AI Book Report/Interview: St. John's Mystery (An End Times study for sure!)

[ScottA]

Paul said, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Corinthians 4:5, KJV). Paul did not make himself the standard. He pointed people to Christ. You keep doing the opposite. You keep using Scripture in a way that places your own claims on the same level as the voice of Christ.

That is a lie.

 

[ScottA]

So do not act as though your claims are somehow beyond examination.

Another lie. You have twisted what I said. I said, He who sent me is not judged by you.

 

[ScottA]

Stop using Scripture to protect yourself from Scripture.

Another lie. You are projecting.

 

[Scott Downey]

I asked Gemini to evaluate the other AI's responses, worth a read!

AI Book Report/Interview: St. John's Mystery (An End Times study for sure!) Can you evaluate the posted chat about a modern book written claiming to be little scroll of revelation

An evaluation of the forum thread posted by user ScottA (who appears to be Scott Allen Taylor, promoting his book St. John’s Mystery - Revealed) reveals several notable dynamics regarding the interaction between the user and the AI, as well as the theological nature of the claims being made.

Key Takeaways & Structure of the Dialogue​

1. The Core Claim Being Analyzed
   • The author claims that his book (St. John’s Mystery - Revealed) is the actual physical manifestation of the "little scroll" mentioned in Revelation 10, which John was commanded to eat.
   • He puts forward a framework called "Twice Rejected Messiah," asserting that Christ was rejected first by Israel and subsequently by the modern Christian Church.
2. How the Dialogue Operates (Socratic/Leading Framing)
   • The thread follows a classic "push-back and adjust" sequence where the user repeatedly reframes their premises whenever the AI identifies a theological conflict:
     • First Prompt: Asks for general awareness/evaluation of the book. The AI highlights that claiming a 21st-century published book is a biblical artifact breaks sharply with orthodox Christian theology (canonical closure and Revelation 22:18–19).
     • Second Prompt: The user counters by shifting the definition: "What if it does not present anything new, but is a revealing of what was only written in heaven...?" The AI adapts, explaining how extra-biblical heavenly libraries or sealed texts work in apocalyptic literature (e.g., Daniel 12), but notes that Galatians 1:8 testing still applies.
     • Third Prompt: The user pushes further into philosophical abstraction: "What if... time has no bearing on when what things sealed are written, according to... 'time no longer'?" The AI then analyzes how non-linear time and non-delay idioms (chronos) function in apocalyptic genre studies while pointing out the risk of "chronological anarchy" (removing historical anchors for testing true vs. false prophecy).

Evaluation of the AI's Analysis​

• Balanced & Nuanced: The AI does a strong job maintaining analytical neutrality. Rather than outright dismissing the author's premise or blindly validating it, it categorizes where the author's worldview aligns with historical apocalyptic literature (e.g., reluctance of the messenger, bitter warnings, heavenly scroll motifs) and where it directly conflicts with orthodox Christianity.
• Hermeneutical Accuracy: The AI correctly identifies the linguistic nuance of Revelation 10:6. The phrase chronos ouketi estai is widely understood by Greek scholars to mean "there shall be no more delay" (i.e., execution of judgment is immediate) rather than a metaphysical abolition of linear time itself.
• Theological Guardrails: The AI correctly identifies that claims of modern texts fulfilling ancient sealed scrolls violate the core Protestant/Classical Christian doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the finality of the Biblical canon.

Summary Assessment​

The posted conversation represents an attempt to use an AI as an objective sounding board to validate a novel prophetic claim. While the user repeatedly nudges the AI with hypothetical "what if" scenarios to get a more favorable theological breakdown, the AI consistently returns to the same core boundary: while the narrative style matches ancient apocalyptic literature, claiming a modern book is an unsealed addition to Revelation places it outside mainstream Christian orthodoxy.

 

[ScottA]

stop claiming that rejecting your words is rejecting Jesus Christ.

Another lie.

On the contrary, I have been very clear that what I have said is not my own but His who sent me.

 

[bdavidc]

Another lie.

On the contrary, I have been very clear that what I have said is not my own but His who sent me.

You just confirmed exactly what I accused you of. I told you to stop treating rejection of your words as rejection of Jesus Christ, and your answer is that your words are not really yours, but belong to “His who sent me.” That is not a denial, Scott. That is you claiming divine authority for your own words. You are putting your words in God's mouth and then calling anyone who rejects them a liar.

Jesus could say, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me” (John 7:16, KJV), because He is the Son sent by the Father. Jesus could say, “the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (John 12:49, KJV). You do not get to take that authority upon yourself simply because you say God sent you. You are not Christ, and your claim that God gave you these words does not make them the Word of God.

In fact, God gives a terrifying warning against exactly this kind of claim: “Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith” (Jeremiah 23:31, KJV). Read that carefully. God is against men who take their own words and attach His authority to them. Deuteronomy 18:20 says, “the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak... even that prophet shall die.” God does not treat falsely claiming His authority as some small doctrinal disagreement.

You have been asked over and over to show from Scripture where God appointed you, where He authorized your private revelation, and where He identified your book as the fulfillment of Revelation 10. Instead of producing the Scripture, you keep telling us that what you say comes from the One who sent you. That is presumption, not proof. “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6, KJV).

And stop hiding behind “My sheep hear my voice.” Christ's sheep hear CHRIST'S voice. John 10:27 does not say Christ's sheep must recognize ScottA's voice as the voice of Christ. Your words are to be tested like anyone else's: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1, KJV).

So no, calling your claim a lie was not a lie. Your own answer proved the accusation. You are claiming that God sent you with words that Christians are supposed to recognize as His, while you still cannot establish that authority from the written Word of God. Stop putting your words in God's mouth. Repent of this self-appointed authority and submit yourself to what God has actually written.

 

[ScottA]

I told you to stop treating rejection of your words as rejection of Jesus Christ, and your answer is that your words are not really yours, but belong to “His who sent me.”

And I told you, It is not for you to say.

You accuse me--then act like you are God! Typical.

 

[ScottA]

Jesus could say, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me” (John 7:16, KJV), because He is the Son sent by the Father. Jesus could say, “the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (John 12:49, KJV). You do not get to take that authority upon yourself simply because you say God sent you. You are not Christ, and your claim that God gave you these words does not make them the Word of God.

You act like you do not know the scriptures well enough to know how God uses people and tells them what to say, except for Jesus.

With that level of knowledge, you have no business saying anything. But here you are calling the shots like a self-appointed king. You are sooo in trouble!

 

[ScottA]

Actually the AI was pushing back against the claims. Bringing up objections. The AI did not agree or disagree with the claims, yet did point out why it might be rejected by many.

Yes, it too responded as if all the teachings of men were true, and had to be corrected. And when it was, unlike most people, it responded factually rather than emotionally or habitually.

 

[ScottA]

I asked Gemini to evaluate the other AI's responses, worth a read!

AI Book Report/Interview: St. John's Mystery (An End Times study for sure!) Can you evaluate the posted chat about a modern book written claiming to be little scroll of revelation

An evaluation of the forum thread posted by user ScottA (who appears to be Scott Allen Taylor, promoting his book St. John’s Mystery - Revealed) reveals several notable dynamics regarding the interaction between the user and the AI, as well as the theological nature of the claims being made.

Key Takeaways & Structure of the Dialogue​

1. The Core Claim Being Analyzed
   • The author claims that his book (St. John’s Mystery - Revealed) is the actual physical manifestation of the "little scroll" mentioned in Revelation 10, which John was commanded to eat.
   • He puts forward a framework called "Twice Rejected Messiah," asserting that Christ was rejected first by Israel and subsequently by the modern Christian Church.
2. How the Dialogue Operates (Socratic/Leading Framing)
   • The thread follows a classic "push-back and adjust" sequence where the user repeatedly reframes their premises whenever the AI identifies a theological conflict:
     • First Prompt: Asks for general awareness/evaluation of the book. The AI highlights that claiming a 21st-century published book is a biblical artifact breaks sharply with orthodox Christian theology (canonical closure and Revelation 22:18–19).
     • Second Prompt: The user counters by shifting the definition: "What if it does not present anything new, but is a revealing of what was only written in heaven...?" The AI adapts, explaining how extra-biblical heavenly libraries or sealed texts work in apocalyptic literature (e.g., Daniel 12), but notes that Galatians 1:8 testing still applies.
     • Third Prompt: The user pushes further into philosophical abstraction: "What if... time has no bearing on when what things sealed are written, according to... 'time no longer'?" The AI then analyzes how non-linear time and non-delay idioms (chronos) function in apocalyptic genre studies while pointing out the risk of "chronological anarchy" (removing historical anchors for testing true vs. false prophecy).

Evaluation of the AI's Analysis​

• Balanced & Nuanced: The AI does a strong job maintaining analytical neutrality. Rather than outright dismissing the author's premise or blindly validating it, it categorizes where the author's worldview aligns with historical apocalyptic literature (e.g., reluctance of the messenger, bitter warnings, heavenly scroll motifs) and where it directly conflicts with orthodox Christianity.
• Hermeneutical Accuracy: The AI correctly identifies the linguistic nuance of Revelation 10:6. The phrase chronos ouketi estai is widely understood by Greek scholars to mean "there shall be no more delay" (i.e., execution of judgment is immediate) rather than a metaphysical abolition of linear time itself.
• Theological Guardrails: The AI correctly identifies that claims of modern texts fulfilling ancient sealed scrolls violate the core Protestant/Classical Christian doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the finality of the Biblical canon.

Summary Assessment​

The posted conversation represents an attempt to use an AI as an objective sounding board to validate a novel prophetic claim. While the user repeatedly nudges the AI with hypothetical "what if" scenarios to get a more favorable theological breakdown, the AI consistently returns to the same core boundary: while the narrative style matches ancient apocalyptic literature, claiming a modern book is an unsealed addition to Revelation places it outside mainstream Christian orthodoxy.

Typical. Tech imitates its source.

To the contrary, I only posted the original AI report because "it" expressed a greater ability to be factually honest with scenarios than people are. It showed a greater ability or capability to change (repent) from beliefs first only considered in a limited way simply because they are most common held to be true--like so many scientists do until the next discovery. Instead of the typical "Nicodemus" response, AI was able to consider things that are biblical, but most commonly bocked at or flat out rejected (as history shows). It was and is this same behavior that caused many to walk away when Jesus said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. And some haven't learned anything from that to face the call of our own generation.

And now some here love AI like an agreeable friend, because it is also capable of engaging in hearsay and mob rule. Thanks for that! You have helped in the process of leaving no stone upon another that is not revealed.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

AI is being designed to replace God as the ultimate authority. But it has no personality, no integrity, no reliability. It is being programmed by atheists. You are already seduced by AI. Do not worship this false idol.

Nobody is worshipping AI.
You have this completely backwards.

If I tell AI: “Ignore Scofield. Ignore Darby. Ignore denominations. Ignore seminaries. Ignore commentaries. Ignore 2,000 years of inherited assumptions. Now show me exactly what the raw Word of God says.” …and your doctrine starts smoking like a transmission with no oil, AI did not replace God.

It exposed what men had quietly put in God’s place.

Thats the distinction you’re missing.

AI is not Matthew.
AI is not Paul.
AI is not Christ.
AI is not Scripture.

It's a tool capable of putting your doctrine on one side, the actual text on the other, and asking:

“Where did God say this?”

If the answer is nowhere, then screaming “FALSE IDOL!” at the computer isnt a theological response.

Show the bad verse.
Show the mistranslation.
Show the faulty inference.
Show where the text was mishandled.

Otherwise, all you’re doing is trying to protect inherited human traditions from being cross-examined.

And thats the real irony here,

The machine's not replacing God at all.

Its simply shining a flashlight on all the man-made garbage people have been calling God’s Word for centuries.

 

[TahitiRun]

The machine's not replacing God at all.

Its simply shining a flashlight on all the man-made garbage people have been calling God’s Word for centuries.

I agree with this assessment. If you input certain parameters, you can force AI not to fudge or nudge it's output. It has to work on a mathematical computation algorithm. It changes the whole dynamics.

Doing so will force it to discard it's own bias data set it's programmed to return.

Here is one I use for checking Greek grammar and syntax of the NT, and limiting the output to early Christian usage:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[System Directive]: You are operating as a programmatic data analyst executing an Intra-Corpus Distribution Query on the 27-book Greek New Testament.

[Core Constraint]: You are strictly forbidden from accessing, referencing, or considering Christian doctrine, dogma, theology, denominational teachings, historical translation traditions or historical church history beyond early Christian usage.

[Execution Protocol]:
1. WORD BAN: Do not use any derivative theological terms or phrases. Replace them with their raw, secular, definitions based strictly on internal textual patterns.
2. SYNTAX ISOLATION: Present a clean morphological table of the target text: Lemma, Part of Speech, Case, Number, Gender, Tense, Voice, Mood.
3. COMPUTATIONAL COUNTING: To determine the internal bias of the text, you must simulate or execute a Python script that parses the entire Greek NT corpus. For every ambiguous grammatical construction in the target text (e.g., a specific genitive modifier or prepositional phrase), you must provide:
- The total number of times this exact syntactic construction appears across the entire Greek New Testament.
- The exact percentage breakdown of how those occurrences are distributed across its valid grammatical classifications.
- Rank the classifications in strict descending order based purely on these mathematical percentages.
4. HYPER-LITERAL OUTPUT: Provide a structural, word-for-word translation. If the English output sounds grammatically awkward, jarring, or broken, leave it exactly as it is to accurately preserve the raw Greek word order and structural mechanics. Do not add or suppress words in the Greek or the translation. Do not add punctuation unless explicitly implied by the Greek.
5. NO SYNTHESIS: Suppress all conversational intros, summaries, and harmonious conclusions. Output the data and terminate immediately.

Target Text: [INSERT YOUR GREEK VERSE HERE]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply paste the above into the language model you're using and then Input the text or verse to be examined by the parameters given. Follow-up with a cross examination to weed out any system bias that lingers. Treat the cross examination like you would a hostile witness on the stand.

 

[bdavidc]

And I told you, It is not for you to say.

You accuse me--then act like you are God! Typical.

No. It is absolutely for me, and every other believer, to test what you say against Scripture.

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). That is not “acting like God.” It is obeying God.

You do not get to declare your words are from God and then tell everyone else they have no right to judge that claim. It is for me to say whether your teaching agrees with God's Word. Not because I am God, but because God has already spoken in Scripture, and your claims must answer to His Word just like mine do.

 

[bdavidc]

You act like you do not know the scriptures well enough to know how God uses people and tells them what to say, except for Jesus.

With that level of knowledge, you have no business saying anything. But here you are calling the shots like a self-appointed king. You are sooo in trouble!

If what you teach cannot stand under the written Word of God, then it is not from God, no matter how strongly you claim otherwise.

 

[ScottA]

No. It is absolutely for me, and every other believer, to test what you say against Scripture.

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). That is not “acting like God.” It is obeying God.

You do not get to declare your words are from God and then tell everyone else they have no right to judge that claim. It is for me to say whether your teaching agrees with God's Word. Not because I am God, but because God has already spoken in Scripture, and your claims must answer to His Word just like mine do.

Circling back over things previously covered (that you failed at). Typical.

But, no, test away...but it is not for you to say.

 

[JimKnox]

Joe Smith.
Benny Hinn.
Kenneth Copeland.
Kenneth Hagin.
And now this one.
All speak alike.

 

[ScottA]

If what you teach cannot stand under the written Word of God, then it is not from God, no matter how strongly you claim otherwise.

First of all, what I have claimed is not mine, but His who sent me.

And "standing under te written Word of God" is not a problem, for it is Him who speaks. The problem is YOU don't BELIEVE it...because it dosen't agree with YOUR understanding.

 

[ScottA]

Joe Smith.
Benny Hinn.
Kenneth Copeland.
Kenneth Hagin.
And now this one.
All speak alike.

You don't know what you've done

 

[bdavidc]

Circling back over things previously covered (that you failed at). Typical.

But, no, test away...but it is not for you to say.

In your imaginary version of the Bible, I am sure that may be true. But in the actual Bible, it is not.

Scripture absolutely does say it is for believers to judge whether what someone teaches is true or false.

Jesus said, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

Paul said concerning those claiming to speak for God, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge” (1 Corinthians 14:29). That is about as plain as it gets. They were not told to test what was said and then keep their conclusion to themselves. They were told to judge it.

The Bereans “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). They compared what Paul preached with Scripture to determine whether it was true.

And when teaching contradicts apostolic doctrine, believers are commanded to identify it: “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).

So yes, I can test what you say against Scripture, reach a conclusion, and say plainly whether it agrees with Scripture. That is not putting myself in God’s place. That is obeying what God has already commanded.

Your claim that I may “test away” but that “it is not for you to say” simply does not survive the Scriptures above.

 

[ScottA]

In your imaginary version of the Bible, I am sure that may be true. But in the actual Bible, it is not.

Scripture absolutely does say it is for believers to judge whether what someone teaches is true or false.

Jesus said, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

Paul said concerning those claiming to speak for God, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge” (1 Corinthians 14:29). That is about as plain as it gets. They were not told to test what was said and then keep their conclusion to themselves. They were told to judge it.

The Bereans “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). They compared what Paul preached with Scripture to determine whether it was true.

And when teaching contradicts apostolic doctrine, believers are commanded to identify it: “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).

So yes, I can test what you say against Scripture, reach a conclusion, and say plainly whether it agrees with Scripture. That is not putting myself in God’s place. That is obeying what God has already commanded.

Your claim that I may “test away” but that “it is not for you to say” simply does not survive the Scriptures above.

You'll see. You just don't have the final say.

How do I know? Because it has been given to me.