Relationship with Jesus

Originally posted by scherzo
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.

You're like a hysterical woman.

Originally posted by jaywill
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.

Yes, and those adjustments result in stressing unimportant words or melismata in odd places.
These things undermine the flow of the poetry (inasmuch as you could call such doggrel poetry).

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.

Is this supposed to impress me? This claim may or may not be true. If it is true, the piece
may or may not be competent. If it is competent, you may or may not know anything about
poetry. If you do know anything about poetry, you may or may not be any good at setting
such poetry to music. Simply because you have a degree and have an oeuvre doesn't have
anything to do with whether you do or do not know anything about hymn writing.

Given that you are the type to wave your credentials in the face of other people, you're probably
one of those 'badge' people; you know, the equate lots of letters after a name (e.g., PhD, DMA,
&c) with competence. I got news for you. There isn't often equivalence.

If you aren't this type of person, then why are you waving your 'credentials' in my face?

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

Right. And, as I said, you either emphasize weak syllables on strong beats or have to stretch
out words in a poetically awkward fashion. That you think that this is 'no big deal' just goes
to prove that you aren't sensitive to the meter of poetry. Glad we agree.

Your example with 'Good Morning' and 'Happy Birthday' betrays your ignorance of meter.
The stress in the first is 'Good Morning' and the second 'Happy Birthday,' in both cases
the strong beat of the music lands on the stressed syllable of the spoken poem (as simple as
both poems are). If the rhythm had been retained, then stress would have been like 'Happy
Birthday,' which is equivalent to stressing 'in' rather than 'man' or 'glory.'

If I had to guess, using the tune 'Adeste Fidelis,' is just a way to have 'Christmas in July' or
some such sentimental nonsense.

Please don't try to further impress me with your knowledge of meter on this matter. You're wasting your energy.

Sure. You've decided that meter doesn't matter! Your mind is closed to the issue. But I'm
not trying to 'impress' you, otherwise I would have flashed my extensive curriculum vitae which,
like yours, doesn't amount to a hill of beans on an internet forum.

Thanks. I got to know that already.

Well, if that hymn represents what you think is 'best' about poetry or the best possible marriage
between tune and text, then, like I said, you're deaf.

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.

Yes, the personal relationship which is foreign to the Bible is found in many hymns written
in the 19th century. Is this some strawman thing, where you make these proclamations and
then say 'aha, proof against a claim you didn't make!' or something?

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

Obviously a truism you don't believe in, otherwise you would object to such poorly constructed
and poorly set poetry.

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".

Yup. You've yet to show me the word 'relationship' with the connotation with which you endow it.

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.

Repeating it does not make it true.

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.

The English translation of 'O, Come All Ye Faithful' is not the greatest hymn text ever, no doubt.
The Latin is much more elegantly and sensitively written. If it weren't so interwoven into the
minds of people as the quintessential Christmas hymn (given the amount of Latin illiteracy),
I'd drop it fast.

And, you are right, the other one is better at getting 'inside' the worshipper, only because
that's its aim. But it's lousy at doing so; there are many other poems (while theologically
infelicitous) that do a much better job than that one which amounts to scarcely better than a
limerick.

Give me specifics.

I prophesy that, when I do, you will go off on your usual, meandering style the volume and
convoluted content of which will overwhelm even Bbarr's ability to penetrate, but I'll give it
a shot in the hopes that you will respond with a cogent reply.

WHERE do you find the lyrics "juvenile"?

WHY do you find that particular portion "juvenile"?

WHAT improvement would YOU suggest to reflect more maturity ?

I find the structure juvenile. It uses the formula:
AB1234CDCD. From onwards, when I refer to 'A,' I am referring to the first verse of a given
stanza, and so forth.

CD comprises the 'refrain,' so that repeats as we would expect. However, the opening lines
comprise a 'refrain' as well, which is awkward. Further, the proportion of opening refrain to
closing refrain is asymmetrical. As if there isn't enough repetition in the piece, the '4' verse in
each stanza ends with 'He' which means the '2' verse in each stanza must rhyme with it. Given that
B and D already end with the long 'E' vowel, the result is an insufferable tedium which infects
the entire poem. Of the other verses in each stanza (A, 1, 3, C and C), three end in 'glory,'
which makes the hymn even more monotonous. And verses 1 and 3 are not rhyming pairs,
so there's nothing to offset the insistent 'E' vowel.

Now let's pay attention to scansion. Note that verses 1 and 3 use amphibrach stresses, 2 and
4 use shortened amphibracha. Nothing wrong with that (except that '1' in stanza 2 has 'overcome,'
which clumsily deviates from the stress pattern), but look at A, B, C and D. B uses a
shortened amphibrachus, C uses a standard amphibrachus, D uses a choriambus, and A is
metrically unintelligible (an anapestus preceding an amphibrachus?, two anapesta with a breve
tail?).

In short, there's no intelligible metrical structure, and no correspondence between the rhyme
scheme and the sections of the poem that do have structure (the 1, 2, 3 and 4 section).

On top of the structural problems, the non-repetitive parts of each stanza basically comprise a
list: He's X and Y and Z, He did A and B and C. But the components of the list don't go well
together. For example, triumphant and tender are odd juxtapositions. Peaceful and patient
are odd next to joyful and radiant (and a missed rhyming opportunity that would be a much
needed deviation from the long 'E' mentioned earlier). Basically, the content is simply a
disparate litany of Jesus' attributes (though strangely unnamed) with no particular cohesion,
no linear movement from stanza to stanza; just a randomly assembled jumble of adjectives:
Pure, holy, triumphant, free, wise, loving, tender (with an exclamation point?), overcomer,
free (again), reigner, kingly, ~sick, ~weak, strong, vigorous, buoyant (odd, but interesting
usage, one of the few moments I like), peaceful, patient, joyful, radiant, expectant. You think
that's brilliant? Someone wrote a catalogue that rhymes (with one vowel sound, to boot)?
You're easy to impress.

Let's look at the refrain for the first three stanzas (the fourth one is semantically intelligible):
His life in the glory my life must be (I'm assuming you made a typing mistake in stanza 3;
you typed 'may be,' but that would be the opposite of 'must be,' and I can't imagine that the
author was that careless).

What is this saying? My life must be His life in the glory? Huh? Is it instructive: My (current)
life must be as His life (in glory) is? Or is it conclusive: My life is, by necessity, as His life
(in glory) is? Since the preceding verses before the refrain simply comprises a list, it's impossible
to intuit the author's intent. By contrast, the author's intent is very clear in the final stanza in
which the refrain is enjambed with the '4' verse (another, rare, nice moment in the poem filled
with the tedious end-stopping structure): He's ... expecting to see His life in the glory lived
out in me. But how does this change tie in with the earlier refrain? The first three stanzas
(assuming the 'may' is a 'must'😉 are imperative or indicative (depending on what the author
meant), but the last one is subjunctive (expecting, but with the possibility of doubt). It would
make more sense to save the indicative/imperative mood for the change at the end, preceded
by the subjunctive mood in three stanzas; this would give the poem some semblance of forward
motion, from doubt to salvation, say. Instead, it goes from certainty to uncertainty.

(cont.)

I consider all of these problems to be indicative of an immature poet, one who hasn't learned
about structure or is unable to learn.

Now, I don't expect you to actually respond with anything meaningful to my criticism. I expect
you to be outraged that I dared to actually look at one of your crap hymns carefully, or like
Rajk999, to accuse me of arrogance for daring to have standards.

But I'm opened to the possibility that you will actually reflect upon my comments.

Nemesio

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

Er, I suppose not, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting that it's theoretically
impossible; I'm asserting that it's not Biblical, that no believer is called to do so in order to
be a person of faith. It's not an element that any of the NT writers emphasized as an article
of faith, nor is the notion of 'personal relationship' a part of the post-NT period. Now, Jaywill
boldly flaunted 17 Church Fathers who he claims spoke of a relationship with God. However,
he's full of crap, because he evidently got this list without actually checking it.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/2clement-lightfoot.html

Never mind that the second letter is not likely written by St Clement. The first letter speaks
about the relationship to Christ as a shepherd to a flock, not personal. Christ is the leader of
a group of people upon whom He has given instruction. The second letter speaks about the
relationship between Christ and the Church as Bridegroom and Bride respectively. Again, it's
not personal but as part of a group. Both examples are Biblically based and represent
the mindset of the Christian communion for 1800 years. This 'personal' business is utterly new
(in the grand scheme of things).

Now, obviously, that Biblical relation between Head and Church doesn't exclude making
prayer requests to God. This idea precedes Christianity (it's all over the Psalms) and is
parcel to it (c.f., The Lord's Prayer). That's very different than the idea that it's incumbent
upon the faithful to create, develop and nurture a 'personal relationship.' Making petitions is
one thing; having a personal relationship is another altogether.

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.

Two references to the 'love of Christ' comes to mind, the famous Romans 8 and the less oft
cited Ephesians 3. Both talk about how through the agape of Christ brings you closer to
God. What could the love of Christ refer to? I think that it refers to the sacrifice, so central
to St Paul's theology. As evidence of this, we can note that the early form of the Eucharist
was agape, or love feast. That is, the reënactment of Jesus' sacrifice and agape were closely
associated. However, the idea of agape and personal relationship were not.

You're right, I think, that a relationship with Jesus isn't exactly like a relationship with our friends and family.

It isn't at all like a relationship with them. There's no web of interaction. You talk to God,
he talks to God, she talks to God, but that interaction is one-on-one. You can't talk to God
and get a response about the 'he' or 'she' and neither can they interact with God and get a
response about you. That 'one-on-oneness,' I believe, is contrary to the idea of a flock
or a Church. It detaches the members from the from the body of which Christ is
the head. Rather than seeing oneself as part of a corporate whole, that individual sees just
himself, or at the very least, sees himself first and then as part of a whole.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Do you think Jesus is fundamentally incapable of having a profound personal relationship with those whom believe in and follow him?

Er, I suppose not, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting that it's theoretically
impossible; I'm asserting that it's not Biblical, that no believer is called to sees himself first and then as part of a whole.

Nemesio[/b]

John D. Zizioulas, a Greek Orthodox Bishop and theologian, has an interesting spin on this in his book Being As Communion.

Now, the notion of communion has always had a different, and deeper, existential sense to me that a single persona-to-persona, “I-Thou” type of relationship.

I’ll also just throw out, for example, Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:20—zo de ouketi ego, ze de en emoi Christos—as an example of mystical communion. Also, Jesus’ eucharistic formulation: “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” (John 6:56) Also, “...so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:38) And: “On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) And: “Abide in me as I abide in you” (John 15:4) Etc., etc. I would say that in such words, Jesus is speaking, not just from, his human nature, but from a human nature that is fully interpenetrated by the divine nature, the ego-boundaries separating the first from the second having become permeable, so to speak. [All of this stuff is “so-to-speak”.]

Such a communion is a matter of mutual within-ness, rather than—as you put it—“one-on-oneness”. This paradoxical mutual within-ness seems abundant in the NT.

Following Jesus’ eucharistic statement above, I believe it was St. Augustin of Hippo who said, in reference to the eucharist: “Become what you receive.”

Gregory of Nyssa’s view of incarnation he summed up with the words: “Indeed, if the presence of God in us does not take the same form now as it did then [i.e., in Jesus of Nazareth], we can at least agree in recognizing that he is in us today no less than he was then.”

It seems to me that the older Christian tradition is more about—and I’m going to try to say this carefully, so as not to inflict my own more “Buddhistic” view—becoming Christ [or the Christ] by way of communion/participation in the logos. The whole Eastern tradition of theosis goes to this, although I am simplifying greatly.

Now, Jesus of course, also used relational “I-Thou” talk with reference to God—but I think that talk needs to be understood under the rubric of the deeper mutual-within-ness.

I’m not sure that “Be the Buddha, because you are the Buddha, whether you realize it or not” is really any less threatening to a Buddhist than “Be the Christ, because you are the Christ, whether you realize it or not” might be to a Christian. But part of the incarnational message is that that doesn’t mean becoming a clone or a robot. But in both Buddhism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, to not realize your true nature is illusion, and not living your true nature is sin (which stems from illusion). It does not seem to me to be outside the pale of Orthodox Christianity to say that the “Fall” led to a dualistic view that inhibits people from living their true nature in “likeness” to the divine “image” in which they are formed (in Orthodox theology, the Fall does not affect the image, only the likeness).

This is also why the whole faith/grace versus works argument is absent (being a false dichotomy) from Orthodoxy. Being re-in-formed in the likeness, and bringing the likeness into con-formity with the image, is a process. Jesus is—however else one views his incarnation—the archetype (or the sacrament) of one in whom the likeness and the image are fully con-formed (which is, in part and only in part, what the whole Chalcedonian definition is about). And the healing of the likeness is just what salvation is.

So, “Being as Communion” is both in the “koinonistic” sense that you are articulating here (ekklesia as mystical koinonia?), and in the sense of being in full com-union with the divine source and ground of one’s being. [Communion, as opposed to just union, goes to Orthodox concerns about participation in the divine essence, which is a whole other consideration: Orthodoxy can be panentheistic, but is not non-dualistic in the same way that I am.]

I think it’s fair to say that the early church had no sense of the sort of hyper-individualistic salvationism that one sees in at least some forms of Protestantism. Or at least as it sometimes seems to so be expressed.

_______________________________________

With that said, I certainly wouldn’t object to various forms of “practicing the presence” (e.g., Brother Lawrence) as bona fide spiritual practices. But the purpose of any such spiritual practice is go beyond itself (a fact which Zen Buddhists can also be prone to forget). The point is to move through that kind of relationalism to a deeper communion.

It is from the deeper mutual, and Christic, within-ness that someone like St. Francis can exclaim: “Brother Sun, Sister Moon!”

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
[b] 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.

Yes, and those adjustments result in stressing unimportant words or melismata in odd places.
These things undermin ...[text shortened]...

[/b]
===========================
This claim may or may not be true.
====================================

When I see someone say this it often indicates that "It takes one to know one." It may indicate that you have pretended to be something you're not on this forum so you recognize how easy it can be done.

Well, you can call my bluff:

Here's one of my email addresses jjwilmore@netscape.net

If you really don't want to take my word for it and you serously think I am lying then send me a FAX number and I'll send you a copy of my college transcripts.

I entered Philadelphia Music Academy in the Fall of 1969. I studied composition with Andrew Rudin. I am not terribly proud of the fact that I didn't complete the four year degree. But other things happened in my life.

Anyway, Nemesio, I am not lying at all. Two years of music composition at PMA which changed names to College of the Performing Arts.

I didn't try to over impress you. I just respond to your suggestion that I knew nothing about song writing and meter.

====================
If it is true, the piece may or may not be competent.
=========================

That is true. And it is also true that individual artistic TASTE is involved.

===================================
If it is competent, you may or may not know anything about
poetry.
=================================

I don't know that much about poetry. I do know that that song has no awkward places in it of any consequences. For you to complain about a two syllable "ME -EE" is petty.

As a matter of fact in the original English "O Come All Ye Faithful" you have "Faithful" broken up into three syllables instead of 2. Did you complain about that?

You also have "Bethlehem" broken up into 4 syllables instead of 3. Do you choke on that ?

You also have "Joyful" broken up into 3 syllables instead of 2. Does that stop you from singing the song ?

You have "Come" on two 2 notes as two syllables insead of 1.
Do you complain about that?

You have "Israel" broken up into 3 syllables instead of 2. Do you point that out as meter problem?


I think we've been sidetracked with this for a while. Enough is said here on the technicalities of that hymn.

If you have some ideas about the "juvenileness" of the poetry's content, I will look at your complaints latter.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
[b] 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.

Yes, and those adjustments result in stressing unimportant words or melismata in odd places.
These things undermin ...[text shortened]...

[/b] Nemesio,

Seventy Five percent of this critique was not worth much to me. I asked about content. You talked about structure.

When I said "Where's the juvenile content" I was not referng to the things you mostly talked about.

No one said that the poetry rivaled great English poetry. It is certainly adaquate.

So passing over most of your discussion let me see what you "juvenile" problems are with the spiritua content of the song. The idea is ludicrous to me and laughable. For the author is responsible for the establishing of at least 900 churches on all five continents of the globe - Witness Lee is the author's name. His native language, by the way, was Chinese and not English. Understandably he did OK.

But now to what is you spiritual "juvenileness" of the message;


====================================
I prophesy that, when I do, you will go off on your usual, meandering style the volume and convoluted content of which will overwhelm even Bbarr's ability to penetrate,
======================================

Why do you need to hide behind Bbarr's coat tail ?

You're "prophesy" only means to me that you have a rather short attention span and/or don't comprehend the relevance of some of my comments.

You may just get concise reply this time because I think some of what I write you just do not understand.

==========================================
but I'll give it a shot in the hopes that you will respond with a cogent reply.

Me:

WHERE do you find the lyrics "juvenile"?

WHY do you find that particular portion "juvenile"?

WHAT improvement would YOU suggest to reflect more maturity ?
==================================

Skipping to find the answer to my question about the content in terms of spiritual content. You demonstrated some sophisticated knmowledge about poetic structure. But that is not really what I was asking about.

========================
.....
You're easy to impress.
====================================

I am impressed with an impressive Person - Jesus Christ. Why should I not be impressed.

In fact He is triumphant and free, holy, boyant, kingly, and a Man in the glory. You're not impressed ?

Some of us are very impressed at such a victorious Man who is at the highest peak of the universe qualitatively. He is the Glorious Man.

Yes Nemesio, I am impressed with the sinless, victrious, resurrected Christ. If this is "juvenile" to you then I want to be juvenile in THIS regard.

======================================
Let's look at the refrain for the first three stanzas (the fourth one is semantically intelligible):
His life in the glory my life must be (I'm assuming you made a typing mistake in stanza 3;
you typed 'may be,' but that would be the opposite of 'must be,' and I can't imagine that the
author was that careless).
===========================================

I said 75% was off the mark. I may have to updage that to a greater percentage.

Spiritual CONTENT - where is it "juvenile"?

===========================================
What is this saying? My life must be His life in the glory? Huh? Is it instructive: My (current)
=====================================


Nemesio, Nemesio, I alternate between annoyance with you and pity for you.

This man was exalted by God to the highest peak of the universe. If not physically, I mean in glorious expression. Jesus is the man who manifested the highest human life attainable, abtainable in all human history. He is not just GOOD, Nemesio. He is SPLENDIDLY good. He is gloriously good. He is a man of splendor.

What He is is to be conveyed and imparted into His saved people. That is that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers. His attainment is for man.

Don't complain about verbosity. Words cannot exhaust what Jesus has done for us IF we take His life in Spirit into our beings. Words cannot exhaust the value and the preciousness of what Jesus is to us who have received His Spirit.

=====================================
life must be as His life (in glory) is? Or is it conclusive: My life is, by necessity, as His life
(in glory) is? Since the preceding verses before the refrain simply comprises a list, it's impossible
to intuit the author's intent.
=====================================

Maybe it is impossible for you. Maybe you have no experience "spending" Christ.

Christ is like a blank check. Whatever you need He has. Whatever you need He can be that in you.

Do you need wisdom - Christ is wisdom. Turn to Him and spend Him.
Do you need love - spend Christ. He is abundant love.

He is abundant patience, kindness, insight, self control. What He is is for man to spend by being one with Him.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the "bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ"

He is a rich and inexhaustible supply of proper humanity and salvific divinity. He is blank check upon which we can write any amoung of riches we need.

He exceeds our desires. He is more than enough for what we need.

Paul wrote from inside of a humiliating Roman prison:

"For I know that this will turn to my salvation thought your petition and the BOUNTIFUL SUPPLY of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1:19)



=======================================
By contrast, the author's intent is very clear in the final stanza in
which the refrain is enjambed with the '4' verse (another, rare, nice moment in the poem filled
===================================

Fascinating !! What about the Man JESUS, in the glory. You are not impressed with such a exalted, victorious, tried, tested, and approved man?

Jesus passed through every test. He passed through gloriously. He was even forsaken by the Father on the cross. He did not fail to be faithful unto death. He poured out His life for YOU. HE poured out His life in obedience, not caring for His own comfort or His own ease. And you sit there knit picking about poetry meter and ackward stanzas?

What about the ackwardness of your trangressions which He carried in His body up to the cross?

What about the ugliness of your sins for which He took the nails in His hands and feet and the spear in His side. He did that for you Nemesio. He could have gone back to Heaven just based on who He was. HE could have avoided the cross and gone back to heaven's thronr simply based on His Person.

He did not. He waited to be exalted by the Father Whom He obeyed to the uttermost, even unto death - for YOU. And you sit there complaining that the stanza isn't so good and the meter is not so fine?

You are missing the point. There's a Man in the glory whose life is for you. Not only His DEATH on the cross is for you. His life in the glory is for you.


=========================
with the tedious end-stopping structure): He's ... expecting to see His life in the glory lived out in me. But how does this change tie in with the earlier refrain? The first three stanzas (assuming the 'may' is a 'must'😉 are imperative or indicative (depending on what the author
meant), but the last one is subjunctive (expecting, but with the possibility of doubt). It would make more sense to save the indicative/imperative mood for the change at the end, preceded
by the subjunctive mood in three stanzas; this would give the poem some semblance of forward motion, from doubt to salvation, say. Instead, it goes from certainty to uncertainty.
==============================================

Not 75% was beside the point. More like 95% was.

Originally posted by jaywill
When I see someone say this it often indicates that "It takes one to know one." It may indicate that you have pretended to be something you're not on this forum so you recognize how easy it can be done.

Look. I said the claim may or may not be true. I didn't say I thought it wasn't true (regarding
your skills at composing or whatever). I'm sure you've written many things. I'm not going to
'call your bluff' because I don't care whether it's true or not. And you shouldn't care about
whether I have letters after my name, but whether my analysis of the crap poem holds water.

I didn't try to over impress you. I just respond to your suggestion that I knew nothing about song writing and meter.

Then your continued flashing of your experience and credentials is what? Evidence? And you
expect me with an email (you're foolish for posting it) to verify it? How, I email you and
you tell me the same thing? Gee, what proof. Here's my email address: sixteendoctoratesinvariousdegrees@gmail.com

(that is not a real email address)

Don't you see how silly you're being? It's not whether you have a degree in music or not that
makes you any good. You said you didn't finish your degree, however, your music may be
a thousand times better than someone with a PhD in Composition (or not). So stop revealing
personal stuff on the internet. It's a bad idea anyway.

And the fact stands that you don't much (if anything) about meter. You wrote this later: 'I
don't know that much about poetry.'

This is clear. I pray you know more about orchestration for the sake of your audience.

That is true. And it is also true that individual artistic TASTE is involved.

Competence and taste are unrelated. For example, I don't much like the music of Berlioz,
but I recognize it's genius. I don't like Verdi or Shostakovich either, but I acknowledge their
brilliance. Anyway, I frankly don't care whether your pieces are competent or not.

I do know that that song has no awkward places in it of any consequences. For you to complain about a two syllable "ME -EE" is petty.

Did you read my other post? 'Me-ee' is one of a long, long list of things that makes this poem
metrically impoverished.

As a matter of fact in the original English "O Come All Ye Faithful" you have "Faithful" broken up into three syllables instead of 2. Did you complain about that?

Your ignorance is legion. Faithful is on two notes. If you have some odd change in yours that
gives it three notes, then I can't help that. That's not the original. G | G - D G | A - D
is 'O | Come, - all ye | Faith - ful |.

I've already conceded that the English translation of this text is not the strongest example of
poetry in the world. I'm not going to hold your hand while you fumble through and
make an analysis about an art form you 'don't know that much about' (your words).

You also have [b]"Bethlehem" broken up into 4 syllables instead of 3. Do you choke on that ?[/b]

You're making this very personal. I don't have anything on anything. The author, John
Wade did. Calm yourself down. And remind yourself that I don't think that the English translation
of the Latin text is all that good. There are spots on subsequent stanzas which are as bad as
the entire hymn you cited. Again, remind yourself that I would excise singing the English
translation if the congregation wouldn't stone me.

Now, let's get clear on terminology. 'Bethlehem' is three syllables across four notes. But you'll
notice the long value on the first syllable (two notes) followed by the short value on the second
syllable. When you say the word 'Bethlehem,' it has a dactylic rhythm; the second note of
'Beth' which is dotted into the short value on 'le' simulates that rhythm. That is, the spoken
rhythm equates with the sung one. That's good writing. It's not great writing.

You also have [b]"Joyful" broken up into 3 syllables instead of 2. Does that stop you from singing the song ?[/b]

Joyful has two notes. You have some bizarre edition. The least you can do is do a bit of
research.

You have [b]"Come" on two 2 notes as two syllables insead of 1.
Do you complain about that?[/b]

The word 'come' appears seven times in the first stanza. Do you remember how I gave you
a little diagram (AB1234CDCD) to describe the structure of your hymn? The least you could do
is invest a little time in trying to criticize this one (that I haven't defended as great to begin
with).

You have [b]"Israel" broken up into 3 syllables instead of 2. Do you point that out as meter problem?[/b]

I point this out as an incompetency problem: yours. The word 'Israel' has three syllables.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/israel

Further, the word 'Israel' doesn't appear in the hymn in any of its seven stanzas, so I can't
even speculate what the heck you're talking about on this objection.

If you have some ideas about the "juvenileness" of the poetry's content, I will look at your complaints latter.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? I addressed the juvenile nature of the
poem's meter, structure and content.

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
Seventy Five percent of this critique was not worth much to me. I asked about content. You talked about structure.

When I said "Where's the juvenile content" I was not referng to the things you mostly talked about.

No one said that the poetry rivaled great English poetry. It is certainly adaquate.

Do you think that this is a juvenile way of expressing faith: Jesus is great. Jesus is neat. Jesus
is strong. Jesus is mighty. Jesus heals people. Jesus saves people. Jesus died for me.

Your hymn scarcely does more than that. That's what's juvenile. It demonstrates a childish
way of expressing faith. I thought it was time to put away childish things.

Your last sentence is proof positive of my suspicions: 'It is certainly adequate.' You're a 'good
enough' thinker, not a 'strive to improve' thinker.

So passing over most of your discussion let me see what you "juvenile" problems are with the spiritua content of the song. The idea is ludicrous to me and laughable.

Just what I thought. You would ignore the analysis of the pathetic poem that I wrote in good
faith. Why on earth would you sing something that is poetically impoverished in church? Let's
say we agree it has a great message. That message is poorly delivered! Sing a hymn that
delivers that same message that doesn't suck.

For the author is responsible for the establishing of at least 900 churches on all five continents of the globe - Witness Lee is the author's name. His native language, by the way, was Chinese and not English. Understandably he did OK.

Here we go with the badges. It's a relief to know that English was not his mother tongue; it
gives an excuse for how poor it is. That doesn't excuse you for singing it. Sing one of his
Chinese poems -- they've got to be better since it's hard to get worse.

But now to what is you spiritual "juvenileness" of the message;

See above.

Why do you need to hide behind Bbarr's coat tail ?

I can't match up to bbarr in most fields -- of that there is no doubt -- but I'm hardly hiding
behind his coattail. I put my cards on the table, and you chose to ignore them.

You're "prophesy" only means to me that you have a rather short attention span and/or don't comprehend the relevance of some of my comments.

'Prophecy' is the noun. 'Prophesy' is the verb. If you're going to quote me, please don't make
me sound like an idiot.

You may just get concise reply this time because I think some of what I write you just do not understand.

That's correct. That's because you write it as it comes into your mind rather than organizing your
thoughts into a fluid, organic whole.

WHERE do you find the lyrics "juvenile"?

WHY do you find that particular portion "juvenile"?

WHAT improvement would YOU suggest to reflect more maturity ?
==================================

Skipping to find the answer to my question about the content in terms of spiritual content.[/b]

I gave you a comprehensive answer. The content discussion -- that it's basically a list of
attributes for the unnamed Jesus -- was what was juvenile. I expect people in their third year
of Sunday school to come up with all of those (except maybe vigor and the unusual use of
bouyant). Hence, I used the term 'juvenile.' I wrote all that above.


You demonstrated some sophisticated knmowledge about poetic structure. But that is not really what I was asking about.

It's what I started talking about. You want to ignore the poem's infelicities; I don't.

I am impressed with an impressive Person - Jesus Christ. Why should I not be impressed.

You're impressed with a crap poem. If you can't distinguish between that and a good one, then
how can we trust your judgment? I mean, you say you're impressed with Jesus. If you had
distinguishing tastes and judgment, that might mean something. But you also like crap.

I am impressed with the sinless, victrious, resurrected Christ. If this is [b]"juvenile" to you then I want to be juvenile in THIS regard[/b]

Alright, then. You want a childish, 'adequate,' juvenile church experience where crap poetry
is the yardstick. I expect hymns sung to 'Hot Cross Buns' and 'Mary had a Little Lamb' to be
next. Good for you.

I said 75% was off the mark. I may have to updage that to a greater percentage.

Put up or shut up. Either show how my analysis was wrong or concede the poem sucks.

This man was exalted by God to the highest peak of the universe. If not physically, I mean in glorious expression. Jesus is the man who manifested the highest human life attainable, abtainable in all human history. He is not just GOOD, Nemesio. He is SPLENDIDLY good. He is gloriously good. He is a man of splendor.

So you don't know what the refrain means either. That's discouraging.

Don't complain about verbosity. Words cannot exhaust what Jesus has done for us IF we take His life in Spirit into our beings. Words cannot exhaust the value and the preciousness of what Jesus is to us who have received His Spirit.

I'm not complaining about verbosity (I'd be a hypocrite to do so). I'm complaining that your
posts have no focus. They're a complete stream-of-conscious with no direction, no thesis point,
and fail to address issues raised by the other posters.

Maybe it is impossible for you. Maybe you have no experience "spending" Christ.

Wow. Every time I think we've hit the bottom of the theological models, someone throws you
a shovel.

How about this: You need writing skills. Christ is the author. Turn to Him and learn to write.

If you want to discuss 'Christ the Currency' or whatever, start another thread.

What about the Man JESUS, in the glory. You are not impressed with such a exalted, victorious, tried, tested, and approved man?

You're utterly failing to understand. The poem is unimpressive. If the object of the poem is
impressive -- by your account, the most impressive thing in the universe -- then the poet has
a duty to try to capture that through the best use of verse, meter, and language.

And you sit there knit picking about poetry meter and ackward stanzas?

There is an infinitude of poetry on Jesus. You like 'good enough' and 'adequate' (where these
terms mean ignoring verse and meter). I like to have a higher standard for worship, since I
think that the object of worship deserves it.

What about the ackwardness of your trangressions which He carried in His body up to the cross?

What about it? Let's put it this way: my gratefulness will not entail the word 'adequate;' it,
instead, ought to entail 'the best I can possibly do.'

And you sit there complaining that the stanza isn't so good and the meter is not so fine?

Yeah. My worship is a reflection of my attitude. If I have skills in poetry (I do), then I have
a duty to employ them. If I don't, and my worship entails poetry, then I should cultivate them
so that I can discriminate more effectively between crap and ~crap. Thus, I should strive to
listen to those who have those skills and strive to learn them for myself.

'Adequate' is simply not a healthy mindset for one who worships seriously.

Not 75% was beside the point. More like 95% was.

So, you concede the poem is crap now, where the poem is defined as the successful delivery of
interesting content?

Nemesio

===============================
Do you think that this is a juvenile way of expressing faith: Jesus is great. Jesus is neat.
=================================

Neither of those expressions are in the song.

And mind you there is nothing wrong with saying them. Are you married? Would you fail to say to your wife that she is great or neat.

You made up sentences to show immaturity. However, God knows the hearts of people. And JUST because someone would say Jesus is Great or even the vanacular "Jesus is neat" does not mean it would not be accepted by God thought it might be rejected by religionists.

[B]================================
Jesus is strong. Jesus is mighty. Jesus heals people. Jesus saves people. Jesus died for me.
======================================[/b]

None of those things are juvenile. The Bible saus on the Old Testament "Make mention that His name is exalted"

We believers have daily and even hourly distractions from Christ at every turn. So to remind ourselves that Jesus is great and that He loved me is quite appropriate.

But is missed in all of this is that the writer of the hymn is not speaking doctrinally so much. He is speaking from his experience. Expecially the experience of having raised up hundreds of churches. That takes quite a bit of endurance and stamina.

I don't know how many churches have been establised by you. But there have been many established on the five continents by the author of this hymn. So when he writes that Jesus is bouyant, wise, loving, and that in Him is no weakness and no sickness, he is speaking from personal experience.

And I doubt that you have experience with Christ to this level. In fact you don't even seem to realize that a relationship with Jesus can be had.

===================================
Your hymn scarcely does more than that. That's what's juvenile. It demonstrates a childish
way of expressing faith. I thought it was time to put away childish things.
===================================

No, I don't think so. How many Christian hymns do you know that say that Jesus is radiant and expecting to see His life lived out in me?

How many hymns do you know say that Christ's life is for the believers? You could probably name many that say that Jesus death was for me. I bet you could not name many that say His Life is for me.

So the concept of this hymn is along the line of Paul's expression "For me to LIVE is Christ" (Phil. 1:21)

This hymn stresses the risen Christ who indwells all believers to be their life. And regardless of what you say that is not superfiscial and certainly not spiritually juvenile.

I have NEVER ONCE see you write on this Forum that Christ was your life, or that Christ's life was IN you, or that His life was for you, or that Christ was radiantly expecting to see His life lived out in you.

I have never seen one post of you that came up to the level of spiritual insight of this hymn There's a Man in the Glory"

==================================
Your last sentence is proof positive of my suspicions: 'It is certainly adequate.' You're a 'good enough' thinker, not a 'strive to improve' thinker.
=======================================

Of course a better song could be written. I don't expect it to come from someone who says that a relationship with Jesus is foreign to the Bible. Nor do I think such a self deceived person has the qualification to critique the spiritual level of the song "There's a Man in the Glory"

===================================
So passing over most of your discussion let me see what you "juvenile" problems are with the spiritua content of the song. The idea is ludicrous to me and laughable.
========================================

Your laughter is quite hollow, like the laughter of a fool.

=========================================
Just what I thought. You would ignore the analysis of the pathetic poem that I wrote in good
======================================

Your poetic analysis had its place. That is just not what I asked for.


=====================================
Why on earth would you sing something that is poetically impoverished in church?
====================================


Because it uplifts the meeting and releases the praises of God. It exalts Christ, gets our minds of ourselves and our problems, and turn our eyes to where they SHOULD be, on Jesus.

If there are ANY problems in the Christian life they are due mainly to an under appreciation of Christ, what He is, what He has done, what He has obtained and attained.

Spiritual problems are solved by a proper appreciation of what Christ is and what He has done. The problem with Christians is not that we do not have enough of Christ. It is that we are distracted FROM Christ by too many other things. We have too many other things BESIDES Christ.

=================================
Let's say we agree it has a great message. That message is poorly delivered! Sing a hymn that
delivers that same message that doesn't suck.
=====================================

If YOU yourself were so advanced as a disciple I doubt that you would resort to the language of the streets as you have, saying that something "sucks." "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth." That is a rather juvenile expression from the streets.

I prefer "He's pure and He's holy,"

Maybe the song you need to sing is "There's a Man in the Gutter Whose Speech is Just Like Me."

We don't like to use the filthy argots of the streets to exalt our glorious Lord Jesus. Are you so qualified then to critique the spiritual immaturity of "There's a Man in the Glory?"


I have better things to do today. I don't think you have anything else worth reading.

Briefly:

Originally posted by jaywill
Of course a better song could be written.

There we go. You are contented with a crappier hymn. I'm not.

===================================
So passing over most of your discussion let me see what you "juvenile" problems are with the spiritua content of the song. The idea is ludicrous to me and laughable.
========================================

Your laughter is quite hollow, like the laughter of a fool.

You are truly a moron. You quoted yourself and then called yourself a fool. Brilliant.

I'd respond to the rest, but that only seems to spurn you on. Maybe you can spend the rest
of the day trying to learn a little about poetry that way you can have more distinguishing taste
rather than giving Jesus something less than the best.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Don't you know any hymns that aren't crap?

I mean, what does it say about the maturity of your faith when the text and music are things
that can be written by an eighth grader?

Are you saying that He Lives was composed by somebody of about 14 years of age?

Originally posted by gambit3
Are you saying that He Lives was composed by somebody of about 14 years of age?

No. I'm saying an eighth grader could have written it. That's why I used a
modal tense (can be written) rather than indicative (was written). In retrospect,
having examined the hymn more closely, I would expect an eighth grader
studying poetry to do better, so my statement was a little careless in that regard.

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
John D. Zizioulas, a Greek Orthodox Bishop and theologian, has an interesting spin on this in his book Being As Communion.

Now, the notion of communion has always had a different, and deeper, existential sense to me that a single persona-to-persona, “I-Thou” type of relationship.

I’ll also just throw out, for example, Paul’s statement in Galatia ...[text shortened]... nd Christic, within-ness that someone like St. Francis can exclaim: “Brother Sun, Sister Moon!”

Delicious, Vistesd. Just delicious.

This ties in very neatly with what St Paul writes and the recorded testimony of
Jesus: the idea of a community of believers -- a communion -- who, through
their word and action, through their literal deeds and symbolic ones, imbibe
the 'Christly' nature. To have 'Christ in you' is to be moved by that divine
inspiration which drove Jesus, to be an image of God as it is believed that
He was the perfect reflection of the Father.

All of this fits in perfect theological relief with the NT documents, as well as
the letters of St Clement that Jaywill pretended to cite earlier but didn't actually
read. The permeability of body and soul (your word 'interpenetrated' is just
perfect!) is exactly what St Paul was driving at, that Jesus should effect in
the believer those characteristics which we attribute to the Divine, and that
such an effort is a corporate, not personal effort.

You quoted St Augustine, but I'll quote a Roman Catholic priest who 'defected'
and formed his own church: Let the Eucharist effect what it symbolizes. He
stated that, if one accepts the notion that the Eucharist is the Body of
Christ, the Body of Perfect Love, the Body of the Logos, then consuming it
ought to drive us to greater perfection. He did not believe in what he called
magic, that there was an 'ontological' change, but that the change was a
change in the symbol (but no less 'real'😉; it went from being 'just bread' to
being a symbolic (and real) representation of Divine Perfection. The
corporate consuming of the Eucharist linked the community of people to
one cause, made them of one mind. It is to this relation between Jesus and
Church that St Paul refers, not some 'personal relationship.'

Your post is a splendid summary of Eastern (and thus older) practices. Bravo.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Do you think Jesus is fundamentally incapable of having a profound personal relationship with those whom believe in and follow him?

Er, I suppose not, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting that it's theoretically
impossible; I'm asserting that it's not Biblical, that no believer is called to sees himself first and then as part of a whole.

Nemesio[/b]

It isn't at all like a relationship with them. There's no web of interaction. You talk to God, he talks to God, she talks to God, but that interaction is one-on-one. You can't talk to God and get a response about the 'he' or 'she' and neither can they interact with God and get a response about you.

Statements like these cause me to wonder if you have had any real experience being part of the body of Christ. Where did you get this idea that talking to God "one-on-one" necessarily excludes others? Or that God won't reveal something about another believer when he's talking with me (or vice versa)? You couldn't be further from the truth. A perfect example can be found in Acts 9. God instructs Paul to go to Damascus and, quite separately, instructs Ananias to go to the very house where Paul is staying in order to heal his sight. In this instance, God tells Ananias something very specific about Paul: "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Furthermore, Ananias' conversation with God is a prime example of the back and forth of a (gasp) personal relationship, i.e., God speaks to Ananias, Ananias says something back, and God responds, etc., etc.

That 'one-on-oneness,' I believe, is contrary to the idea of a flock or a Church. It detaches the members from the from the body of which Christ is the head. Rather than seeing oneself as part of a corporate whole, that individual sees just himself, or at the very least, sees himself first and then as part of a whole.

Completely untrue. Christ is spoken of as the head of the church, and each believer-follower a member of his body (Eph. 5:30). Do you seriously think that Christ's interaction with any one of his members will have the effect of putting that member out of step with all the others? Not in the slightest! In fact, the opposite. To be in sync with Christ is to be in sync with the church body as a whole, precisely because Christ is the head of the church body as a whole. A 'personal relationship' with Christ has no detrimental effect upon unity whatsoever; on the contrary, it promotes unity.