Hello Hellrider!
You wrote:
"I personally see the "this generation will not pass away" in a more "poetic sense". Perhaps it refers to some kind of mental state in the individual. This would be in agreement with John, where eternal life together with Christ is seen as an internal state, that begins in the present."
Even when I was a fundamentalist I would occasionally have moments of clarity when I 'snapped out of it' and realized dead men do not come back to life, walk out of their tombs, and fly away. There were times I realized, even as I do now, that the Bible is a story book. A fascinating story book with a deeply engrossing history, but a story book nonetheless.
Therefore, I am in sympathy with your statement. Certainly we must look for the non-literal interpretation of fantastic claims such as the parousia (par OOZE ee-ah in modern Greek..I always hated hearing my JW friends pronounce it par oo SEE ah), etc. I apply these verses allegorically, which is probably not far from your poetic sense.
One can also simply dump the Bible and Christianity, which is what I did for a decade. I sought spiritual reality in Far Eastern thought, and became a Buddhist priest. Slowly I came to realize that all religions are a response to the experience of the Numinous. Some are better responses than others, yet at heart they spring from the same Source. They all make use of Mythology. So, I returned to "the faith of my fathers" but not as a literalist. I feel a deep unity with all spiritual people no matter what path they have chosen, but my feet are firmly in the Hermetic mystical tradition of the West. Gnostic Christianity.
The Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Death-Resurrection-Ascension-Deification, the Kingdom of God are actually stories about each of us. We are all the Divine Reality in material form. We are each the Incarnation. The death-resurrection-ascension-deification are each our own inner experience if we choose them to be and work toward achieving that experience of transcendence.
The Kingdom of God is within us.
All of that as a preliminary for this: I am the egg man. I am the walrus. Koo koo ca choo!
Some days my mind refuses to cooperate with itself!
Yours in Life,
Nate
Nate Merit
JoinedPosts by Nate Merit
-
20
MATTHEW 24:34 !!!
by Nate Merit in[ homepage ] [ up ][ heaven ][ debates and speeches ].
the skeptical review version may be found at:.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/4/004genea.html .
-
-
Nate Merit
-
25
Rex "The Shining One' Responds At Last
by Nate Merit ini am championing the method of interpretation used by the nt writers.
the common folks took them literally.
you can easily rectify your situation by making up your mind to "study to show thyself approved unto god, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-
-
Nate Merit
Hello Infamous One
I have an entire series of childrens books published under a pseudonym which shall remain a pseudonym. I do not want any connection between the delight of my life, writing for children, to have any association with my religious writing. I have never been blessed with children, so this, I think, is my way of making up for never having been a parent. My wife is also a published author and I think her writing is an outlet for the same energies.
Are you mainly interested in writing for the sheer joy of it? I write poetry (not very well) for the release it gives me. I read it for the same reason. If you are writing for the sheer joy of it, you should try www.LuLu.com Of all the POD (Print On Demand) publishers, they are the best by far. They're essentially free. You do have to purchase an ISBN number for your book, and they currently cost about thirty six dollars. LuLu has staff on LiveHelp who can walk you through the process of uploading your Word document into the LuLu software for conversion to PDF format in preparation for publishing. Or you can simply hire someone to do it for you for twenty dollars. In POD publishing, nothing is published until someone orders a copy of your book or CD or DVD or calendar. You keep 80% of your profits made from sales directly from the LuLu site, LuLu gets 20%. Once you move onto Amazon, Borders, B & N, however, you have to reduce your royalty significantly to keep yuor book affordable. The booksellers have to make a profit too and they add a hefty sum to the cost of your book.
My royalties from Jehovah Unmasked are $3.47 for every copy sold on the LuLu site, even in PDF download format. To keep the book affordable on the online book-sellers, I had to reduce my royalty to 65 cents per copy. However, that is still a hefty royalty. Jehovah Unmasked will not be available on Amazon for several more weeks.
You can make a custom cover for your book, or choose one of many book covers LuLu makes available free. I hired a commercial artist who was hungry for work to create the cover for my book Jehovah Unmasked. She did a strikingly good job. If you wish to publish your poetry, I strongly suggest LuLu over traditional publishing. Number one, you are 100% assured of being published, you have absolutre editorial and artistic control of your work, and you retain your copyright. For the fee of the ISBN number, your book also gets placed on Amazon.com. That's hard to beat. Books of poetry have a narrow market appeal, as does a book such as Jehovah Unmasked. That's why I chose POD publishing for it.
Yes, by all means avoid the slush pile. Your chances of getting into print that way are vanishingly small You need a literary agent for your novel. They really are indispensible in the traditional publishing world. Especially now. Competition is stronger than ever before. I do not recommend POD publishing for your novel. Your novel probably has mass market appeal, so you owe it yourself to try traditional publishing first. POD publshing for a novel should be a last resort.
I hope that helps. I have to sign off from this site for several weeks and get cracking on my new book. This is my first time interacting with my former brothers and sisters in "the Truth" and I am addicted to reading what you all have to say. You're a fascinating bunch and I feel right at home. I do need to yank myself away and get back to work. Hopefully, I wil be back soon.
You are more than welcome to email me directly at [email protected] if I can answer any more questions or help you in any way that is within my power. I'm pleased you've decided to take this step and make your dream a reality.
Yours in Life,
Nate -
20
MATTHEW 24:34 !!!
by Nate Merit in[ homepage ] [ up ][ heaven ][ debates and speeches ].
the skeptical review version may be found at:.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/4/004genea.html .
-
-
Nate Merit
Thank you TS!
I enjoy reading your posts very much. You and Leolaia both make my visits here a lot of fun.
You keep on rocking too. (I love that song)
Yours in Life,
Nate -
25
Rex "The Shining One' Responds At Last
by Nate Merit ini am championing the method of interpretation used by the nt writers.
the common folks took them literally.
you can easily rectify your situation by making up your mind to "study to show thyself approved unto god, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-
-
Nate Merit
Hello Carmel
I was referrign quite specifically to the wasteland which is 'liberal' Protestantism. Having followed the historical-grammatical hermeneutic to the bitter end, modern critical scholars have exposed the bible for what it is in a manner befitting Sherlock Holmes smarter brother. Alas, having exposed the Holy of Holies as empty, they have nothing to give to the spiritually hungry. This has resulted in persons such as yourself and myself searching the Mythos of other cultures for spiritual life. You may succeed in fulling converting your inner self to a foreign culture and path, but I doubt it. There is no need to even try, however.
Discovering Myth, midrash, and the allegorical method gave my spiritual life and my culture back to me. In terms of Advaita Vedanta, the Gnostic 'Pleroma' is Saguna Brahman (Brahman manifested), my individual soul is of course my Jivatman, and the divine Spark is the Atman. Which is Brahman.
Nothing can disturb my spiritual life as a Gnostic Christian as science and history once disturbed my fundamentalism. Being Myth, the stories in the Bible are allegories of inward psychological events. They enable and nurture inner growth, just as the Mythos you have embraced nurtures you.
My only caveat for you is to stop following someone or something outside yourself. You are the Buddha, the Christ, the Avatar. "Be ye a Refuge unto yourself" as Gotama summed it up. Less reliance on dead heroes, and more reliance on your own Christ-Buddha-God nature. They are all different terms for the same underlying Reality.
Goodnight and good luck in your seeking.
Namaste,
Ven. Lantien Shanfa
aka 'Nate Merit' -
25
Rex "The Shining One' Responds At Last
by Nate Merit ini am championing the method of interpretation used by the nt writers.
the common folks took them literally.
you can easily rectify your situation by making up your mind to "study to show thyself approved unto god, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-
-
Nate Merit
Hello the Infamous One
I am in total agreement. However, at 52 years old, retired and ill, I assure you I am not 'on the prowl.' I do have a lot of time for writing, but it needs to be spent finishing up my next book. Not wasted responding to...well, whatever exactly Rex is.Nate
-
20
MATTHEW 24:34 !!!
by Nate Merit in[ homepage ] [ up ][ heaven ][ debates and speeches ].
the skeptical review version may be found at:.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/4/004genea.html .
-
-
Nate Merit
Hello Fairchild
I'm extremely glad to know that you walked away from the WTBTS. I hope you are making the transition well. I think if I had had a support group such as this, my own recovery would have been faster, and perhaps I might not have even needed a counselor.
I hope we both live to see the WTBTS crumble, and Jehovah's Witnesses freed of their tyranny. They can return to being Bible Students. That would be grand.
Yours in Life, Fairchild
Nathan -
20
MATTHEW 24:34 !!!
by Nate Merit in[ homepage ] [ up ][ heaven ][ debates and speeches ].
the skeptical review version may be found at:.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/4/004genea.html .
-
-
Nate Merit
Guten abent Forscher!
I remember being fifteen and seeing the German word forscher and having to ask my dad what it meant.
You probably already know this, but a growing number of mainstream Christians are embracing Preterism. The belief that Jesus meant what he is reported to have said in Matthew 24:34, and the entirety of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by 70 AD with the fall of Jerusalem. Their articles, books, and web-sites make for some interesting and unusual reading.
Yours in Life,
Nathan -
20
MATTHEW 24:34 !!!
by Nate Merit in[ homepage ] [ up ][ heaven ][ debates and speeches ].
the skeptical review version may be found at:.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/4/004genea.html .
-
-
Nate Merit
Hello Emperor Greendawn!
My apologies. Looking at the icon now, it makes sense that the focus should be on the kneeling knight.
Thank you for taking the time to post.
Nathan -
25
Rex "The Shining One' Responds At Last
by Nate Merit ini am championing the method of interpretation used by the nt writers.
the common folks took them literally.
you can easily rectify your situation by making up your mind to "study to show thyself approved unto god, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-
-
Nate Merit
Rex the 'shining one' is in quotation marks, my responses are in parentheses. For those who wish to avoid the preliminaries, at the bottom of this post is Rex's latest "response" to me, and mine to him. I have removed, for ease of reading, my original post that sparked Rex into dogged action.
(Rex, my first impulse to your silly post was to command you to cease biting my ankles! OUT damn Spot..er, Rex! However…) "Your motive for an argument like this is twofold: you play to a aympathetic audience and you ask for more time and effort to be done than your assertions are worth." (I'm surprised that someone who supposedly holds the Bible in high regard would discourage his readers from studying the Bible directly for themselves, telling them that such a study is a waste of time! How can an effort such as this be a waste of time? Study to show thyself approved into God. This study is worthwhile, but you in fact are lazy and wish to avoid the work. Instead, you wish to try and derail this discussion, but I shan't let you. Hopefully, there are two kind of sympathetic ears to appeal to: those in possession of their critical thinking faculties, and those who revere the Bible. How unfortunate you apparently fall into neither category. How very WTBTS of you to discourage those here from studying the Bible directly for themselves) Same motive and you are denying the dual application: immediate literal and later prophetic. (Little one, thank you so very much for telling me what I am doing. I was really quite unaware of what I am about until I was awakened by your irresistible erudition and implacable logic. Until you came forward and set me straight as to what I am doing, I thought I was telling people that the Bible is a marvelous book of Mythology, and as such should be interpreted allegorically, as Paul did. As the other NT writers did. As the early church did. The tragedy of the HG (historical-grammatical) method and modern thought is that the power and purpose of Myth have been lost. The scientific method has done many wonderful things, but it has removed from the human psyche the vital and indispensable capacity for resonating with Myth. Myth enables us to speak the ineffable. Myth enables us to experience those Spiritual Realities that are simply beyond our human categories of thought and speech. Rex, I know that you will not do this, and that is genuinely sad. Nonetheless I encourage you to learn more about Myth and it’s function in the spiritual life of humans past and present. A good, easy way to begin is to go to your library and borrow The Power of Myth. (It’s even available in DVD and VHS format, so you don't even have to strain yourself and read it, you can simply watch it) In it, the late great Mythologist Joseph Campbell is interviewed by Bill Moyers, and he enables moderns such as ourselves to once again resonate with Myth, to cease being bound by our purely modern ideas about spiritual realities. Modern ideas that call for a strict literalism, the belief that the people and events in the Bible and other sacred literature must be true in a scientific and historical sense. This view has had tragic results for modern man. The scientific method applied to spiritual things resulted in the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation. A cloddish literalism, which breeds fanaticism. For if my way is literally true, then it must be the one and only way. Therefore everyone else is wrong and must be converted into thinking in the same literal terms. The scientific method applied to religion has led to spiritual death in the western world. Myths were never intended to be taken literally. They were (and are) used to carry sublime truths in story form. An excellent example is the Myth of Prometheus. Certainly not literally true, it nonetheless carries a powerful Truth about the nature of knowledge) "Scripture is the best interpreter of scripture." (Indeed it is! That’s why I am asking people, yourself included, to take the time to investigate and see how the NT writers use the OT. You, however, wish to make assertions without any evidence to support them, as well as discourage people from undertaking this study. How better to learn how to properly use the OT than to follow the example of those who penned the NT? I suppose one of your Dispensationalist hacks is better suited to the job? I think not ) "Modern theology" is often the death of faith for those who are perishing in the first place. "Modern theology" is often a betrayal of the very core aspects of belief. Modern theology is most usually refuted by conservative scholarship." (So many assertions and presumptuous assumptions here little one. This statement of yours is priceless: ‘Modern theology is most usually refuted by conservative scholarship.’ Please show me an example. I would love to see it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You have made an extraordinary claim. Yet I only ask for ordinary evidence. An example or two. Come now, certainly you are up to this great challenge. What is ironic here is that the essentially German scholarship you are vilifying is in fact the historical-grammatical method you are championing! (You cannot have it both ways little one) A placing of the Bible in its "sitz en lieben" (situation in life, its actual historical context) so to speak. Investigating the Jewish culture, history, language, religious practices and traditions, and adhering very strictly to the history and grammar of the Bible. The result is exactly as you describe: spiritual death. You think yourself very clever little one, but alas you are not. YOU are the one championing the historical-grammatical method, not I little one. I am championing the exact opposite, yet you wish to tar me with the brush of your own kind! I am championing the method of interpretation used by the NT writers. Anyone who takes the time to engage in such a marvelously productive study as I advocate will quickly see why you are trying to discourage people from making this effort. (You are such a diabolical little arguer! The WTBTS taught you well. Too bad for you I am aware of your JW/fundy tricks) For those joining my spanking of the little one here a bit late, my challenge is to read all of the OT verses that are quoted in the NT in their actual OT context. Yes, read the surrounding context. You will quickly discover they did not follow the historical grammatical method that what’s-his-name here is advocating. What IS your name by the way? I use my real name. I don’t hide behind some silly pseudo-identity.) "Solid, Biblical hermeneutics uses the tested methods of interpretation of literature in general. It is what most of us do naturally: we take a story and compare what it says to our own experiences; it may be literal only; it may have allegorical applications or be entirely allegorical, metaphorical, etc. Text without a context equals a pretext." (Ah, so now the very thing you vilified above is now "solid." If by solid you mean ‘thick as a brick" I quite agree. The historical-grammatical method is not only absent from the Bible, it is absent from the early church as well. Fundy boy Rex will certainly not investigate the actual early church because he prefers his fantasy version to the real thing, but for the rest of you, check out: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ You will find that the early Christian church used the OT [and NT] in an allegorical non-literal fashion, just as the NT writers did. The historical-grammatical method is quite recent, not really taking wing until the Protestant Reformation. Such methods are absent from the Bible itself. Something else you should become informed of is Midrash. Midrash is the ancient Jewish practice of telling and retelling the same stories in the Bible over and over, using different characters and different circumstances in each retelling. An obvious example is the figure of Joshua in the OT. "Joshua" is simply the Anglicized form of the Hebrew name Yeshua, which in Greek is loosely ‘Jesus." If one substitutes "Jesus’ for "Joshua" in the OT, all sorts of marvelous parallels between the OT Jesus and the NT Jesus become evident. This is Jewish Midrash. An extremely readable yet scholarly introduction to the Jewish practice of Midrash and its presence in both OT and NT is the book Liberating the Gospels by bishop John Shelby Spong. (It was my distinct pleasure to offer him some suggestions for his book Why Christianity Must Change Or Die) Oh dear, he is a dreaded Liberal and gay! With AIDS no less. I’m sure your residual JW fear of demons will keep you from reading any of his books. Heaven forbid you should actually expand your mental horizons beyond the narrow confines of your fundamentalism. Midrash is a further discovery of the actual nature of the Bible, and another nail in the coffin of fundamentalism. Also, your claim that conservative scholars treat the Bible as they would any other piece of literature is patently absurd and ludicrous even on the face of it. On the contrary, conservative scholars put the Bible in a special category in which the Bible has neither peer nor superior. In their view it is ‘inerrant and infallible." Truthful in all it affirms, the very Word of God. So please cease your efforts to throw up a smoke-screen. You merely wind up blowing smoke up our derrieres.) "Let's see, is that a gentic fallacy or cause and effect? LOL " (Did you mean genetic or generic? I am quite unfamiliar with ‘gentic’ as is my Merriam-Webster dictionary. Quite seriously, what are you going on about little one? As a devoted disciple of Hegel, I of course reject any notion of a causal relationship between your divided fundamentalism and the historical-grammatical method. No, I quite agree they are totally outside the nonexistent chain of cause and effect, and are as untethered to reality as is your own mind. These sects arose magically, of themselves. They are effects without a cause. Bravo little one.) "Scripture interprets scripture, the Bible is authoritative and inspired. Once you lose focus of that you deny the very basis for and ability to interpret scripture accurately." (Indeed, the Bible interprets the Bible. I am in utter and complete agreement little one. Once again, you are being sly and sneaky, but Uncle Nathan sees what you are up to. Naughty naughty shame shame. YOU are the one discouraging others from investigating how the NT writers use the OT. I am the one encouraging them to do so. I am the one encouraging them to use the Bible biblically. The saddest part of you entire ‘argument’ is that you encourage blind faith in your assertions about the Bible, and discourage anyone from rising above your fundy methods. Your discourage independent study of this nature, insulting the Bible by calling such a study of it a waste of time) "They are not 'fundamentalists in the first place, they are revelators: they are apostles." (I see. Well, please be patient with me little one. To my feeble mind it seems rather self-evident that the apostles would be the ones to set the tone for interpreting the OT. If the HG method is true, I would expect the Apostles to be our examples by using the HG method. Yet, they do not. Which you realize, or you wouldn't be discouraging the good folks here from investigating this matter. However, the NT writers do in fact use the HG method. The Holy Ghost method, not the Historical-Grammatical method. Kindly tell me why those who would be our Examples (Paul said he was our Example) do not use your method of interpreting the OT?) "NO, not at all. We are bound by well tested rules of interpretation and that is the basis for valid hermeutics." (You have said it well. "We are bound." The historical-grammatical method does indeed bind you. The strictures it places upon you are very restricting indeed. Perhaps that is why the Holy Ghost ignored the Historical-Grammatical method when inspiring the apostles. Again I find it ironic that you extol the praises of the historical-grammatical method, yet discourage other from investigating the NT writers use of the OT by their own personal study. You extol the historical-grammatical method, yet vilify the modern critical scholarship which is simply the historical-grammatical method sharpened to a fine edge and point) Nor would I in your precarious position. I hate to say it Nate, but your book is destined for the rubbish heap. If it ever gets a real 'peer review' it will be a treatise on how NOT to interpret scripture. (Those who can, do. Those who cannot, simply sit back, fill their belly with the east wind, and let fly. My peers are not the likes of you, that’s for sure. My book is doing nicely, thank you, especially in PDF format. Also, since when is the majority view the correct view? The mass of humanity once believed the earth to be flat. They were mistaken and disproved by a few ‘nuts’ with ‘crazy’ ideas. The same with the once majority view that the earth is immovable. As with the once majority view that the sun and stars revolve about the earth. The common mans view of things is usually wrong. If you were a bit more educated you would know this. I plead Matthew 7:13-14 as to "the majority." Genuine spiritual insight has nothing to do with common people and their common views. That’s why you are stuck in literalism. The ancients clothed their spiritual insights in the clothes of stories. The common folks took them literally. Just as you take the marvelous spiritual nature of the Bible literally and thereby miss the mark.. Far from being precarious, my position is that of the Bible wrters themselves and the Early Church. You may verify this with just a smidgen of mental exertion on you part. Here again is the link:) http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ "Like any other JW, you just blew the context out of that verse!" (I plead guilty! Line me up against the wall with Jesus and the apostles, and shoot us all with your Dubya-Dubya AK-47. I will die with my fellows, those who follow Jesus and the Apostles in how they use of the OT and NT) 'Others' should be understood as 'true scholars'. (Please inform me what advances conservative scholars have made. Please. Just give a few examples. That’s all I ask. Nothing extraordinary. The same with your assertion that conservative scholars defeat ‘liberal’ scholars. LOL this is so laughable. The ‘liberal’ scholars you denigrate are your own kith and kin! They too follow the historical-grammatical method, yet you fear (and rightly so) to follow them in their folly. You choose to follow the historical-grammatical method to the edge of the precipice it leads to, but refuse to follow it over the edge. You are self-contradictory but I laud your decision) "You are very good at using arrogance, bluster and appeal to your own authority in order to manufacture a argument from nothing! Are you actually Greg Stafford?" (An argument from nothing! Now you are calling the method used by the NT writers "nothing!" First you discourage this valuable direct personal study of the Bible as a waste of time, and now you call it nothing! I began this post simply by making observations about how the NT writers use the OT, and you turned it into a personal attack, and an attack on the NT writers. It is I that am arrogant, but you are the very Incarnation of Humility? I would laugh if I didn’t find this so very sad. I am indeed arrogant, and freely admit it. You, however are equally arrogant and too arrogant to admit your arrogance.
March yourself to a mirror this instant my little pony boy and have a good look at yoursefl. I was struck by your denigrating of my academic achievements in Religion, particularly the Christian Religion. How very JW/WTBTS of you. I have good news for you. The Bible says "be babies as to evil, but in your understanding be adults." I am of the opinion that you use your adult critical thinking abilities in all areas of your life. It is perfectly all right if you use them in your religious and spiritual life as well. There is no need to feel ashamed of your own lack of education in matters Biblical. I realize that I made you feel inadequate, and that put you on the defensive, and you attacked. You can easily rectify your situation by making up your mind to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." I have appealed to everyone to study the Bible for themselves and see how the NT writers use the OT. I have NOT appealed to my own authority. Rather, I have encouraged others to use their own God-given minds. It is YOU that have made heavy handed statements about the authority of your historical grammatical method, conservative scholars, made ad hominem attacks, as well as using some of the most diabolical subterfuge I have ever seen. Rather than appeal to nothing, as YOU have done, I appeal to the NT writers, and recommend that everyone here do this favor for themselves. As to letters after my name, I apologize for making you aware of your own inadequacy. As I said, you can rectify your situation. Meanwhile, since I am indeed admittedly arrogant, I shall flaunt my achievements. Its very easy for the uneducated and uncouth to make accusations and groundless assertions, but it takes time and effort to answer the fool according to his folly. I have spent way too much time taking you seriously and responding. I have a life, so I cannot keep on trying to educate you. I am in the middle of writing my next book, and I have begun a translation of the authentic books of the Apostle Paul. I have a wonderful wife, family, friends, hobbies in addition to my writing. So, it is moot as to whether you take me seriously. I have work to do, and as much as its been fun interacting with fellow former Jehovah's Winesses, I must get back to work. So... Have a riot Sled!
Nathaniel J. Merritt Met. D.
"If morons could fly, the sky would be pitch black!"
(Here now is Rex's latest 'reply':)
"Wow, Nate. I hope all of that smoke was some 'cut and paste'. Did you actually take a lot of time to write that useless and arrogant drivel that powers your smoke machine? The fact that you keep ignoring is the piece by piece refutation of your weird 'exegesis' of Geneis 2 and 3. Do you wonder why you have so few of the resident scholars here fawning all over you? They aren't supporting your book nor do they believe you are any sort of a serious scholar, just like I do. I spent about a minute writing this, little one! Rex"
(This is a precious response little one, and I dote upon it. I love your reference to my smoke machine, but it isn't going to divert anyone's attention from the fact you did not answer a single argument or objection or refutation in my last response to you. It is you that continues to generate smoke in the form of ad hominem attacks, hoping no one will notice the complete absence of substance in your statements. How you enjoy parading yourself about as a Footstep Follower of Jesus, and then attacking anyone who does not agree with you.
I'm quite sure if your literalized Jesus actually existed, he would be very proud indeed of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit you consistently display for His Glory: "Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5:22)
I'm not here to be fawned over, little one. I am here for a pleasant diversion. As much ill-will as you bear for me, I bear none for you. As for your ill-will toward Jehovah Unmasked, that's understandable I suppose, since I disassemble your god in that book. You seem fixated on my book. Are you jealous of it as you are jealous of my academic achievements? I am trying to understand you little one. The bad news for you is that my book is doing well, much better than I anticipated given the limited audience it was written for.
Being fawned over on this board is apparently very important to you. Why is that little one? Have you no family and friends in real life to give you positive affirmations?
I was unaware, until this "response" of yours that a refutation my of my exegesis of the Garden of Eden allegory even existed. Thank you for the 'heads up' little one. I shall consider it carefully, and incorporate it's arguments in the next edition of my book. Far from ignoring comments little one, I left Jehovah Unmasked online for nearly four years, expanding it as people responded to it via my actual email address and gave me their objections and questions. I welcome more, especially from somone such as Leolaia.
I am concerned about you Rex, quite seriously. You have a huge chip on your shoulder and a lot of smoldering anger that erupts quite suddenly at small provocations. Any questioning of your Fundamentalist world-view results in an attack. If your god is real, do you not think he can defend himself, but needs you to do his dirty work?
I am not surprised you choose to ignore serious objections to your feeble attempts at elucidating a coherent world-view. Fundamentalism is a reaction to and rejection of modernity. That means science, critical thinking, investigation. Nor am I surprised that you didn't even understand my simple words when I informed you that 'it takes little time for a fool to speak his folly, but it takes much time and effort to answer a fool according to his folly.' Yes little one, I spent nearly thirty minutes preparing my last response to you.
I expected no more from you than I have received. A reply that took sixty seconds for you to compose, consisting of nothing more than ad hominem attacks. That means personal attacks little one. I did not fail to notice, little one, that you waited until my post was no longer on the first page until you responded.
Nate -
17
MY CHALLENGE TO FUNDAMENTALISTS/BIBLICAL LITERALISTS
by Nate Merit infor the fundamentalist christians reading this post who do not like my hermeneutics (principles of biblical interpretation), i challenge you to look up all the passages of the old testament that are quoted in the new testament.
read the surrounding context of each quotation as it appears in the old testament.
you will be shocked to discover that the context of the verses in the old testament almost never correspond to the way the verses are actually used in the new testament.
-
-
Nate Merit
Rex the 'shining one' is in quotation marks, my responses are in parentheses. For those who wish to avoid the preliminaries, at the bottom of this post is Rex's latest "response" to me, and mine to him. I have removed, for ease of reading, my original post that sparked Rex into dogged action.
(Rex, my first impulse to your silly post was to command you to cease biting my ankles! OUT damn Spot..er, Rex! However…) "Your motive for an argument like this is twofold: you play to a aympathetic audience and you ask for more time and effort to be done than your assertions are worth." (I'm surprised that someone who supposedly holds the Bible in high regard would discourage his readers from studying the Bible directly for themselves, telling them that such a study is a waste of time! How can an effort such as this be a waste of time? Study to show thyself approved into God. This study is worthwhile, but you in fact are lazy and wish to avoid the work. Instead, you wish to try and derail this discussion, but I shan't let you. Hopefully, there are two kind of sympathetic ears to appeal to: those in possession of their critical thinking faculties, and those who revere the Bible. How unfortunate you apparently fall into neither category. How very WTBTS of you to discourage those here from studying the Bible directly for themselves) Same motive and you are denying the dual application: immediate literal and later prophetic. (Little one, thank you so very much for telling me what I am doing. I was really quite unaware of what I am about until I was awakened by your irresistible erudition and implacable logic. Until you came forward and set me straight as to what I am doing, I thought I was telling people that the Bible is a marvelous book of Mythology, and as such should be interpreted allegorically, as Paul did. As the other NT writers did. As the early church did. The tragedy of the HG (historical-grammatical) method and modern thought is that the power and purpose of Myth have been lost. The scientific method has done many wonderful things, but it has removed from the human psyche the vital and indispensable capacity for resonating with Myth. Myth enables us to speak the ineffable. Myth enables us to experience those Spiritual Realities that are simply beyond our human categories of thought and speech. Rex, I know that you will not do this, and that is genuinely sad. Nonetheless I encourage you to learn more about Myth and it’s function in the spiritual life of humans past and present. A good, easy way to begin is to go to your library and borrow The Power of Myth. (It’s even available in DVD and VHS format, so you don't even have to strain yourself and read it, you can simply watch it) In it, the late great Mythologist Joseph Campbell is interviewed by Bill Moyers, and he enables moderns such as ourselves to once again resonate with Myth, to cease being bound by our purely modern ideas about spiritual realities. Modern ideas that call for a strict literalism, the belief that the people and events in the Bible and other sacred literature must be true in a scientific and historical sense. This view has had tragic results for modern man. The scientific method applied to spiritual things resulted in the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation. A cloddish literalism, which breeds fanaticism. For if my way is literally true, then it must be the one and only way. Therefore everyone else is wrong and must be converted into thinking in the same literal terms. The scientific method applied to religion has led to spiritual death in the western world. Myths were never intended to be taken literally. They were (and are) used to carry sublime truths in story form. An excellent example is the Myth of Prometheus. Certainly not literally true, it nonetheless carries a powerful Truth about the nature of knowledge) "Scripture is the best interpreter of scripture." (Indeed it is! That’s why I am asking people, yourself included, to take the time to investigate and see how the NT writers use the OT. You, however, wish to make assertions without any evidence to support them, as well as discourage people from undertaking this study. How better to learn how to properly use the OT than to follow the example of those who penned the NT? I suppose one of your Dispensationalist hacks is better suited to the job? I think not ) "Modern theology" is often the death of faith for those who are perishing in the first place. "Modern theology" is often a betrayal of the very core aspects of belief. Modern theology is most usually refuted by conservative scholarship." (So many assertions and presumptuous assumptions here little one. This statement of yours is priceless: ‘Modern theology is most usually refuted by conservative scholarship.’ Please show me an example. I would love to see it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You have made an extraordinary claim. Yet I only ask for ordinary evidence. An example or two. Come now, certainly you are up to this great challenge. What is ironic here is that the essentially German scholarship you are vilifying is in fact the historical-grammatical method you are championing! (You cannot have it both ways little one) A placing of the Bible in its "sitz en lieben" (situation in life, its actual historical context) so to speak. Investigating the Jewish culture, history, language, religious practices and traditions, and adhering very strictly to the history and grammar of the Bible. The result is exactly as you describe: spiritual death. You think yourself very clever little one, but alas you are not. YOU are the one championing the historical-grammatical method, not I little one. I am championing the exact opposite, yet you wish to tar me with the brush of your own kind! I am championing the method of interpretation used by the NT writers. Anyone who takes the time to engage in such a marvelously productive study as I advocate will quickly see why you are trying to discourage people from making this effort. (You are such a diabolical little arguer! The WTBTS taught you well. Too bad for you I am aware of your JW/fundy tricks) For those joining my spanking of the little one here a bit late, my challenge is to read all of the OT verses that are quoted in the NT in their actual OT context. Yes, read the surrounding context. You will quickly discover they did not follow the historical grammatical method that what’s-his-name here is advocating. What IS your name by the way? I use my real name. I don’t hide behind some silly pseudo-identity.) "Solid, Biblical hermeneutics uses the tested methods of interpretation of literature in general. It is what most of us do naturally: we take a story and compare what it says to our own experiences; it may be literal only; it may have allegorical applications or be entirely allegorical, metaphorical, etc. Text without a context equals a pretext." (Ah, so now the very thing you vilified above is now "solid." If by solid you mean ‘thick as a brick" I quite agree. The historical-grammatical method is not only absent from the Bible, it is absent from the early church as well. Fundy boy Rex will certainly not investigate the actual early church because he prefers his fantasy version to the real thing, but for the rest of you, check out: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ You will find that the early Christian church used the OT [and NT] in an allegorical non-literal fashion, just as the NT writers did. The historical-grammatical method is quite recent, not really taking wing until the Protestant Reformation. Such methods are absent from the Bible itself. Something else you should become informed of is Midrash. Midrash is the ancient Jewish practice of telling and retelling the same stories in the Bible over and over, using different characters and different circumstances in each retelling. An obvious example is the figure of Joshua in the OT. "Joshua" is simply the Anglicized form of the Hebrew name Yeshua, which in Greek is loosely ‘Jesus." If one substitutes "Jesus’ for "Joshua" in the OT, all sorts of marvelous parallels between the OT Jesus and the NT Jesus become evident. This is Jewish Midrash. An extremely readable yet scholarly introduction to the Jewish practice of Midrash and its presence in both OT and NT is the book Liberating the Gospels by bishop John Shelby Spong. (It was my distinct pleasure to offer him some suggestions for his book Why Christianity Must Change Or Die) Oh dear, he is a dreaded Liberal and gay! With AIDS no less. I’m sure your residual JW fear of demons will keep you from reading any of his books. Heaven forbid you should actually expand your mental horizons beyond the narrow confines of your fundamentalism. Midrash is a further discovery of the actual nature of the Bible, and another nail in the coffin of fundamentalism. Also, your claim that conservative scholars treat the Bible as they would any other piece of literature is patently absurd and ludicrous even on the face of it. On the contrary, conservative scholars put the Bible in a special category in which the Bible has neither peer nor superior. In their view it is ‘inerrant and infallible." Truthful in all it affirms, the very Word of God. So please cease your efforts to throw up a smoke-screen. You merely wind up blowing smoke up our derrieres.) "Let's see, is that a gentic fallacy or cause and effect? LOL " (Did you mean genetic or generic? I am quite unfamiliar with ‘gentic’ as is my Merriam-Webster dictionary. Quite seriously, what are you going on about little one? As a devoted disciple of Hegel, I of course reject any notion of a causal relationship between your divided fundamentalism and the historical-grammatical method. No, I quite agree they are totally outside the nonexistent chain of cause and effect, and are as untethered to reality as is your own mind. These sects arose magically, of themselves. They are effects without a cause. Bravo little one.) "Scripture interprets scripture, the Bible is authoritative and inspired. Once you lose focus of that you deny the very basis for and ability to interpret scripture accurately." (Indeed, the Bible interprets the Bible. I am in utter and complete agreement little one. Once again, you are being sly and sneaky, but Uncle Nathan sees what you are up to. Naughty naughty shame shame. YOU are the one discouraging others from investigating how the NT writers use the OT. I am the one encouraging them to do so. I am the one encouraging them to use the Bible biblically. The saddest part of you entire ‘argument’ is that you encourage blind faith in your assertions about the Bible, and discourage anyone from rising above your fundy methods. Your discourage independent study of this nature, insulting the Bible by calling such a study of it a waste of time) "They are not 'fundamentalists in the first place, they are revelators: they are apostles." (I see. Well, please be patient with me little one. To my feeble mind it seems rather self-evident that the apostles would be the ones to set the tone for interpreting the OT. If the HG method is true, I would expect the Apostles to be our examples by using the HG method. Yet, they do not. Which you realize, or you wouldn't be discouraging the good folks here from investigating this matter. However, the NT writers do in fact use the HG method. The Holy Ghost method, not the Historical-Grammatical method. Kindly tell me why those who would be our Examples (Paul said he was our Example) do not use your method of interpreting the OT?) "NO, not at all. We are bound by well tested rules of interpretation and that is the basis for valid hermeutics." (You have said it well. "We are bound." The historical-grammatical method does indeed bind you. The strictures it places upon you are very restricting indeed. Perhaps that is why the Holy Ghost ignored the Historical-Grammatical method when inspiring the apostles. Again I find it ironic that you extol the praises of the historical-grammatical method, yet discourage other from investigating the NT writers use of the OT by their own personal study. You extol the historical-grammatical method, yet vilify the modern critical scholarship which is simply the historical-grammatical method sharpened to a fine edge and point) Nor would I in your precarious position. I hate to say it Nate, but your book is destined for the rubbish heap. If it ever gets a real 'peer review' it will be a treatise on how NOT to interpret scripture. (Those who can, do. Those who cannot, simply sit back, fill their belly with the east wind, and let fly. My peers are not the likes of you, that’s for sure. My book is doing nicely, thank you, especially in PDF format. Also, since when is the majority view the correct view? The mass of humanity once believed the earth to be flat. They were mistaken and disproved by a few ‘nuts’ with ‘crazy’ ideas. The same with the once majority view that the earth is immovable. As with the once majority view that the sun and stars revolve about the earth. The common mans view of things is usually wrong. If you were a bit more educated you would know this. I plead Matthew 7:13-14 as to "the majority." Genuine spiritual insight has nothing to do with common people and their common views. That’s why you are stuck in literalism. The ancients clothed their spiritual insights in the clothes of stories. The common folks took them literally. Just as you take the marvelous spiritual nature of the Bible literally and thereby miss the mark.. Far from being precarious, my position is that of the Bible wrters themselves and the Early Church. You may verify this with just a smidgen of mental exertion on you part. Here again is the link:) http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ "Like any other JW, you just blew the context out of that verse!" (I plead guilty! Line me up against the wall with Jesus and the apostles, and shoot us all with your Dubya-Dubya AK-47. I will die with my fellows, those who follow Jesus and the Apostles in how they use of the OT and NT) 'Others' should be understood as 'true scholars'. (Please inform me what advances conservative scholars have made. Please. Just give a few examples. That’s all I ask. Nothing extraordinary. The same with your assertion that conservative scholars defeat ‘liberal’ scholars. LOL this is so laughable. The ‘liberal’ scholars you denigrate are your own kith and kin! They too follow the historical-grammatical method, yet you fear (and rightly so) to follow them in their folly. You choose to follow the historical-grammatical method to the edge of the precipice it leads to, but refuse to follow it over the edge. You are self-contradictory but I laud your decision) "You are very good at using arrogance, bluster and appeal to your own authority in order to manufacture a argument from nothing! Are you actually Greg Stafford?" (An argument from nothing! Now you are calling the method used by the NT writers "nothing!" First you discourage this valuable direct personal study of the Bible as a waste of time, and now you call it nothing! I began this post simply by making observations about how the NT writers use the OT, and you turned it into a personal attack, and an attack on the NT writers. It is I that am arrogant, but you are the very Incarnation of Humility? I would laugh if I didn’t find this so very sad. I am indeed arrogant, and freely admit it. You, however are equally arrogant and too arrogant to admit your arrogance.
March yourself to a mirror this instant my little pony boy and have a good look at yoursefl. I was struck by your denigrating of my academic achievements in Religion, particularly the Christian Religion. How very JW/WTBTS of you. I have good news for you. The Bible says "be babies as to evil, but in your understanding be adults." I am of the opinion that you use your adult critical thinking abilities in all areas of your life. It is perfectly all right if you use them in your religious and spiritual life as well. There is no need to feel ashamed of your own lack of education in matters Biblical. I realize that I made you feel inadequate, and that put you on the defensive, and you attacked. You can easily rectify your situation by making up your mind to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." I have appealed to everyone to study the Bible for themselves and see how the NT writers use the OT. I have NOT appealed to my own authority. Rather, I have encouraged others to use their own God-given minds. It is YOU that have made heavy handed statements about the authority of your historical grammatical method, conservative scholars, made ad hominem attacks, as well as using some of the most diabolical subterfuge I have ever seen. Rather than appeal to nothing, as YOU have done, I appeal to the NT writers, and recommend that everyone here do this favor for themselves. As to letters after my name, I apologize for making you aware of your own inadequacy. As I said, you can rectify your situation. Meanwhile, since I am indeed admittedly arrogant, I shall flaunt my achievements. Its very easy for the uneducated and uncouth to make accusations and groundless assertions, but it takes time and effort to answer the fool according to his folly. I have spent way too much time taking you seriously and responding. I have a life, so I cannot keep on trying to educate you. I am in the middle of writing my next book, and I have begun a translation of the authentic books of the Apostle Paul. I have a wonderful wife, family, friends, hobbies in addition to my writing. So, it is moot as to whether you take me seriously. I have work to do, and as much as its been fun interacting with fellow former Jehovah's Winesses, I must get back to work. So... Have a riot Sled!
Nathaniel J. Merritt Met. D.
"If morons could fly, the sky would be pitch black!"
(Here now is Rex's latest 'reply':)
"Wow, Nate. I hope all of that smoke was some 'cut and paste'. Did you actually take a lot of time to write that useless and arrogant drivel that powers your smoke machine? The fact that you keep ignoring is the piece by piece refutation of your weird 'exegesis' of Geneis 2 and 3. Do you wonder why you have so few of the resident scholars here fawning all over you? They aren't supporting your book nor do they believe you are any sort of a serious scholar, just like I do. I spent about a minute writing this, little one! Rex"
(This is a precious response little one, and I dote upon it. I love your reference to my smoke machine, but it isn't going to divert anyone's attention from the fact you did not answer a single argument or objection or refutation in my last response to you. It is you that continues to generate smoke in the form of ad hominem attacks, hoping no one will notice the complete absence of substance in your statements. How you enjoy parading yourself about as a Footstep Follower of Jesus, and then attacking anyone who does not agree with you.
I'm quite sure if your literalized Jesus actually existed, he would be very proud indeed of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit you consistently display for His Glory: "Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5:22)
I'm not here to be fawned over, little one. I am here for a pleasant diversion. As much ill-will as you bear for me, I bear none for you. As for your ill-will toward Jehovah Unmasked, that's understandable I suppose, since I disassemble your god in that book. You seem fixated on my book. Are you jealous of it as you are jealous of my academic achievements? I am trying to understand you little one. The bad news for you is that my book is doing well, much better than I anticipated given the limited audience it was written for.
Being fawned over on this board is apparently very important to you. Why is that little one? Have you no family and friends in real life to give you positive affirmations?
I was unaware, until this "response" of yours that a refutation my of my exegesis of the Garden of Eden allegory even existed. Thank you for the 'heads up' little one. I shall consider it carefully, and incorporate it's arguments in the next edition of my book. Far from ignoring comments little one, I left Jehovah Unmasked online for nearly four years, expanding it as people responded to it via my actual email address and gave me their objections and questions. I welcome more, especially from somone such as Leolaia.
I am concerned about you Rex, quite seriously. You have a huge chip on your shoulder and a lot of smoldering anger that erupts quite suddenly at small provocations. Any questioning of your Fundamentalist world-view results in an attack. If your god is real, do you not think he can defend himself, but needs you to do his dirty work?
I am not surprised you choose to ignore serious objections to your feeble attempts at elucidating a coherent world-view. Fundamentalism is a reaction to and rejection of modernity. That means science, critical thinking, investigation. Nor am I surprised that you didn't even understand my simple words when I informed you that 'it takes little time for a fool to speak his folly, but it takes much time and effort to answer a fool according to his folly.' Yes little one, I spent nearly thirty minutes preparing my last response to you.
I expected no more from you than I have received. A reply that took sixty seconds for you to compose, consisting of nothing more than ad hominem attacks. That means personal attacks little one. I did not fail to notice, little one, that you waited until my post was no longer on the first page until you responded.
Nate