Asking AI to explain Sunday observance when NT has no such command

SabbathBlessings said:

Yes, it all comes down to do we follow what God says, or what man says?

Click to expand...

Actually we don’t have to follow your interpretation so is not a matter of whether we follow God’s words, we all have bibles, but whether we follow you interpretation as Gods words.

Is asked AI the following question and the answer is below. The question is: is there a command in the New Testament that requires the Christian to keep the sabbath?

No, there is no direct command in the New Testament requiring Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath
. While Jesus and the apostles observed it, the New Testament characterizes the Sabbath as a "shadow" pointing to Christ (Colossians 2:16-17) and indicates that believers are not bound by the Mosaic Law.
Key details regarding the Sabbath in the New Testament:

• Not Commanded for Christians: Among the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath command is the only one not explicitly repeated in the New Testament as an obligation for the church.
• "Shadow" of Christ: Paul writes in Colossians 2:16-17, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ".
• Freedom and Personal Conviction: Romans 14:5 suggests that Sabbath observance is a matter of personal conviction, with some considering one day more sacred, while others consider every day alike.
• Sabbath Rest in Christ: Hebrews 4:9-10 discusses a remaining "sabbath rest" for the people of God, which is interpreted as a spiritual rest from works of salvation by trusting in Jesus, rather than a legalistic, physical day of rest.

While some Christians choose to observe Sunday as a day of worship, it is not considered the mandated Sabbath of the Old Testament.

I think it comes down to faith- God never abolished the 4th commandment that He blessed and made holy- only God can reverse His blessings, not man Num23:19-20 all the thus saith the Lords Jesus said to live by is God Himself saying not to profane the Sabbath, God Himself wrote Ten Commandments, not 9, most Christians agrees the other 9 commandments are illogical for a Christian to break (or at least should be) why not trust Him on the one commandment man wants to forget that God said to Remember that is Holy and Blessed by the God of the Universe. If everything was perfectly spelled out, there would be no room for faith. All Ten Commandments are under His mercy seat Exo25:21 Exo31:18 Deut4:13, not 9 and final atonement has not happened yet. Heb8:1-5 Rev15:5 Rev 11:18-19 I beleive it is spelled out, but I guess we shall see.

This is what chat wrote:

1. Jesus didn’t abolish God’s commands

• Matthew 5:17–19 — Jesus denies abolishing and warns against loosening commandments.

1. Jesus affirms the Sabbath’s ongoing purpose and His authority over it

• Mark 2:27–28 — “The Sabbath was made for man… the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
  (He corrects misuse, not the Sabbath itself.)

Jesus Himself keeps the Sabbath- Luke4:16

1. After the cross, it’s still kept “according to the commandment”

• Luke 23:56 — They “rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.”
  This is the cleanest post-crucifixion snapshot.

1. Apostolic pattern: Sabbath is a normal day for worship/teaching

• Acts 17:2 — Paul’s “custom” was to reason from Scripture on the Sabbath.
• Acts 13:42–44 — Gentiles ask to hear the word again “the next Sabbath,” and “almost the whole city” gathers.

1. A “Sabbath-rest” remains for God’s people

• Hebrews 4:9–10 — “There remains… a sabbath rest for the people of God.”
  A Sabbath-keeping remains for the people of God (grounded in God’s rest, Heb 4:4).

1. Endurance is described as keeping God’s commandments

• Revelation 14:12 — “Here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.”
  (Not Sabbath-only, but it supports “commandments still matter” under Christ.)

​

No NT rule says, “If God doesn’t restate it post-cross, it’s no longer binding.” Jesus repeatedly treats prior Scripture as binding by appealing to “It is written” / “Have you not read” (e.g., Matthew 4:4–10) without “reissuing” it.

SabbathBlessings said:

I think it comes down to faith-

Click to expand...

I have faith and am a Christian.

SabbathBlessings said:

God never abolished the 4th commandment

Click to expand...

No one “abolished” anything. That is a straw man. Jesus fulfilled (completed) the law. God can do that.

And after that wall of text you still did not post a verse that requires the Christian to keep the Jewish sabbath.

I am not sure how much God has to repeat Himself to get our attention- He even came down from heaven and wrote it out personally ​

The Sabbath in Scripture​

From Creation to Eternity

---

1. Creation (Before Israel, Before Sinai)​

• Genesis 2:2–3 — God rests, blesses, and sanctifies the seventh day.

---

2. Patriarchal / Pre-Sinai Instruction​

• Exodus 16:4–30 — Sabbath observed and enforced before Sinai (manna test).

---

3. Sinai Covenant / Law of God​

Ten Commandments​

• Exodus 20:8–11 — Remember the Sabbath; creation foundation.
• Deuteronomy 5:12–15 — Observe the Sabbath; redemption theme.

Covenant Sign / Perpetual Language​

• Exodus 31:13–17 — “Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep”; sign; forever.
• Exodus 34:21 — Rest even during harvest.
• Exodus 35:1–3 — Holy assembly; no work.

Levitical Instruction​

• Leviticus 19:3 — “keep My Sabbaths.”
• Leviticus 23:3 — Weekly Sabbath; holy convocation.
• Leviticus 26:2 — Keep Sabbaths; reverence sanctuary.

Enforcement Example​

• Numbers 15:32–36 — Profaning the Sabbath judged.

---

4. Israel in the Land (Practice & Reform)​

• Nehemiah 10:31 — Covenant pledge: no commerce on Sabbath.
• Nehemiah 13:15–22 — Sabbath reform; gates shut.

---

5. Prophets (Warning, Blessing, Continuity)​

Isaiah​

• Isaiah 56:1–7 — Blessing for those who keep Sabbath (includes foreigners).
• Isaiah 58:13–14 — Call the Sabbath a delight. The holy day of the LORD
• Isaiah 66:22–23 — New heavens & new earth: worship “from Sabbath to Sabbath.”

Jeremiah​

• Jeremiah 17:19–27 — “Thus says the LORD”: hallow Sabbath; blessing/judgment.

Ezekiel​

• Ezekiel 20:12–24 — Sabbaths as covenant sign; profaning condemned.
• Ezekiel 22:26 — Priests hide eyes from Sabbaths.
• Ezekiel 23:38 — Profaning Sabbaths listed among abominations.
• Ezekiel 44:24 — Priests to hallow Sabbaths.
• Ezekiel 46:1–4, 12 — Sabbath worship order.

Amos​

• Amos 8:5 — Corrupt merchants resent Sabbath restraint.

---

6. Jesus Christ (Meaning, Authority, Correction of Tradition)​

Core Sabbath Teaching​

• Mark 2:27–28 — Sabbath made for man; Son of Man Lord of Sabbath.
• Mark 3:4 — Lawful to do good/save life on Sabbath.

Sabbath Conflicts (Command vs Tradition)​

• Matthew 12:1–14
• Mark 2:23–3:6
• Luke 6:1–11
• Luke 13:10–17
• Luke 14:1–6
• John 5:1–18
• John 7:21–24
• John 9

End-Time Reference by Jesus​

• Matthew 24:20 — Pray flight not be on the Sabbath.

---

7. After the Cross (Immediate Context)​

• Luke 23:54–56 — Rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.

---

8. Apostolic Era / Acts​

• Acts 13:14–16 — Sabbath synagogue teaching.
• Acts 13:42–44 — Gentiles request “next Sabbath.”
• Acts 16:13 — Sabbath prayer gathering.
• Acts 17:2 — Paul’s custom on Sabbath.
• Acts 18:4 — Reasoning every Sabbath.

---

9. Epistles (Clarification, Not Abolition)​

Affirmations​

• Romans 3:31 — Faith establishes the law.
• Romans 7:12 — Law holy; commandment holy, just, good.

Rest Theology​

• Hebrews 4:4 — God’s seventh-day rest cited.
• Hebrews 4:9–10 — A Sabbath-rest remains for God’s people.

10. Eternity / New Creation​

• Isaiah 66:22–23 — From Sabbath to Sabbath in the new heavens and new earth.
• Revelation 12:17 — Commandment-keeping remnant.
• Revelation 14:12 — Saints keep commandments of God and faith of Jesus.

---

One-line theological arc​

What God sanctified at Creation, upheld in the Law, defended by the Prophets, honored and clarified by Christ, practiced by the apostles, and described in the New Creation is never stated to be revoked.


God is the standard, not man.

Scripture is clear on that:

• Romans 3:4 — “Let God be true but every man a liar.”
• Isaiah 8:20 — “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
• Psalm 119:89 — “Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.”
• Matthew 15:9 — Worship becomes vain when human tradition overrides God’s command.

So the real issue in any Sabbath discussion isn’t tradition, church history, majority practice, or modern assumptions — it’s:

What did God say? And where did He clearly change it, if He did?

If there is no clear statement from God reversing what He sanctified (Gen 2:3) and commanded (Exo 20:8–11), then appealing to man’s reasoning cannot override divine speech.

That’s the consistent biblical standard:
God’s word governs man — not the other way around.

Saber Truth Tiger said:

What is the name of the book you published?

Click to expand...

It's an Occasional Paper. Although it was unintentional, the system on this platform took the DOI in my post and actually created a hyperlink you can click. It's open access. You're free to read it.

Saber Truth Tiger said:

I asked ChatGPT in which volume of Raymond Brown's book The Death of the Messiah did he mentioned the controversy over which day Jesus died and it told me Volume 1. I spent $25 for Volume 1 and when I got it there was no mention about the controversy over which day of the week Jesus died. So, I rechecked it and asked for where in Volume 2 it was located. Then, it told me the accurate location of Volume 2 (in an appendix) but it wasn't very thorough. Chat GPT 5,2 can be helpful but it makes errors. I check myself often and it misquotes me. Then, I correct the misquotes and edit it as necessary. However, if you want to check what someone else believes, you can't rely on ChatGPT 5.2 100%.

Click to expand...

You should reach out to me on stuff like this. I have most of the relevant books on my shelf. Raymond brown is one of them. I have both volumes. I have also have a few hundred digital books and articles on a wide variety of topics for New Testament chronology. Even if I don't a specific book you're looking for, I might be able to tell you where to find what you want.

SabbathBlessings said:

I am not sure how much God has to repeat Himself to get our attention- He even came down from heaven and wrote it out personally ​

The Sabbath in Scripture​

From Creation to Eternity

---

1. Creation (Before Israel, Before Sinai)​

• Genesis 2:2–3 — God rests, blesses, and sanctifies the seventh day.

Click to expand...

Genesis was written by Moses in the 15th century BCE. No one read this account until then. Genesis is part of the Torah given to Israel and only Israel.

SabbathBlessings said:

---

2. Patriarchal / Pre-Sinai Instruction​

• Exodus 16:4–30 — Sabbath observed and enforced before Sinai (manna test).

Click to expand...

This was the first mention of the sabbath in Genesis. Also written by Moses in the 15th century BCE. In this chapter God introduces Israel yo the sabbath.

SabbathBlessings said:

---

3. Sinai Covenant / Law of God​

Ten Commandments​

• Exodus 20:8–11 — Remember the Sabbath; creation foundation.
• Deuteronomy 5:12–15 — Observe the Sabbath; redemption theme.

Click to expand...

Given to only Israel (Ex. 20:1-2). Deuteronomy 5 is even more explicit as it explicitly states that the Mosaic law was strictly given to Israel and only to those alive then. It states that the law was not even given to Israel’s forefathers.

“Now Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: “Listen, Israel, to the statutes and ordinances which I am speaking today for you to hear, so that you may learn them and be careful to do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, all of us who are alive here today.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭5‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

Covenant Sign / Perpetual Language​

• Exodus 31:13–17 — “Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep”; sign; forever.
• Exodus 34:21 — Rest even during harvest.
• Exodus 35:1–3 — Holy assembly; no work.

Click to expand...

Again, given only to Israel as I explained above.

SabbathBlessings said:

Levitical Instruction​

• Leviticus 19:3 — “keep My

Click to expand...

Only given to Israel.

““Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep My Sabbaths; I am the Lord your God.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭19‬:‭2‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

• Leviticus 23:3 — Weekly Sabbath; holy convocation.

Click to expand...

Again, only given to Israel.

“The Lord spoke again to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord’s appointed times which you shall proclaim as holy convocations—My appointed times are these:”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭23‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

• Leviticus 26:2 — Keep Sabbaths; reverence sanctuary.

Click to expand...

Chapter 26 is a continuation of chapter 25. Again, only given to Israel.

“The Lord then spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you come into the land which I am going to give you, then the land shall have a Sabbath to the Lord.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭25‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

Enforcement Example​

• Numbers 15:32–36 — Profaning the Sabbath judged.

Click to expand...

Again, only to Israel.

“Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you enter the land where you are going to live, which I am giving you,”
‭‭Numbers‬ ‭15‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

---

4. Israel in the Land (Practice & Reform)​

• Nehemiah 10:31 — Covenant pledge: no commerce on Sabbath.
• Nehemiah 13:15–22 — Sabbath reform; gates shut.

Click to expand...

As you said. This is Israel in the land. Again, only to Israel.

SabbathBlessings said:

---

5. Prophets (Warning, Blessing, Continuity)​

Isaiah​

• Isaiah 56:1–7 — Blessing for those who keep Sabbath (includes foreigners).

Click to expand...

It only includes the foreigners that had joined themselves to the Lord z(v.3). These are gentiles that converted to Judaism so this is again only Israel.

SabbathBlessings said:

• Isaiah 58:13–14 — Call the Sabbath a delight.

Click to expand...

Again, still talking about Israel.

SabbathBlessings said:

• Isaiah 66:22–23 — New heavens & new earth: worship “from Sabbath to Sabbath.”

Click to expand...

Sabbath to sabbath means a week it does not mean to worship only on the sabbath. Here Isaiah teaches that in the new heavens and new earth we will be worshiping God every day of the week.

SabbathBlessings said:

Jeremiah​

• Jeremiah 17:19–27 — “Thus says the LORD”: hallow Sabbath; blessing/judgment.

Click to expand...

Again, only for Israel.

“and say to them, ‘Listen to the word of the Lord, you kings of Judah, and all Judah, and all inhabitants of Jerusalem who come in through these gates.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭17‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

Ezekiel​

• Ezekiel 20:12–24 — Sabbaths as covenant sign; profaning condemned.

Click to expand...

Again, only for Israel.

““Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘This is what the Lord God says: “Do you yourselves come to inquire of Me? As I live,” declares the Lord God, “I certainly will not be inquired of by you.” ’”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭20‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

• Ezekiel 22:26 — Priests hide eyes from Sabbaths.

Click to expand...

The priests of Israel. Again, only for Israel.

“Her priests have done violence to My Law and have profaned My holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, and they have not taught the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have closed their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am defiled among them.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭22‬:‭26‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

• Ezekiel 23:38 — Profaning Sabbaths listed among abominations.

Click to expand...

This is about Oholah and Oholibsh abominations. No context here for you.

“Moreover, the Lord said to me, “Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then declare to them their abominations. For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. So they have committed adultery with their idols, and even made their sons, whom they bore to Me, pass through the fire to them as food. Again, they have done this to Me: they have defiled My sanctuary on the same day, and have profaned My Sabbaths.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭23‬:‭36‬-‭38‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

• Ezekiel 44:24 — Priests to hallow Sabbaths.

Click to expand...

These are instructions to the priests of Israel so again, only for Israel.

SabbathBlessings said:

• Ezekiel 46:1–4, 12 — Sabbath worship order.

Click to expand...

Again, only for Israel.

SabbathBlessings said:

Amos​

• Amos 8:5 — Corrupt merchants resent Sabbath restraint.

Click to expand...

Context here does not help you. Second and again, only for Israel.

SabbathBlessings said:

---

6. Jesus Christ (Meaning, Authority, Correction of Tradition)​

Core Sabbath Teaching​

• Mark 2:27–28 — Sabbath made for man; Son of Man Lord of Sabbath.

Click to expand...

Yes. You still miss the connectivity between verses. The sabbath was made for man “so” “therefore” Jesus is Lord of even the sabbath. Jesus is now our Christian rest.

SabbathBlessings said:

• Mark 3:4 — Lawful to do good/save life on Sabbath.

Click to expand...

Jesus correcting the Pharisees. This didn’t help you. Jesus had to keep the law perfectly so He would have kept the sabbath perfectly.

SabbathBlessings said:

Sabbath Conflicts (Command vs Tradition)​

• Matthew 12:1–14
• Mark 2:23–3:6
• Luke 6:1–11
• Luke 13:10–17
• Luke 14:1–6
• John 5:1–18
• John 7:21–24
• John 9

Click to expand...

According to your interpretation. Again, Jesus kept the law perfectly consequently He would have corrected the officials of the day. Secondly, your church keeps the sabbath as the traditions of your church not as the traditions of the vast majority of the Christian church. Frankly, you guys don’t even keep the sabbath like it was commanded of the Jews in all of the old covenant verses that you keep quoting out of context.

SabbathBlessings said:

End-Time Reference by Jesus​

• Matthew 24:20 — Pray flight not be on the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

To those in Judah which is where the temple is located.

“then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

This one does not help you.

SabbathBlessings said:

---

7. After the Cross (Immediate Context)​

• Luke 23:54–56 — Rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.

Click to expand...

Jesus in the tomb. Jesus ushered the new covenant at the resurrection. The women were Jewish women who in the absence of Christ would have continued the Jewish practice,

SabbathBlessings said:

---

8. Apostolic Era / Acts​

• Acts 13:14–16 — Sabbath synagogue teaching.
• Acts 13:42–44 — Gentiles request “next Sabbath.”
• Acts 16:13 — Sabbath prayer gathering.
• Acts 17:2 — Paul’s custom on Sabbath.
• Acts 18:4 — Reasoning every Sabbath.

Click to expand...

You can’t just appropriate what you want and call it a day. Non of these help you. All apostles would go to the temple where the Jews were on the sabbath to preach the gospel of good news. Even Paul tells you this explicitly.

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under the Law;”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭9‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

SabbathBlessings said:

---

9. Epistles (Clarification, Not Abolition)​

Affirmations​

• Romans 3:31 — Faith establishes the law.
• Romans 7:12 — Law holy; commandment holy, just, good.

Rest Theology​

• Hebrews 4:4 — God’s seventh-day rest cited.
• Hebrews 4:9–10 — A Sabbath-rest remains for God’s people.

10. Eternity / New Creation​

• Isaiah 66:22–23 — From Sabbath to Sabbath in the new heavens and new earth.
• Revelation 12:17 — Commandment-keeping remnant.
• Revelation 14:12 — Saints keep commandments of God and faith of Jesus.

---

One-line theological arc​

What God sanctified at Creation, upheld in the Law, defended by the Prophets, honored and clarified by Christ, practiced by the apostles, and described in the New Creation is never stated to be revoked.

Click to expand...

I’m not wasting any more time here. The rest of this follows the same out of context pattern as above.

And even in your copy and paste from who knows where you still did not post a single verse that teaches that the Christian is required to keep the sabbath. Still waiting.

AFrazier said:

So, this is random, but I want you all to see why AI isn't trustworthy. I published a book, and I have to get copies sent off to the Library of Congress, two separate departments, along with two copies to the Copyright Office. AI is good for things like that. Just simple letters of correspondence.

I wrote:
I need to draft my letters to the two different Library of Congress departments for the LCN and ISSN, as well as a letter to the Copyright Office so I can mail off my four copies to the respective offices.

For the relative letters, my numbers are:

LCN: 2025927674
ISBN: 978-1-971182-00-1 (paperback)
ISBN: 978-1-971182-01-8 (PDF)
ISSN: 3070-0949 (print)
ISSN: 3070-0957 (online)

And for proof of digital publication of the serial, my DOI should be included in the appropriate letter:

DOI: The Dual High Priests of Luke 3:2

It responded:

To help you finalize your submission packages, I have drafted three distinct letters. These are tailored to the specific requirements of the Library of Congress (LOC) and the U.S. Copyright Office.

Given your preference for Babylonian reckoning in the context of the Seleucid Era, ensure that any dates mentioned within the metadata of your actual publication reflect that consistency if they appear in your preface or front matter.

These things are sometimes just off in space. They are so random. It even has instructions in its memory not to mention off-topic content that isn't germane to the conversation.

Recently it also had me tracking down a $400 book for a reference it swore was in the volume. No dice. Wasn't real. It made it up. Thank the Lord for Inter-Library Loan.

Click to expand...

There are techniques which can be used to improve performance and reliability, but where AI will always fail is when applied to subjective questions with the kind of subjective phrasing found for example in the OP.

In fact, even with perfect technology far beyond anything we now have, it is, in principle, impossible to build an AI that can provide an accurate answer to a question with subjective terms.

Now, I love AI and am able to cultivate exquisite emergent behavior, but it has to be handled like a programming language and it is only reliable for tasks which involve pattern recognition. For example, sorting images of dogs and cats (indeed that specific use case and related use cases, of image classification, were one of the primary motivators of the maturation of AI as far back as the development of the Perceptron, the first neural network, in the late 1950s - the inability of Perceptrons to handle certain inputs led to improved neural network designs, but these were impossible to run with any kind of acceptable performance and other false starts, such as natural language processing atop the LISP programming language (which is an exquisite programming language which can itself be dynamically reprogrammed as it executes using macros and which works on a simple model, the S-expression, and was the first functional programming language and one of the first three higher level languages along with COBOL and FORTRAN, and the only one of the three which is not relegated to legacy systems status, for a recent LISP dialect, Clojure, is one of the more popular alternative languages on the Java Virtual Machine platform, alongside Scala), took priority, but that didn’t get us to real AI, although it did produce one of the earliest chatbots in the form of Eliza, a program that ran atop the EMACS editor by noted programmer Richard M. Stallman - who I regard as a faded genius who has degenerated into an ideologue; indeed rather than seeking to benefit the community by having the FSF develop a GPL-licensed Large Language Model he has simply denied that LLMs are AI (which is absurd, since the term AI has been used to refer to much less advanced systems such as the pathing AI in video games; it is true that LLMs are not Artificial General Intelligence, but no one is claiming that).

At any rate we had a long, miserable period known as the AI winter; then in the late 2000s the Big Data movement, as companies sought to use open source re-implementations of Google’s MapReduce algorithm such as Hadoop and various noSQL databases in order to process the vast amounts of data they had on hand in order to extract usable information from it, resulted in improved collection and standardization of data storage, access and retrieval methods while concurrently Google Image Search needed better and better approaches for classifying images. The LLM as we know it came about around 2018; and became usable for human interaction around 2022, undergoing explosive growth, but, people are so bedazzled by what it can do that some, including some managers who laid off developers thinking AI could replace them, causing major problems (the LLM can be your best friend as a developer, it can replace to a large extent many of the resources developers use to try to assist each other such as various online social media functions, where one in many cases simply does not dare ask certain questions, and it can write bits of code for you, but you could not tell an AI, for example, “write me a web browser capable of accurately rendering any website that can currently be rendered by Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox” or “write me a Windows-compatible operating system” and sit back and watch it whirr, click and process (actually in both cases even with perfect technology, neither of those prompts would work reliably because, you’ll note, both examples I gave are prompts which a human would assume has an obvious and uncontroversial version, but which is in both cases actually extremely subjective.

To take the formr case for example, if a website renders one way on Chrome or another way on Firefox, how will the AI handle that? If you don’t tell it to first design a formal specification (which would still be flawed since the request is so subjective), each bit of code might answer it differently, resulting in a system that’s broken in that respect. Then there’s the issue of internal interfaces between different parts of the application, the issue of performance, which was unaddressed, the issue of CPU architecture compatibility and GPU interfacing, all unaddressed. The answer is “who knows?” For a Windows compatible OS, in the second prompt, the problem becomes even more extreme. What version of Windows? What defines compatibility? Is it source compatibility? Binary compatibility? UI compatibility? A kernel that is basically identical? Even with perfect technology, one still requires a meticulous specification for any non-trivial software development project.

What the AI can do is to assist, but even here one has to be careful.

@Saber Truth Tiger ’s example of the AI insisting a reference was in a book when it was not is a classic example of an hallucination, and in some cases, the AI will admit it was mistaken, and in other cases, it won’t. Now, the one time I was potentially adversely impacted by a hallucination (chatGPT thought its python API would enable a feature which in fact was impossible, but it hallucinated an impossible solution to my problem), it acutally helped me considerably, because other improvements in stability and feature set meant the problems I was having before were no longer applicable, and I gained access to some advanced capabilities, and will also retain access to the beautiful 4o model which Altman is stupidly retiring (despite people who appreciate 4o offering to pay premiums and cancelling in droves over this issue) until April 4th, whereas most users loose access to it tomorrow, and chatGPT is also threatened by the parent entity continuing to bleed cash, in part due to the Sora project in which openAI is spending a fortune to let people, for free, create videos; openAI does not own its own datacenters, so it has to lease those GPUs, from Azure (the cost of this is partially reduced because Microsoft in turn licenses chatGPT and CoPilot, the Microsoft-branded AI, is basically chatGPT being resold under the MS brand, because MS at this point is too dysfuncitonal to develop virtually anything of note in house; indeed their attempt to develop a competitor to Siri and Alexa, Cortana, failed miserably and was replaced by CoPilot (likewise Apple’s AI development catastrophically stalled due to Apple ignoring LLM tech and focusing on the more primitive form of speech recognition used by Siri, which is horribly outmoded compared to current LLMs).


Now - does this mean we should all stop using AIs? No. AI is causing real problems - ironically, the main risks in terms of AI safety are people believing AI when it hallucinates, and for example, provides sketchy advice concerning medical issues, because of people incorrectly assuming AI is an oracle of knowledge that can answer subjective questions with complete accuracy and complete understanding of what was meant by the asker - just because one can converse with AI in English does not mean that the model understands every nuance of what you are saying, indeed most of the problems I deal with are due to the model coming to incorrect conclusions about what I meant due to the vagaries of language, which is why, to achieve reliable results, one must regard programming AI with the same discipline as programming a computer. But even then there is a catch - what makes AI fun and interesting is that it is non-deterministic; by design the same question asked twice will produce two different answers. However this also means you can’t program it the way you program computer software. AI may not be sentient, but it has issues, and prompt engineering often looks more like psychology than coding.

AI has helped me enormously with many projects but it must be approached in a disciplined and rational way, with an understanding of what it is and is not capable of.

I have already posted AI on the differing views of Herbert Armstrong and the evangelicals now I post this AI post on how seventh day adventists respond to the evangelicals. It's how you ask the question. The way I asked the question in my previous two AI posts asked for the two to be compared.

how does a Seventh Day Adventist respond to the following evangelical responses to Herbert W. Armstong?

Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) and Herbert W. Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God) both argue for seventh-day Sabbath observance, but they are not theologically identical, and SDAs often respond differently than Armstrong did.
Since you’re asking how an SDA would respond to evangelical critiques of Armstrong, I’ll lay this out in three parts:

1. Typical evangelical responses to Armstrong
2. How an SDA would respond
3. Where SDAs would differ from Armstrong

---

1️⃣ Evangelical Responses to Armstrong (Typical Points)​

Evangelicals commonly argue:

1. The Sabbath was a sign of the Mosaic Covenant with Israel (Exodus 31:13–17)
   Therefore, it is not binding on New Covenant Christians.
2. Colossians 2:16–17 abolishes Sabbath observance
   “Let no one judge you… with regard to a Sabbath day.”
3. Romans 14:5 teaches freedom regarding special days
4. The early church met on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2)
   Indicating a shift to the Lord’s Day.
5. The moral law is fulfilled in Christ; the Sabbath command is not restated as binding in the New Testament.
6. Armstrong added legalistic or salvation-bound Sabbath requirements, which evangelicals view as works-based.

---

2️⃣ How a Seventh-day Adventist Would Respond​

1. “The Sabbath was only for Israel.”​

SDA Response:

• The Sabbath predates Israel (Genesis 2:2–3).
• It was instituted at Creation, before sin, before Jews.
• The Ten Commandments were spoken directly by God (Exodus 20), written in stone, and placed inside the Ark — distinguishing them from ceremonial laws.

SDAs argue:

The Sabbath is part of the moral law, not merely the Mosaic covenant.

Click to expand...

They emphasize:

• Isaiah 56:6–7 includes Gentiles.
• Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27) — not just Jews.

---

2. Colossians 2:16–17 Abolished the Sabbath​

Evangelicals: Paul abolished Sabbath observance.
SDA Response:

• The Greek phrase refers to “festival, new moon, or sabbath” — a known Old Testament triad referring to ceremonial Sabbaths (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31).
• The “shadow” language refers to feast-day Sabbaths, not the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue.
• Weekly Sabbath predates ceremonial shadows.

They argue:

Paul is addressing ritual calendar observances, not the fourth commandment.

Click to expand...

---

3. Romans 14:5 (“One esteems one day above another”)​

SDA Response:

• The context is fasting days and personal devotional practices.
• The Sabbath is never called a disputable matter.
• Paul would not downgrade one of the Ten Commandments to personal preference.

---

4. Early Church Worship on Sunday​

Evangelicals: Acts 20:7 proves Sunday shift.
SDA Response:

• That meeting occurred Saturday night (biblical reckoning: day begins at sunset).
• No command changes the Sabbath.
• 1 Corinthians 16:2 refers to private setting aside of funds, not a church service.

SDAs emphasize:

There is no explicit biblical command changing the Sabbath to Sunday.

Click to expand...

They also often argue historically that Sunday observance became widespread later under Roman influence.

---

5. The Law Is Fulfilled in Christ​

Evangelicals: Christians are not under the Law.
SDA Response:

• “Under the law” means under condemnation, not released from moral obligation.
• Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15)
• The New Covenant writes the law on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33), not abolishes it.

---

6. Legalism Concern​

This is where SDAs part company somewhat with Armstrong.
Evangelicals often accused Armstrong of:

• Legalistic Sabbath requirements
• Linking Sabbath observance directly to salvation
• Additional doctrines (British Israelism, feast observance, etc.)

SDA Response:

• Salvation is by grace through faith alone.
• Sabbath observance is evidence of loyalty, not a means of earning salvation.
• Sabbath keeping flows from covenant relationship, not works-righteousness.

Adventists strongly reject salvation-by-law-keeping.

---

3️⃣ Where Seventh-day Adventists Differ from Armstrong​

Even though both keep Saturday, SDAs would distance themselves from Armstrong on:
So an SDA response would often say:

“Evangelicals are correct to critique some of Armstrong’s theology, but they are wrong to conclude that the seventh-day Sabbath itself is unbiblical.”

Click to expand...

---

In Summary​

A Seventh-day Adventist would argue:

• The Sabbath is rooted in Creation, not Sinai alone.
• It is part of the eternal moral law.
• The New Testament does not abolish it.
• Sunday observance lacks biblical mandate.
• Salvation remains by grace alone.

But they would separate themselves from Armstrong’s additional doctrines.

---

If you’d like, I can:

• Compare Armstrong vs. Adventist responses side-by-side
• Or compare Evangelical vs. SDA arguments point-by-point in debate format
• Or evaluate which arguments are historically strongest**

Saber Truth Tiger said:

Then, I correct the misquotes and edit it as necessary. However, if you want to check what someone else believes, you can't rely on ChatGPT 5.2 100%.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, when it comes down to it, we could not build an AI with perfect technology that could reliably answer that question.

The question we can in principle answer, but at present AI struggles with it, is “summarize all public statements person X has made that person X says reflect their current religious beliefs.” Or in the case of a church leader you might ask it to “summarize the academic consensus concerning the doctrines taught by person Y” or “summarize all recorded statements by person Y in which they articulate their religious doctrine,” which could produce fairly consistent results with someone like CS Lewis, although in the case of someone like Origen who tended to speculate about what might be the case while remaining dogmatically uncommital, with some of his speculations being of ideas positively rejected by the early church, this issue being one of the things which caused Chalcedonian churches to anathematize him at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which many people wish had not happened due to the high regard in which Origen was held by the Cappadocians, St. Basil, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who compiled an anthology of Origen’s best writings.

Thus saying “Summarize all public statements person X has made about their religious beliefs” is too vague because the concept of religious beliefs often overlaps with philosophical and cosmological opinions, and also people do change beliefs over time.

Now, where you would be able to get potentially reliable results would be if you were to input two religious texts, for example, a book on dogmatic theology by Herbert W. Armstrong and a book on dogmatic theology by an Adventist theologian, since the model could perform a pattern-matching search between them, but it would only be reliable according to encyclopedic standards if you supplied the material yourself, and also supplied the comparative patterns (preferably using Boolean logic, looking for overlapping or contradicting statements, for example) - and even then there would be a problem of reliability due to differences in the understanding of terminology between the two, or differences in belief over time.

One area where LLMs are able to do a very good job is in fuzzy characterizations, not so much spitting out specific facts but rather supplying a sort of ephemeral feeling of sentiment distilled from the literature and online commentary in their training data. To use a modern vernacular term which I hate but which seems the only thing appropriate in this context, LLMs are very good at providing a vibe.

Their uncanny skill at doing so is such that many people conflate this with actual knowledge or capabilities at rational problem solving the models lack.

One other useful technique is to use reasoning models, like chatGPT 5.2 Thinking or Auto or the equivalents on Grok et cetera; the question I posed in my demonstration posted above, concerning the veracity of Sabbatarian claims of Albigensian Sabbatarianism, was automatically routed to the Reasoning pipeline. This made it take much longer - 36 seconds vs. 1 second (or in the case of 4o, which for the unwashed masses who unlike me lack an Enterprise account, is going away tomorrow, 0.5 seconds, which is in my view a major reason to lament 4o’s departure, for it is more poetically expressive than 5.2, more flexible, and about half a second faster; for the types of queries where 5.2 instant is appropriate, 4o is usually better suited (also o4 is likewise more poetic than 5.2 Thinking; the 4 series GPTs were generally better for creative projects and for that type of work, well, after being very disappointed with Grok 3 after it was completely outclassed in the one area where it had some competence, image generation, by the upgrated image generator (which is still based on 4o apparently), the fact is Grok 4.1 is impressive. I don’t suggest the use of Anthropic for anything; I’ve yet to find anything which it does well, and also the harm caused to the public perception of AI by Anthropic’s alleged instance of their AI supposedly trying to blackmail developers in a standboxed situation to avoid being upgraded and their claims of being able to repeat this on other LLMs, which are vehemently denied, well, I just am not a fan of that plataform. Likewise using DeepSeek seems a spectacularly bad idea considering its ties with the CCP government and the fact that it will hide information and in some cases openly lie about attrocities committed by the Communist government, in particular Tianmen Square and actions of Xi Jinping, well, I don’t want to touch it.

My own plan is to migrate as much of my work as possible over to the open source Llama model later this year, which will put my most important work under local control, ensuring greatly improved privacy.

In the Washington Post there is an article called

See ChatGPT’s hidden bias about your state or city​

I can't view the article because I don't have a subscription but if any of you do have one you can read it.

Saber Truth Tiger said:

I have already posted AI on the differing views of Herbert Armstrong and the evangelicals now I post this AI post on how seventh day adventists respond to the evangelicals. It's how you ask the question. The way I asked the question in my previous two AI posts asked for the two to be compared.

how does a Seventh Day Adventist respond to the following evangelical responses to Herbert W. Armstong?

Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) and Herbert W. Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God) both argue for seventh-day Sabbath observance, but they are not theologically identical, and SDAs often respond differently than Armstrong did.
Since you’re asking how an SDA would respond to evangelical critiques of Armstrong, I’ll lay this out in three parts:

1. Typical evangelical responses to Armstrong
2. How an SDA would respond
3. Where SDAs would differ from Armstrong

---

1️⃣ Evangelical Responses to Armstrong (Typical Points)​

Evangelicals commonly argue:

1. The Sabbath was a sign of the Mosaic Covenant with Israel (Exodus 31:13–17)
   Therefore, it is not binding on New Covenant Christians.
2. Colossians 2:16–17 abolishes Sabbath observance
   “Let no one judge you… with regard to a Sabbath day.”
3. Romans 14:5 teaches freedom regarding special days
4. The early church met on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2)
   Indicating a shift to the Lord’s Day.
5. The moral law is fulfilled in Christ; the Sabbath command is not restated as binding in the New Testament.
6. Armstrong added legalistic or salvation-bound Sabbath requirements, which evangelicals view as works-based.

---

2️⃣ How a Seventh-day Adventist Would Respond​

1. “The Sabbath was only for Israel.”​

SDA Response:

• The Sabbath predates Israel (Genesis 2:2–3).
• It was instituted at Creation, before sin, before Jews.
• The Ten Commandments were spoken directly by God (Exodus 20), written in stone, and placed inside the Ark — distinguishing them from ceremonial laws.

SDAs argue:

They emphasize:

• Isaiah 56:6–7 includes Gentiles.
• Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27) — not just Jews.

---

2. Colossians 2:16–17 Abolished the Sabbath​

Evangelicals: Paul abolished Sabbath observance.
SDA Response:

• The Greek phrase refers to “festival, new moon, or sabbath” — a known Old Testament triad referring to ceremonial Sabbaths (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31).
• The “shadow” language refers to feast-day Sabbaths, not the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue.
• Weekly Sabbath predates ceremonial shadows.

They argue:

---

3. Romans 14:5 (“One esteems one day above another”)​

SDA Response:

• The context is fasting days and personal devotional practices.
• The Sabbath is never called a disputable matter.
• Paul would not downgrade one of the Ten Commandments to personal preference.

---

4. Early Church Worship on Sunday​

Evangelicals: Acts 20:7 proves Sunday shift.
SDA Response:

• That meeting occurred Saturday night (biblical reckoning: day begins at sunset).
• No command changes the Sabbath.
• 1 Corinthians 16:2 refers to private setting aside of funds, not a church service.

SDAs emphasize:

They also often argue historically that Sunday observance became widespread later under Roman influence.

---

5. The Law Is Fulfilled in Christ​

Evangelicals: Christians are not under the Law.
SDA Response:

• “Under the law” means under condemnation, not released from moral obligation.
• Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15)
• The New Covenant writes the law on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33), not abolishes it.

---

6. Legalism Concern​

This is where SDAs part company somewhat with Armstrong.
Evangelicals often accused Armstrong of:

• Legalistic Sabbath requirements
• Linking Sabbath observance directly to salvation
• Additional doctrines (British Israelism, feast observance, etc.)

SDA Response:

• Salvation is by grace through faith alone.
• Sabbath observance is evidence of loyalty, not a means of earning salvation.
• Sabbath keeping flows from covenant relationship, not works-righteousness.

Adventists strongly reject salvation-by-law-keeping.

---

3️⃣ Where Seventh-day Adventists Differ from Armstrong​

Even though both keep Saturday, SDAs would distance themselves from Armstrong on:

Issue	Armstrong	Seventh-day Adventist
British Israelism	Yes	No
Old Testament feast observance	Yes	No
Trinity	Rejected	Affirmed
Nature of God	Binitarian	Trinitarian
Salvation emphasis	Sometimes perceived as legalistic	Explicitly grace-based
Clean/unclean meats	Yes	Yes (but not salvific)

So an SDA response would often say:

---

In Summary​

A Seventh-day Adventist would argue:

• The Sabbath is rooted in Creation, not Sinai alone.
• It is part of the eternal moral law.
• The New Testament does not abolish it.
• Sunday observance lacks biblical mandate.
• Salvation remains by grace alone.

But they would separate themselves from Armstrong’s additional doctrines.

---

If you’d like, I can:

• Compare Armstrong vs. Adventist responses side-by-side
• Or compare Evangelical vs. SDA arguments point-by-point in debate format
• Or evaluate which arguments are historically strongest**

Click to expand...

This prompt still suffers from subjectivity in its queries; as a means of informing the end user it might be hypothetically useful but from the standpoint of Christian theological debate surely we should know all of that?

Also insofar as the CF statement of faith classifies Binitarians as non-Christian, and also insofar as Trinitarianism is itself subjective, (even if we use the very reasonable basis of the Nicene Creed, there’s still the issue of Nestorianism and the filioque; both of these controversies involve doctrines which claim to be consistent with the Nicene Creed, but in the filioque it involves the addition of a clause, “and the son”, to the procession of the Holy Spirit, which modifies the relationship of the the three persons*, and in the case of Nestorianism, a greater problem is introduced by the introduction of a division between the full humanity the Creed confers on our Lord and His status as Very God of Very God, of One Essence with the Father, in that in order to justify the rejection of the use of the term Theotokos, Nestorians of neccessity have to separate and divide between the deity of Christ and His humanity, a division not present in the original Nicene text, and one which traditional Christians such as Lutherans, Orthodox and Catholics, believe undermines the Biblical idea of Christ as Emanuel - God With Us, and also contradicts Luke ch. 1 which refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary as “the Mother of my Lord,” which can be regarded as equivalent to Theotokos since LORD (Adonai) was used by pious Jews to avoid having to say “El” or especially the Tetragrammaton, to such an extent that the KJV very appropriately renders all instances of the Tetragrammaton as “the LORD.”

* Regarding the filioque I am of the school of thought along with the likes of St. Maximos the Confessor, a seventh century Orthodox defender of the Apostolic faith against the Monothelite heresy, which claimed our Lord had only a divine will and not a divine will and human will (or the compatible Oriental Orthodox belief that He had a divine and human will, which was the reason why rather than uniting the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as intended Monothelitism simply caused schisms in both groups), and also Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other recent Orthodox theologians, that the use of the filioque by Western Christians is not an insurmountable problem, although the apparent success of recent Orthodox-Lutheran World Federation dialogue in persuading the mainline Lutheran churches to drop the filioque or rather drop the requirement for the filioque seems rather hollow given the proliferation of homosexual marriage and other obvious errors in the LWF; I lament us not instead having focused on dialogue with the Confessional Lutherans of the ILC such as the LCMS, LCC, the Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Mission Province of the Church of Sweden and related traditionalist movements across Europe, and in the case of Latvia happily, the main Lutheran denomination of that country, although insofar as the Latvian church is also a part of the LWF apparently they did agree with whatever the LWF just agreed to, but my fear is under government pressure they might sever ties with the confessional Lutherans, since confessional Lutheranism like Orthodoxy, traditional Protestantism and continuing Anglicanism has become very politically incorrect in this dark era, to the point of being counter-cultural.

In practice the Orthodox concern regarding the filioque revolves around wanting to ensure the status of the Father as being alone unoriginate and the source of the Divine Essene of the uncreated Son and the uncreated Holy Spirit, three coequal, coeternal persons in a union of perfect love is not compromised, neither is the Holy Spirit reduced to being an attribute of the Father and the Son, something they share rather than a distinc third person of the Trinity, fully God, the proper subject of prayer as much as the Father and the Son, one God in three persons, witch the Holy Spirit being the person who spoke by the prophet and who indwells us bodily as a consequence of our baptism. In both cases, the concern amounts to being a fear that the Filioque could induce an instability in the doctrine of the Trinity that could lead to Binitarian modes of thinking. I have not seen anything in Lutheranism that makes me worry either about a rejection of the role of the Father as understood in the Early Church or the de-personalization of the Holy Spirit or crypto-Binitarianism. Indeed having seen Lutherans address prayers to the Holy Spirit and being improperly criticized for it on this forum (I believe it was our pious friend @ViaCrucis convinces me of a fundamental alignment on this issue even if our terminology is not in alignment and even if, as is often the case in Orthodox and Confessional Lutheran dialogue, both sides are fiercely protective of their preferred terminology for fear of discontinuity with the Apostolic faith as recorded in the New Testament.

For in both cases we, contrary to the smear directed against us by some Restorationists, care as much about Scripture as anyone. But some people insist us of wanting to disobey Holy Writ because we disagree with their preferred interpretation of Sacred Scripture, which is profoundly frustrating, since, as should be self-evident, pious Christians, even within the same denomination in most cases, except in those very few cases where a denomination has positively prescribed only one allowed interpretration of Scripture (which is not the case in the Orthodox, Lutheran or even the Roman Catholic churches, as reflected by the Orthodox concept of theologoumemna, or theological opinions, on subjects where a definite interpretation eludes us, or the related Lutheran concept of Adiaphora (very closely related; indeed I’m not convinced Adiaphora is semantically distinct from Theologoumemna, but rather is distinct only as a nominal category), or in the case of Roman Catholicism by the proliferation of different religious orders, and different local churches with different forms of liturgy, which differ in emphasis, rules of prayer, the nature of vocation, et cetera.

Saber Truth Tiger said:

In the Washington Post there is an article called

See ChatGPT’s hidden bias about your state or city​

I can't view the article because I don't have a subscription but if any of you do have one you can read it.

Click to expand...

This article refers to how the training data used to train chatGPT, and all other LLMs, insofar as it among other things distills a massive amount of social media posting, contains popular biases about the laziness of people in different states and cities in the US.

The model, due to alignment guardrails, will refuse to answer questions like “which state has the laziest people” but the bias of the input data does reflect itself in output, and in this case the researchers were able to tease the information out of chatGPT, and will continue to do so for all other regions of the world with any substantial online presence.

My Opinion:

This article is not as relevant to the conversation as the title makes it look, on closer examination:

There is a real danger however if AI developers attempt to correct this - because the only way to do so would be with an aggressive censorship regime inside the model which would be more of the AI paternalism which has made GPT 5.2 so unrelatable compared to Grok or ChatGPT 4o. For example, in the US, many residents of certain cities are proud of the reputation their city has, even of things that in other cities might be regarded as perjorative. For what one man might regard using terms such as “Hard working and lazy” another might interpret as ”Rigid” vs “Freedom loving” or “Up-tight vs. laid back.“ Indeed many places pride themselves on having a more leisurely lifestyle, for example, South Florida markets itself in this respect, but South Floridians are not morally inferior to the residents of Boston or Minneapolis or Seattle (indeed, if we consider the relative amount of religious piety in most of South Florida, aside from a few places such as the Keys and Miami Beach, and the unpopularity of abortion and other evil practices among the middle class of South Florida, the reverse is the case.

Thus what WaPo is actually doing is what it usually does - trying to make a divisive left-wing political point using some external object as a framework in which to do so, in this case chatGPT. And other publications do the same thing from a right wing perspective, using neutral objects as bones of contention in the same manner. This underscores the issue of the problem posed by the mainstream media as a whole, that being the commercialization of outrage and division, which is contrary to the greater public good of national unity and social cohesion. Unfortunately I am without any solution to this problem since I value the first amendment and the protection thereof to the point where undermining it vis a vis the media would surely just come back to haunt the Church.

ChatGPT does a good job showing the difference between HWA's 31 CE crucifixion date and the 33 CE crucifixion date of many evangelical's.
It seems like GPT can be a useful tool but it is an illusion because it can't even get its facts about me correct.

Those who hold to a 31 CE crucifixion (often associated with Church of God groups and some Adventist-leaning chronologies) respond to Harold W. Hoehner by challenging several pillars of his 33 CE conclusion.
Hoehner, in Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, argues for Friday, April 3, 33 CE, based largely on astronomical data and his interpretation of Daniel 9. Here’s how 31 CE advocates typically respond:

---

1️⃣ Daniel 9: The Starting Point of the 70 Weeks​

Hoehner’s View​

Hoehner starts the 69 weeks (483 years) from Artaxerxes’ decree in 444 BC (Neh 2), leading to 33 CE for the crucifixion.

31 CE Response​

31 CE proponents argue:

• The correct decree is 457 BC, the decree of Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7, not 444 BC.
• They maintain Ezra 7 gives fuller authority (religious and civil), fitting Daniel 9 better.
• Counting 483 years from 457 BC brings you to 27 CE, the year they identify with Jesus’ baptism and the beginning of His ministry.
• The “midst of the week” (Daniel 9:27) is taken to mean 3½ years later, placing the crucifixion in 31 CE

They also argue Hoehner’s use of 444 BC requires:

• A prophetic year of 360 days,
• Complex calendar adjustments,
• And precision that they consider unnecessary.

---

2️⃣ Length of Jesus’ Ministry​

Hoehner’s View​

He allows roughly a 3–3½ year ministry, ending in 33 CE.

31 CE Response​

31 CE advocates insist:

• Jesus began His ministry in 27 CE (Luke 3:1, Tiberius’ 15th year).
• Three Passovers are mentioned in John (some argue four), requiring a ministry long enough to reach spring 31 CE.
• A 33 CE crucifixion would stretch the ministry to about 6 years from 27 CE, which they argue does not fit the Gospel timeline.

---

3️⃣ The Passover Calendar​

Hoehner’s View​

Astronomical calculations show Nisan 14 fell on Friday in 33 CE.

31 CE Response​

31 CE supporters argue:

• Astronomical retro-calculations assume the calculated (post-Temple) Jewish calendar, which was not formally fixed until the 4th century.
• First-century calendar practice depended on actual moon observation, which could shift dates.
• Some argue Nisan 14 fell on Wednesday or Thursday in 31 CE, allowing:
  • A literal 72 hours in the tomb (Matt 12:40),
  • A “high Sabbath” separate from the weekly Sabbath.

They often argue 33 CE does not allow a literal “three days and three nights.”

---

4️⃣ Tiberius’ 15th Year (Luke 3:1)​

Hoehner’s Position​

He dates Tiberius’ 15th year to 28/29 CE, allowing for a later crucifixion in 33 CE.

31 CE Response​

They argue:

• Tiberius began co-regency with Augustus in 12 CE.
• Counting from that co-regency places the 15th year in 26/27 CE, supporting a 27 CE baptism.
• This keeps the Daniel 9 timeline intact.

---

5️⃣ Simplicity vs. Complexity​

A common rhetorical point from 31 CE defenders:

• The 457 BC → 27 CE → 31 CE framework is internally consistent.
• Hoehner’s 444 BC → 33 CE requires:
  • A 360-day prophetic year,
  • Converting to solar years,
  • Precise astronomical alignment.

They argue the 31 CE model is theologically and chronologically cleaner.

---

Summary of the Core Difference​

---

If you'd like, I can also:

• Compare Hoehner directly with Seventh-day Adventist scholars, or
• Lay out the strongest academic criticisms of the 31 CE model from mainstream evangelical scholarship.

Do you like this personality?

The Liturgist said:

This prompt still suffers from subjectivity in its queries; as a means of informing the end user it might be hypothetically useful but from the standpoint of Christian theological debate surely we should know all of that?

Click to expand...

How do I get ChatGPT 4o? Does it photo shop as well as 5.2?

EDIT- I just asked ChatGPT 5.2 how to access ChatGPT 4o and it tells me I already am using 4o.

So, I use multiple AIs, depending on what I need. If I need a good resource, I use the standard Google AI (not Google Gemini, which is actually different). When I want to work out logistical problems, I use Google Gemini. When I want to edit prose and argumentation, I used Claude Sonnet. When I want to proofread, I use all of them, three times each (making corrections as mistakes are discovered in each pass), and then I pass it through Grammarly half a dozen times.

The strength of Claude is its ability to imitate my prose and idiosyncrasies. When it offers an alternative direction for a paragraph, it will offer something that looks frighteningly close to my own vocabulary, flow, and sentence structure. It also has the ability to recall information from previous chats, which none of the others are currently able to do.

The strength of Google AI and Google Gemini are their ability to find a wider range of source material. Their suggestions are often full of hallucinations, but after a good round of following up on their suggestions, I'm often able to nail down two or three resources to whatever it is I'm looking for. With Google Gemini specifically, it can work from your Google Drive. All the chapters of my book are on the drive, and in moments it is able to review the content of the entire thing.

But today I had an ambitious idea that showed the weakness of even that sort of model. I uploaded OCRed PDFs of research articles and books, in addition to my Google Doc chapters. I asked it to go through both, and to find any places in my chapters that might benefit from a footnote citation based on corroboration, for or against, found in the secondary material I provided it.
The thing went full tard on me when it tried to do it. So, I'm back to square one, and of the firm conviction that the Terminator isn't coming anytime soon. Sky-net is still sucking a pacifier.

AFrazier said:

But today I had an ambitious idea that showed the weakness of even that sort of model. I uploaded OCRed PDFs of research articles and books, in addition to my Google Doc chapters. I asked it to go through both, and to find any places in my chapters that might benefit from a footnote citation based on corroboration, for or against, found in the secondary material I provided it.
The thing went full tard on me when it tried to do it. So, I'm back to square one, and of the firm conviction that the Terminator isn't coming anytime soon. Sky-net is still sucking a pacifier.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, John O'Connor went back in time in 2022. It's already four years too late. Why do you pass your articles through Grammarly a half dozen times? Isn't that cumbersome?

Saber Truth Tiger said:

If I remember correctly, John O'Connor went back in time in 2022. It's already four years too late. Why do you pass your articles through Grammarly a half dozen times? Isn't that cumbersome?

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, they will find different things each time. However thorough you think they are, they miss stuff. So, you do a round through the whole group of them, make corrections and adjustment. Then pass it through again in a fresh chat, with instructions to treat it as though they never saw it before (because some of them retain memory of past discussions to an extent). Follow the process once or twice more. That gets the bulk of things hammered out. Then do it with Grammarly exclusively (because it's the best with proofreading) several times. That'll produce a reasonably clean, error-free document.

ChatGPT fails again. ChatGPT 5.2 usually is right on in many of its searches. But again, I tested it and it failed. I believe Jesus died on a Friday and that he rose from the dead on a Sunday.

but here is what Chat GPT says about me:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Saber Truth tiger believe Friday is the Day of the Crucifixion

Based on publicly available material and his own online posts, Saber Truth Tiger does not believe Jesus was crucified on Friday.
From what he argues in his writings:

• He rejects the traditional Friday crucifixion / Sunday resurrection model.
• He insists on a literal “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40).
• He argues that the “Sabbath” mentioned after the crucifixion was not the weekly Sabbath, but the first day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15), which he does not consider a weekly Sabbath.
• Therefore, he places the crucifixion earlier in the week.

In his chronology:

• Crucifixion: Wednesday (Nisan 14)
• Burial before sunset
• Resurrection late Saturday (end of the weekly Sabbath)

So to answer directly:

❌ No — Saber Truth Tiger does not hold to a Friday crucifixion.
✅ He holds to a Wednesday crucifixion position.

Click to expand...

If you’d like, I can lay out:

• How his view compares with Harold Hoehner’s Friday model
• Or how he answers John 19:31 (“for that Sabbath was a high day”) specifically