"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

simwitness

Scholar...

:It seems that you want to trivialize this matter and or either ignore it
If I wanted to ignore it, I would not have entered into this discussion with you.
However, I do see it as a trivial matter, especially in the grander scheme of things. You don't agree that it is trivial, big deal. Who's right? Me or you?
:The fact of the matter is Jonsson has stated his position rather dogmaticaly which contrasts with the less than dogmatic position of the Society as shown in the Proclaimers book.
Well, I'm sure volumes could be written on this one sentence alone, but here is my "simple, trivialized" answer:
Jonsson and the WTBS disagree, or have differing opinions on the matter at hand. Now, who is more Dogmatic about it? If you write the WTBS and tell them they are wrong, what stance will they take? What stance will Jonnson take? While they may both passionately defend their position, who says "believe as we say or die at the armageddon"?? Who will force your family and friends to shun you if you disagree with them?
Beyond that, and back to the point I made several posts ago: You have chosen the "fuzziest" connection possible in order for the WTBS to be correct in the Proclaimers book. (to "associate mentally").
My point is simple, Both author's are correct for thier intended meaning of the word "connected". Is it the same meaning? Absolutely not. Which one of the writings give's you the better sense for what Brown intended?
If you want to prove Jonnson wrong, your going to have to go alot further than restating what the WTBS states. Go to the source, study all the Brown (and only Brown) has to say about the two times, and decide for yourself if they were truly "connected".
Have a pleasant day.
stillajwexelder

If a Masters or Doctoral thesis was written on Scholars material and argumentation I would mark it down -- he needs to go back to Browns work, cite it, reference it an discuss it objectively as well as C.O.Js -- you do not write a thesis by blindly stating the WTBTS is correct
simwitness

Since I happened to have the copy of GTR that scholar references, I decided to look up the paragraph in question, found on page 69...
Quite to the contrary, as shown in the chapter above, Brown expressly stated as his firm conviction that the 2,520-year period begain in 604 B.C.E. and would end in 1917. Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2,520 years with the Gentile times of Luke 21:34, because, as pointed out in the chapter above, he held the Gentile times referred to in this text to be 1,260 (lunar) years, not "seven times" of 2,520 years. Both statements about Brown's calculation, then, are demonstrably false.
Now, scholar, the onus is on you.
Prove that Brown believed otherwise. You obviously have access to the GTR, the information in "the chapter above" and to Brown's work that is being discussed.
Prove where Jonnson made any error in this statement.
To Recap, the only proof you have offered so far is this paragraph of page 208 of Brown's work:
The times of these monarchies are fixed by the ?seven times? of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mohammedan Imposture.... then must it be maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the period of the second judgment; and commencing in 1873, are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates with the ?seven times? of the monarchies, and with the 1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917.... The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his second coming, foretels all these events; and upon that memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down of Jerusalem, and ?that the Jews should be led captive into all nations, during the times of the Gentiles, obviously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at which he is to appear as the Judge. [Vol. 2, p. 208]
And This "QED" From yourself:
The issue is onlly important as it relates to accuracy. It is clear that connection does not mean equating as Alan Falleges, niether Jonsson, the Society or myself say that these times were equivalent. Jonsson makes a statement, the Society contradicts this with page 208. Case fully proved.
And, also, where exactly does the society refer specifically to page 208 of Brown's book?
Have a pleasant evening.
AlanF

Sham-scholar once again told a number of lies:
: The fact of the matter is Jonsson has stated his position rather dogmaticaly
Glory be! A true statement! Heart be still! On page 36 of GTR-3 Jonsson states:
Brown did not himself associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24.
And on page 21 of GTR-2 Jonsson states about Brown (this is the statement that the Proclaimers book obviously objects to):
He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years.
The fact that Jonsson states correctly that the "Gentile times" were to Brown a period of 1,260 lunar years proves that Jonsson was using the word "associate" in the sense of "equate", not "vaguely and loosely connect".
: which contrasts with the less than dogmatic position of the Society as shown in the Proclaimers book.
Nonsense. The book states about Brown:
He did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
Note that the main point of the sentence is italicized. You can't get more dogmatic than that. The point of the italics was to dogmatically contradict Jonsson's statement in GTR-2 (1986); that much is obvious.
Furthermore, the sentence structure that Jonsson and the Proclaimers book use is identical:
Brown {did not, did, however,} {associate, connect} {this period, these "seven times"} with the Gentile {times, Times} of Luke 21:24.
If one is dogmatic, then so is the other. Your double standards are painfully obvious here, sham-scholar.
: I refer you to Jonsson's GTR, 1998, 3rd. edition, pp.36, and the italized' Brown did not connect' on page 69. This large page is a criticism of the connection explained in the Proclaimer book as reproduced on page 68. Jonsson is plainly in error
Wrong. As I have carefully explained, Jonsson is exactly correct. He understood correctly that, despite your ridiculous apologetics, the Society meant "equate" when it said "connect", just as the Writing Department spokesman explained to my friend. Since we all agree that Brown did not equate the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times", we must all agree that his statement is correct.
Furthermore, you have yet to give a word of explanation, despite my repeated explanations why you're wrong, as to why you continue to implicitly claim that Jonsson didn't mean "equate" when he used the words "associate", "identify" and "connect". Unless you do, your claims remain meaningless rhetoric.
Your problem is that you want to find something wrong -- no matter how trivial -- in Jonsson's writings so that you can dismiss all of what he writes. This is stereotypical JW behavior and proof of your sham-scholarship.
: and the Society was justified in stating the connection
No. The Society did not state "the" connection. They merely stated that was some unspecified connection. The facts as I have outlined above prove that the unspecified connection actually means an equation.
: as I have explained.
No. You've explained nothing. You've merely glossed over the facts and pretended to explain, despite repeated requests from several posters. You can't point to a single statement on page 208, or any other page, of Brown's The Even-Tide, that supports your claim. And we've seen that you're afraid to call the Watchtower Society in New York to find out that your ideas are bogus. Coward! Afraid to contact your own religious leaders!
Once again you prove yourself a pale imitation of a scholar. I'm sure you'd make a fine addition to the Society's Writing Department.
AlanF
simwitness

I have been giving this more and more thought, and my earlier comment:
My point is simple, Both author's are correct for thier intended meaning of the word "connected". Is it the same meaning? Absolutely not.
Is incorrect...
The WTBS use of italics and statement, along with no other background evidence presented shows that they intended to mislead the reader's of the Proclaimer book into believing that Brown connected the two times much more directly then Brown actually did.
While it is "technically" correct that on page 208 a connection between the two is made, it is not a direct connection, it is only a connection based on the timeline that the "Seven Times" would occur "during" the "Gentile Times".
Which one of the writings give's you the better sense for what Brown intended?
Unless scholar can prove otherwise, you would have to say that Jonnson gave the clearer sense of what Brown intended. If for no other reason then that Jonnson included enough evidence of the rest of Brown's work to show his line of reasoning.
scholar, Do you have any evidence to the Contrary? Evidence outside of the WTBS's own litereature?
Other than the 1 statement in the Proclaimer's book, where does the WTBS discuss at length Brown's work?
Do you have any evidence that shows that Jonnson, deliberately or otherwise, was biased in his research of this matter? Any evidence that he ignored any text within Brown's work, that Brown intended any kind of direct connection between the two?
Have a pleasant day!
scholar

simwitness
RE:JONSSON'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER
Sp, you and Alan F admit that the Society was right after all. You have grudgingly admitted that a connection exists even if it is a technical one. Neither of the two of you have given any attention nor did Jonsson or Franz regarding my three observations regarding the connection on page 208 of Brown's Eventide.
No, it is Jonsson who must prove his case as he first raised the issue with much dogmatism and then when the Society made a different statement he then spent some time in flagging his unsupported view of the matter. Jonsson has not proved that Brown did not associate, relate or connect the two times but has simply shown Brown' meaning and length of the seven times The Society has shwn when asled by me for evidence for their view and they wrote back and said that p. 208 shows the connection and they also sent a copy of page 135 which contains the meaning and length of the seven times (vol.2).
In short the Society has proved the connection and Jonsson has failed to prove that there was no connection, association or relation.
QED
scholar
czarofmischief

Scholar,
I know academic BS when I see it. I wrote a ton of it when I was in school. And you keep bringing it up! Why do you punish yourself? Why not surrender, or just DROP IT! You've LOST! Admit it!
Latin phrases and a pretentious signature do not a scholar make.
Send me a check for fifteen thousand dollars and I'll send you an honorary degree in religious studies...
CZAR
simwitness

Sp, you and Alan F admit that the Society was right after all.

No, quite to the contrary. The society attempts to mislead the readers that Brown DIRECTLY connected the two times so as to make them one and the same. The society is wrong in this reguard. Your attempts to trivialize what the society meant in the proclaimers book will not help you.
Where does the society refer to page 208 as it's "proof" of the connection? If it is in personal correspondance to you, please scan and post it so that other's can see this "proof". Also, have you actually read the entire body of Brown's work and come to this conclusion on your own, or is your only bits of proof that which the WTBS has sent you?
it is Jonsson who must prove his case as he first raised the issue with much dogmatism and then when the Society made a different statement he then spent some time in flagging his unsupported view of the matter.
Jonnson has provided more than enough proof for his position. You on the other hand have only provided the words of the WTBS as your proof. You need to do more work than this if you want to convince anyone that you are correct.
Unsupported by who? As far as I can tell, it is only unsupported by the WTBS. You have not shown that his view is unsupported by anyone else.
In short the Society has proved the connection and Jonsson has failed to prove that there was no connection, association or relation.
No, they haven't proven it, by any measure of proof. They have only stated it.
Answer this, scholar... is time linear? Arent all things then connected thru time? Is this the connection that the WTBS implies? Is that the only connection that exists between the two?
Jonsson has not proved that Brown did not associate, relate or connect the two times but has simply shown Brown' meaning and length of the seven times
But isn't Brown's meaning/length and very definition of the two times where any true connection would occur? Where has the WTBS discussed, at length, these meanings?
Do your homework, don't just keep reciting the same tired words.
Farkel

Of all the idiotic statements made by all the idiotic clowns about all the idiotic doctrines promoted by the totally idiotic WTS, I find this one most amusing:
: Sp, you and Alan F admit that the Society was right after all. You have grudgingly admitted that a connection exists even if it is a technical one.
Evidence to prove this allegation, please?
: Neither of the two of you have given any attention nor did Jonsson or Franz regarding my three observations regarding the connection on page 208 of Brown's Eventide.
Uh, what? Your observations were demolished! You should run for political office. It is a haven for liars.
: No, it is Jonsson who must prove his case as he first raised the issue
When I see crap like this, I shudder and cringe. Jonsson doesn't have to PROVE anything. It is the WTS who made their claims that bear the burden of proof. Jonsson merely demolished them. Don't put the burden of proof on the one who attacks the claims UNLESS the one who makes them (your beloved religious Taliban) has solid evidence to begin with. They don't. They pulled that crap right out of the place where the sun don't shine and they don't even dare to defend it. They can't. They used to talk out of the place where the sun don't shine to try to defend it, but they don't even bother to defend it anymore. They can't and they know it.
: with much dogmatism and then when the Society made a different statement he then spent some time in flagging his unsupported view of the matter. Jonsson has not proved that Brown did not associate, relate or connect the two times but has simply shown Brown' meaning and length of the seven times The Society has shwn when asled by me for evidence for their view and they wrote back and said that p. 208 shows the connection and they also sent a copy of page 135 which contains the meaning and length of the seven times (vol.2).
Brown doesn't count. He wasn't a dub leader and was never a dub. Red Herring, you fool. What matters is what RUSSEL taught and what has influenced dub thinking by virtue of his teachings.
: In short the Society has proved the connection and Jonsson has failed to prove that there was no connection, association or relation.
I read this thread, and your assertion above and your comments during this thread falls. Flat. The (S)ociety(tm) hasn't proved anything in this matter. They are dealing with air, and as such there is nothing solid in their arguments. Except air. And flatulence.
Like you.
Farkel
AlanF

Well there, sham-scholar, once again you lie and lie and lie, just as do most of your sorry ilk.
: Sp, you and Alan F admit that the Society was right after all.
Wrong.
: You have grudgingly admitted that a connection exists even if it is a technical one.
I've explained to you exactly what Brown's "connection" is until I'm blue in the face. Your militant braindeadness is breathtaking.
The "connection" is not merely "technical", according to Brown -- it's a simple matter that the "Gentile times" is a period of 1,260 lunar years from 622 A.D. through 1843 A.D., and is contained within the "seven times" which run from 604 B.C. through 1917 A.D. Thus they are not equal periods, and the only "connection" is that the one is contained within the other. I've given you many statements from Brown proving this. Jonsson also quotes sufficient material to prove it.
Now, if the Society's author had explained all of this in the Proclaimers book, there would be no problem. But he did not. Instead he contradicted -- with emphasis -- Carl Jonsson's clear statement which implied unequivocally that Brown did not equate the periods. You have consistently failed to address this simple fact in your replies to me or to simwitness. Your scholastic cowardice is evident.
Since Jonsson clearly implied in his book -- and stated outright in his emails to you and to me, which I reproduced earlier in this thread -- that Brown did not equate the two periods, and the Society's author contradicted Jonsson, then it's obvious that the Society's author equated the two periods. And in this you have already admitted that he was wrong.
QED
: Neither of the two of you have given any attention nor did Jonsson or Franz regarding my three observations regarding the connection on page 208 of Brown's Eventide.
Of course I did. I dealt with each point on the very first page of this thread we're posting on: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/61024/1.ashx . You're a very bad liar, sham-scholar, since your lies are so easily refuted.
: No, it is Jonsson who must prove his case as he first raised the issue with much dogmatism
Which he proved by references.
: and then when the Society made a different statement
For which they gave no references whatsoever.
: he then spent some time in flagging his unsupported view of the matter.
When one can prove one's position by references, and someone else contradicts one's statement by mere assertion and zero references, then one has a completely supported position. You lie yet again, sham-scholar.
: Jonsson has not proved that Brown did not associate, relate or connect the two times
He certainly has, by the references he cited, along with his clear argument that these words mean that Brown did not equate the two periods.
: but has simply shown Brown' meaning and length of the seven times
Not "simply". He has shown the meaning and length of both periods, the "seven times" and the "Gentile times", as I've outlined above. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this is yet another lie on your part.
: The Society has shwn when asled by me for evidence for their view and they wrote back and said that p. 208 shows the connection and they also sent a copy of page 135 which contains the meaning and length of the seven times (vol.2).
Big deal. They're wrong and you're wrong. The Society demonstrably lies in many of its publications, citing references that don't support their point, even to the extent of citing references in supposed support that actually contradict the point.
The fact that ten years ago Governing Body member Albert Schroeder told me that he understood the statement in the Proclaimers book to mean that Brown did not equate the two periods is proof that the statement as it stands means "equate". Schroeder was a Gilead Instructor for decades. Who are you to contradict him? And of course, my friend recently got another confirmation of this from the Writing Department. Who are you to contradict them?
: In short the Society has proved the connection
Wrong. They've not proved a thing. They've made a simple assertion.
: and Jonsson has failed to prove that there was no connection, association or relation.
Once again we find you deliberately failing to address my and simwitness's clear proofs that Jonsson meant "equate" by those words -- and you already acknowledge that Brown did not equate the two periods.
The fact that you lie and lie and lie about this issue, and the fact that you've deliberately slandered two fine Christians, Raymond Franz and Carl Jonsson, prove that you're a gross, disgusting liar, sham-scholar. You should be ashamed of that, because you claim to be a Christian. But we who have plenty of experience dealing with JW apologists know that they have very little of the Christian spirit of child-like honesty. They've sacrificed their 'child' to the Molech who sits in an ivory tower in Brooklyn.
AlanF

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Share this