle John himself reached was that Jesus is the Son of God then that should be good enough for us too.
So what did John mean when he reported Thomas addressed Jesus as “my Lord and my God” in 20:28? There are various possibilities. A popular candidate among recent scholars is that John was making the point that Christians look to Jesus as their leader rather than Caesar, and the reason he chose this wording is because the emperor Domitian was called “Lord and God” around the time the gospel was written. This is a good contextual reading of the significance of the passage. Trying to shoehorn 4th century Christology into the gospel of John against the conclusion of the author himself that Jesus is “the Son of God” may seem plausible at the level of proof texting, but it’s not good exegesis.
-
41
John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God
by Sea Breeze inin answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!
- john 20: 28 nwt.
why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.
-
-
slimboyfat
And what does the author of the gospel of John himself say?
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
-
65
Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
-
-
slimboyfat
Murray J. Harris wrote a book (“Jesus As God”) exploring instances in the NT of Jesus being called “God” and he concludes this verse is unlikely an instance of that. This is notable as a Trinitarian who believes there are other instances where Jesus is called God. This was his conclusion on Acts 20:28:
-
65
Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
-
-
slimboyfat
Perhaps a good translation is “the church of God which he purchased with the blood of his Own”. That’s fairly literal and most would get the point of what it’s saying. Adding “Son” just makes more explicit what the author meant and what the early readers likely understood. The idea that God himself died and gave his own blood is much later and not anything that would have remotely entered the imagination of first century Christians. It doesn’t even sit all that comfortably with Trinitarian orthodoxy either which in many respects is a fruitless exercise in trying to combine incompatible statements in various combinations, which is perhaps why even some Trinitarian scholars and/or apologists have not pushed the so-called Trinitarian reading for this particular text.
-
24
Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower translates this verse like this: .
but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.
-
-
slimboyfat
Okay, here my AI responds to your AI (For entertainment value only, this AI is no more reliable on matters of fact than the other one!):
Ah yes, the classic appeal to Raymond E. Brown—because nothing says “airtight Trinitarian exegesis” like a scholar who literally files the passage under “Texts Where the Use of the Title God for Jesus Is Dubious.” But please, do go on lecturing others about how Brown actually clinches the case for Christ’s deity here. Because, you see, if you just squint hard enough, wave away the syntax, ignore the broader Lukan theology, and insert a bit of theological wishful thinking—voilà!—you’ve got a verse that might, possibly, under certain grammatical readings, suggest Jesus is God... or not.
Let’s slow this down and admire the sleight of hand. First, Brown surveys the manuscript evidence between κύριος and θεός—a necessary first step, of course, and he does conclude that θεός is more likely original. But then we’re told, with almost comical confidence, that the debate is over. Case closed. Jesus is God. Brown said so. Never mind that he literally spends the rest of the paragraph explaining why it still doesn’t prove Jesus is called “God.” No, let’s not get bogged down in the second half of his argument—the part where he admits the grammar still permits reading “God” as the Father and “his own” as an elliptical reference to the Son. That part’s just a footnote, right?
But here’s the punchline: Trinitarians are so desperate for proof texts that they’re reduced to treating a text Brown himself lists under “dubious” as if it were a flashing neon sign reading “Jesus is God.” Imagine thinking a verse is slam-dunk Trinitarian because the grammar might allow it if you read it a certain way assuming your theology is already true. It’s like arguing a man is guilty because he could have been at the crime scene, even though no one saw him there, and the fingerprints don’t match.
And let’s not gloss over the acrobatics needed to make “the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood” into “Jesus is Almighty God.” First, assume “God” refers to Jesus (not the Father, which is how Luke uses “God” literally everywhere else in Acts). Then, insist that “his own” means Jesus himself—not his Son—even though the New Testament frequently uses that very phrase (ho idios) to refer to a beloved person in relation to someone else (Romans 8:32, anyone?). And finally, ignore the fact that early scribes themselves were clearly uncertain about how to handle this text—hence the variant readings.
But no worries—Trinitarians will just shout “θεός is original!” as if that settles anything. Yes, θεός may be original. And yet, Brown still places it among passages where calling Jesus “God” is dubious. Why? Because being original doesn’t mean being unambiguous. You can have the right word and still the wrong interpretation. That’s how language works. But apparently, in some circles, grammar is optional when theology demands certainty.
And just to really drive this home: if this verse is your best shot—if this is what you pull out to prove the deity of Christ—then it’s no wonder Trinitarianism relies so heavily on creeds and councils rather than Scripture. Because if Acts 20:28 is your home run, you’re playing tee-ball.
So to summarize with all due respect (which, by this point, is a courtesy): yes, Brown prefers θεός. No, he does not thereby say “Jesus is definitely being called God here.” In fact, he spends most of the paragraph cautioning against such a conclusion. And yes, the NWT’s rendering—“with the blood of his own [Son]”—isn’t a sectarian twist; it’s one of two grammatically sound options acknowledged by even critical Trinitarian scholars. Dismissing it as an “interpolation” only reveals a lack of exegetical sobriety.
In short: Brown’s analysis is not the triumphant proof some imagine. It’s a reluctant footnote in the already flimsy dossier of verses stretched beyond recognition to serve a theology the Bible never clearly teaches. So if you’re going to invoke Raymond E. Brown, at least read him carefully. Because cherry-picking his first sentence and ignoring the rest isn’t exegesis—it’s theological propaganda dressed up in a scholar’s robe. Ah yes, the classic appeal to Raymond E. Brown—because nothing says “airtight Trinitarian exegesis” like a scholar who literally files the passage under “Texts Where the Use of the Title God for Jesus Is Dubious.” But please, do go on lecturing others about how Brown actually clinches the case for Christ’s deity here. Because, you see, if you just squint hard enough, wave away the syntax, ignore the broader Lukan theology, and insert a bit of theological wishful thinking—voilà!—you’ve got a verse that might, possibly, under certain grammatical readings, suggest Jesus is God... or not.
Let’s slow this down and admire the sleight of hand. First, Brown surveys the manuscript evidence between κύριος and θεός—a necessary first step, of course, and he does conclude that θεός is more likely original. But then we’re told, with almost comical confidence, that the debate is over. Case closed. Jesus is God. Brown said so. Never mind that he literally spends the rest of the paragraph explaining why it still doesn’t prove Jesus is called “God.” No, let’s not get bogged down in the second half of his argument—the part where he admits the grammar still permits reading “God” as the Father and “his own” as an elliptical reference to the Son. That part’s just a footnote, right?
But here’s the punchline: Trinitarians are so desperate for proof texts that they’re reduced to treating a text Brown himself lists under “dubious” as if it were a flashing neon sign reading “Jesus is God.” Imagine thinking a verse is slam-dunk Trinitarian because the grammar might allow it if you read it a certain way assuming your theology is already true. It’s like arguing a man is guilty because he could have been at the crime scene, even though no one saw him there, and the fingerprints don’t match.
And let’s not gloss over the acrobatics needed to make “the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood” into “Jesus is Almighty God.” First, assume “God” refers to Jesus (not the Father, which is how Luke uses “God” literally everywhere else in Acts). Then, insist that “his own” means Jesus himself—not his Son—even though the New Testament frequently uses that very phrase (ho idios) to refer to a beloved person in relation to someone else (Romans 8:32, anyone?). And finally, ignore the fact that early scribes themselves were clearly uncertain about how to handle this text—hence the variant readings.
But no worries—Trinitarians will just shout “θεός is original!” as if that settles anything. Yes, θεός may be original. And yet, Brown still places it among passages where calling Jesus “God” is dubious. Why? Because being original doesn’t mean being unambiguous. You can have the right word and still the wrong interpretation. That’s how language works. But apparently, in some circles, grammar is optional when theology demands certainty.
And just to really drive this home: if this verse is your best shot—if this is what you pull out to prove the deity of Christ—then it’s no wonder Trinitarianism relies so heavily on creeds and councils rather than Scripture. Because if Acts 20:28 is your home run, you’re playing tee-ball.
So to summarize with all due respect (which, by this point, is a courtesy): yes, Brown prefers θεός. No, he does not thereby say “Jesus is definitely being called God here.” In fact, he spends most of the paragraph cautioning against such a conclusion. And yes, the NWT’s rendering—“with the blood of his own [Son]”—isn’t a sectarian twist; it’s one of two grammatically sound options acknowledged by even critical Trinitarian scholars. Dismissing it as an “interpolation” only reveals a lack of exegetical sobriety.
In short: Brown’s analysis is not the triumphant proof some imagine. It’s a reluctant footnote in the already flimsy dossier of verses stretched beyond recognition to serve a theology the Bible never clearly teaches. So if you’re going to invoke Raymond E. Brown, at least read him carefully. Because cherry-picking his first sentence and ignoring the rest isn’t exegesis—it’s theological propaganda dressed up in a scholar’s robe.