Having a "Personal Relationship With Christ"

It was pretty much like the childhood relationships I had with my imaginary friends: I'd talk, no one would reply. I'd ask, no one would answer. I'd reach out, only air would meet me.

I can't have a relationship, personal or impersonal, with someone who isn't really there. I tried, honest. I got more response from the wall when I talked to it. At least I could touch the wall.
 
ned flandas said:
I think a good starting point is:

Revelation 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

This verse refers to our relationship with Jesus.
Click to expand...
It could equally be a Fuller Brush salesman, or Hannibal Lector.
 
Jesus doesn't stand at the door and knock. He hasn't been seen in almost 2000 years. You have to interpret the verse symbolically, which is to say, you can interpret it any way you like.
 
ruach1 said:
Ursula you're an interesting person.
Click to expand...

And susceptible to flattery!

ruach1 said:
The notion of a personal relationship with Christ began, as you have expressed, during the Renaissance....

"Unfiltered by the braking effect of other people" Gold, true gold. :)
Click to expand...

Thank ya, that was what I wanted to know! I'm not at all surprised--that's about when I'd expect it to date from, and corresponds more or less to the philosophical turn towards the individual that I'd expect. (Had it been a very, very recent thing, I'd have been surprised, and had it been present from the very outset, I'd also have been surprised--if memory serves, some of the various weird little early Christian groups that lived in caves and whatnot may have had similiar notions, but it obviously didn't catch on in mainstream Christianity until much later.)

*grin* While I may mix my metaphors, I do think that to a certain extent, the act of having to explain yourself to other people, or justify yourself to an intermediary for God, really helps. The god in your head may be telling you to wrap the house in tinfoil and make earmuffs out of live gophers, but when you have to explain this to a priest, it just sounds WEIRD.
 
David Swidler said:
[pet peeve]Actually, it's "I will be," not "I am."

The name YHWH uses the root HYH to ihndicate YHWH as the source of all reality.[/pet peeve]
Click to expand...
[pet peeve] "Hey you! The light's green! That's right--green! Its not going to turn another shade! Go you _____! [pet peeve]

Pet peeves aside, I do believe we're on the same page, theologically speaking, n'est pas? God=YHWH=Supreme BEING. The "nature" of God is BEING as in not the thunder, stars, mountains, or fertility in nature? Thus if God is BEING, then a personal (person to Person since we have being (small "b") relationship is possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong. No really. I mean it. :)
 
Last edited:
ruach1 said:
[pet peeve] "Hey you! The light's green! That's right--green! Its not going to turn another shade! Go you _____! [pet peeve]

Pet peeves aside, I do believe we're on the same page, theologically speaking, n'est pas? God=YHWH=Supreme BEING. The "nature" of God is BEING as in not the thunder, stars, mountains, or fertility in nature? Thus if God is BEING, then a personal (person to Person since we have being (small "b") relationship is possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong. No really. I mean it. :)
Click to expand...

It's only sort of possible.

The name YHWH, representing God as the source of all reality, is an all-encompassing, individuality-denying idea (somewhat akin to some Buddhist ideas). In order to create a possibility for a relationship, YHWH must make "room" in reality for other entities to even exist. So relating to God can't be done in terms of YHWH, which is why other names of God are used, each representing certain "aspects" of, but not the the overwhelming totality of, God.

That, incidentally, is why Jews say "Adonai," ("Lord") a different name, when reading YHWH in the text. "Adonai" doesn't carry the same all-encompassing weight, and allows for the idea of relationship with an independent human entity.
 
Last edited:
David Swidler said:
It's only sort of possible.

The name YHWH, representing God as the source of all reality, is an all-encompassing, individuality-denying idea (somewhat akin to some Buddhist ideas). In order to create a possibility for a relationship, YHWH must make "room" in reality for other entities to even exist. So relating to God can't be done in terms of YHWH, which is why other names of God are used, each representing certain "aspects" of, but not the the overwhelming totality of, God.

That, incidentally, is why Jews say "Adonai," ("Lord") a different name, when reading YHWH in the text. "Adonai" doesn't carry the same all-encompassing weight, and allows for the idea of relationship with an independent human entity.
Click to expand...
Hey Dave, is this standard Jewish theology, or is it your personal vision? Why? Because the answer I would give would depend on your response.
 
I think it's interesting how you have all these people having this ' personal ' relationship with Jesus Christ, but for many it's a different experience.
They don't all come away with the same story.
Sounds like this Jesus guy is playing somebody ..

Yeah.. That's the ticket.. Jesus, the player ... ( strokes chin thoughtfully )
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
As far as the Southern Baptist church I grew up in is concerned ... they never brought up Calvin.
Click to expand...
Most modern U.S. Calvanistic denominations wouldn't have.

Calvin thought Luther's Reformation was a bit too forgiving and had one of his own, called the "Second Reformation" by his some of his adherents. (Although Reformation history in Europe is far too complex to respectably justify that title, it leads well enough into the next paragragh.) It's through this movement that the "hellfire and damnation" fundamentalist philosophies came to the fore and crossed the big lake to the new world.

In the United States there were another string of "Reformations" (bringing the total number to three or five depending on who's history you buy into) that lead to the commonly known U.S. fundamentalist denominations: Baptist, Evangelical, [/i]et c. as well as that ultimate conciet, "just plain Christans". These groups rarely, if ever, reference Calvin but philisophicay speaking they definitly fall under the Calvanistic -- rather than mainline (Lutherans, Church of England, and so forth) -- Protesant tradition.
 
Last edited:
David Swidler said:
It's only sort of possible.

The name YHWH, representing God as the source of all reality, is an all-encompassing, individuality-denying idea (somewhat akin to some Buddhist ideas). In order to create a possibility for a relationship, YHWH must make "room" in reality for other entities to even exist. So relating to God can't be done in terms of YHWH, which is why other names of God are used, each representing certain "aspects" of, but not the the overwhelming totality of, God.

That, incidentally, is why Jews say "Adonai," ("Lord") a different name, when reading YHWH in the text. "Adonai" doesn't carry the same all-encompassing weight, and allows for the idea of relationship with an independent human entity.
Click to expand...
What's in a name? Well, I now have learned that there's more in a name to Jews than I once knew.

I understand the above, and I'm not going to play the JREF scold to any of it. However, If "Adonai" refers to God, and YHWH refers to God, then are they not refering to the same Entity? It seems that the answer to this would be "Yes" in the overall sense but "No" in the personal sense. If I (as a faithful Jew) pray and use YHWH, then I am praying to a non-personal MONAD idea of God, whereas if I pray and use "Adonai" (Lord) then I am being personal with a personal God and not impersonal with an impersonal Universal MONAD to which YHWH refers to Jews. Is this the case?

Personally speaking, I had an experience which can be described as just about the exact opposite of the above. You see, when I made the connection between YHWH and 'hayah' as verb "to be," my personal relationship with God was edified dramatically. Why? Because now, to me, God is/was/will be BEING (in relation to 'hayah' "to be"), whereas before God was more or less an idea about which (not to whom) I offered allegiance--an idea which greatly resembles what you described as how Jews see YHWH. (By the way, the Buddhist reference really worked for me.)

In terms of the Christ and Christianity, the relation between the "Persons" of the Trinity now seem to make more sense because they are all distinct but not separte "Persons" of one BEING (nature of God). Thus a personal relationship with God is possible because God is BEING, and since we have being, we two BEING/beings can relate due to a common bond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
 
Last edited:
ned flandas said:
I think a good starting point is:

Revelation 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

This verse refers to our relationship with Jesus.
Click to expand...


wow - Jesus is a Jehovahs Witness?
 
c4ts said:
It started when one of Evangelical met Jesus. The two of them got drunk and slept with each other.

But seriously, it sounds like they're just stating their strongly held personal opinions.
Click to expand...


.. What would 13 guys do in the middle of a desert? Think about it.
 
TimmyBerry said:
.. What would 13 guys do in the middle of a desert? Think about it.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe they might rebuild their downed aircraft, rename it "The Phoenix," and fly it to the nearest safe haven. :filmstrip

But what does this have to do with the OP?
 
Father Jason told me not to talk about my personal relationship with the Lord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom