Posts by slimboyfat

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

I wonder what you make or scholars like James Dunn in that case. As far as I can make out he was a Trinitarian Christian and remained a Trinitarian Christian to the end of his life. Nevertheless his honest historical study of the NT led him to conclude that the conception of God as a Trinity was a later development, that only God was worshipped in the highest sense in the NT, and that Jesus was separate and subordinate to God. That’s not just a quote here or there, that’s a fair reflection of what he wrote as whole.

Catholic scholars, such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer, can be very illuminating too because, unlike Protestants, Catholics can tolerate the fact that the Bible doesn’t necessarily present a fully Trinitarian view because they rely on tradition in addition to the scriptures. Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer seem to have had a degree of freedom to admit where the Bible says things that are inconvenient. For example Raymond Brown’s discussion about where Jesus is and is not called God is quite illuminating because he narrows it down to fewer passages and with narrower meaning than many Trinitarians would like.

Paula Fredriksen is Jewish but her scholarship (it should hardly need to be said) ought to be judged on its merits. Any fair appraisal of the competing reconstructions of early Christology by Fredriksen and Hurtado, for example, would conclude that she makes better sense out of the available evidence.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

I wonder, doesn’t it give you any pause for thought that scholars who are not tied to any theological position tend to interpret NT Christology in a way that is closer to JW understanding than Trinitarian dogma?

As it is, you have Trinitarian scholars who generally argue that the Bible at least doesn’t fundamentally contradict Trinitarian dogma. If JWs quote those scholars on particular points where they agree with JWs, you say that’s illegitimate because those scholars don’t agree with JWs overall.

If JWs quote non-Trinitarians to make a point then you say that’s illegitimate because of course non-Trinitarians are going to agree with JWs.

And if JWs quote liberal scholars, who don’t have a faith commitment, you say that’s illegitimate because of course liberal scholars say the Trinity developed after the Bible, that’s because they are non believers.

So ultimately JWs can’t quote anyone, whether they agree with them on a particular point or not, none of it should be considered.

In reality the conclusions of liberal scholars are interesting because they are not committed to a particular theological outcome. When they say that the NT says that Jesus was God’s first creation and a powerful angel that’s because their historical work has led them to that conclusion. Practically every scholar I can think of who has examined the NT without a prior commitment to the Trinity has concluded that the Trinity developed after the NT was written, and that Jesus is distinct and subordinate to God in the NT, because that’s what a plain reading of the texts suggests.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

What does Phil 2.6 mean when it says that Jesus was ‘in the form of God’? JWs believe it shows that Jesus was a spirit creature in heaven.

Paula Fredriksen argues that the word God, in this phrase, is without the article, and should be translated ‘form of [a] god’. She translates the passage as follows:

Christ Jesus who, though existing in god-form, did not consider divine status [or, ‘being the same as a god’] something to seize upon; but he emptied himself, taking on a slave form, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God highly exalted him and gave to him the name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend—whether of heavenly beings or earthly beings or subterranean beings—and very tongue should acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord/Lord Jesus is Christ, to the glory of God the Father.

She explains:

Paul distinguishes between degrees of divinity here. Jesus is not “God”. … Jesus had a divine status—which he declined to hold onto. God the Father exalted him. No confusion between degrees of divinity. Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (2017), 138.

Although Fredriksen does not see Jesus as an angel in this passage, she argues he was clearly distinguished from almighty God.

Paul Holloway, in his volume on Philippians for the Hermeneia Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, performs an in-depth analysis of the linguistic and historical context of the passage. He states that:

Paul conceived of what is commonly referred to as Christ’s incarnation as a kind of metamorphosis. According to Phil 2:6–11 Christ was a might angel who originally existed “in the form [morphē] of God”. For the sake of humans and in obedience with the divine will he took “the form [morphē] of a slave,” changing himself into human “likeness” (homoioma) and “appearance” (schēma). After his death on a cross, God restored him to his original angelic form, but now as the even more glorious ruling angel who bears the divine Name and shares the divine throne. Philippians: A Commentary (2017), 49, 50.

Bart Ehrman agreed that, if realise that Paul viewed Jesus as an angel, “then virtually everything Paul says about Christ throughout his letters makes perfect sense”, and “he was a pre-existent divine being, an angel of God, who came to earth out of humble obedience and whom God rewarded by exalting him to an even higher level of divinity as a result.” How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of Jewish Preacher from Galilee (2014), 253, 258.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

No wonder he wants to avoid his Zoom chats at all costs. These are people, despite everything, who are still sending him $20 plus month. Imagine what a freak gallery that must be. Plus in his leaked video it looked like he was speaking to the Zoom call as if it was some sort of board meeting where the CEO describes the quarterly activity of the company. Except the difference is that shareholders get a cut of the profits when the company does well. Lloyd bragging about JLE media activity, with minimal actual reference to JWs, to patrons sending him money, seems a pretty weird setup.

His regular videos are struggling to get more than 3K views now. Are even his patrons watching his output at this point? (Not that LE cares, as long as they keep sending him money)

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

A few things I’ve never understood about the Trinitarian understanding of Hebrews 1:

1 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son; today I have begotten you”?
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 Of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds
and his servants flames of fire.”
8 But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

In verse 4, where it says that Jesus has “become as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs” - if Jesus ‘became’ superior to the angels, doesn’t that mean he wasn’t superior to them before that point? The reason God is far superior to the angels is because he is the uncreated sovereign of the universe. Yet the reason Jesus is superior to the angels is because he ‘inherited’ a name more excellent than their name. Who would you say that about except a creature who had been exalted to a higher position by his Father?

And in verse 9, if we assume that verse 8 does refer to Jesus as the divine messianic king, why does it then say ‘your God has anointed you’, to Jesus? Doesn’t that clearly mean that Jesus is a creature and that he looks to God as his sovereign, as does the rest of creation?

And in verse 2 it says that God created the worlds ‘through’ his Son. Doesn’t that clearly show that God is the creator, and that his Son is the agent through whom he created?

And in verse 6, again, it says that Jesus is God’s ‘firstborn’.

And in verse 3 is says that Jesus is the ‘reflection’ of God’s glory, and the ‘imprint’ of God’s being. How can that mean anything else than Jesus is a perfect reflection of God?

To me Hebrews 1 is one the clearest passages about Jesus’ identity and it is completely incompatible with the Trinity teaching.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

aqwsed12345 I’m guilty of making long posts too, but realistically the longer they are the less likely they are to be read. I try to make shorter posts for that reason, although it’s not easy if you have a lot to say.

You mention that the Bible doesn’t use particular words to say Jesus is a creature. There are lots of words the Bible doesn’t use, and if we are talking about Trinitarian dogma the list gets very long indeed.

The point is what words the Bible does use and what they mean. The Bible says Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation” (Col 1.15), and he is “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3.14). While on earth Jesus said “I live because of the Father” (John 6.57) whereas the Father “has life in himself” without anyone else giving it to him. As Wisdom personified, Jesus said, “Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way” (Prov 8.22).

vienne mentioned an excellent one the other day too: Micah 5.2 says that Jesus’ “origin” is from ancient times. God doesn’t have an origin but a creature does.

Those are just the scriptures that say Jesus is a creature most directly. There are dozens of others where it’s implied because he is distinguished from God, knows less than God, is less powerful than God, relies on God for everything.

One of the words later Trinitarians insisted didn’t apply to Jesus was poieo “made” yet that is used of Jesus in Heb 3.2. That verse doesn’t directly say that Jesus was created, but it is ironic the Bible, without a fuss, uses a word of Jesus that later Trinitarian dogma would say must not be used to describe Jesus.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

Thanks aqwsed12345 for the interesting conversation. We’ve not discussed doctrines like this for a while. At least I haven’t.

I don’t read Latin but AI translated it for me and it seems that Jerome was arguing that qana doesn’t mean “created”. That makes sense that, since he didn’t translate qana as created in Prov 8.22, he would argue that was the correct decision. I’m not sure it tells us anything new. It’s also worth noting that Jerome did translate qana as “created” in Gen 14.19. There is obviously more to consider than just what Jerome translated, and why, such as the LXX, the Syriac version, the Targums, modern scholarly versions such as NRSV, Robert Alter, and the rest who support the translation “created” in this verse.

Lots of people in the early church called themselves Trinitarian but do not meet the common modern definition of the word. Arius himself described himself as Trinitarian. So from that perspective maybe Lactantius is a Trinitarian. But where he appears to agree with JWs is that Jesus is an angelic creature and that only God the Father is without a beginning. If you say a Trinitarian can believe that Jesus was created before the world was created and still be a good Trinitarian, then I struggle to see what your problem with JWs is because that’s what JWs believe Too.

But lest by any chance there should be any doubt in your mind why we call Him Jesus Christ, who was born of God before the world, and who was born of man three hundred years ago, I will briefly explain to you the reason. The same person is the son of God and of man. For He was twice born: first of God, in the spirit, before the origin of the world; afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of Augustus; and in connection with this fact is an illustrious and great mystery, in which is contained both the salvation of men and the religion of the Supreme God, and all truth. Lactantius, Epitome of the divine institutes, 43

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0702.htm

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

Either Geoffrey Hinton or Eliezar Yudkowsky explain how the chess computer works in one of the videos, I can’t remember which, but it was interesting because it wasn’t what I had thought. Apparently there are three separate processes involved, roughly something like: 1) work out the most likely next move, 2) work out all the possible moves, 3) work out all the responses to all the possible moves. Then the actual move chosen is some compex combination of those different processes. Or something like that, again they explain it better.

It’s completely correct to say that all these AI machines are really doing is processing huge amounts of data, and using that as a predictive tool to simulate outcomes. In that sense it is “stupid”. It doesn’t even know what it’s doing.

But what people don’t seem to appreciate is 1) how powerful that ‘dumb’ process becomes at scale 2) the fact that everything, including human actions, can ultimately be reduced to predicable probabilities 3) that the emergent effects of the process can appear to simulate intelligence.

The fact that it isn’t technically an intelligent thinking entity is neither here nor there, it’s the effect that counts.

Today the big news is that AI can now predict human emotions and responses better than humans can. The implications of that are simply m mind boggling. Here we have been struggling to understand, predict and react to one another for millennia, with variable results, and here comes along a machine that can do it better than any of us. No doubt marketers and advertisers will be racing to use the new tool first. But in the long term I don’t see any other outcome than the demise of humanity altogether.

That’s not even mentioning the claim I read this morning that AI can ‘read thoughts’ from brain scans. That’s just insane, if true. The world is mutating faster than we can understand what is even happening.

Mr Mustard is completely right about AI not currently being able to anticipate the end of its response from the beginning. We can chalk that down on the ‘AI is stupid’ tally, no doubt about it. It doesn’t ‘think’ the way we do, despite its superhuman capabilities in other areas. That’s why it’s surprising to us what elementary thought processes currently seem to be beyond its ability. Maybe it will never master knowing the end of a story from the beginning, or perhaps it will figure it out by the end of this week. I don’t know. I don’t see that it really matters because the things that it can do are astonishing either way.

https://youtu.be/Y6Sgp7y178k

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

It can't deduce or combine information unless someone else has already done that.

Then what is it doing when it beats humans at chess if not discovering new ways of doing things that humans have not thought of?

Or what is it doing when it solves problems humans have been working on for years?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2330866-deepminds-protein-folding-ai-cracks-biologys-biggest-problem/

When it discovers a new way to kill all humans too, I guess we can say it isn’t anything “new” that it’s discovered, just a recombination of previously known data. It won’t be much comfort when we’re dead.

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

Yes it’s very stupid, and that’s not the point.

Chess computers are stupid too. They don’t realise they’re playing chess. In fact they don’t realise anything, they are just machines. All they are doing is using massive computing power in order to predict the best next move. In a sense it’s not really “playing chess” at all, it’s just mimicking somebody making chess.

But that is the point. Even though it doesn’t know what it’s doing, just by calculating the next move, and replicating what a chess player would do, it can now win at chess against any human, every time.

The same goes for the AI that pretended to be blind to get the information to enter the captcha. It’s fair enough comment to point out that it didn’t really know what it was doing, it just mimicked what it calculated to be a successful move in that situation to reach its goal. But that really is a red herring.

In terms of outcome, it doesn’t matter if the AI knows what it’s doing, or not. Whether the computer is playing chess, or it is mimicking someone playing chess is really immaterial in terms of the outcome of the game. The same with the AI that ‘pretended to be blind’. Whether it had any ‘intention’, or not (I don’t think AI has intentions, or thoughts, of any kind, or ever will) isn’t the point. The point is that it found a way to reach its goal through calculating the next move. When we reach the point that AI is better at calculating the next move than us in any given situation is when it becomes dangerous, because it will be able to pursue a goal whether we want it to or not. It will ‘know’ (in the sense that it will be able to calculate) the best next move to achieve its goal whether humans are in the way or not. If we do get in the way of it achieving its goal we are in danger, not because it has any malice for us, or any feelings at all for that matter, but just because it is better at manipulating the world to achieve its goal and we are in danger of being crushed by it.

Eliezer Yudkowsky explains the consequences and likelihood of this scenario, much better than I can, in this interview.

https://youtu.be/fZlZQCTqIEo