A good JW is NOT supposed to be here. That's for sure! .......Scholar, what does the Witness community think of you posting here???
Why Aren't Jehovah's Witnesses Allowed To Freely Express Themselves?
by minimus 113 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
You claim that Alleymom had diminished my comments on chronology and that you THINK she has similar qualifications to my own.
What I think is that you either deliberately chose not to read the post is which Alleymom noted her BA in Theology, or you have a memory similar to Mr Furuli where it comes to remembering detail. Let me refresh your memory with Alleymom’s own words:
I make no claims to be a scholar. I have done a lot of reading, but I have never published an article in an academic journal. My only degree is a BA in religion.
You note :
If this is the case then why does she not declare herself?
Please see above quote.
You are entitled to believe in her so called superiority in her debate with me but I have not finished yet and no doubt these issues will resurface and we will see what happens.
Well, Scholar, your debate with Alleymom is a matter of public record on the Board. It grieves me to be the one to inform you that everybody walked away from that debate fully convinced that you had met your match, lost the joust and were well and truly finished. AlanF has also served your scholarly head on a platter over the matter on a number of other occasions, so at this stage I salute your resilience, rather as I would a one legged man attempting to hop up Annapurna’s icefall, but you will need to bring something more substantial to the table next time.
As to your use of the phrase 'so called', I just love it when the WTS uses that phrase, you know how it goes, 'so called Christians', 'so called lovers of God', I think I even remember the phrase, 'so called Scholars'
Rolf Furuli's new book as a piece of pure scholarship will at the very least cast considerable doubt on the validity of the Jonsson hypothesis.
It may it may not. As he falls short of declaring the ‘Oslo Chronology’, or might we call it the ‘Furuli hypothesis’, as anything but a possibility, it may achieve nothing more than actually strengthening the conventional view of the dating of the first fall of Jerusalem. It must be re-stated that Mr. Jonnson’s research was nothing more than the collating of numerous threads of evidence already in existence, sometimes for hundreds of years.
Best regards - HS
Who has a UK degree ( the only real ones... )
-
Richie
Is Scholar from Australia? I thought he was, but then when I read his posts, I started to wonder whether Australians (or New Zealanders for that matter) speak English as their mother tongue.... Well, to put it bluntly: Scholar's English is very poor indeed, if not embarrassing to say the least... and then come to think of it - his "titles" speak for themselves. In my humble opinion: an enormous inferiority-complex...
Just an observation....!
-
scholar
hilary_step
You talk about remembering detail when Alleymom said she has a BA in religion whereas you said she had a BA in theology. Please get your facts right as there is a big difference between theology and religious studies. You seem to think that discussions on this board are a like a chess game to see who is the smartest player or someone must be victorious as in a debate. Frankly, it does not bother me at all if you or others believe that I have been beaten for I can assure you that the truth about biblical chronology transcends all of our egos.
Rolf Furuli has already admitted in his book that the Oslo chronology is an hypothesis and unlike Jonsson has not proclaimed that his work is infallible. Rather, he urges the reader to be cautious in viewing any chronological scheme as such schemes can only be viewed as tentative.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
-
jschwehm
"Scholar":
Having read Carl Jonsson's book I never recall him stating that his work was infallible. However, I do think that the evidence he gives in his book supporting his views is pretty overwhelming.
Secondly, if Mr. Furuli really believes as you say that all chronological schemes should be viewed as tentative, how can he support a religious organization that shuns individuals for not completely accepting their chronological scheme as “the truth revealed on high from God”? It would seem to me that Mr. Furuli even if he agrees with the WT chronology should be critical of them for behaving in this way.
Jeff S.
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
Rolf Furuli has already admitted in his book that the Oslo chronology is an hypothesis and unlike Jonsson has not proclaimed that his work is infallible. Rather, he urges the reader to be cautious in viewing any chronological scheme as such schemes can only be viewed as tentative.
Can we assume from this comment that you now accept the WTS chronology regarding the first fall of Jerusalem is tentative? If so, do you feel that your posts on the matter over the past year have left people with this impression?
I am in agreement with you that the whole issue is one that must be decided on weight of evidence. We have discussed this before. The weight of evidence as collated by Jonsson is firmly against the WTS. At the very least, enough evidence exists to suggest the WTS is mistaken in their view as to make the issue of shunning those who disagree with it a moral outrage that all decent people should vigorously oppose.
What is important in this whole debate, and yes debates are very useful tools for informing onlookers and getting fact before many minds for discussion, is that once you accept that the WTS chronological interpretation is ‘tentative’ how does this acknowledgment impact the rest of WTS doctrine attached to this issue?
As to Alleymom’s scholarly credentials, the point I made was that her BA was similar to your own. She has a BA in Religion, you claim to have the same BA in Religious Studies. I think my point is made as you must remember it was you who suggested that she had NO scholarly credentials and asked why Marjorie ahd not declared her credentials when actually she had. It was your good-self who got his facts entirely wrong.
Rolf Furuli has already admitted in his book that the Oslo chronology is an hypothesis and unlike Jonsson has not proclaimed that his work is infallible.
Well, at least we can now for the common good of all refer to the Watchtower chronology as the ‘Watchtower hypothesis’. I would also be interested in evidence supporting your claim that Jonsson views his collation as ‘infallible’.
As to the matter of ego, well I can think of nothing more egotistical than a group of semi-educated men in Brooklyn pontificating on matters of which they are not qualified to discuss and then insisting that six million people believe what they do on pains of shunning. Your ‘Faithfull Slave’ it seems are the manifestation of ego.
Best regards - HS
-
minimus
Hillary, your points about shunning IS THE POINT! How can anyone disfellowship a person for chronology issues when the evidence is clear that at best the Society is almost always wrong in its understanding of dates and prophecies???
-
berylblue
minimus
I do not where you have been but your experience with Jehovah's people is different to mine as I have been an independent thinker since 1964 and to this day remain an active Witness proud of his Christian heritage.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
Yup. I've seen this kind before. So off the wall even the most fearless DO won't "mess" with him.
-
minimus
Beryl, that comment by him shows he's a fraudulent Jehovah's Witness. You can't be independent, post on these boards and be "proud" of your Christian heritage. He doesn't respond to what the rest of the congregation thinks of him posting on an "apostate" board. He wouldn't dare speak of it or else he'd get DF'd.
-
scholar
hilary_step
Perhaps you should put the question of whether the Jonsson hypothesis is infallible or not to Jonsson himself but his book certainly presents his scheme dogmatically. I have no problem in saying that WT chronology or any other chronology is tentative and able to be falsified. But I believe that WT chronology is the best I have seen and its foundation is such that faith can rest upon it. The acceptance of the Jonsson hypothesis can only constitute a denial of faith and prophecy.
scholar