by Slidin Fast 540 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Jeffro
Haha. My position, arrived at independently, is consistent with the world’s best experts on the subject. ‘scholar’ on the other hand simply parrots the view of a minor denomination with obviously superstitious beliefs. Hardly a draw.
---
Your opinion is not independent at all as you provide no details but simply pander to discredited scholarship based on an old theory traced back to the 3rd century CE.
scholar JW
🤦♂️ I’m done with your idiocy for now
Phizzy:
SCHOLAR DID ! against the excellent jeffro of course.
He more than likely did (his repetitive retorts are like white noise after a while). But he also made an ad hominem attack against Porphyry (3rd century CE), dismissing him as a ‘critic of Christians’ as if that has any bearing on whatever he might otherwise say about the actual subject matter. Worse still, ‘scholar’ insists that my position is based on the views of Porphyry, who I have actually never referenced, mentioned, or even considered regarding Daniel or anything related to JW beliefs. That is to say, ‘scholar’ was initially ignorant at best the first time he made the claim about my position, and a bald faced liar after the first time I told him I didn’t reference Porphyry.
A lot of criticism but scholar’s commentary stand up.
Fisherman:
A lot of criticism but scholar’s commentary stand up.
Haha. Stand-up comedy maybe. And even then, not good. I mean, stuff like this:
WT publications since 1958 have always maintained that a small section of Daniel namely ch.11 describes the Seleucid Period as history by means of prophecy.Who else but the Watch Tower Society could say they’ve ‘always’ been consistent about something for the period that they’ve said that thing. Amazing! 🤦♂️ But in that time they’ve changed their interpretation of verses 17-19 (which they now concede to also relate to the Seleucid period), 25-26 and 40-45.
Jeffro
🤦♂️ I’m done with your idiocy for now
--
Are things getting a little hot for you!!!
scholar JW
Jeffro
He more than likely did (his repetitive retorts are like white noise after a while). But he also made an ad hominem attack against Porphyry (3rd century CE), dismissing him as a ‘critic of Christians’ as if that has any bearing on whatever he might otherwise say about the actual subject matter. Worse still, ‘scholar’ insists that my position is based on the views of Porphyry, who I have actually never referenced, mentioned, or even considered regarding Daniel or anything related to JW beliefs. That is to say, ‘scholar’ was initially ignorant at best the first time he made the claim about my position, and a bald faced liar after the first time I told him I didn’t reference Porphyry.
--
False, Porphyry was the first person to introduce the idea that Daniel was not a work of the 6th century but was written much later in the time of the Seleucids in the 2nd century thus making Daniel not a prophet but simply a historian so in the context of this debate it is prudent to know where ideas originate and that is why I brought the matter of Porphyry to the table.
Your views originate with sloppy scholarship traced back to the late 19th century with the beginning of 'higher criticism' of the Bible so the mention of Porphyry is simply a footnote to history.
scholar JW
Jeffro
Who else but the Watch Tower Society could say they’ve ‘always’ been consistent about something for the period that they’ve said that thing. Amazing! 🤦♂️ But in that time they’ve changed their interpretation of verses 17-19 (which they now concede to also relate to the Seleucid period), 25-26 and 40-45.
--
Unlike your static worldview, our worldview is dynamic and consistent with the progression of true knowledge.
scholar JW
🤷♂️🤦♂️
