"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS (page 7)

ozziepost

I've already offered to phone Scholar's congregation elders for him, but he's ignored my request!!!

simwitness

scholar:

You give me the name of the person that you or your agent spoke to in the Writing Department and I will phone that person

What should his name matter, dont't all in the Organization believe exactly the same things? Isnt all of the writing department led by the "Holy Spirit" such that any answer given, from anyone, would always be correct?

If you are having trouble with the word 'connect' then I suggest that you consult a good dictionary.

No one here has had any issue with the word connect, But many of us are still wondering exactly what you mean by the word connect.

Again I ask you to state, as concisely as possible, your "Three Reasons", and to also explain how they have not already been addressed. Remember, just becuase you dont agree with the response does not mean that your reasoning has been ignored.

So, for the benefit of all, please restate your reasoning. Obviously, we don't "get it".

Farkel

: Alan F has an agenda which is aligned to that of a person who has rejected Christ and has become an unbeliever.

Ad homimen, and unworthy of any scholar who says it is a "scholar."

: How can anyone who professes Christianity choose to believe his utterances.

First stupid mistake:

1) How can any one who professes to be a "scholar(tm)" end a question with a period?

Stupid mistake number 2:

You didn't make any argument with your question that ends without a question mark. You made an appeal. An appeal is not an argument "scholar." It is a form of a red herring. "Any person who believes what AlanF wrote CANNOT be a real Christian." You never addressed the actual arguments. You appealed to all "Christians" to deny everything he said, because if they did not deny it they somehow simply cannot "profess Christianity."

[deleted]

Farkel

scholar

Alan F

Re: JONSSON'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

your inability to identify the person contacted in the Writing Committee renders such alleged conversation as irrelevant. In my experience members of the Bethel family do in practice identify themselves. Perhaps, no one likes you. You ask for a definition of the word 'connect' and I supply the following from the Macquarie Dictionary,1992, 2nd edn, p,391: "4. to associate mentally." If you read page 208 you can make your own connection or association of the seven times with the Gentile Times. I have made mine on the basis of 3 reasons which are incontrovertible.

Your favorite and honest scholar

scholar

simwitness

Re: JONSSON'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

I have already supplied those reasons in my original postings on this subject so take the trouble to read such. Perhaps, it would be better if you read page 208 of Brown's Eventide, Volume 2 and you will see the connection and will declare : Jehovah's Organization is one of Truth!

scholar

simwitness

scholar,

I have read them, and yet you still haven't made any sense... In an earlier posting, you stated that your reasons were being ignored. Since you have been answered point by point by others, I failed to see where they were ignored. I was assuming that if you would repost them, we would all be able to understand precisely the point you are making.

I do not have access to a copy of Brown's work, but I will take at face value the postings by others that refer to it. It would appear that you are over connecting the connection. "To associate mentally" the two times is a far cry from what you have been suggesting in your ealier posts.

If I have to read Brown's work in order to see that "Jehovah's Organization is one of truth", was he a memeber of the organization? Should I listen to the rest of his work?

I "associate mentally" the "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" with an "abusive cult", does that make it a fact? or even the right association?

And, finally:

Jehovah's Organization is one of Truth!

That specifically precludes the WTBS as a member of that organization. It's been well documented the number of lies that are contained within the WTBS publications, new and old. They can't even be honest when it comes to their own history.

scholar

simwitness

RE: JONSSON;S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

My advice to you is that you read page 208 if you cannot grasp the point then perhaps you can explain the relevance of Luke 21:24 in that immediate context. Is it conncection, relation or association or is it just there as a word filler?

scholar

simwitness

scholar...

Remember, you are the one making the claim that there is a "special" connection between the two.. I am just questioning your reasoning. Nothing more. You are the one required to prove your point, as I have no point to prove.

I have already stated that I do not have access to the work in particular.

Earlier in this thread, Gamaliel posted what appears to be the relevant passage from the book, and it clearly showed that the gentile times would occur within the seven times... that was the extent of the connection, that one would occur during the other.

Does that mean that we are to "associate mentally" these two times so as to make them equals? Are these two times to be considered the same? Is that the connection you want out of them? That is the connection that the WTBS infers in thier writings.

Is this the relevant passage to which you refer? Was Brown any more, or less, inspired than the WTBS writers? Why should we put any additional weight to this writing? Furthermore, you have stated that other's made a mistake when referencing the WTBS reference to this writing, and that proved them to be "un-scholarly". Not only have your "specific reasons" been shot down, but you have proved yourself to be very "un-scholarly" in your approach.

When questioned, you fall back on non sequitor and ad hominum attacks instead of explaining your position.

Wether or not the two times are connected is, technically, irrelevant at this point. You are attempting to discredit individuals based on interpetations of thier writings, which is in turn interpeting others writings. You pick meaning of words so as to make them so vague, while ignoring the obviousness of the writers intent.

Who's more correct when talking about Brown's connection of the two times? The WTBS or others? At this point, I say who cares... interpeting a dead mans interpetation of a passage in the bible seems like a collosal waste of time to me.

In short, scholar, you are unable to deal with facts.

Have a pleasant day.

scholar

simwitness

RE:JONSONN'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

It is you that have a problem with dealing with facts. Jonsson first raised the issue when he stated that Brown did not associate the Gentile Times with the seven times (GTR,1986, 2nd edn.,p.21. Years later the Society in its Proclaimer's book simply stated that Brown did connect these times and this connection is shown on page 208 of Brown's work. Franz and Penton have also reached a similar conclusion to that of the Society but have since their original statements have withdrawn their comments. The simple fact is that the Society is corrrect in stating that a connection, association or relation is clearly evident in Brown's work and that Jonsson's statement is an error. This is my view of the matter and I do care too much whether you agree or disagree because for me the facts are all that matter.

scholar

Satanus

Scholar

Did not brown say that they were related in that the gentile times, the mohammedan invasion and occupation of southern europe, were within the other, longer times period? Does not the wt claim that they are one and exactly the same?

SS

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Share this