Relationship with Jesus

I want to stress that my comments in a previous post about “invisible friends” were intended, in a sense, metaphorically or analogically, and as I noted, were not intended dismissively. I admit that I was being deliberately provocative, however.

The background for that perhaps crass metaphor has to do with the kind of “immediate translation” in a spiritual experience that I attempt to outline more thoroughly in Epi’s “RHP Faith Clinic” thread.

Originally posted by jaywill
===================================

and, again, the Spirit is not Jesus, a point you neglected)

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


"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

[b]"Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17)

"For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ..."( 2 Cor Lord is the Spirit' "

-- Williston Walker[/b]

NWR & WoT

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Nothing in your exegesis of 1 John suggests that a personal relationship with Jesus is absurd

I don't want to barge into the interesting debate. But I think, just to save time for both of you, I should point out that Nemesio does not claim that such a relationship is absurd; he claims that the idea that such a relationship is a [i]primary element ...[text shortened]... hatever relationship He has is one of commanding. But I will leave the exegeses to both of you.[/b]

Well said. The discourse reminds me of people in my own church circle who used to tell me that if I couldn't recall my "born again birthdate", then I wasn't truly born again/saved. How arrogant.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
A relationship is a "connection, association, or involvement."

Now you're just being stubborn. If you were born in Hospital X, do you have
a relationship to it? If you are a mailboy for Company Y, do you have a
relationship with the president? If you are Jewish, do you have a relationship
with Moses?

The answer is 'no' to all of these, but in each case you have a 'connection,
association, or involvement.'


The Holy Spirit teaches, guides, helps, gives discernment, empowers, and illuminates the mind of a believer. It would be right to characterize his ministry primarily as a relationship (i.e., a connection, association, or involvement) with the believer. And how else could this relationship be described other than 'personal', seeing that it is a relationship between persons?

Her ministry is not a relationship. Let's say you never left the house
and your only worship exposure was to a online preacher. So, you watch
him on his website and he gives guidance generally to his audience,
whomever it might be at that particular point in time. Do you have a relationship?
No. Let's take this a step further. Let's say you know that he has a weekly
audience of 100,000 viewers, all of whom view him from this online site.
Let's say you send him an email and three months later, you get an unsigned
response. Do you have a relationship, now? Not in any meaningful sense,
if it was even him who wrote it (which you would have to question since
you know he has a staff of 50 people).

A relationship involves reciprocity, dialog, and intimacy.

Now, here's where you're going to object: But, Nemesio, God answers me
right away, you'll say. We talk all the time, Nemesio. And He knows me
so well, and I know Him so well. No one could be closer to me than God.

And Jaywill will say the same thing. And PinkFloyd and RBHILL and
Josephw
every other person on this site who claims a personal relationship is one of
the chief elements of being a person of faith.

But, in that community there is confusion, disagreement, ambivalence,
and disunity about precisely what God's message might be. That is, this
closeness that God supposedly (and unverifiably) shares with you renders
that same closeness with a person who disagrees with you questionable.

Let me elucidate. Let's say I write something on this forum that a person
finds offensive to their belief system. Let's say your colleague in faith
responds in a seemingly uncharitable way. Let's say you pray to God about
me, what I wrote, and your colleague's reaction and, in response to your
prayer (deriving from this personal relationship), the Spirit guides you to
the conclusion that your colleague's response was inconsistent with a
Christian lifestyle and furthermore that you should gently rebuke him and
guide him towards are more peaceable relationship with those who challenge
his faith. In so doing, you cite scripture about loving enemies, the virtue of
Spirit-filled patience, that judgment shall be meted on Judgment Day and
is not for him to render and so forth.

Let's say in response, he tells you that before he lashed out at me, he, too,
prayed to God for guidance, and the Spirit guided him towards a righteous
indignation and that it was his duty to inform me of my wrongdoing and to
rebuke me and so forth. Furthermore, he prayed to God afterwards and
received a sensation of having pleased God and having defended Him from
heresy, &c &c &c. And, pursuant to his course of action, he cites to you the
overturning of the money tables, Jesus' 'Woe to those...' speeches, St Paul's
approval of righteous anger, and so on.

Both positions are supported by Scripture. Both are validated by so-called
personal conversations with God and their own consciences.

Now, when my sister and I used to misinterpret an instruction given by our
father, such a misunderstanding would be cleared up. One of us would
have misinterpreted the proper course of action, would receive instruction,
admonition, punishment or whatever, while the other would receive validation,
approval or vindication or whatever. This is a relationship. Interactive
reciprocity.

Such a thing doesn't exist.

Let's say I told you that the Holy Spirit guided me -- firmly and unequivocally --
to the conclusion that a personal relationship with Jesus was not parcel to
a healthy faith relationship. Let's say I told you that She guided me to
admonish and instruct those who are so misguided as to believe this. How
would you respond to this?

How is it a "one-way" thing? Isn't a believer susceptible to being "led" by the Spirit (Romans 8:14)? If I choose to follow the Spirit of God, am I not, in a sense, reciprocating? If I withheld my obedience, you could say that I wasn't connected, or associated, or involved with the Holy Spirit, i.e., that I did not have a relationship with him.

If a cop redirects traffic and leads you down a detour, do you have a
relationship? Of course not. You want to ignore the fundamental concept
of reciprocity that you enjoy with all your relationships, even one between
you and me. Somehow, the only 'relationship' that you have that doesn't
have this is the one you consider the most important. This strikes me as
odd.

And, we keep returning to your tortured interpretations of relationship as
the lens through which we must view Scripture in order to make passages
which are otherwise intelligible without the concept of personal relationship
to pretend to point to them (even though it would be a simple matter for
the authors of the NT texts or the Church Fathers to have simply said,
'you need to have a personal relationship with Jesus to be saved.'

Oddly, they keep speaking to the importance of communal faith, that the
Body of Christ (i.e., the Church) is the vehicle through which faith is fully
actualized and lived out, not through its members (you know, just like
Scripture says, too).



The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each share the same substance and nature.

All post-NT dogma. The authors clearly distinguish between God and
Jesus, or God and the Christ. Even some of the passages you cited elucidate
that, as well as the post-Biblical texts. The notions of 'Substance' and 'Nature'
are a product of St Thomas of Aquinas which he derives from his Creedal
faith. Both Eastern and Western Churches acknowledge that such conclusions
are the product of Tradition, inspired by the Holy Spirit and so forth. I don't
want to get into another discussion with you over this because the last time
you disappeared for a month and never addressed it. If you want to,
resurrect that thread.


Therefore, that the Spirit is not Jesus is a moot point, since the Spirit "will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak" (John 16:13).

It's unlike you to cherry pick Scripture, so just stop. Two chapters earlier,
Jesus said, 'If you believe in God, also believe in me,' and earlier that
the 'Son of man is glorified, and that God is glorified in him.'

We can take the whole Johannine Last Supper discourse and show how
Jesus Himself saw the distinction between God and Himself. Do you want
to walk down that road? Let's start another thread.

The fact is, a relationship with Jesus is the full measure of God's will for a believer. Jesus said, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3).

It amuses me to no end that you think that the author of this document
thought that Jesus was God, even as here, placed in the mouth of Jesus
Himself, you see that God is in direct dichotomy with the One being sent
(Jesus).
You're a bright guy, but you've got your framework rigorously erected such
that no proof could possible compel you to even ask how it might be otherwise
constructed!

Anyway, Jesus is clearly praying over these specific Apostles, not giving
a specific instruction for all future believers. And, furthermore, we note
that this prayer explicitly involves corporate and not personal activity, that
they should take God's Word, that they should be as one, to be made
whole (perfect) in God. Nothing personal, lots of corporate duty.

I hope you don't think the fullness of God's love can be experienced outside the bounds of a personal relationship. That would be a mistake.

I think the conclusion that Jesus thought this was necessary is totally
unsubstantiated. And some of the people I have known, people whom I
regard as modern-day saints, people who saw without difficulty Christ in
every living thing, in whom God's love was most visibly present were the
people who paid no thought to personal relationships with the Divine in the
Jaywill sense. Their connection to God, their relationship to God if you will,
was exclusively in their interactions with other people. I have come to
recognize the serene beauty, the mysticism, the 'Christ-likeness' of that.
Their prayer was not the egocentric 'God help me X, or Holy Spirit guide me Y.'
No, I have seen Love in their eyes, in their hands, and in their hearts. And
I am thankful for that Revelation, if you will, each and every time I have
been sufficiently blessed to be attentive enough to witness and ingest it.
And I sincerely hope that it might, too, be lived out in me.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]A relationship is a "connection, association, or involvement."

Now you're just being stubborn. If you were born in Hospital X, do you have
a relationship to it? If you are a mailboy for Company Y, do you have a
relationship with the president? If you are Jewish, do you have a relationship
with Moses?
e lived out in me.

Nemesio[/b]

I have come to recognize the serene beauty, the mysticism, the 'Christ-likeness' of that.

And if there were a distinction between that and being “saved”, which would you rather be? Which would you rather strive for?

A strictly rhetorical question: I already know your answer. And it humbles me.

Let me share personally: my mother is dying as I write this. Tomorrow I have to cover a lot of miles. She is likely to be dead before I arrive, perhaps even before I am on the way. There will be a lot of grieving people when I get there. I am grieving too. But my choice is to indulge in my own grief, or to try to be a compassionate presence for the others (not all of whom are on pleasant terms with one another, which makes it more difficult).

If it is compassionate in the moment to share my grief, I will do that. If it is more compassionate to be clear-minded and available—in whatever way I can be—I will do that. I know that I am strong enough to do that; others among friends and family may or may not be. For some, their expressions of grief may take the form of anger and harshness toward one another. I am likely to be walking into an emotional maelstrom.

You have given me (reminded me of) my answer for how to walk through the next week: as the best bodhisattva that I can be for whomever I encounter, whatever their emotional state. Thanks.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]A relationship is a "connection, association, or involvement."

Now you're just being stubborn. If you were born in Hospital X, do you have
a relationship to it? If you are a mailboy for Company Y, do you have a
relationship with the president? If you are Jewish, do you have a relationship
with Moses?
e lived out in me.

Nemesio[/b]

Now, here's where you're going to object: But, Nemesio, God answers me
right away, you'll say. We talk all the time, Nemesio. And He knows me
so well, and I know Him so well. No one could be closer to me than God.

Wrong. If you can help it, please stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

Let's say I told you that the Holy Spirit guided me -- firmly and unequivocally --
to the conclusion that a personal relationship with Jesus was not parcel to
a healthy faith relationship. Let's say I told you that She guided me to
admonish and instruct those who are so misguided as to believe this. How
would you respond to this?

First of all, I would try to define our terms. What do you mean by 'personal' relationship as opposed to a 'faith' relationship? These terms are not mutually exclusive. If by 'personal' you mean a relationship not unlike a 'buddy', then I would concur. If by 'personal' you mean a love relationship between Master and disciple or Father and son (or daughter), then I would disagree. I would go about testing your claim against scripture and come to a conclusion regarding its veracity.

even though it would be a simple matter for
the authors of the NT texts or the Church Fathers to have simply said,
'you need to have a personal relationship with Jesus to be saved.'

I never said that someone needs a personal relationship with Jesus in order to be saved, at least not in the sense in which you apparently construe the term 'personal'.

In order to be saved I need to first recognize that I am a sinner and repent. After I do that I need to believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins... I see no more profound a personal relationship than this, between the saved and his Savior - a relationship which is absolutely reciprocal. For instance, Christ bids a man come to Him. A man responds by giving his whole life to the Lord. The Lord, in return, responds and imputes righteousness to the man and gives him the gift of the Holy Spirit. You see, the origin of every born-again believer is dependent upon a reciprocal relationship with God. I don't see how it can be considered otherwise.

Does the reciprocity end there? Not according to Jesus. The believer is able to ask the Lord for blessings and the Lord responds by giving those blessings. The believer is able to rest in the Lord and to seek the Lord for comfort in times of mourning and hardship. The believer is able to entreat the Lord for specific guidance. Does the Lord fail to provide rest and comfort when approached? No. Does the Lord fail to provide guidance? No. The relationship is reciprocal; indeed, the entire enterprise of faith is dependent upon that relationship being reciprocal, not only in an individual's life, but in the life of the church.

Of course, a believer may choose not to ask the Lord for anything, nor seek the Lord's comfort in difficult times, nor spend time in the Lord's presence habitually. That believer's relative independence doesn't mean that he or she isn't saved, what it suggests is simply an undeveloped life of faith. A fully developed Christian life is characterized first and foremost by a complete dependence upon the Lord. "He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). That dependency involves asking and receiving; being guided by the Holy Spirit in all of one's affairs, etc. A healthy relationship with God, in and through Christ, is a fully reciprocal relationship, as between two persons. A faith void of this type of relationship may not be a dead faith, but it certainly isn't a mature one.

Oddly, they keep speaking to the importance of communal faith, that the
Body of Christ (i.e., the Church) is the vehicle through which faith is fully
actualized and lived out, not through its members (you know, just like
Scripture says, too).

Please stop insinuating that I'm arguing for the preeminence of the individual above the church community. Paste that strawman argument on someone else.

You've set up a false dichotomy here, Nemesio, and it's unsubstantiated by scripture, i.e., that an individual must either be void of a relationship with God in order to be devoted to community, or void of devotion to community in order to be engaged with a relationship with God. My argument is that the full breadth of scripture disproves this.

Their connection to God, their relationship to God if you will,
was exclusively in their interactions with other people. I have come to
recognize the serene beauty, the mysticism, the 'Christ-likeness' of that. Their prayer was not the egocentric 'God help me X, or Holy Spirit guide me Y.'

First of all, I highly doubt you are as intimately familiar with these folks as you claim, to the degree that you are capable of declaring unequivocally that they aren't actively dependent upon the Lord. If you are right, and they act without any solicited guidance or support from the Lord, then I would question whether their motivations aren't to glorify themselves rather than the Lord. Even Jesus had to be alone every once in awhile in order to be ministered to by his Father.

Dependence upon the Lord is not 'egocentric.' That you posit it as such only proves that you don't know what you're talking about. On the contrary, being independent of the Lord's help is egocentric; indeed, prideful.

Originally posted by Nemesio
NWR & WoT

It wasn't for you anyway.