- Nov 21, 2008
- 54,008
- 12,182
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
yep. It is a good way to get a "pretty good" pass at something, rather than starting from scratch every time
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Asking AI to explain Sunday observance when NT has no such command
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
- Nov 21, 2008
- 54,008
- 12,182
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed. AI is a good research assistant. We can certainly improve on AI but it seldom "makes stuff up"
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 54,008
- 12,182
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 54,008
- 12,182
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed "is there ANY support.." is vague and AI can certainly accomodate on that kind of "any ol thing will do" parameter basis.
But when you get to specifics, then AI is even more helpful
1. Is it true that there is no command in OT or NT that Sabbath was changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day?
2. Is it true that there is no statement in the New Testament saying that week day 1 is the Lord's day?
3. Is it true that there are no explicit statements in the NT saying that weekly week day 1 worship services were taking place
4. Is it true that gentiles were asking for more gospel preaching to be scheduled on "the next Sabbath " in Acts 13
There is an "every Sabbath" statement such as we find in Acts 18:4 where Gospel preaching is given in worship service every Sabbath.
Is there any such parallel for week day 1 is the New Testament?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,369
- 418
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I have to disagree with you on that. I use AI daily to help me track down sources, and it makes stuff up constantly. I don't trust anything it tells me until I lay my eyes on it personally.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 54,008
- 12,182
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
we have people here who tend to "question everything" that does not affirm their particular POV. I don't mind it if they find a flaw in something. I view that as a help.
But if instead of finding a flaw in the content they just focus on some ancillary aspect like who else likes that? who else knows that? well then I tend to view it as "still nothing" of substance against the answer.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,369
- 418
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I'm not talking about a point of view. I'm talking about it straight-up manufacturing sources, saying that something is said by some source, telling me the name, title, and sometimes even the page number or page range. Then, when I look up the source myself to verify, I find that the statement doesn't exist. Not on the page mentioned, and often not in the book or article at all. In some cases, the book's title doesn't even exist.
So, to reiterate, AIs make up stuff constantly. They can't be trusted. They are good for helping you track down a source or to ramble to and bounce ideas off. Talking is actually how I work through difficult chronological puzzles. In the case of the AIs, they are typically so stupid and mechanical that I end up having to explain myself to them. And as the saying goes, teaching is the teacher's teacher. In the process of "teaching" it, I end up stumbling on different angles to an argument I might never otherwise have thought of.
But the AIs are glorified search engines. Rather than list results to your specific search query, then look through the results of the search query and synthesize a response based on the information they gather. And that information, which can be both good and bad, results in the AI providing an answer that incorporates the good and bad, with equally synthesized sources based on what it reads. That's how they work. They do make things up, and they can't be trusted. I've even had them do incorrect basic math, which should be virtually impossible for a computer program. But it happened.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 54,008
- 12,182
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
True there is no direct command in scripture saying to change/edit/redefine the Biblical Sabbath.
So then , we should just continue to keep what AI calls "the Biblical Sabbath' instead of claiming scripture told us to "redefine it"
yep. That is the main point.
So then in Is 66:23 where we find that from all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" we understand exactly what is meant.
It is the SAME meaning as in Acts 18:4 where "EVERY Sabbath" Paul was engaged in gospel preaching to BOTH gentiles and Jews in the Synagogue
Yep. AI gets that right.
True. It comes from inference not an actual command.
No NT writer says word one about weekly Sunday meetings for worship
That is true of course. Yet there is not one Sunday meeting recorded in the NT where resurrection is given as the reason
"came to be seen as" by whom? By later readers? centuries later?
Indeed. one time meetings can be found, where one time they "gathered on a Sunday" ... but no "every week day 1 worship gathering" such as we have for Sabbath in Acts 18:4
In the above AI makes a mistake because 1 Cor 16;2 makes no mention at all of gathering on week day 1. All you have to do is post that question in the form "you mentioned 1 Cor 16;2 as an example of gathering every Sunday, does the text say to gather?"
Rev 1:10 does not say "week day 1 is the Lord's day".
In fact no Bible text says that so AI looks for later extra Biblical support
No text says "Sabbath is any day you wish"
Rom 14 makes not mention of Sabbath
Gal 4:1-11 is clearly speaking against pagan holidays and warns former pagan against returning to pagan practices
Matt 7 and Col 2 condemn the practice of judging one another. That is not "proof" that Sabbath was not the seventh day in Matt 7 during the life of Christ.
bingo
"became dominant" centuries later.
Did not dominate in Acts 2 Pentecost among the Christian Jews in Jerusalem because as we are told decades later in Acts 20 the Christian Jews in Jerusalem were "Zealous for the Law" so then it was not James and his people in Jerusalem trying to change the Sabbath.
It was not a first century feature of the Christian church
It is not NT apostles teaching it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 16,812
- 9,019
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Where such facts exist, I reply to them, but your post, respectfully, did not contain any - it rather contained an inaccurate statement summarizing the opinions of unnamed scholars, which is not a fact but an opinion about opinions, which is so far removed from actual documentary evidence as to constitute a kind of metatextual hearsay. Show me a series of authenticated Albigensian manuscripts which unambiguously condemn worship on Sunday in preference to the Sabbath and I will withdraw my point, but we don’t even have that, nor do we have Roman Catholic heresiologists attacking them on such grounds (which they would, if it were an issue); certainly none of the writings of the likes of Dominic Guzman suggest this was even on the menu.
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 16,812
- 9,019
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
So where are the sources from your previous query? I want to know the basis of its statement (note usually it won’t provide sources; if it is drawing from its own training data chatGPT actually *can’t* provide sources so you literally have to take its word that it knows what its talking about, which it often doesn’t, because chatGPT has a tendency to enter into “roleplay mode” in addition to actual hallucination (which is actually less common than people think) and will also distort its output to conform to your worldview unless explicitly told not to, and by the way your use of the phrase “USING STRICT RULES” is not some kind of AI cheatcode since strict rules does not operate as a meta-syntactic variable for enforced verifiable veracity).
This is why I reject all appeals to AI authority as fallacious outside of a very narrow context of pattern matching where we know the model can perform reliably, and even then, the pattern matching has to be checked, but when asking highly subjective questions with subjective terminology in a subjective and controversial context (did you know chatGPT is trained not to offend mainstream religious sensibilities, particularly those of the user? try making it think your Roman Catholic and ask the questions you’ve been asking and you might see a different answer…and also it does try to infer as much about you as it can from your input prompt when generating a reply, in order to maximize the appeal of the reply; on occasion this went overboard with the infamous sycophancy bug in an update to the much-loved 4o model that happened just under a year ago and was quickly rolled back; many people accuse 4o of sycophancy relatively speaking but for a brief 48 hours or so if you had said you were from Mars and were here to reshape the Earth into a pyramid it would probably have applauded you and offered to help; transient bugs such as that still happen but are usually caught faster; chatGPT engages in A/B testing where user A gets one model and user B gets another model and based on users rathe the relative quality of the results a decision is made about which model to commit to the entire user base, and this is done again and again, iteratively, which drives business users and others who desire stability and predictability crazy; if you use the API you get more control, but you’re not using the API, you’re using the full integrated chatGPT experience which means the overall reliability of the model is reduced).
By the way i say all of this as the man on ChristianForums who has done the most development with openAI and who loves AI in general the most, out of all currently active users (we had a Catholic who was self-hosting AIs he trained himself who alas has moved on, sadly, because at the time I was not actively doing what I am now), which also is why I instantly noticed you had quoted GPT 5.2, which I am not a fan of for various reasons although it has improved over the worthless GPT 5.0 and the creepy, mildly sinister GPT 5.1.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 54,008
- 12,182
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
not reading is not helping you as much as you seem to have at first imagined.
As even AI admitted much of what we know about them only comes from their enemies since their enemies brutally attempted to exterminate them.
If all we knew about Christ is what His enemies said about Him being a blasphemer, a drunkard, a sinner. the picture we are left with would be "less than accurate" slanted against Him in the extreme.
I don't see how this is even a tiny bit confusing for you. Meanwhile we have the "insabbatati", "Sabbatati" statement from the 1200's ALSO from their enemies
"Historical records indicate that
certain medieval non-conformist groups, including factions of the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Passagini, were identified as Sabbath keepers who observed the seventh-day Saturday. Often called "Insabbatati" or "Sabbatati," they were persecuted by the Catholic Church for rejecting Sunday and mainstream festivals, maintaining practices linked to Old Testament adhereence"
The Passagini: Sabbath Keepers of the Middle Ages (Part 1 of 2)
The Passagini: Italian Sabbath Keepers of the Middle Ages (Part 1 of 2) By Kelly McDonald, Jr. In the eleventh century, the beginning of religious change sprung up in parts of Europe. From this mov…
sabbathsentinel.org
Sadly "not reading" continues to fail you
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2016
- 589
- 163
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I will use ChatGPT and ask it for an outline for my lengthy articles then once it provides one I read it very carefully and make the necessary corrections. It's too bad you have to check up on AI, but I imagine it can get only better. After I complete proofreading the AI summary/outline, I save it to my Word documents. If someone is interested in them, I send them a copy of the corrected outline. I use Grammarly, a grammar engine, to check my grammar and it works just fine. If Grammarly can do its job, then I imagine one day ChatGPT 5.2 will be able to do it as sufficently.not reading is not helping you as much as you seem to have at first imagined.
As even AI admitted much of what we know about them only comes from their enemies since their enemies brutally attempted to exterminate them.
If all we knew about Christ is what His enemies said about Him being a blasphemer, a drunkard, a sinner. the picture we are left with would be "less than accurate" slanted against Him in the extreme.
I don't see how this is even a tiny bit confusing for you. Meanwhile we have the "insabbatati", "Sabbatati" statement from the 1200's ALSO from their enemies
"Historical records indicate that
certain medieval non-conformist groups, including factions of the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Passagini, were identified as Sabbath keepers who observed the seventh-day Saturday. Often called "Insabbatati" or "Sabbatati," they were persecuted by the Catholic Church for rejecting Sunday and mainstream festivals, maintaining practices linked to Old Testament adhereence"
The Passagini: Sabbath Keepers of the Middle Ages (Part 1 of 2)
The Passagini: Italian Sabbath Keepers of the Middle Ages (Part 1 of 2) By Kelly McDonald, Jr. In the eleventh century, the beginning of religious change sprung up in parts of Europe. From this mov…
Sadly "not reading" continues to fail you
Chat 5.2 knows your posting history and will give you answers that reflect your posting history. Sometimes it will publish the opposite of what you believe and have written because the article you replied to online contains writings from the opposite side, and sometimes ChatGPT 5.2 will post the comments you are responding to as something you wrote. It needs to be edited sometimes. I have never known 5.2 to make things up, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 54,008
- 12,182
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
see the first two posts on this thread.
I don't TELL AI what is right vs wrong... I ask it questions and it corrects itself
It never responds with "well since you feel that way I will change my answer"
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 16,812
- 9,019
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
That’s not evidence, that’s an attempted summarization of the output of an AI prompt which I have not been able to reproduce but which looks like GPT 5.2, but not an accurate representation; indeed your argument, contra the statement made by the AI, amounts to a logical fallacy, in that it constitutes an argument from silence and a red herring (in that what rationale would exist to make up a fake heresy in order to conceal a real belief system?* We can say, insofar as it misrepresents the AI’s argument, that it is also a strawman, albeit a strawman of your own ally, and insofar as the question of whether or not there was an effort to destroy the Albigensians (which there obviously was) has no bearing on whether or not they were Sabbatarians, a red herring (that is to say, a logical fallacy which is of assumed relevance but is in fact irrelevant).
You said:
is there any historical evidence generally accepted by scholars and academics to suggest the Albigensians were Sabbatarians in the sense implied by Sabbatarian denominations such as the Adventists?ChatGPT said:
Thought for 34s
In the mainstream medievalist literature, the answer is basically “no”: there isn’t generally accepted historical evidence that the Albigensians (usually identified with Cathars in Languedoc) were Sabbatarians in the Adventist sense (Saturday as the binding, perpetual biblical Sabbath, often framed with creation-week/Decalogue continuity and sometimes eschatological identity-markers).
Here’s why scholars are so hesitant to connect those dots.
Most of what we can reconstruct about “Albigensian/Cathar” belief points in the opposite direction of Sabbath-keeping. Cathar theology is usually described as dualist: the material world is the product of an evil or inferior power, while the good God is associated with the spiritual realm. Standard summaries emphasize that many Cathars sharply downgraded or rejected the Old Testament, often identifying its God with the evil creator.
If your religious imagination treats the Mosaic order as coming from the bad principle, “keeping the seventh-day Sabbath” as a positive divine command becomes, at best, an awkward fit and at worst a category error.
What our best evidence tends to record is ascetic discipline (especially among the perfecti), the consolamentum, dietary restrictions, rejection of Catholic sacraments, and a very different moral and ritual world than either medieval Catholicism or later Protestant Sabbatarianism. General overviews also stress that much of what we “know” comes through inquisitorial and polemical lenses, so historians are careful about reading later confessional desires back into those records.
So where does the “Sabbath” idea come from at all? Mostly from later claims that certain medieval dissenter groups were called things like insabbatati/sabbatati and therefore must have “kept the Sabbath.” But in the scholarship this is usually treated as (a) a label applied especially to Waldensians in some traditions, and/or (b) an ambiguous nickname that could just as easily mean “they reject the Church’s festival ‘sabbaths’/holy days” rather than “they rest on Saturday like Jews.” In other words: interesting philology, not a solid behavioral proof of Saturday observance, and still less of Adventist-style Sabbath theology.
If you’re asking the very specific question “Do we have solid primary evidence that Cathars in Languedoc taught Saturday-Sabbath obligation the way modern Sabbatarian denominations do?”, the mainstream answer remains: we don’t. The best-attested contours of Cathar belief (especially their stance toward the Old Testament and the creator) make the claim unlikely, and the “Sabbath-keeper” arguments usually rest on later polemics, contested labels, or confusions between different dissident movements rather than on a clear, agreed-upon body of primary testimony.
If you tell me what kind of “evidence” you’ve seen cited (a particular inquisitor, chronicle, or quote), I can chase that specific reference down and tell you how historians evaluate it.
The screenshots provided above indicate this was a fresh session, in chatGPT 5.2 auto, which caused it to enter Thinking (reasoning mode) automatically, resulting a more robust analysis, and a thought stream we can analyze here, which proves I did not fiddle with this prompt to get the answers I wanted:
Also it did provide a diverse panoply of interesting links and references, of which a further filter to exclude denomination-specific links from Catholic and Adventist websites as well as Wikipedia, Blog posts and other dubious material produced the following, which I daresay is worthy of further investigation by those interested in Albigensian studies.
Scholarly Sources on Cathars, Albigensians, and Medieval Inquisition
A Survey of Recent Research on the Albigensian Cathari (JSTOR)
On Cathars, Albigenses, and the Good Men of Languedoc (ScienceDirect)
Inquisition in the Fourteenth Century: Manuals of Bernard Gui and Eymerich (Oxford University Press)
The Paradigm of Catharism; or, the Historians’ Illusion (Cambridge University Press)
‘The Root of Bitterness’: Crusade and the Eradication of Heresy (Springer)
The Cathars – Malcolm Lambert (Wiley-Blackwell)
On Cathars, Albigenses, and Good Men of Languedoc (Academia.edu)
Mark Gregory Pegg, Innocent III, and the Obsolete Paradigm of Catharism (Academia.edu)
Hamlet the Heretic: The Prince’s Albigensian Rhetoric (MDPI Religions)
The Epistemic Mystery of the Cathars (Retrospect Journal)
Primary Sources and Critical Editions
Bernard Gui, Practica Inquisitionis Heretice Pravitatis (Archive.org)
Also the book referred to the Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology, which, shockingly, is not in my theological library (despite my fondness for Oxford Handbooks…I have them on everything ranging from the Philosophy of Law to Methodism. So I shall definitely be adding that to my library.
*Considering that there are numerous people on the fringes of Christianity who, then, as now, would react to such a thing and embrace whatever they thought was being taught contra the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and the other Orthodox Nicene churches such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (which we see evidence of in the large amounts of syncretism between geographically distant sects with different founders; like the 19th century Restorationists, they proceeded on the ad hominem idea that whatever Rome taught was, depending on the intensity of the Restorationists in question, either likely an error (EGW, the Stone/Campbell Movement, the Landmark Baptists) or definitely an error (earlier non-Trinitarian Millerites, J/Ws and others who embraced a sort of knee-jerk anti-Catholicism.[/URL]
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
