Relationship with Jesus

Originally posted by Nemesio....... 'But when I pray, Jesus talks to me' or 'When I'm sad, He holds my hand and
comforts me,' or 'I ask Him to help me, and He does.' And I think such statements are both deviations from what Jesus taught ......

These are the last days so things are likely to be different :

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Originally posted by Rajk999
These are the last days so things are likely to be different

You're a dispensationalist? How do explain the absence of the prophesying you mentioned,
the lack of blood, fire and smoke, and that the sun and moon are just like they were 100 years ago?

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
Another Christian Hymn to the Tune of "O Come All Ye Faithful"

It doesn't even fit to the tune. The meter is all wrong! How do you abide such insufferably
poor poetry?!

Seriously, how on earth does a 7 5 7 5 6 5 6 4 6 4 hymn fit with the meter of the tune which
has the structure 5 6 11 5 7 7 7 7 4? It boggles the mind!

(And the name of the tune is 'Adeste Fidelis,' by the way.)

Originally posted by Nemesio
You're a dispensationalist? How do explain the absence of the prophesying you mentioned,
the lack of blood, fire and smoke, and that the sun and moon are just like they were 100 years ago?

Nemesio

You need to see all aspects of a prophecy happening at the same time for you to realise it might be happening ?

Your hands are moving too fast.. .. its stopping the flow of blood to the part of your brain that deals with common sense.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Hello Epiphineahs,

Because Jaywill is unable to post except in his usual convoluted style of unrelated, stream-of-
conscious creedal statements, it's going to take a while for me to wade through his voluminous
missive in order to divide his ideas into groups of related notions, but I did want to comment to
you first. Since you are capable of a cogent
individuals.

Nemesio

...a relationship indistinguishable from the one you have with your friends and colleagues (only better). It is that connotation of 'relationship' that I have a gripe.

Do you think Jesus is fundamentally incapable of having a profound personal relationship with those whom believe in and follow him?

My understanding of Christ's agape love leads me to believe that he knows me far more intimately than I can know myself, character defects and all, and yet he loves me. I believe he is keenly aware of my heart's desires and fears, and is capable of speaking to me in the silence of my spirit, in a manner I am able to recognize intuitively (with some trial and error). And, furthermore, that he is capable of acting on my behalf in and around me, according to his gospel which declares that the kingdom of heaven is now at hand. Dallas Willard, in his awesome book, The Divine Conspiracy, talks at length how the Good News of the Gospel is really Jesus Christ himself, i.e., Jesus Christ himself is the kingdom of the heavens now at hand.

The classic Jewish understanding of "heavens" has several connotations, Willard says, and the "first heaven" is precisely the air surrounding our bodies, through which we move and live. This kingdom, which Christ came to reveal to us, wherein God sees and operates, is right here among us - whether we are aware of it or not - and the main point of Christ coming in the flesh was to effect an engagement of every aspect of our being, from our highest intellectual capacity down to the sinew and the sweat of our brow, in a cooperative relationship with the kingdom of the heavens, present in the space immediately surrounding us.

I am an introspective and intellectual sort, so my communications with Jesus may be quite different than someone who happens to be more extroverted and less of a nerd, but I'm confident that Christ is capable of meeting people and communicating with them where ever they're at. I may not be comfortable with another person's relationship with Jesus, but then again I'm not that person. What's comfortable and natural (and most joyful and fulfilling) for them may not be so for me. I believe God is infinitely condescending to whatever our peculiarities may be, and I also think that he is more than capable of engaging someone at whatever level of intimacy and honesty they might dare, no matter how radical, heretical, or "improper" we might deem them.

You're right, I think, that a relationship with Jesus isn't exactly like a relationship with our friends and family. And it is always a danger for those who are inexperienced with listening to God and recognizing his voice to misrepresent a certain communication. But I also think it's true that a relationship with God himself is certainly offered to us, to become his adopted children in Christ, so that we too may cry out to the Father, "Abba!" or "Daddy!" The form that relationship takes is partly determined by who we are as people, our peculiarities, weaknesses, uniqueness, history, etc., and partly determined by the level of trust which we place in the presentness of God's kingdom.

In all honesty, I'm still a little embarrassed to talk with God on a personal level, as if he were near to me. I prefer to intellectualize my faith and conceptualize spiritual realities. Which is A-OK, but I've come to recognize that my embarrassment arises from an "orphan spirit" which I acquired in my life as a full-time sinner. Slowly but surely, as I become more and more acclimated to my status as an adopted child of God in Christ, I become more willing to relinquish my old habits of thought. Everybody's heart is wounded to some degree and we all need to heal, and the more we heal the more open we become to an active dependency upon the Lord - and less embarrassed about crying out to the Father, "Abba! Daddy!"

The primary difference, I think, between a relationship with God and a relationship with a friend or family member, is that a relationship with God is entirely built upon faith, whereas our more earthly acquaintances are not. But, also, I don't think one is any less real than the other.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
...a relationship with God is entirely built upon faith...

Pace our earlier discussion, what does this mean?

Originally posted by Nemesio
It doesn't even fit to the tune. The meter is all wrong! How do you abide such insufferably
poor poetry?!

Seriously, how on earth does a 7 5 7 5 6 5 6 4 6 4 hymn fit with the meter of the tune which
has the structure 5 6 11 5 7 7 7 7 4? It boggles the mind!

(And the name of the tune is 'Adeste Fidelis,' by the way.)

Now you're knit picking.

We have absolutely NO problem singing this song. We have musicians, song writers, vocalists and at least one composer (myself) in my congregation.

I have heard this song sung scores of times all over the country since I first encountered it in 1974. I have never heard any congregation have difficulty singing it.

"Oh Come all Ye" would be changed to "There's a Man"

You can do it. Are you THAT rigid in singing?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]...a relationship indistinguishable from the one you have with your friends and colleagues (only better). It is that connotation of 'relationship' that I have a gripe.

Do you think Jesus is fundamentally incapable of having a profound personal relationship with those whom believe in and follow him?

My understanding of Christ's agape ...[text shortened]... t. But, also, I don't think one is any less real than the other.[/b]

I received much help from this post. It was great.

There is one thing I would like to point out. Right here:

========================================
But I also think it's true that a relationship with God himself is certainly offered to us, to become his adopted children in Christ, so that we too may cry out to the Father, "Abba!" or "Daddy!"
=====================================

We should realize that we are more than "adopted" children of God. We are "organically" related in life to God. We have been BORN of God.


The King James does use the word "adoption" in Ephesians 1:5. I think the Recovery Version is a better translation -

"Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself ..."

Adoption could just be a purely legal matter. Though lately some theologians are trying to bolster up the word adopt to mean more. I think we need to see that the Christian's (child/son) relation with the divine Father is because His seed of life has been imparted into the human spirit:

" ... His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin because he has been begotten of God" (1 John 3:9)

The none sinning "organic" life seed of the Divine Father has been implanted into the redeemed sinner. He is much more than officially adopted by God. He is born of God with the life and nature of God in seed form within him.

As those born of God the Christians are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4)

The growing and developing offspring of God has a definite life relationship with the Divine Father.

Originally posted by jaywill
We have absolutely NO problem singing this song. We have musicians, song writers, vocalists and at least one composer (myself) in my congregation.

Then you're all deaf musicians, &c, if you can't hear how the text doesn't fit the tune.


"Oh Come all Ye" would be changed to "There's a Man"

Look at the stresses in the english.

(O,) Come all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant...

There's a Man in the glory Whose life is for me-ee.

That's horrible. The English text to 'O, Come All ye Faithful' isn't all that well set (because
the original is in Latin, which fits perfectly), but at least the stresses fall on natural words.
Every stanza opens with a big slam on 'in;' I mean, COME ON! That's just horrible hymn writing.

You can do it. Are you THAT rigid in singing?

Of course it can be done. Why would you want to do something inferior in church, though?
Why sing a lousy poem which doesn't fit the tune to which it was set? Why not write a new
tune or use one that actually fits the rhyme scheme? Or, better yet, why not use poetry that
was written by someone with more than an eighth-grade understanding of meter?

As for whether I'm rigid, for me, the criteria for the use of a tune/text in a church include
whether the tune is well-married to the text. In this case, it's quite possibly among the worst
I've seen (and that's saying something!).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
[b] We have absolutely NO problem singing this song. We have musicians, song writers, vocalists and at least one composer (myself) in my congregation.

Then you're all deaf musicians, &c, if you can't hear how the text doesn't fit the tune.


"Oh Come all Ye" would be changed to "There's a Man"

Look at bly among the worst
I've seen (and that's saying something!).

Nemesio[/b]

=============================
Then you're all deaf musicians, &c, if you can't hear how the text doesn't fit the tune.
================================

Unless I made an error, there is no big deal.

You know when you type something on the Internet sometimes you have accept the formatting that you get.

Anyway, I have written over 100 of original Spiritual songs and know quite well how to coordinate notes and syllables. So I will not belabor this dispute with you.

================================
Look at the stresses in the english.

(O,) Come all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant...
=====================================

I see your point. But it is minor.

Drop off "O" and sing "There's a Man in the glory"

You can do it if you try.

===================================
There's a Man in the glory Whose life is for me-ee.


That's horrible. The English text to 'O, Come All ye Faithful' isn't all that well set (because
the original is in Latin, which fits perfectly), but at least the stresses fall on natural words.
===================================


Uh, how many songs have you written ?

Two syllable ME-EE ?? That's not a big deal. Especially if the accent is maintained on the first part as it is. C'mon.

===============================
Every stanza opens with a big slam on 'in;' I mean, COME ON! That's just horrible hymn writing.
==================================

Yea. And John the Baptist ate insects and dressed in camel's hair.

We do not have and do not want a professional choir. We practice full congregational singing dude. We don't come to the meeting to passively be intertained with a professional choir. We come to ALL participate in the worship from our hearts, overflowing with praise.

As a matter of fact, why am I sitting here arguing with you. I have a meeting to go to right now.

What about the contents of the song ? Or should I even ask?


==============================
Of course it can be done. Why would you want to do something inferior in church, though?
===============================

Hmmm.

God likes it.

Maybe you have to contract out Maria Callas to have a worship service. We don't.

Got to go now.

"Make a JOYFUL NOISE unto the Lord." IF you want the most order go to a graveyard. Everything there is totally in order., and DEAD.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
[b] We have absolutely NO problem singing this song. We have musicians, song writers, vocalists and at least one composer (myself) in my congregation.

Then you're all deaf musicians, &c, if you can't hear how the text doesn't fit the tune.


"Oh Come all Ye" would be changed to "There's a Man"

Look at ...[text shortened]... bly among the worst
I've seen (and that's saying something!).

Nemesio[/b]

Youre an arrogant nitpicker.
If a homeless smelly vagrant wanders into your church I bet you will throw him out too.

Originally posted by jaywill
Anyway, I have written over 100 of original Spiritual songs and know quite well how to coordinate notes and syllables. So I will not belabor this dispute with you.

I should hope that they do not show this level of metrical ignorance.

Uh, how many songs have you written ?

I don't know, a few dozen? And another few score of arrangements besides? What difference
does it make if I wrote any, though? Just because I don't play golf doesn't mean I can't tell
the difference between Tiger Woods and a 20-handicap.

Two syllable ME-EE ?? That's not a big deal. Especially if the accent is maintained on the first part as it is. C'mon.

Well, obviously you're deaf to meter. There's no sense in arguing.

Yea. And John the Baptist ate insects and dressed in camel's hair.

That's a total non-sequitur. Whatever point you're trying to make is totally incoherent. Just
because a person is acetic and dresses oddly doesn't make that person a bad poet or musician;
whether he writes well or plays well does.

We do not have and do not want a professional choir. We practice full congregational singing dude. We don't come to the meeting to passively be intertained with a professional choir. We come to ALL participate in the worship from our hearts, overflowing with praise.

As well you should. The point is not whether you do well, but whether you strive to do well.
I don't care whether a congregation can match pitch, I only care if they are trying to do so.
The purpose of a church choir (or the music program in question) isn't entertainment, it's
instruction and inspiration (among many other things).

That doesn't mean, however, that they should strive to the highest level of excellence that
they can reasonably achieve; it doesn't mean that the concept 'good enough' ought to exist.
Each manifestation of worship should (although isn't always) be an improvement upon
the last one.

Which is why settling for inferior text settings when better text settings exist is just stupid.

What about the contents of the song ? Or should I even ask?

The contents are juvenile in the spots where they are theologically coherent.

Hmmm. God likes it. Maybe you have to contract out Maria Callas to have a worship service. We don't.

God likes when you use an inferior text when you have access to a superior one? He likes it
when you coast and don't strive to improve yourselves?

Why not sing everything to 'Three Blind Mice' or 'This Old Man?' Everyone knows those.

You continue to confuse intent with execution. None of my choirs are professional in quality.
All of them strive to improve, to excise what was less good in the last rehearsal/service/season
and replace it with what is better.

"Make a JOYFUL NOISE unto the Lord." IF you want the most order go to a graveyard. Everything there is totally in order., and DEAD.

Where did you get the idea that 'order' was the goal?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Rajk999
Youre an arrogant nitpicker.

Gee. I guess I just like worship to be representative of the best efforts of humankind, not the
worst. What hubris that entails!

If a homeless smelly vagrant wanders into your church I bet you will throw him out too.

Why do you (and Jaywill evidently) associate a high standard for worship with the absence of
poverty or cleanliness or whatever the connection you're trying to draw? Just like I expect the
minister to come as fully prepared as possible (and think it's an embarrassment and shame when
s/he doesn't), I expect the congregation to strive their hardest, the musicians, the readers/lectors,
the servers/acolytes, and anyone else participating in the general or specific ministries that
comprise whatever worship service style. I expect this whether they are a doctor dressed to
the nines or a homeless, smelly vagrant.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Anyway, I have written over 100 of original Spiritual songs and know quite well how to coordinate notes and syllables. So I will not belabor this dispute with you.

I should hope that they do not show this level of metrical ignorance.

Uh, how many songs have you written ?

I don't know, a few dozen? here did you get the idea that 'order' was the goal?

Nemesio[/b]

========================
I should hope that they do not show this level of metrical ignorance.
============================

There is no "metrical ignorance" in singing those lyrics to the tune of O Come All Ye Faithful.

You simply make some very minor adjustments. I'm really not impressed by your critique on meter.


=========================================
Well, obviously you're deaf to meter. There's no sense in arguing.
=========================================

Excuse me Nemesio but I just completed a Theme and Variations for String Orchestra. I am a professional music teacher. Excuse me but I have had two years of Music Composition (70 - 72) before I completed my BS in Computer Science in 84.

The tune to the sentence "O Come all Ye Faithful" adjusted slightly to fit the words "There's a Man in the Glory" is really no big deal.


I think I will come back to the discussion we were having. I think this sidetrack distracts from the proof offered that a Relationship With Jesus has been the CONTENTS of some classic songs. And it has been the content of some very good songs to classic Christian melodies so to speak.

By the way, the most popular tune every written was written by two sisters and published as "Good Morning To You". Latter they changed the lyrics to "Happy Birthday to You". It is still a world wide favorite in the Englsh speaking world. The original syllable and tune was slighty changed.

Good Morning To You is 5 syllables.

Happy Birthday To You is 6 syllables.

It is such a minor adjustment that I never heard anyone complain that it was an ackward revision. Perhaps you would. But it actually makes just as good a word / tune melody if not better.

The same is true with "O Come All Ye Faithful" changed to "There's a Man in the Glory."

That is the original 6 syllables adjusted to 7 syllables - a smoothly and easily negotiated difference. Please don't try to further impress me with your knowledge of meter on this matter. You're wasting your energy.


===========================
As well you should. The point is not whether you do well, but whether you strive to do well.
=============================

Thanks. I got to know that already.

Now, we were talking about a "relationship with Jesus" which you proclaim is "foreign to the Bible". No it is not. Neither is it foriegn to thousands upon thousands of classic Christian hymns.


==============================
That doesn't mean, however, that they should strive to the highest level of excellence that
they can reasonably achieve; it doesn't mean that the concept 'good enough' ought to exist.
Each manifestation of worship should (although isn't always) be an improvement upon
the last one.
===================================

I don't object to making good songs as opposed to making bad ones.

Worship of Christ should have as its first priority a on the spot Relationship With Christ. And that you say is "foriegn to the Bible".

Now I know that saying that has a certain sophisticated sound to it. However it is totally wrong concept and utterly foolish.

A relationship with Jesus is what the entire Bible is about.

============================
Which is why settling for inferior text settings when better text settings exist is just stupid.
================================

The words to "There's A Man in the Glory" I think are deeper and better than the Christian Hymn.

That is because the latter song, unlike the Christimas Carol, is more about the Christ Who has gotten on the INSIDE of the worshipper to be his or her life.

We indeed may praise God for the birth of the baby born in Bethlehem. That is not bad at all. However, He was born so that He might be the imparted Living One within the worshipper. His life is indeed for the believers.

So I think the latter lyrics are better. However, the original is not bad and I would sing it without a problem. But for the daily moment by moment experience the latter song is better. It is not to be enjoyed only seasonally but is good on any day at any time.


==========================

The contents are juvenile in the spots where they are theologically coherent.

==========================================

WHERE do you find the lyrics "juvenile"?

WHY do you find that particular portion "juvenile"?

WHAT improvement would YOU suggest to reflect more maturity ?

Give me specifics.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Youre an arrogant nitpicker.
If a homeless smelly vagrant wanders into your church I bet you will throw him out too.

And if a Muslim walks into your church you would jeer at him, spit in his face, jerk his arm back, taser him, kick him in the groin, waterboard him, burn him alive slowly, burn the ashes, and throw the ashes into a toilet, then use the toilet there, then flush.