WHO CAN DO THAT?

Here are some notes about how and why this “all tell, no show”  piece should be regarded as containing risible and highly questionable claims and well as poor writing.  
 
“You changed the fate of vanquished men  
who were afraid of lots of things.”  
   
Really?  Does the New Testament say that those men who lived with Jesus were vanquished, let alone afraid of “lots of things”.  And is not “lots of things” too much of an abstraction to convey any meaning poetic language” as well as something that forces a reader to want to ask “What kinds of things?”?  
   
“They lived with You and saw Your signs,    
which no man could ever have done.”    
   
Your syntax here makes you say that “vanquished men” did what was ordinarily impossible for men to do.  If you meant to say that “vanquished men” saw things that no one, except the one who changed their fate, could do, you haven’t done so, even if “signs” are things one “does”.  You needed to have said something like  
   
...  and saw your signs  
which no one, save for you,  
could ever have performed.  
   
to make your intent clear.  
   
You might also wish to take into account the facts that it is only in the Gospel of John that “You”  (presumably Jesus”) is said to have worked   σημεια.  In the Synoptics Jesus is portrayed as standing against giving them (or at least certain types of them) and that many of the “works” of Jesus that John labels “signs”, namely, changing water into wine,  healing the sick, feeding a large crowd, walking on water, and bringing someone dead back to life,   are recorded in the Bible and in Greco Roman literature as having been done by others.   So once again you are making unfounded, if not false, and showing yourself as ill informed with respect to the claims you state as true.  
    
“Their faith was that You were the Son    
but they would ask, "Could He be killed?"    
   
Sorry, but there’s nowhere in the New testament that states that anyone ever asked “could he [Jesus] be killed”.  The presupposition of the disciples and of Jesus himself was that he most certainly could be killed.  What the disciple believed , notably in strong opposition to what Jesus openly declared was going to happen to him, was that he would not, and should not,  allow himself to be killed.  
   
“They were bewildered for three days    
when You were in the grave wrapped dead. “    
   
This, as it stands,  is nonsense.  You are saying that Jesus was **in** (the) dead, not to mention that without the use of commas, you are stating that there is a type of “dead” known as “grave wrapped” and distinct from other types of “dead”    
   
Moreover, Jesus was laid in a tomb, not a grave and he lay there from Friday afternoon to the following Sunday morning before his tomb was seen to be empty,  first by women (or only by Mary Magdalene) and then by some of his disciples.  So the New Testament does not say that the disciples were bewildered for three days.  And the use of dead is not only a solecism but redundant since to say that one is in the grave means someone is dead.  
      
“Your men were scared.    
 They lost their guide. “  
   
Yes, they were scared.  But this was before Jesus was lost to them by being killed.  
   
“They did not know what they should do.    
The Lord whose words led all their acts    
was dead and they were orphaned kids.”    
   
The disciples were not kids, nor were they orphaned, let alone by Jesus since they were not his biological children.  What the New Testament says they felt was a sense of loss and deprivation and perhaps even abandonment.    
   
“What could abruptly bring them pluck    
to make them heroes, organized    
and move ahead just as before.”  
   
These lines pose a question.  They, therefore, need to have a question mark after “before” .  
   
Moreover, the New Testament notes that the disciples did NOT move ahead before Jesus died.  In fact, it shows them progressively resisting, and then abandoning the mission Jesus called them to  
    
“If it's rebirth, Who must You be?”  
   
But was it Jesus being "reborn" (which, actually,  he wasn’t after his burial since what happened to him then, i.e.,  resurrection,  involves having one’s body raised from death by God and transformed  into a new state of existence) that gave the disciples “pluck”?  Luke says it was the descent of Yahweh’s empowering presence upon them that brought them out of hiding and into boldness.  Nor was their becoming pluckish immediate.  It was some 50 days after Jesus' death that this occurred.  Moreover, what the New Testament states that the resurrection showed  Jesus to “be” was God’s anointed one charged with bringing Israel to her destiny,   not God.  So what you are implicitly claiming Jesus’ “rebirth” shows who he is (namely, God) does not comport with what the New Testament says it shows, let alone stands as evidence for.  
   
In any case, what’s here that would cause a reader to say, “Wow!, both the (pious) message here and the enchanting way it is set out makes me want not only to read this over and over again but to imitate the writing style of its author should I decide to write something."?  
   
Cue the “this is too long for me to read/there’s nothing here worth responding to” response instead of any actual engagement with what I have noted, let alone an articulate attempt to demonstrate how and why the things I noted are off base

What you have written is not related at all to the essence of the subject for the following reasons:
1- l am writing about how the disciples thought and felt, they were heartless after the death of Christ, and they were heartened after His resurrection, which you don't seem to understand as l conclude from your writing.
2- Please, don't try to speak as a teacher, and accuse others of being arrogant and proud, while your teaching is completely empty.
3- please, don't explain the meanings of words like RESURRECTION, I used REBIRTH to fit the meter as it is the closest to it. In your last poem you described your heart as "hollow and shark bones", but, ..., l didn't ask you about the relationships between them.
4- when you read poetry, try to have the imagination of a poet as you don't seem to have it.
5- When the events and themes of the poems can create the deepest feelings and emotions and  the subjects are serious, FIGURES OF SPEECH may spoil the subjects when it is serious in itself, not like most of your subjects. Finally, Please, reduce your hatred and grudges a bit.

"What you have written is not related at all to the essence of the subject for the following reasons:
1- l am writing about how the disciples thought and felt, they were heartless after the death of Christ, and they were heartened after His resurrection, which you don't seem to understand as l conclude from your writing."

Then your conclusion is off the mark.  Not only did I understand what you were writing about, but I also acknowledged that the disciples were "disheartened" (a word you did not use in your submission) after Jesus died and heartened after God raised Jesus from the dead.  What I noted was the poor way you set this out and how you made up things about Jesus and the disciples that are not attested to in Scripture.  I note now that you haven't shown that my claims about how poorly you wrote and how you show that you don't know what you are talking about when you claim (however indirectly ) that you are citing things that are presented in the Gospels and the book of Acts.

"2- Please, don't try to speak as a teacher, and accuse others of being arrogant and proud, while your teaching is completely empty."

I wonder if you'd demonstrate that my" teaching" on what is and is not found in the books of the Bible (and elsewhere) is "empty".  And even if you could do so,  that would not show that you are not arrogant and proud, let alone way off base in the things you say.

"3- please, don't explain the meanings of words like RESURRECTION, I used REBIRTH to fit the meter as it is the closest to it."

So your rule is that maintaining a particular meter is more important than actually using what would be the correct word for the phenomenon you say is the thing that answers the question of what it was that heartened the disciples to be bold and what it implies about Jesus' identity?  In any case, what's your evidence from the New Testament that what was involved in being "reborn" is, of all other things,  the closest to what was involved in being resurrected. Did ἀναγεννήσας really denote or connote the same thing (or even nearly the same thing) that dἀνάστασις (and its cognates) did?

If so, wouldn't we have to conclude that when the author of 1 Peter 1:23 declares to his audience that they " have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God", he is saying that they have already been subject to physical death and have been raised by God from the dead and had their bodies transformed so that it would never again see physical corruption?

"In your last poem you described your heart as "hollow and shark bones", but, ..., l didn't ask you about the relationships between them.""

In the first place,  I did not write "hollow and shark bones.  In the second place, it's unclear to me why I should have noted what the "relationships" between my descriptions of the state of my heart were.  

"4- when you read poetry, try to have the imagination of a poet as you don't seem to have it."

And your evidence for my not having the imagination of a poet is what?  Does having poetic imagination involve reading meaning into statements whose syntax makes them say something other than what they were intended to convey,  that they are nonsense and entails overlooking the fact that the claims one makes are not true?

"5- When the events and themes of the poems can create the deepest feelings and emotions and  the subjects are serious, FIGURES OF SPEECH may spoil the subjects when it is serious in itself, not like most of your subjects.  

Really?  And leaving aside the question of whether the theme of this piece and the events described within it actually create the deepest feelings and the deepest emotions in a reader,  I wonder if you'd demonstrate the validity of your claim by pointing to poems from what you call the golden age of poetry in which figures of speech (and the use of imagery that appeals to the senses) spoils the subject, not to mention prevents a reader from experiencing the deepest feelings and emotions.

I doubt that you can, let alone will, do this.  But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


"Please, reduce your hatred and grudges a bit."

Once again, you assume what you have never proven.  More importantly, you are still refusing to take into account the indisputable fact that even if hatred and grudges stand behind the things I write to you,  the truth of the claims I make about the way you write, not to mention the validity of the things I said about "Who Can Do That?", ***are not affected.***  They are true or false on their own terms and what has allegedly motivated me to make them has no bearing on whether or not they are unfounded.

I note that nothing you said in your message above shows that my remarks are off base.  Maybe someday you'll respond to my remarks with something that actually speaks to them directly instead of writing things that ignore them, misrepresent them, and are nothing more than insulting remarks about my person and my poetic capabilities when the issue at hand is NOT the way **I ** write, but whether or not YOUR compositions are well written, coherent, syntactically correct, characteristically all tell and no show, incomprehensible,  and display ignorance of what's true and isn't with respect to the subjects you write about,  unsustainable and question-begging claims and misrepresentations of what is said in the sources upon which you base the things you say.

 "l am writing about how the disciples thought and felt, they were heartless after the death of Christ, and they were heartened after His resurrection, which you don't seem to understand as l conclude from your writing."

Actually, what you were writing about was what caused the disciples to become heartened, whether it was Jesus having been "reborn" and what his being reborn would,  if it happened,  indicate who he was.  Along the way you falsely say that no other man that Jesus ever did, or could do,  the "signs" that he was recorded as having "done" , that the disciples asked a question that no source says they ever asked. and that upon his death Jesus was was placed in something that he was not placed in and that no one could ever be in.

So in your claim above, you have misrepresented what you wrote about, not to mention used a title for what you were writing about (or for even what you now say you were writing about) that has no relation to what you say you were writing about.  

But feel free to justify your lie that I seem not to have understood what the subject of your submission was.

Why do you talk much? Do you think there is a person who can read this boring...?

"Why do you talk [SIC so?] much? Do you think there is a person who can read this boring...?

And just as I predicted J-Z  would say when I noted that in response to an articulate demonstration that his claims are wrong ,  he'd revert to saying things like  “this is too long for me to read/there’s nothing here worth responding to”  and dodge engaging in  any actual engagement with what I have noted ,about his claims, as well as limpidly excuse himself from  doing what he should do if he thinks my remarks are off base, i.e., composing an articulated demonstration of how and why  the things I noted are off base he didn't disappoint me

But to respond directly to his remark above:  I'm sure there are persons who are able to read what I wrote, and even see that it is not what you claim (without substantiation) it is.

BTW,  just what IS "boring ...."?

Perhaps what you meant to say was, "Do you think that there is anyone here who wants to read, or is the slightest bit interested in reading what you have written to me?".

If so, my answer is yes.

You haven't got anything from all your ... except your grudges and boredom that no one bear to read.

Are you saying  that I receive my grudges from myself?  That's what the syntax of your claim makes you say  
 
And I think you meant to write  "that no one CAN bear to read", instead of "that no one bear to read."  
 
In any case,  I think I've figured out why you never directly counter the criticisms that someone makes of the way you write, let alone acknowledge them as having been made.  To do so would entail your admitting not only that your "work" can be seen as having literary and linguistic faults but that it deserves to be criticized.  But that is inconceivable to you since your ego is invested in the idea that you are incapable of writing poorly and that you never violate your own standards of what a writing has to have to be poetry. always  and even deserves it.  

It also explains why you never post your work to sites that (1) are moderated by people who are well versed in what is and is not good poetry, (2) who will not give  praise, as people do on DUP, to poems  that are filled with  incorrect grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes, misunderstandings of the meanings of words, and syntactical problems ,  (3) who will  asses the quality of a poem objectively,  (4)  who will speak straightforwardly to posters about  how and why a submitted poem is linguistically and literarily sloppy, badly written, nothing but prose in line breaks,  poetically ineffective, lacking in even a modicum of  the basic elements of poetic art if this is the case,, and (5) who will not tolerate anyone who thinks he or she is above criticism, let alone thinks that  ad hominems are proper responses to it.

You are afraid to find out what people who know something about poetry have to say about the quality and perceptiveness of your work since deep down you fear that qualified commentators will show, and with good reason will say,  that it isn't as good as you think it is, that you don't have the writing talent that you think you do,  and  that,  because of your egotism,  you desperately need to keep yourself from ever being made to doubt that you have it.  
 
Cue the excuses for not posting to anywhere other than vanity sites.

"You haven't got anything from all your ... except your grudges and boredom that no one bear to read."

leaving aside the question of whether boredom can be read by anyone,   your sentence needs be worded   "that no one CAN bear to read", or "that no one bearS to read" for it to be  sensible, not to mention syntactically and grammatically correct.

But speaking of  readers not being able to bear the things that someone writes,  I wonder if not being able to bear what you write accounts for the fact that over the last few years the number of  the many subscribers to DUP who read, let alone show appreciation for,  your submissions has decreased and is limited more  or less to a particular group of people who seem to have very little sense of what good poetry looks like or the ability to articulate how and why your pieces display the characteristic linguistic and literary features  that good poetry possesses.

Unless you have some apt, non self serving, ego saving  explanation for this fact (and it IS a fact) that acknowledges that those who once, but no longer, read your submissions are not  Philistines and know something about poetry,  isn't it  highly likely that the reason  that the previous number of people who used to read your submissions has dwindled is that those folks grew tired of the style in which you persistently set them out, were  surprised at your unwillingness to change the way you write or accept legitimate criticisms of it,  and became bored  with the subjects you write about,  and consequently judged your submissions as too painful to read and not worth spending time on?

It's a wonderful message.

What is the message of this piece and how is it "wonderful"?  If the message is that Jesus is great, let alone God, not only because he's the only one ever who "did" the "signs" he was reported to have performed, but because he was able to turn "vanquished men" into bold ones,  then it is a message that is remarkably untrue and therefore hardly wonderful.

And isn't what you should be doing, given what J-Z has noted (falsely?) that what he actually wants from you is not praise but an articulate and incisive analysis of how and why the way he has or hasn't used such things as captivating and evocative language,  compelling rhythm, sonics, and beautiful imagery in setting out his message?

Thank you very much, dear Lawrence. I am very glad that you understand my poems because l consider you a great poet who writes about themes most people appreciate and experience in their lives. I highly appreciate your like and your choosing my poems for your reading list. That means a lot to me. Joseph

Dear Baldwin,
I am sorry to read that you don't understand my poem, and the message it contains. Jesus chose His disciples, and they believed in and followed Him for three years.What would happen happen to them when He was killed in this terrible way? They showed that in their fear. He had told them that He would resurrect. What would happen to them, and really happened to them, among them Thomas, when they saw Him resurrected and His tomb empty, and He sat and ate with them? Wouldn't they regain a lot of , if we don't say, all their faith and courage, especially when they saw that all what He had told them came true although it was supernatural to the ordinary man. Should l explain every poem l write in this details to persuade you, Baldwin?

In other words,  what you speak about in the text of your submission  (the message of which I have shown you that I fully understand by noting how you have misrepresented what the Gospels and the Book of Acts say about Jesus and the disciples and the effect upon them of his resurrection)  does not answer the question your title poses or the one that is asked in your submission's last line.

The answer to your title's question is "quite a few people" can do what Jesus "did" (assuming that the "that" in your title refers to his making "vanquished men" bold and unafraid)  since it is undeniable that there have been lots of other people besides Jesus, not to mention the Holy Spirit,  who were able to embolden despairing and fear-ridden followers.

And you are wrong to say, as you do, that Thomas saw the empty tomb and that  Jesus told his disciples that "he would resurrect".  Matthew Mark and Luke report that what he said was that he "will rise again" (ἀναστήσεται)  which was an assertion that that meant that he was sure that he would BE resurrected by God.

More importantly,  the issue isn't whether or not I understood the message of your submission.  It's whether the way you worded it shows poetic art, is stylistically beautiful,  is rhythmically felicitous, and does not contradict or misrepresent what the Gospels and the book of Acts say about the relationship between Jesus and his disciples, when and by what phenomenon they became bold men, whether they were bold men during Jesus ministry,  and what the evangelists note that the fact that Jesus was seen to have been "reborn" indicated about who Jesus was.  

BTW,  it's only the author of the Gospel of John who says that Jesus' ministry lasted three years.  Matthew Mark and Luke depict it as lasting no more than a year.

You ask:

"What would happen to [the disciples], and really happened to them, among them Thomas, when they saw Him resurrected and His tomb empty, and He sat and ate with them? Wouldn't they regain a lot of , if we don't say, all their faith and courage, especially when they saw that all what He had told them came true although it was supernatural to the ordinary man. "

Leaving aside the question of what "all that he had told them" was ,  I ask you:

Is it true that according to Luke, who is the only evangelist who tells us that the disciples' disheartenings at Jesus' death were overcome,  it was the resurrected  Jesus' appearances to them that caused them to become infused with courage and to no longer fear appearing and being known in public as Jesus'  followers?  

Yes or no.

You claimed as true that the men whose fate was changed by Jesus

"were afraid of lots of things."

Please be kind enough to tell me what these "things" were and quote or point me to the specific text or texts in the Gospels that substantiate your claim that the disciples were afraid of them.