i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
It would be nice if we had an "Ignore contributor" button.
But no, we shouldn't ban him. We're a mental health outlet for him. He's suffering from a form of ambivalence.
We can skip his posts if we want. That's what the page down button does.
On an unrelated topic, High School Seniors are not quite human.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
ahem. in the era and place Nicholas lived, they had no buttons.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
Your reply is an example of your usual faulty reply. It is verbose, off topic and in concise.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
Though I'm being less than polite by saying so, You are profoundly idiotic. I've made it clear several times, I've never been a Witness. I'm a historian. MA WSU. I'm working on my doctorate and assisting B. W. Schulz, PhD, FRHistS with his research into Witness history. I'm a socially conservative Christian loosely associated with an Abrahamic Faith Church. I'm substitute teaching to fund that part of my studies not covered by my scholarships.
Why is it that you cannot grasp what others tell you? The same problem arises in your response to arguments present by others. You go off in a tangent, never making a concise reply. I pity you while finding you irritating.
Take a breath, grasp the arguments. stop misdirecting threads.
One irritated woman,
Annie.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
Now back to Franz. He saw Rutherford as the lead spokesman for "the Elijah Class," apparently meaning the 'faithful' before 1942. Fitting Rutherford in to his prophetic schema, he wrote:
"On October 31, 1916, Charles T. Russell died while out on a preaching tour. Shortly J. F. Rutherford was elected to the presidency of the Watch Tower Society. Now the proof of the end of the Gentile Times as a sign from heaven became more impressive when the sixteenth nation, the United States of America, joined the world conflict on April 6, 1917. After Jehovah had answered Elijah with fire from heaven, Elijah had all the prophets of Baal there slaughtered as servants of the false god, Baal, Satan the Devil. Likewise, in July of 1917 there began a slaughter of the modern prophets of Baal in Christendom ...." - Let Your Name be Sanctified.
You'll want to read more of this to understand his rather confused presentation. But we see more of his self-serving and confused prophetic views in this:
"After Elijah slaughtered the Baal prophets, he went up to the top of Mount Carmel and prayed for rain. A rain cloud appeared and came overhead and a great downpour occurred. Correspondingly, a great spiritual blessing was poured out on February 24, 1918, which grew in proportions as the years followed. This was when the then president of the Watch Tower Society, J. F. Rutherford, delivered the famous speech in Los Angeles, California, on the startling subject f*The World Has Ended-—-Millions Now Living May Never Die.’* This talk boldly held forth the hope that the sheeplike people of earth who would turn to Jehovah and his righteousness would be hidden during the approaching battle of Armageddon and would survive into God’s righteous new world with its wonderful opportunity for everlasting life on a paradise earth governed by God’s kingdom."
He saw the transition from Rutherford's administration to Knorr's as the transition to work prefigured by the prophet Elisha.
The book is an interesting précis of Watchtower history, but set as prophetic fulfilments. Franz' writing style was effected by his beliefs. In form it emulated writers from the late 19th Century.
In the 1970s the Watchtower Society introduced a new writer. I do not know his name, and he didn't last. His grammar was atrocious and his wrting prolix. It was a change from Franz style. But thankfully who ever that was did not last.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
aqw is a Catholic evangelist who thinks we're all still Jehovah's Witnesses at heart. Most of us are x-Witnesses, some like me are interested parties, and the actual 'still in' people here is small.
He promotes Catholic philosophy, but much of what he writes comes from questionable sources. He does not take criticism, and he relies on the so-called fathers of the Church for his opinions. Sometimes I think he's a theology student, but if he is, he is a very poor one. He is unable to explore Christian origins outside what he finds in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
And yes, he inserts his Catholic nonsense into every discussion he can. Ultimately, I feel sorry for him. He needs a good face-to-face with an informed Witness or with someone such as Justin Peters.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
I should add that nothing I wrote derived from or remotely resembles anything Hyslop wrote.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
your view of Catholicism "as it is" is similar to a Roman believing in the old Gods because everyone says they're real.
Thanks Slim. He got it wrong as it always does.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
Both sources use the same stereotypical, manipulative depictions: fat, domineering priests who oppress the "poor" and profit materially from religion. These depictions aim to provoke emotional reactions but are not grounded in an objective understanding of reality or factual analysis of Church history.
This approach wouldn't work without a large element of truth behind it.
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
What the Catholic Church teaches about itself is irrelevant. No one would accept that convoluted reasoning if applied to a political entity. And the Roman church is one. Other than Russians no one takes Russia's' self identity at face value. We define Russia by its leaders actions. The same is true of any other nation.
I read Hyslop's book. It's what historians do. I read endless Catholic nonsense as well. But I don't find either creditable. Your attempt at insult is noted. Your church is corrupt. It is marked as corrupt by its past and by its current history. Your clergy are exposed as immoral. You history as you present it cannot be sustained. Your doctrines are false. Open your eyes. Your self-identity depends on historically and scripturally untenable claims.
When you discuss doctrine here, you consistently twist logic and scripture. I think you know this. You must be aware of how much you have to dance to make scripture fit your hermeneutic. I think you're here for self verification. If you were here for a clear scriptural debate, you'd abandon everything but scripture. No reliance on church teachings, "church fathers" or tradition. Just the Bible. That you do not approach debate here in that way reveals a considerable amount of ambivalence over the validity of your church and your place in it.
And I reiterate, I'm not a Witness. I've never been one. I don't care how offended you are by Watchtower publications.
