Oslo hypothesis vs. Jonsson hypothesis (page 2)

Grout

"Scholar":

For someone who doesn't give two hoots, you certainly are doing a lot of hooting.

Farkel

Anyone who choses the name "scholar" for a nickname and feels compelled to shout that it has a BA and MA in Religious studies on every single post has just got to be a major twit.

Farkel

scholar

Farkel

What about your nickname 'Farkel'? Are you jealous of my academic qualifications?

SCHOLAR BA MA Studies in Religion

your word games ("strained dates, similarly, based on") will work on JW's, who are quite subject to GB mind control techniques, buzzwords and all; they will not work here, we need FACTS and REASON; not straw man arguments.

I am with Farkel on this one; anyone who trumpets his "qualifications" is covering for lack of a cogent argument.

And besides: does not God's own organization remind us that he has given the truth to the lowly ones? NOT for "true christians" are the plaudits and trappings of a formal education in this world.

Edited by - Pistoff on 11 January 2003 21:57:36

Marvin Shilmer

Whoever writes:

Are you jealous of my academic qualifications?

Is your last name Tatum? (Willy getet?)

What academic qualifications? All I see is a claim. Are claims of academic level supposed to impress educated readers coming from the writer of a pseudonymous work?

Writing under a pen name requires a composition to speak for the writer instead of the writer speaking for him or herself.

If you have something to say then say it. Educated readers will decide intelligence.

Marvin Shilmer

Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 11 January 2003 22:32:10

Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 11 January 2003 22:33:10

WTinfiltrated

Dear Scholar......don't you think could be better keep close your mouth

and to play this surprise in another way ?

If you are in the List...... pay attention to your words.

bye

WTinfiltrated

rem

Scholar evidently believes that the Catholic Church was justified in condemning Galileo's Heleocentric theory over the Geocentric theory that their biblical 'exegesis' supported. When facts conflict with theology, this 'scholar' chooses theology.

So Scholar, do you believe the sun revolves around the earth, since the Catholics had a valid theological reason for believing that... even to the point of persecuting dissenters of that theory?

rem

Amazing1914

What Scholar needs to do is read Gentile Times Reconsidered, and then give us all a "peer" review. Show us any defects or problems with Jonnsons work. A feat I doubt he will step up to, because that would involve some real work ... from a real scholar ... which I doubt he/she is.

boa

I certainly am NOT a scholar.....nor do I feel I should have to be to understand 'truth'.

Yet, apparently, the Society would have me believe that we are living in the 'last days' since 1914, supported by a 2-fold 'evidence' package. One is claimed to be 'Bible chronology' and the other being the 'composite' sign apparently given by Jesus to keep us awake to his 'presence'. And so here I am being told this is God's organization, which is entirely based upon a 'foundation' of the above beliefs having to be true since the organization was also 'examined' a few years after 1914, some sifting done, and then 'approval' as God's One True Channel was bestowed upon the bros of early last century.

This complex, detailed, not easily supported Scripturally or Historically, 'foundation', is supposed to be SO sure, and EVIDENCE that its the simple 'truth'? I did indeed read Carl Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered book and found it had the ring of 'truth' more than anything the Watchtower Society has ever written about the subject. Forget this Furuli for a minute - Why the Hell has the SOCIETY not come back with a reasoned, scholarly, truthful reply to Jonsson's argumentation which is now almost 30 yrs old??? Why did they treat him the way they did at the time, including essentially 'shelving' his information instead of discussing it at length and with research and prayer?

Better yet, why does the Society virtually NEVER answer its critics in a scholarly, reasoning and public forum??? Hmmmmm seems to be a picture forming here.....something about cultlike organizations...

Appendix 14 of the 'Kingdom Come' book is a shameful example of jounalistic and intellectual dishonesty imo! There is testimony that the driving force behind supporting the claimed 607 date was to discredit the means used to arrive at the 587/586 date! Shame! and a pitiful testimony indeed of the so-call 'truth' to support its 1914/607 cornerstone doctrine, without belief in, or support of, the whole card house comes crashing down imo. (has already many years ago)

I suspect you will never address any of the facts that Jonsson refers too since that is not the way of jw apologists. I've never seen them do so anyway. What I have seen them do is be all of what the Society claims 'apostates' do, namely , resort to deceptions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods -shame! They'll do the usual 'bait and switch', 'red herrings', 'circular reasoning', and other tactics to avoid directly confronting the issues.

Starting on Page 308 of Jonsson's book regarding Gentile Times, there is a very good section commenting on this Furuli, hmmmmmm, wonder if Furuli would care to simply refute Jonsson's assertions about his evident lacklustre performance in even addressing this subject from the very get-go?

boa.....who in the end is just another Parrot.....

hillary_step

Scholar,

You have for months used the word 'hypothesis' to attempt to discredit Carl Jonssons collation.

Yes you are correct in that Jonsson accepted the traditional chronology ans sought to provide additional evidence by means of the secular records and his own exegesis of the seventy years. However, he provides a critique of the Gentile Times based on this research as well as his own exegesis of Luke 21:24. This material however lacks any theological perspective which I believe is a major weakness in his argument, a fact that I have constantly referred in my oustings on the Jonsson hypothesis.

The very basis of Jonsson's work you now admit is not an hypothesis, but merely a collation of already published and accepted evidence from mumerous scholars the past one hundred and fifty years and longer. Your agenda is to try to discredit Jonsson by any devious means open to you, but your attacks are continually shredded by your betters.

You have yet to provide the evidence that you stated had been published by 'numerous" scholars agreeing with 1914CE as the end of the Gentile Times. Where is this evidence?

You are nothing but a scoundrel and a sham, and I suspect you are driving more JW's into the arms of apostates by your ramblings than you would like to imagine.

Best regards - HS

Oslo hypothesis vs. Jonsson hypothesis

Share this