Posts by Blotty

18

Using GROK 3 (Artificial Intelligence) to fact check UKRAINE theories/conspiracies, et al

by Terry in

jw
friends

to dig deep into what has taken place in ukraine both pro and con.

i tasked a.i.

with a pro vs con proposition.

Blotty

Sorry where did I say the US didn't blow up the pipeline? all I said was I wouldn't put it past Putin/ Russia to blow up said Pipeline.. as that is a motiivation that wasnt considered.

My bit in brackets referred to another element of Slims message which maybe I didn't highlight clearly

Liam:

You say I know nothing about Geopolitics - My aim was to present another viewpoint, I DO NOT CARE for politics, so no your right I know very little , but I have done my research.

btw I work with the general public - the crap they come out with is hilarious, yes they are stupid.. People will believe anything..

Its amazing how selective you were when quoting my statements... omitting important elements such as "I take with a pinch of salt" - and yes a simple google search proves Trump to be lieing alot of the time.. he tells some truth but not alot (The US governments OWN website proves him to be lieing.)

or did you notice my end text? I really don't care for politics generally. My personal opinion is it has become nasty, my way and your way is wrong, attacky derogitory BS, stuff id rather not get involved in, your response is the perfect example as to why I dont get involved. (not solely tho, I have other personal reasons of why I don't,)

Slim: "that makes you conclude the United States would draw the line at blowing up a Russian pipeline?" - I don't think they would draw the line there.. I think they likely did do it - My statement was simply meant to bring forth another position that I could also believe if the evidence presented itself.

To my knowledge: We cannot confirm 100% who actually did it. (I may be wrong.)
my bracketed comment was directed at something else, but not clearly marked, but that's besides the point, I will address that at some other point.

(This should be another topic of debate in email.)

"You don't have the slightest idea who pulls the strings on google" - educate me... then Ill fact check you & don't tell me its "the woke left"

"X" is so right wing its not even funny.

asking Grok about my "theory":
""Putin has proved he’s smart" is subjective—he’s outmanoeuvred foes before, but this isn’t proven here. "Wouldn’t put it past him" fits his reputation but lacks specifics. The pipeline motive makes sense as a chess move, yet it’s unverified. Without concrete data—like who planted the explosives—it’s a compelling hypothesis, not a fact."

I AM NOT saying I'm correct, I'm simply adding another viewpoint in.

18

Using GROK 3 (Artificial Intelligence) to fact check UKRAINE theories/conspiracies, et al

by Terry in

jw
friends

to dig deep into what has taken place in ukraine both pro and con.

i tasked a.i.

with a pro vs con proposition.

Blotty

Call me nuts - over half the stuff I hear about the Ukraine war or vaccines or what comes out of trumps mouth, I take with a pinch of salt..

Take a look on "X" for example.. the owner (Elon Musk) lies every second sentence and can be fact checked with a single google search on the subject.. and the public believe it.. tho one google search can give a reputable source that says the opposite.

Its actually concerning how stupid the general public is..

Putin has proved he is a very smart man - I wouldn't put it past him to blow up the pipeline to get the suspicion onto the west, because it doesn't "benefit" him, actually it does, It makes Russia look like the victim.. according to Putin Russia is the victim - something ChatGPT hasn't considered...
I think both sides have done wrong... But lets not forget who walked into where.

(sorry Slim - I 100% disagree with you in this case.)

Footnote: I have no political siding - I agree with the right and the left and think they both have merits and major flaws.. funny how politicians can never think of a middle solution tho.. its not hard.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

you didnt really answer the question AQ... The question was regarding exceptions, not what affirms trinitarian theology (Which no body here really cares about)

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

"and I also looked up what he wrote in other places," - sure, why should I take your word on this? you are already known to quote mine.. twice infact.

But it should be noted "a god" and "a divine being" clearly don't mean the same thing to Hart as he lists them separately.

"and it is clear that Hart explicitly negates the way JWs read and understand the NWT rendering" - how can he "negate" it when he states its a possible rendering? you still haven't answered this

the rest is the usual - the longer your messages the more on the ropes you are AQ. your making stuff up as you go - because Hart doesn't suit your agenda. Its so clear to anyone wo can read basic English

You make some wild accusations to your second post - that no one has ever claimed, they seem to be invented by you.. as a quick bit of research will show Constantine wanted a united statement of faith.. Before Nicea, Councils as "authority" were unknown in scriptural matters (paraphrase of Hart)

You don't even listen to Hart when he talks.

Hart even compares Johns Logos with Philos, something you also reject outright.,

"Your quote is also a mere historical observation about the diversity of early Christian theology ("what many [not everyone, not even the majority] consider to be orthodox Christianity")" - not what Hart said explicitly in the interview, he said quite the opposite.. again why should I believe you over the man talking?

"Thomas’s declaration is merely an exclamation or honorific, as it directly addresses Jesus:

The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”, not not "to them", not one for Christ, the other for some kind of "Jehovah") confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father.
The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.

" - Hart would disagree, according to him it could go either way. it may be or may not be.. He doesn't have a definite answer, and doesn't go as far as saying yes this is a definite proof text of Christs being God - again this man goes on evidence, you go by theological motivation.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

" Hart writes:

“Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

This explicitly rejects the JW interpretation of “a god” as a lesser divine being,"

Where? it says nothing of the sort... infact Hart here is talking about theios being rendered "a divine being"

How can he "explicitly reject" it, When he doesn't even explicitly say it

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

Another bit of proof is AQ's acknowledgement of cited sources, they are for the most part non-existent.

Most humans would atleast acknowledge a cited source, but AQ almost always discards them for "reasons" or seems to fail to read or watch them, seemingly ignoring that the source contradicts his view.
(Who are more credible than he is, aswell)

yet ANOTHER thing is: How can such similar posts be turning up all over the internet on sites that are not trinitarian? - I went to some really out of the way blog, when reseraching a subject and there was a post by an annoymous user regurgitating the exact same stuff almost verbatim that AQ has posted here.

see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-lord-and-my-god-trinitarians-get-it.html

(see comments section)

this is one good example.. this blog you have to dig for.. it doesn't appear in the top 5 pages of Google search results for "John 20:28" (for me anyway, different countries get different results)
However even if this were true - this somewhat proves AQ is theologically motivated since why would you go and spam multiple different blogs with the same crap? NO claimed catholic I know does this. I have never seen anything of this scale (it is somewhat impressive) But I find quite concerning.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

Yes Pete - I believe it is - I sent my results to Slim privately but will reveal if you reverse engineer AQ's answers and ask an AI (ChatGPT specifically) it will spout similar nonsense.

Try it yourself: ask Chatgpt if something AQ said is true, it should come back with a similar structure
and answer (granted it wont be identical, but it will be similar)
It is AI generated 100%

worlds fastest typer: https://www.academyoflearning.com/blog/the-fastest-typists-in-the-world-past-and-present/#:~:text=Who%20Is%20the%20Fastest%20Typist%20in%20the%20World?,WPM%E2%80%94over%20seven%20times%20faster!

I highly doubt AQ is even among the top 10 and would want valid proof if claimed.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

You seem to forget you are not the only authority on the internet to explain other peoples beliefs (everyone is a trinitarian apparently - catholic trinitarian)
& that there are people who don't just seek to prove a trinity (Hart) and can do honest scholarship and base their beliefs on evidence (Hart)

- unlike yourself, you have proven yourself to be quite biased and not evidence based... rather theologically motivated and cant answer simple questions that are directed at you, you would rather go on theological rants "making" the same "points" over and over... why? no need - We aren't sheep, we don't have terrible memory's - trinitarian theology is NOT infallible.. We do get it, you rather don't take the time or effort to understand our different interpretations. (rather lump into category's that are irrelevant or just dismiss anything that doesn't suit your agenda - evidence or not.)

ironically on the wikipedia article for "henotheism" we have this interesting source:
https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Canaan_and_Israel_in_Antiquity/2rnyjxLHy-QC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Anat-Yahu++Yahweh&pg=PA248&printsec=frontcover

(Which you will not doubt deny - but you have no credibility left, so Good luck with that)

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

Hart explicitly states:

“Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

- this is on the subject "a divine being" NOT "a god" - and theois is in this quote aswell, Where Hart gets this opinion. "a god" is not even mentioned in your quoted paragraph (see also Slims quote.)

"

he text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos.”

This is a clear rejection of the theological framework behind the NWT’s "a god."" - this is you reading into the text as he has explicitly said its a possible rendering and hasn't outright rejected it. unlike yourself who cant even admit its a possible rendering when I challenged you on it earlier in this very thread, you rather went on your normal theologically motivated rant. Hart is more credible to his own statements than your reinterpretation that doesnt suit your agenda..

"Hart states:

“The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos.”

This continuity is incompatible with the Jehovah's Witnesses' henotheistic interpretation, which introduces a lesser deity (anathema to John’s monotheism)" - proof you haven't watched the video.. else you would know Harts position on this.

Funny how he doesn't say the angels being "gods" are "metaphorical" - they are NOT to be worshipped, but they are "gods"

By "lesser deity" Do you mean "lesser god"? or "competing god" the latter is henotheism the former is not (Monotheism to John is NOT your monotheism AQ - that is academic consensus)

"henotheistic interpretation" - your interpretation and placing things on other sects that is not entirely true.. everyone knows this except you.

"His acknowledgment of pre-Nicene diversity does not equate to affirming Arianism as “apostolic faith.” Instead, Hart recognizes the Council of Nicaea as a doctrinal clarification" - direct quote, he actually says quite the opposite to what your claiming.

"Hart critiques translations that fail to grasp the qualitative use of θεός" - Hart mentions nothing of "qualiative"

infact doing a quick scan, then running a quick "CTRL + F" search (to double check) shows the only one to mention the word is you (13/14 (times on page 36) the one exception being me, quoting you). there is no occurrence of that word in ANY of your quotes from Hart.

"He explicitly affirms the Logos’ continuity of divinity with the Father and its full revelation as ὁ θεός (ho theos) in John 20:28." - he also explicitly says -

"or it is there that Christ, now risen from the dead, is explicitly addressed as ho theos (by the apostle Thomas). Even this startling profession, admittedly, left considerable room for argument in the early centuries as to whether the fully divine designation was something conferred upon Christ only after the resurrection"

I would put this statement down to you not being very honest or presenting evidence as a foregone conclusion (Which a lot of it is NOT, infact quite the opposite), while not being very accurate

(ironically: quote mining)

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

Slim - We should just start spreading that AQ believes Arianism tbh... because that is what he is doing to Hart.. Maybe then he will learn to not be so dishonest.

in fact if you can, contact Hart and link him to AQ's posts - I would love to see his response to these outlandish assertations of what he "believes" - Then AQ can publicly be outed as a fraud and a liar - and hopefully teach him a lesson on lying.

(I haven't yet found an email address for him - haven't had time to look)

AQ clearly hasn't watched the video as he literally said it could be rendered "a god" - explicitly.. But AQ doesn't like this, so doesn't dare watch the video.

How dishonest can one person be, simply reading what Hart says he says:

rather, we have to rely on orthography and typography, using the difference between an uppercase or lowercase g to indicate the distinction between God and [a] god.

Keyword is "rely" in this paragraph. - because we don't distinguish between the specific noun types.. AQ quote mining again.

AQ says: "Hart does not imply that the Logos is merely "a god" or a derivative divine agency. Instead, he emphasizes that the qualitative use of "θεός" signals the Logos' participation in the divine essence while maintaining a distinction from "God" as the Father."

Hart says:

"however, θεός (theos)... could be used of any divine being, however finite: a god or a derivative divine agency, say, or even a divinized mortal.”"

No he doesnt imply it - he EXPLICITLY states it, so your right he doesn't imply it, he 1 ups you.

We should also note AQ has cut some of this out - full quote please AQ

and you forgot this bit:
"God in his full transcendence is always ho theos; and the crucial importance of the difference between this and the inarticular theos is especially evident at 10:34–36. Most important of all, this distinction imbues the conclusion of the twentieth chapter with a remarkable theological significance, for it is there that Christ, now risen from the dead, is explicitly addressed as ho theos (by the apostle Thomas). Even this startling profession, admittedly, left considerable room for argument in the early centuries as to whether the fully divine designation was something conferred upon Christ only after the resurrection"

"Hart does not endorse the New World Translation’s “a god”, because they fail to recognize the theological context and nuance." - Where does he say this? quote him verbatim saying this exact thing. He literally says it CAN be rendered "a god"

No he does NOT endorse NWT specifically, but literally if your mind can comprehend the video Slimboyfat linked - he says "a god" IS A POSSILE RENDERING.

you forgot to BOLD this bit - AQ

"whereas I confine myself entirely to lowercase letters to indicate where the Greek speaks only of θεός (theos) without the article; but, to make the matter more confusing, I have indicated three uses of the word without article (vv. 6, 12, and 13), all concerning the relation between the divine and the created, in all small capitals, to indicate that it is not clear in these instances whether the distinction in forms is still operative, and whether the inarticular form of the noun is being used simply of God as related to creatures through his Logos. "