Who is the best apologist all-time on this board? (page 2)

shamus

I don't think any of them were good. I thought they were nuts.

jgnat

Joker10 - hit and run king. If he says little, he can't get shot down.

stillajwexelder

And Scholar has still not answered the question -- give one piece of secular evidence for 607 BCE

Yerusalyim

Sometimes I miss YOU KNOW...but my all time favorite was FRED HALL...the best...no...the most entertaining...yeppers.

stillajwexelder

Hooberus is a pretty good apologist wehn it comes to evolution/creation

xjw_b12

Yeah. Yardif, Fred Hall and You Know. More recently Sword of Jah.

mustang

(lights!!! camera!!! action!!!)

Hellll-OH, this is Howbert Kozell checking out the new Watchtower apologist candidates on the JWD Forums.

In the opening lineup, we find JCanon, fresh with a new name, bringing out the old Larsguy and Bibleman material of H2O fame. I can't say that he is a real apologist. He seeeeemz to have his own line of chronology and a theological insight all of his own. Boy, is thisss guy really outttt in left field!!!

If I didn't know better, I would say that he is trying out for reincarnation of Freddie Franz!!!

How is that other new contender, Scholar holding up to the old champion, YouKnow? To find out, lets join the critics "El Cisco & Skibert", already in progress:

(cut to remote feed)

Skibert: Ahh, it's the old "Watchtower Hypothesis" versus the "Jonsson Hypothesis", again.

El Cisco: Right!! So far, the score is Watchtower = x, where 0<x<1 to the Jonsson = 14 lines of evidence (successful references).

Skibert: Yes, and the part I liked is that 607 adherents = Watchtower (& Scholar, if you can pry the two apart), while 587 adherents = essentially all others. It's "where's the beef?" all over again.

El Cisco: Since we're only keeping score, the observations speak for themselves and this isn't a hypothesis.

Skibert: I agree. If you look closely, Jonsson is only keeping score, too. It is certainly not original and it really doesn't even go out on a limb, like the WTS does. Not much of a hypothesis, then, is it??

El Cisco: Quite so!! Scholar is of the "trash the Editors" persuasion, without any real substance. He really should go after the originators of all that work Jonsson quotes. Let's see him tangle with some real Ph.D.'s.

This is El Cisco-- (camera left)

and Skibert-- (camera right)

and it's two thumbs down on "The Scholar Show".

(fade to black)

Thirdson

I haven't seen an Apologist on this board worthy of being termed "best". Some on the old H2O posters were reasonably good for the WTS like Greg Stafford. However, of the ones mentioned already, they were (are) not particularly defensive of the WTS but rather propose their own personal variations of doctrine. Personal views as explanations do not defend the WTS's indefensible doctrines. As for You Know he had his set of doctrines that if publicly preached at the KH would get him disfellowshipped. BibleTwit et-al (Farkel's trademarked designation) are not followers of the Watchtower but are self appointed (or self-annointed even) messiahs of unique doctrine.

Thirdson

joenobody

lmao @ Mustang...

For the others, "best" means entertainment value. I certainly find little substance in most apologist's arguments.

Who is the best apologist all-time on this board?

Share this