Posts by scholar

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

scholar

simwitness

RE; JONSSON'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

You are determined to ignore the simple facts of the matter. It is Jonsson who first raised this issue as part of his platform in deconstructing the teaching of the Gentile Times . The Society in its Proclaimers book with nor reference to Jonsson states that Brown connected the times as proven by the cooments on page 208. Jonsson referred to Brown firstly as part of the Gentile Times debate and the Society for the first time merely refers to Brown because ogf the association with Luke 21:24.

The issue is onlly important as it relates to accuracy. It is clear that connection does not mean equating as Alan Falleges, niether Jonsson, the Society or myself say that these times were equivalent. Jonsson makes a statement, the Society contradicts this with page 208. Case fully proved.

QED

scholar

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

scholar

simwitness

RE:JONSONN'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

this is not just some minor error on the part of Jonsson. In fact it is foundational to his original treatise and in his later published GTR. It is Jonsson who has raised the ante on this subject as the issue gets to the very heart of credibikity. If Jonsson is wrong on such a fundamental issue then one wolud question his ability in historical research. In other words, if you cannot get the facts of modern history correct then how can you work and interpret ancient primary sources. Jonsson has blundered with this recent history or has twisted, ignored or been biased the evidence. You then would have to question that in regard to secular chronology is he also being honest, biased and accurate with the data. Rolf Furuli well demonstrates that Jonsson's claims are biased and not accurate.

scholar

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

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

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

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

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

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

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

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

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

scholar

Alan F

JONSSON'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

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. If you are having trouble with the word 'connect' then I suggest that you consult a good dictionary. I have already explained the connection to you, Jonsson and Franz on the basis of three reasons as demonstrated in page 208 of Brown's Eventide, Volune 2.

scholar

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

scholar

joenobody

Re: JONSSON;S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

You need to read my previous posts on this subject and you will see what facts that I have supplied to support the above contention. I do not see how any credibility can be attached to some unknown telephone conversation between unknown people at Bethel, this is a meaningless argument which supports only those reaching out in desparation. The Proclaimer's book is unambiguous that 'connect' is the word used and not 'equate' and I do not believe for a moment that there is any confusion on this matter except in the biased minds of our critics.

scholar

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

scholar

JONSSON'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

No, I have not made an error in stating that Jonsson has hot it wrong in saying that Brown did not relate or associate the seven times with the Gentile Times and that he is plainly mistaken in accusing the Society of misrepresenting Brown. The facts are clearly set out on page 208 of Vol. 2 in Brown's Eventide. When I wrote to Jonsson and Brown I gave three specific reasons that plainly demonstrated that a connection of these times is plainly evident to the reader. Neither Jonsson or Franz replied to those three specific issues and chose to skirt around them. Both Jonsson, Franz and Penton are guilty of shabby and deceitful scholarship unworthy of a Christian. I have supplied the necessary references to those specific publications and it is up to you readers to do the research and determine who is telling the truth. Alan F has an agenda which is aligned to that of a person who has rejected Christ and has become an unbeliever. How can anyone who professes Christianity choose to believe his utterances. The fact of the matter is that the content and context of page 208 in the Eventide proves that Brown connected both times and that is the end of the matter. Franz and Penton have unintentionally supported this fact until it was brought to their attention and they have revise their opinion. This is an abuse of careful and accurate scholarship and does shows that these men have a problem in that they have allowed themselves to be misled by others. Why did not Franz explain his new viewpoint in his later edition and how is it that Penton's claim is at variance with a footnote. At least, Jonsson has been consistent in his claim form his earliest treatise to his latest edition. Jonsson. Franz and Penton have a lot of explaining to do and I for one will not let this matter die.

scholar

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

scholar,.

back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

(the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

scholar

JONSSON'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

Much rubbish has been posted by Alan F regarding the claim made by Jonsson respecting Brown and the 'times' and the Society's view of the matter as published in the Proclaimer's book. As I have said before I will reply in kind To Alan F's sarcastic and fearful rejoinder. Yes, I have written to Franz and Jonsson about the matter and I repeat that they igored the specifics points that I made to them. My permission to have such private letters made public was not sought from me and I view such treatment as unChristian and cowardly. I have given the details regarding this matter so as other readers can consult the relevant information and not be misled by those who have denied Christ. It is up to the readers themselves to make their mind as regards to the integrity of Jonsson's scholarship which when seen against the misuse of modern history is in my view reprehensible. It is only sycophants that allow themselves to be used by those who wish to promote deceit and error under the guise of so-called scholarship.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion