My sincere thanks to "scholar."

by yesidid 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  yesidid

  scholar please accept my heartfelt thanks.

  I was reading some of your replies in Dawn?s thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/58618/1.ashx and I suddenly thought: Although I have written to thank him, I really should show my appreciation to Ray Franz in a more positive way.

  It was your denigration of him which reminded me of all he went through at the time of his disfellowshipment. I was reminded of his loss of friends and loved ones. Your attitude towards him reminded me how his good name was besmirched by people WITHOUT integrity. I was reminded that at age 60 he had to go out and earn a living. Your posts brought back to me the pain and suffering experienced by a sincere man BECAUSE of his integrity.

  So I went to Paypal and sent him a gift.

  Surely it is gratifying to know your time on this board is not wasted but has been the precursor to helping a fine Christian man.

  Btw I also have earned initials after my name. I assume you will now accord me great respect.

  yesidid

  Hi YesIdid - I have tried to format your post so that it was more readable. I hope that it works - HS
• 

  ozziepost

  It's a moot point yesidid and you've well highlighted the damage to their own cause is caused by rabid dubs.

  Somehow I don't know that scholar feels he can 'show his face' as he's not appeared since I repeated my challenge to him to let me know his congo and I'd be pleased to speak to their elders and advise them of "the fine defense of the faith" that scholar is making on JWD. There's been no response since I made that 'generous' offer!

  BTW thanks to H.S. for the re-formatting. Looks good!

  Cheers, Ozzie
• 

  yesidid

  Yours was a very kind offer Ozzie. I cant understand his reluctance in accepting.

  yesidid
• 

  berylblue

  How did you send him a gift through Paypal? Would really like to do that, although he told me, when I asked if he would be offended if I sent him and his wife something, that I needed to hold onto my money.
• 

  hillary_step

  YesIdid,

  Our 'Scholar' has surfaced on another Board defending both the WTS and Rolf Furuli but has gained little support from anybody but the odd bluebottle buzzing around the carcass.

  As Professor Furuli himself is not willing to show the confidence that Scholar does in the WTS ( 'Oslo" ) chronology, and wisely admits that chronology is not an exact science, Scholars defense of the WTS seems very much to reflect the 'my country right or wrong' attitude that permeates the mind of many insecure people.

  That Professor Furuli has written a book questioning the collated evidence published by such as Carl Jonsson and long since viewed by the rest of the world as the correct viewpoint on the subject, and given that he falls short of making dogmatic statements about the issue, should give the reader pause for thought.

  Given Professor Furuli?s recognition that no one can say for sure when the exact date of Jerusalem?s first fall was, I wonder on what moral grounds, he as an elder would justify the shunning of those who pose questions to the WTS that in essence encapsulate his own feelings? For example, how would he treat a fellow JW in a Judicial Committee when they question the validity of the 607BCE-1914CE issue. Would he agree that the chronology could be suspect, or will he make the decision to shun them for ?apostasy?.

  I am sure that the faculty at the University that Professor Furuli teaches at are totally unaware of what he is willing to do to other people to force them to believe as he does. I am presently writing to the faculty to ask this very question.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  ozziepost

  how would he treat a fellow JW in a Judicial Committee when they question the validity of the 607BCE-1914CE issue. Would he agree that the chronology could be suspect, or will he make the decision to shun them for ?apostasy?.

  That makes two questions he's gonna have to answer, eh, H.S.?

  Cheers, Ozzie
• 

  scholar

  hilary step

  It seems that because Furuli omitted any reference to WT chronology that he is it variance with it because he ha proposed a Oslo chronology. Perhaps you need to read his book again and see that it is a frank, unbiased attempt to set matters staraight. For your information Jonsson's views are not shared by the rest of the world but are simply his personal view which is purely one amongst many.Yes why don't you write to his university and make a complaint and all that will do you is make your stupidity public.

  You seem to have a hang up with judicial committees, perhaps you should consider the more important issues of which chronology is at the bottom of the scale. Remember Jonsson only got into trouble because he disobeyed instructions given to him and published his treatise under a pseudonym and spread his theories amongst the brethren/

  scholar
• 

  ozziepost

  brethren??????

  Struth mate, which congo in Oz still uses that word?
• 

  yesidid

  Hi Scholar

  I am concerned that although you are an educated and ?lettered? man you may have been deceived by the WTS.

  Do you believe that CT Russell actually predicted the things that took place circa 1914?

  If yes you will be very interested to read the information below.

  ?Some may feel that the Society's time prophecy regarding 1914 must be correct since World War I broke out in that year. It would seem remarkable if an event such as World War I could be accurately predicted 39 years in advance. To consider the validity of this conclusion, we need to examine just what the Bible Students were predicting prior to 1914. In the book The Time Is At Hand, 1909 edition, page 77, 78 (See A10) Russell predicted these events to occur by or before the year 1914:

  1. Kingdom of God to have full universal control of the earth.

  2. Christ Jesus will overthrow all earthly governments.

  3. Before end of 1914, last member of Body of Christ glorified in heaven.

  4. Jerusalem (literal) will no longer be trodden down by gentiles.

  5. Israel's blindness turned away; Jews become converted to Christ

  6. "Time of trouble" to reach climax in world reign of anarchy.

  7. God's Kingdom completely consumes power of worldly governments.

  In the years preceding 1914, there was widespread fear of world war, which many felt was inevitable (4) . Russell, however, did not expect war to break out in 1914. Note this comment made in a Watchtower article in 1893:

  "A great storm is near at hand. Though one may not know exactly when it will break forth, it seems reasonable to suppose that it cannot be more than twelve or fourteen years yet future."

  Twelve or fourteen years from 1893 would be 1905 or 1907 - not 1914. So actually Russell was preaching that if war did break out it would have to be some years prior to 1914, when he expected God's kingdom to be fully established over earth. In actuality, none of the events that Russell predicted to happen did. And the one thing he did not expect to happen did.

  The year 1914 and the years immediately thereafter proved to be devastating to the Bible Students. They had expected to be in heaven ruling with Christ. Many of them left, their hopes dashed in bitter disappointment over the failure of their hopes to materialize. In the 1916 edition of the same book, Russell felt compelled to give the following explanation in the author's forward:

  "The author acknowledges that in this book he presents the thought that the Lord's saints might expect to be with Him in glory at the end of the Gentile Times. This was a natural mistake to fall into, but the Lord overruled it for the blessing of His people. The thought that the Church would all be gathered to glory before October, 1914, certainly did have a very stimulating and sanctifying effect upon thousands, all of whom accordingly can praise the Lord -- even for the Mistake."

  The confusion that they felt can be seen in a statement in the Watch Tower of September 1, 1916. After commenting on their disappointment that the harvest work was not over, but seemed to be continuing, he stated:

  "In the meantime, our eyes of understanding should discern clearly the Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty now in progress; and our faith, guiding our eyes of understanding through the Word, should enable us to see the glorious outcome -- Messiah's Kingdom." -- Watch Tower, September 1, 1916, page 265

  But history was once again to prove them wrong and it was necessary to "adjust." In this case "adjusting their understanding somewhat" meant transferring all the expectations for 1874 and 1878 to 1914 and 1919. After Russell's death in 1916, Joseph F. Rutherford became president of the Society. In 1917 he published The Finished Mystery in which he made some bold predictions of his own regarding the years 1918 and 1920. These predictions also failed to materialize. However when a new edition of the book was published in 1926, the offending statements were modified so as to cover up the false prediction.?

  You may access the complete material here:

  http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Creek/8867/Letter5web.html

  yesidid
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,
  

  It seems that because Furuli omitted any reference to WT chronology that he is it variance with it because he ha proposed a Oslo chronology. Perhaps you need to read his book again and see that it is a frank, unbiased attempt to set matters staraight. For your information Jonsson's views are not shared by the rest of the world but are simply his personal view which is purely one amongst many.

  Unmitigated nonsense. Please provide evidence for your ridiculous claim. Please list on this Board scholars, historians, chronologists who do not share the conclusion of Carl Jonsson?s collation, that is that the conventionally accepted date for the first fall of Jerusalem is not the correct one. While trying to formulate this list, please resist the temptation to begin and end it with either SDA or WTS 'scholars'. Those with personal agendas and compromised interests need not apply!

  At last you have come clean and show your true ethical colors. It has taken me quite some while to force this statement from your keyboard, but eventually it squeezed forth, as your comments below show.
  

  You seem to have a hang up with judicial committees, perhaps you should consider the more important issues of which chronology is at the bottom of the scale.

  I do not have a ?hang-up? with judicial committees per se. I have a ?hang-up? with judicial committees being forced on persons against their will, merely for voicing their concerns about the tenuous nature of WTS chronology upon which they float the Watchtower ship. You yourself have admitted that this it is beyond the authority of the WTS to behave in such a matter. I would like to think that you are honorable enough to try to work within to reform this moral outrage. Can you not see that this is not a issue of chronology it is a issue of the abuse of theological and Corporate ethics. We are only discussing this matter due to the brutal actions that the WTS has been guilty of, and continues to be guilty of, in forcibly removing from its fellowship any who would disagree with their chronology, a chronology that all parties involved freely admit might be incorrect. They have of late implied that even harboring private thoughts of ones own about such matters is showing lack of faith. Do you agree with this viewpoint?
  

  Remember Jonsson only got into trouble because he disobeyed instructions given to him and published his treatise under a pseudonym and spread his theories amongst the brethren.

  I am not interested in Carl Jonsson and why he was removed from the WTS. My argument is against a policy not a person and I have continually worked towards forcing you to disentangle yourself from personality and focus on the WTS and its unwarranted behavior in formulating a policy of punishing those who disagree with its chronological hypotheses.

  If Carl Jonsson were a sociopathic, drug running, philanderer it would not matter one iota to me, if his chronological and historical collation proves to be sound. The WTS has turned hiding its theological failings behind personality attacks into an art form, one that you seem to have learned very well. Just for the record, if Jonsson has obeyed 'instructions' and remained mum about the matter, he would over twenty years later still be sitting patiently, awaiting a serious attempt by the WTS at defending its own chronology and dealing with the issues that he raised. As it is they have to rely on Professor Furuli who cannot even publicly admit to having read Jonsson's books, as you yourself are unable to, for fear of theological retribution in the form punishment from the WTS. What a pair of cowards you make!
  

  Yes why don't you write to his university and make a complaint and all that will do you is make your stupidity public.

  For somebody who seems to find a dismal satisfaction in making his stupidity publicly known, perhaps I will indeed heed your warning.

  Best regards - HS