@GratefulDisciple Nitpick: While of course Joseph Smith plays a major role for LDS, they believe in a continuancy of living prophets in the church, with the term prophet used not simply for anyone with the gift of prophecy (which everyone should aspire to, I guess), but for those in the god-given role of receiving revelation for the church as a whole, not simply for themselves individually. The very concept of "greatest", but especially "last", prophet is firmly rejected by LDS.

@kutschkem Thanks for the clarification. To me, the million dollar unanswered question remains: the latitude (extent) of a later prophet's influence on doctrines. It's one thing if the prophet provides authoritative guidance to adapt a doctrine in light of new situations (like how the Catholic church adapted the teaching of "no salvation outside church" after the discovery of the new world.

But it's another thing to introduce new doctrine or even to refute earlier doctrine because of new revelation. For example, is it possible for a new book to be added to the LDS canon, let's say due to discovery of more plates or new communication from angels?

In mainstream Christianity, after the Montanist controversy, the answer is a strict no: i.e. no new revelation, only clarification of existing teaching in the Bible or organic development of the seeds in the Bible (such as the papacy, or Marian dogmas). Prophets's main function is to remind people to go back to God / covenant, to convict people of their sins, help people trust God more, encourage people, etc. and thus have very similar role OT or NT.

ChatGPT is scary. I was curious and ran this question "What are the arguments for the author of the book of Revelation being different than the apostle John?" to see how good it is to answer this recent question and it gave 4 reasons which look plausible! @OneGodTheFather

@GratefulDisciple OTOH, I've heard it described as 'just a really good search engine with a natural language interface'. Is ChatGPT coming up with those reasons? Or is it just regurgitating something from its database that was written by a human?

@Matthew When I was in the Computer Science program, I took a few AI courses, including neural networks (this is pre-2010, before there was a 'revolution' of sort in deep learning). Yes, it is a really good search engine with a natural language interface, but it is also more than that: because of the way it can do advanced conceptual processing from raw data that does NOT have to be specifically coded.

Compare with Logos bible study software where its many datasets are laboriously coded by humans. But I believe ChatGPT knowledge base was built automatically by the machine learning algorithms being able to identify salient aspects from raw texts and re-purpose them in totally different contexts. This is beyond simply textual search engine and NL interface.

So yes, the answers will surely be limited by the extent of the textual sources it used to train itself. There is no appeal to experience as well as to the spiritual constitution of human being of being graced by God to know, to love, to recognize beauty, to reflect aided by conscience, to desire God, to emphatize with other humans, et

@Matthew Yes, that's my guess. The big breakthrough vis a vis traditional search engines is in synthesis of results and interface.

@GratefulDisciple What did it say?

I think as humans we are TRULY being challenged to exercise more of our human abilities. In practical terms, if students can merely produce what ChatGPT can produce when writing essays / papers, students now have to "up their game". In a sense, this is a good thing. Homo sapiens were able to avoid being eaten by dinosaurs, now Homo sapiens have to defeat AI.

@OnlyTrueGod Go login to ChatGPT yourself and find out. I don't want to give credit to non-humans here, other than to prod ourselves to beat them with better research with an added truly-human insights.

@GratefulDisciple Do they still require a valid phone number?

@GratefulDisciple I don't have an account with ChatGPT. :(

What I want ChatGPT to improve though, is to provide citations for every one of those reasons. They are notorious in not providing footnotes, although it certainly "knows" since all their answer has some raw text that they came across during the search.

@GratefulDisciple That would only work if the claim is being made in a straightforward 1:1 way, though.

@GratefulDisciple Wait, am I misremembering, or are you one of those people that claims humans and dinosaurs never cohabitated? 🙂

@OnlyTrueGod It's free, I signed up with my Google identity. You can sign up here.

@GratefulDisciple It's like if you have some belief floating around in your head, and someone says "How do you know that?" And you start to recollect all the things that went into forming it. Usually, you don't just have a footnote for a belief you hold.

@GratefulDisciple I'm sad. ;)

@GratefulDisciple How are you decreasing the credit given if you are trying to get me to sign up to ChatGPT?!?

@Matthew Hehehe. I don't have one position or another, just using it for illustration, following the narrative probably from Jurassic Park, pop-culture, or interpolating from how dinosaurs got decimated because of climate change, etc.

@OnlyTrueGod It's so that you can get to know our enemy better, and collaborate with me in improving ourselves to become better "imager" of God.

@GratefulDisciple Rolls eyes. My main reason for thinking Rev author isn't GoJ is that the styles are very different. Authors tend to sound identifiable, even within different genres.

@OnlyTrueGod OK, ok, it you must find out what it "says" without signing up. 1) Difference in writing style; 2) Different theological emphases; 3) Different historical context; 4) Several early church fathers (like Irenaeus and Tertullian) attributed it to another John (like John the Elder, or John of Patmos).

@GratefulDisciple I wonder what you would think of Dembski's "No Free Lunch".

@GratefulDisciple Pretty sure Irenaeus supports same author theory. :S

@Matthew That looks like a good book. Of course, if I allow evolution to be the mechanism God uses, it should NEVER be blind chance, but guided. I don't subscribe to Intelligent Design as how the proponents advocate it. So without reading the book (only Amazon blurb) I don't think that's the book for me. But I'll keep it in mind, thanks.

@GratefulDisciple (1) seems the most compelling. (2) seems not compelling in the slightest; as most of the book is, y'know, revelation, it's obviously going to tend to emphasize whatever the revelation emphasized, with no particular reason to expect that to be consistent with what the Gospel of John wanted to emphasize.

I'm curious about (3), though; any chance for a summary in more than three words? 🙂

@OnlyTrueGod Then CHatGPT is wrong :-) Humans 1, ChatGPT 0. Hurray.

@Matthew This is what ChatGPT gave for #3:

> The book of Revelation was likely written during a time of intense persecution of Christians, while the apostle John is believed to have lived until a much later time when persecution had largely subsided. Some scholars argue that the historical context of the book of Revelation suggests that it was written by someone who lived during the earlier period of persecution.

@GratefulDisciple Well, sure, your problem isn't rejecting that God played a role, it's the age of Earth 🙂. What I found noteworthy in NFL however is Dembski's case against the multiverse conjecture. And also the mathematical case against naturalism (which he likens to belief in alchemy).

@GratefulDisciple Ah. Thanks. Uh, so is that suggesting that Revelation was written before the Gospel of John? (It's unclear whether that would necessitate different authors, though.)

@Matthew I see. I think you're much more well-versed in those areas since you're defending YEC. I'm more interested in theology to serve spirituality and cultural integration.

@Matthew Well, a really good ChatGPT would have to defend its earlier proposition just in a doctoral seminar or a dissertation defense. I'm sure ChatGPT is not there yet, and probably will never be.

@GratefulDisciple Fair enough. How often do you interact with people that don't believe God exists? What's your usual approach to that?

@Matthew My usual approach is CS Lewis's argument from desire. Secondly, recognizing that our lives are beset with unruly desires where we hate ourselves after we sin, so we desire help after we give up trying on our own.

@GratefulDisciple ChatGPT might be right. Look at en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works under 'attestation'. I'm having a hard time finding clear discussion of this.

The first argument points to our recognizing a better world. The second argument points to ultimate happiness where we don't have to hate ourselves from hurting others, pointing to our reason for existence that only a Creator can give (i.e. if we are not endowed with this hate of our sinfulness, then there is no creator).

@GratefulDisciple Sort of an appeal to conscience?

Do you run into people that don't feel remorse over sin?

@Matthew Yes, but not in the usual legalistic way where if you don't behave perfectly all your life you go to hell. Instead, I appeal to entrenched human weakness where Jesus comes in solidarity to give us power to be a better person, and that he also reconcile us with God so we don't have to feel too guilty against the ultimate power that we cannot hide from. Of course we SHOULD be guilty for not trying hard enough; which is what Lenten season is for.

@Matthew I don't think so. Most people will admit that they should be better people, but they resort to natural means.

@GratefulDisciple This article, though, states what I thought re Irenaeus. exegeticaltools.com/2020/05/24/who-is-the-john-of-revelation "Irenaeus introduces a series of quotations from Revelation with an introductory formula. In this formula, he claims that “John, the Lord’s disciple” wrote the following words in “the Apocalypse.”"

@OnlyTrueGod I'll have to check several scholarly commentaries; usually in their introduction they have a whole chapter about authorship with a good survey of what has been advanced and how they have been refuted.

@GratefulDisciple I'm reminded of a character (Greg?) from "The Good Place", who was a complete (redacted), but genuinely believed he was such a good person that he actually belonged in 'the best place'.

@Matthew Well, of course those characters exist in real life, but I would think they are rare and bordering on megalomania like Hitler.

@GratefulDisciple Bordering on megalomania? Probably. Rare? Perhaps. Given the sorts of atrocities that are shamelessly embraced and celebrated these days, however, I really wonder...

Especially when one is married and have kids like me, we are confronted with the reality of how we have hurt others, and someone with even moderate conscience will realize our selfishness and self-absorption. I have to credit my wife to sharpen my conscience.

@GratefulDisciple Ya, that's probably the way to go.

@Matthew Yeah, maybe I'm too sheltered :-).

I really believe what Paul said in the Romans: the wicked people will grow more wicked and will rationalize themselves and be even more blinded. They will eventually become atheists, or become humanists. It's sad.

@GratefulDisciple Yes. Although I would add some adjectives besides "sad". "Dangerous", for one.

Apparently it's now a hate crime to be Caucasian and not hate yourself.

But I believe most well-meaning people will sense how they will need to account their lives in front of their creator, and then try hard to be good. The gospel only comes when they realize they cannot be good on their own efforts.

@GratefulDisciple 🤷 I've met people that are quite impervious to the idea that they have a Creator.

@Matthew Yes, I agree. It's dangerous, not to mention the unjustified guilt trip forced on male Caucasians these days. In my college days, it was merely the feminists who blame us (labelling us "male chauvinistic pigs" or something like that), but it has grown worse.

@Matthew I met mostly agnostics though, they are practically deists. Some don't want to be Christian just so that they have low expectation of God. Having the belief that God is distant saves them from being hurt. They have a Stoic mentality in suffering rather than crying out to God.

@GratefulDisciple Perhaps. Seeing as being a Creationist means I tend to attract humanist zealots, it's quite possible my experience is tainted by selection bias. 🙂

@Matthew You may be right.

@GratefulDisciple Yup, "really search[ing] for truths" is not how I would describe most of the humanists I interact with. What's the torment of "the possibility that Atheism is right", though? Worry that you're wasting your life / missing out?

@Matthew I think we both agree that humanists are getting more and more dangerous because they really think religion is harmful and that they have higher ethics. So they force their humanist ideals and ethics on everyone, which eventually can become totalitarian.

IMHO, if atheism is right, nihilism must also be right, in which case, why worry about it? 🙂

@GratefulDisciple Right. I just happen to agree with Ham et al that Christianity ultimately can't stand unless it refuses to compromise with humanist "science". (Also, I don't have the faith to believe in said "science".)

@Matthew I distinguish humanist and nihilist this way: humanist is under the illusion that there is objective morality but not based on religion. Nihilist dispenses altogether with objective morality and advocate that everyone is for their own good and per Nietzsche should construct their own ideals.

In a sense, I feel safer with a nihilist rather than a humanist.

@Matthew Do you think there are different type of atheist though: the nihilist kind and the humanist kind?

Nihilists would align themselves with being libertarian, but humanist would align themselves with being utilitarian and uses politics to advance what they think is better society's ideals like equal rights for LGBT, etc.

@GratefulDisciple Ah, I'm using it in the sense that, if God doesn't exist, then everything is ultimately pointless, including my personal hedonism. IOW, if Christianity is true, I have an excellent reason to not go full-hedonist. If it isn't, what's the point in going full-hedonist? Therefore, I will not go full-hedonist.

@GratefulDisciple Sounds reasonable.

@Matthew Sure hedonism (St. Paul already aware of the ancient version of it, the epicureans) is one consequence but then people are inherently political animals and would want to gang up and pursue political ideals that can manifest in patriotic nationalism (or city-state pride like the Athenians in classical times) or in cultural ideals such as animal rights / environmentalism / world peace.

@OnlyTrueGod The problem with taking "John, the Lord's disciple" at face value is that in ancient times, pretending to be someone else was considered a virtue (like imitation is the highest form of flattery), and the author really tries to write in the vein of the impersonated person. Thus even evangelical scholars are warming up to the idea that some of Paul's letters were actually penned by Pauline disciples.

Funny personal incident. In our church youth group session, there is usually a game, which in this case is a Jeopardy like game that includes a category like "Bible questions". So one question is this: "Which of Paul's letters were not actually written by him"? Hearing his I was shocked inside. Is this church so scholarly minded that they want to teach the youths about which letters are not really Paul's?

It turns out the answer is Romans. At first I was puzzled, surely Romans is a genuine Pauline letter like Galatians? But when hearing the answer, I realized that it is just a Bible trivia game, since they say Tertius wrote it (Romans 16:22).

Gotta go. Talk to you guys later.

@GratefulDisciple Yes, this might be behind the differing accounts.

Just out of curiosity, I asked ChatGPT this question "Who are some evangelical scholars who accept that some of Paul's letters were NOT written by Paul himself?" Although I have to fact-check the answer, the names it gives are plausible: Craig Blomberg, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and Mark Roberts. I'm not surprised about Peter Enns, less so for Michael Bird. But I would definitely check Craig Blomberg. I don't know Mark D. Roberts enough.

Now I really have to go. Have a good day !

@GratefulDisciple Chat GPT just makes it all up. Don't trust anything it says without verifying it yourself.

@curiousdannii Of course. So for verifying Craig Blomberg view, one book that can resolve this is his new 2018 book A New Testament Theology reviewed here. But I don't have access to this book. The review says this:

> Second, this book is carefully researched and documented. While some will disagree with Blomberg’s positions on the authorship and dating of certain writings, no one can fault his extensive knowledge of the secondary literature. ...