deepundergroundpoetry.com
THE GREATEST MAN IN THE WORLD
THE GREATEST MAN IN THE WORLD
I think of what Jesus has taught,
and stand awestruck before this man.
I find Him that He is the best
of all who've walked under the sun.
I put aside that He is God
and write about His life on earth.
He's taught man love and to support
the little ones, not those of wealth.
He had great ruth on that female
whom none dared her soul to elate.
He sympathized despite the risk
and saved her from her horrid fate.
Who can endure the insults that
He suffered but He could forgive?
We can't withstand a little grudge
till we retort what we receive.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
I think of what Jesus has taught,
and stand awestruck before this man.
I find Him that He is the best
of all who've walked under the sun.
I put aside that He is God
and write about His life on earth.
He's taught man love and to support
the little ones, not those of wealth.
He had great ruth on that female
whom none dared her soul to elate.
He sympathized despite the risk
and saved her from her horrid fate.
Who can endure the insults that
He suffered but He could forgive?
We can't withstand a little grudge
till we retort what we receive.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 15th May 2022
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 2
reading list entries 1
comments 32
reads 293
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
"I find Him that He is the best
of all who've walked under the sun."
How awkwardly this claim is set out!
Your first line should have been written "I find that he's the best .."
And the second line implies that Jesus was not the best of all who walk under the moon, which is something that men (and women and children), including Jesus did (and do) do, You would have been better off writing "the best of all who walk upon the earth,"
And what's with
Who can endure the insults that
He suffered but He could forgive.
Surely you meant ... "He suffered but He quite forgave."
Your use of "could" makes you say that Jesus had the capacity to forgive, not that he DID forgive the insults that he endured.
And you've mis-punctuated this question. Where is its question mark?
In any case, just because YOU believe that Jesus was the greatest man in the world does not mean that he was. He is not the only person who has met the criteria you use to support your claim.
Many others have taught others to love the "little ones", placed themselves at risk in order to prevent a scorn worthy woman from being harmed, shown pity to sinful women and engaged in their elation, and forgiven insults just as great or even greater than Jesus endured while eschewing returning insult for insult.
Sorry, but this is overly pious all tell no show treacle.
of all who've walked under the sun."
How awkwardly this claim is set out!
Your first line should have been written "I find that he's the best .."
And the second line implies that Jesus was not the best of all who walk under the moon, which is something that men (and women and children), including Jesus did (and do) do, You would have been better off writing "the best of all who walk upon the earth,"
And what's with
Who can endure the insults that
He suffered but He could forgive.
Surely you meant ... "He suffered but He quite forgave."
Your use of "could" makes you say that Jesus had the capacity to forgive, not that he DID forgive the insults that he endured.
And you've mis-punctuated this question. Where is its question mark?
In any case, just because YOU believe that Jesus was the greatest man in the world does not mean that he was. He is not the only person who has met the criteria you use to support your claim.
Many others have taught others to love the "little ones", placed themselves at risk in order to prevent a scorn worthy woman from being harmed, shown pity to sinful women and engaged in their elation, and forgiven insults just as great or even greater than Jesus endured while eschewing returning insult for insult.
Sorry, but this is overly pious all tell no show treacle.
15th May 2022 9:08pm
Very dear Baldwin,
1-Can you tell me the grammatical difference between,
"I find Him that He is the best...", and as you say," l find that He is the best..."?
1-Can you tell me the grammatical difference between,
"I find Him that He is the best...", and as you say," l find that He is the best..."?
15th May 2022 10:17pm
"Can you tell me the grammatical difference between,
"I find Him that He is the best...", and as you say," l find that He is the best..."?
Why should I, especially since I did not say " l find that He is the best..."?
I said "I find that he's the best"
Once again you misquote me, presumably to give you graounds to claim that I don't know what I am talking about or that I don't know to write a metrically sound line.
And thanks for evading speaking to the other points I raised about how poorly written your all tell, no show non interesting confessional piece is written.
"I find Him that He is the best...", and as you say," l find that He is the best..."?
Why should I, especially since I did not say " l find that He is the best..."?
I said "I find that he's the best"
Once again you misquote me, presumably to give you graounds to claim that I don't know what I am talking about or that I don't know to write a metrically sound line.
And thanks for evading speaking to the other points I raised about how poorly written your all tell, no show non interesting confessional piece is written.
16th May 2022 9:13am
Dear Baldwin,
You said,"l find that he's the best". This is TRIMETER, but the lines in my poem are TETRAMETER. However, what is the grammatical difference between, I FIND THAT HE'S THE BEST, and I FIND HIM THAT HE IS THE BEST. If you don't mind explain the grammatical difference between these two sentences.
You said,"l find that he's the best". This is TRIMETER, but the lines in my poem are TETRAMETER. However, what is the grammatical difference between, I FIND THAT HE'S THE BEST, and I FIND HIM THAT HE IS THE BEST. If you don't mind explain the grammatical difference between these two sentences.
"Dear Baldwin,
You said,"l find that he's the best". This is TRIMETER, but the lines in my poem are TETRAMETER. However, what is the grammatical difference between, I FIND THAT HE'S THE BEST, and I FIND HIM THAT HE IS THE BEST. If you don't mind [sic ,] explain the grammatical difference between these two sentences."
And again, as I predicted, we have another evasion of speaking to the other points I raised about how and why this piece of yours is poorly written
In any case, how is the fact that the meter that "I find that he's the best" displays(which, BTW is IAMBIC trimeter, not just trimeter) relevant to the question of what the **grammatical** difference is between that line and "I find him that he is the best"?
You are assuming when you ask me to answer this, that there is no grammatical difference between these lines and therefore, that my claim that you should have written "I find that he's the best" is off the mark. Perhaps you will justify your implicit claim that "I find him that he is the best" is grammatically sound and not a solecism, let alone not an awkwardly written assertion, by showing how and why this is so.
I doubt that you will be able to do so convincingly.
You said,"l find that he's the best". This is TRIMETER, but the lines in my poem are TETRAMETER. However, what is the grammatical difference between, I FIND THAT HE'S THE BEST, and I FIND HIM THAT HE IS THE BEST. If you don't mind [sic ,] explain the grammatical difference between these two sentences."
And again, as I predicted, we have another evasion of speaking to the other points I raised about how and why this piece of yours is poorly written
In any case, how is the fact that the meter that "I find that he's the best" displays(which, BTW is IAMBIC trimeter, not just trimeter) relevant to the question of what the **grammatical** difference is between that line and "I find him that he is the best"?
You are assuming when you ask me to answer this, that there is no grammatical difference between these lines and therefore, that my claim that you should have written "I find that he's the best" is off the mark. Perhaps you will justify your implicit claim that "I find him that he is the best" is grammatically sound and not a solecism, let alone not an awkwardly written assertion, by showing how and why this is so.
I doubt that you will be able to do so convincingly.
Do you think that l wrote the poem, and l don't know that it is iamb? You make me laugh, Baldwin.
Hoo boy! Another red herring. The issue is the **grammatical soundness** of "I find Him that He is the best", not whether the particular metrical foot your sentence is written in is iambic.
In any case, why are you bringing this claim up? When did I say that you didn't know that the feet of your lines are set in iambs?
And I take it that you meant to say "Do you think that since l wrote the poem, l don't know what meter I set it out in and that its lines are iambIC?". since a poem is not an iamb.
In any case, why are you bringing this claim up? When did I say that you didn't know that the feet of your lines are set in iambs?
And I take it that you meant to say "Do you think that since l wrote the poem, l don't know what meter I set it out in and that its lines are iambIC?". since a poem is not an iamb.
16th May 2022 9:03pm
When I consider all that Jesus taught,
proclaimed, consistently rehearsed,
about the God of Israel,
his mercies and his grace
towards both sinner and the saint,
and how H-Shem requires his chosen ones,
his would-be faithful sons,
to focus on displaying charity,
especially unto their lowly kin
and also what this Nazorean did for those
who were deprived of justice, kindness, health
and hope,
or suffered from the grave effects
of what their leaders did
to please their Roman overlords,
I cannot help but to begin
to find that Jesus is among the best
of men who’ve ever walked
upon the God blessed earth.
I also note that those who for his sake endured
excruciating martyrdoms
gave witness to the fact
that it’s not only Jesus who withstood
and then forgave, without retort,
or giving like for like,
the grudge born insults that they each received
from those who thought
that following the Servant’s call
to bless, not curse their persecuting enemies
was something that within the light
of how much evil’s in the world
was foolishness, and quite naive.
proclaimed, consistently rehearsed,
about the God of Israel,
his mercies and his grace
towards both sinner and the saint,
and how H-Shem requires his chosen ones,
his would-be faithful sons,
to focus on displaying charity,
especially unto their lowly kin
and also what this Nazorean did for those
who were deprived of justice, kindness, health
and hope,
or suffered from the grave effects
of what their leaders did
to please their Roman overlords,
I cannot help but to begin
to find that Jesus is among the best
of men who’ve ever walked
upon the God blessed earth.
I also note that those who for his sake endured
excruciating martyrdoms
gave witness to the fact
that it’s not only Jesus who withstood
and then forgave, without retort,
or giving like for like,
the grudge born insults that they each received
from those who thought
that following the Servant’s call
to bless, not curse their persecuting enemies
was something that within the light
of how much evil’s in the world
was foolishness, and quite naive.
19th May 2022 10:46am
I like it how you focus on the point that there are even more people to give homage to, yes, Jesus is not the only one that is a martyr and deserves applause.
However, when you say Jesus is the best, it is not necessarily meant to exclude the role model of the others.
Also, it is worth it when you defend goodness, otherwise at some point life will cease to be. That always comes with a touch of naivete, as , well, good people always are a bit naive. This does not mean they are fooled, it is just natural foolishness that saves the day at the end, with its heroism.
I don't feel that your poem contradicts Joseph's in any way.
Sometimes it is not necessary to focus on one meaning, I believe that there is a broader way to interpret a piece, as poems sometimes expand beyond the original meaning. Also, at the first glance two opposites may be more similar than expected, if the reader just keeps an open mind.
I like the poems of both of you.
However, when you say Jesus is the best, it is not necessarily meant to exclude the role model of the others.
Also, it is worth it when you defend goodness, otherwise at some point life will cease to be. That always comes with a touch of naivete, as , well, good people always are a bit naive. This does not mean they are fooled, it is just natural foolishness that saves the day at the end, with its heroism.
I don't feel that your poem contradicts Joseph's in any way.
Sometimes it is not necessary to focus on one meaning, I believe that there is a broader way to interpret a piece, as poems sometimes expand beyond the original meaning. Also, at the first glance two opposites may be more similar than expected, if the reader just keeps an open mind.
I like the poems of both of you.
"However, when you say Jesus is the best, it is not necessarily meant to exclude the role model of the others.
Really? If you take Joseph at his word, he certainly does mean this.
And in any case, I did not say that Jesus is the best. Here s what I actually said:
I cannot help but to begin
to find that Jesus is among the best
of men who’ve ever walked
upon the God blessed earth.
Are you, as is Joseph, one who often misreads what is written on a "page"? It appears so.
Really? If you take Joseph at his word, he certainly does mean this.
And in any case, I did not say that Jesus is the best. Here s what I actually said:
I cannot help but to begin
to find that Jesus is among the best
of men who’ve ever walked
upon the God blessed earth.
Are you, as is Joseph, one who often misreads what is written on a "page"? It appears so.
18th May 2022 10:14pm
18th May 2022 11:07pm
19th May 2022 9:37am
Very dear Baldwin,
I write poetry to discover myself, life, and to have more and more faith in Jesus Christ. Then, l try to make other people get some benefit from my experience if they can find any of it. I don't write to raise hatred with anybody. Unfortunately, very few try to discuss my points although l have good will towards everybody. I am trying to discover some benefit from my poetry and to make it known to the readers.
I write poetry to discover myself, life, and to have more and more faith in Jesus Christ. Then, l try to make other people get some benefit from my experience if they can find any of it. I don't write to raise hatred with anybody. Unfortunately, very few try to discuss my points although l have good will towards everybody. I am trying to discover some benefit from my poetry and to make it known to the readers.
The issue is not why you write what you post. It's whether what you post is well written.
And as I've shown by pointing out this piece's literary and linguistic faults and its question-begging claims, it isn't.
Of course, you could alw3ays show me that I'm wrong by demonstrating (not asserting) that my remarks are off base, but we both know that you will not do this.
I
And as I've shown by pointing out this piece's literary and linguistic faults and its question-begging claims, it isn't.
Of course, you could alw3ays show me that I'm wrong by demonstrating (not asserting) that my remarks are off base, but we both know that you will not do this.
I
19th May 2022 10:40am
I was speaking to Joseph-Zenieh.
Please note that poems are there to express the personal viewpoint and are subject to many interpretations.
They are not meant for everybody to have the same opinion, most of all they provoke discussions and provide material to consider and reflect on.
It is never possible to offer a complete truth to the audience, because who knows the entire truth?
There will always be people that may disagree, and they may have a point, yet, if one has an insight, there is nothing wrong to share it with the world.
Intuition provides different aspects to different people, usually based on their current experience, knowledge and impressions.
Therefore, it is always applausable to share beliefs and I think Joseph never tried to force anyone into them.
I get it that you also have a position to defend I can see that you're also doing a thorough job to "investigate" life, therefore, I can answer to your question (Baldwin) that I can find sparkle of divine passion within both of you.
Keep sharing opinions, guys. :)
Please note that poems are there to express the personal viewpoint and are subject to many interpretations.
They are not meant for everybody to have the same opinion, most of all they provoke discussions and provide material to consider and reflect on.
It is never possible to offer a complete truth to the audience, because who knows the entire truth?
There will always be people that may disagree, and they may have a point, yet, if one has an insight, there is nothing wrong to share it with the world.
Intuition provides different aspects to different people, usually based on their current experience, knowledge and impressions.
Therefore, it is always applausable to share beliefs and I think Joseph never tried to force anyone into them.
I get it that you also have a position to defend I can see that you're also doing a thorough job to "investigate" life, therefore, I can answer to your question (Baldwin) that I can find sparkle of divine passion within both of you.
Keep sharing opinions, guys. :)
19th May 2022 11:18am
Very dear Boyana,
Thank you very much for your extremely kind comment, which l have been waiting for such a long time. You make me feel that l am writing to open minded people who give me courage to write. You have created new courage in me. I hope that we will be great friends helping each other to what will be the benefit of us both.
Thank you very much for your extremely kind comment, which l have been waiting for such a long time. You make me feel that l am writing to open minded people who give me courage to write. You have created new courage in me. I hope that we will be great friends helping each other to what will be the benefit of us both.
19th May 2022 11:23am
Joseph, many people see your talent, but some of them just don't comment or don't know how to express their feelings.
You are quite talented and have a unique approach, it is simply not the usual wording and phrases, and I really like it.
I can notice the warmth of your poems and our world needs such love and mercy, and I believe your mission has influenced many hearts positively:)
You are quite talented and have a unique approach, it is simply not the usual wording and phrases, and I really like it.
I can notice the warmth of your poems and our world needs such love and mercy, and I believe your mission has influenced many hearts positively:)
19th May 2022 2:48pm
19th May 2022 2:57pm
How did you decide the opposite?
He has many readers, not everyone is negative as you.
You can't simply comment each of his poems fiercely to point out only bad aspects.
Obviously you are biased.
People see his talent, as they are not all like you. Sorry but it's true.
He has many readers, not everyone is negative as you.
You can't simply comment each of his poems fiercely to point out only bad aspects.
Obviously you are biased.
People see his talent, as they are not all like you. Sorry but it's true.
I have no evidence **many** people think J-Z has talent. What evidence do you have for claiming that **many** people think he does, let alone that the reason they remain silent on this matter is that they don't know how to express themselves rather than because they think his submissions aren't worth commenting upon and that in their eyes he has no talent?
19th May 2022 3:13pm
19th May 2022 3:28pm
What's your evidence that I hold a grudge, let alone that even if I do, the things I say about the way J-Z writes are untrue and unwarranted?.
Can you show me how and why through reasoned argument and evidence that my remarks about the literary and linguistic faults that are in his submission and that are based upon objective criteria for determining what is and is not good writing are invalid?
If anyone shows bias (as well as a lack of knowledge about what good poetry consists of) it's you. The fact that you engage in the logical fallacy (poisoning the well) that J-Z employs to dismiss the validity of my remarks makes me wonder if you are J-Z himself posting under an assumed identity.
Can you show me how and why through reasoned argument and evidence that my remarks about the literary and linguistic faults that are in his submission and that are based upon objective criteria for determining what is and is not good writing are invalid?
If anyone shows bias (as well as a lack of knowledge about what good poetry consists of) it's you. The fact that you engage in the logical fallacy (poisoning the well) that J-Z employs to dismiss the validity of my remarks makes me wonder if you are J-Z himself posting under an assumed identity.
"You hold a grudge and it is toxic.AaronBraveHeart"
This is a dodge of my question to you. It indicates that you have no evidence for your claims.
This is a dodge of my question to you. It indicates that you have no evidence for your claims.
19th May 2022 3:34pm
How do you have the claims? Just as much as I can tell, Just the Same it is for you. You are avoiding the fact that you hold a grudge. Maybe it was Jesus in All his love to tell you, See, baldwin, Joesph is wrong. It is far better to ruin his confidence as an author, I even think this should BE the mission of your life. Now stop it, as you are getting ridiculous!
19th May 2022 3:51pm
This is a dodge of my request to you to provide evidence for your claims. Such dodges indicate that a person has nothing to back up what they have claimed.
19th May 2022 5:12pm
"How do you have the claims?"
This is Josepheam English.
And you have yet to show not only that I **have** a grudge, but that having a grudge invalidates renders the claims I make about how and why Joseph's submissions are poorly written, Apparently you do not know that in saying it does is a logical fallacy.
This is Josepheam English.
And you have yet to show not only that I **have** a grudge, but that having a grudge invalidates renders the claims I make about how and why Joseph's submissions are poorly written, Apparently you do not know that in saying it does is a logical fallacy.
19th May 2022 12:09pm
Very dear Boyana,
This is the first time l really find myself worthy of writing poetry. Thank you very much, Boyana.
This is the first time l really find myself worthy of writing poetry. Thank you very much, Boyana.
19th May 2022 3:41pm
Very dear Baldwin,
You have exaggerated a lot in criticizing my poetry. You've also attacked the people who have praised my poetry. When l look at all your poetry, l find that 3/4 of it is about JOSEPH ZENIEH. What does that mean? Can you explain it? However, if there weren't something worthy in my poetry, you would not give it all that time and your poetry. Now why do you attack the lady who tries to write her real point of view in my poetry. Is that gallant of you? Why do you have all these grudges towards me? Is there a sufficient reason?
You have exaggerated a lot in criticizing my poetry. You've also attacked the people who have praised my poetry. When l look at all your poetry, l find that 3/4 of it is about JOSEPH ZENIEH. What does that mean? Can you explain it? However, if there weren't something worthy in my poetry, you would not give it all that time and your poetry. Now why do you attack the lady who tries to write her real point of view in my poetry. Is that gallant of you? Why do you have all these grudges towards me? Is there a sufficient reason?
"You have exaggerated a lot in criticizing my poetry. "
So you say. But one thing is true, you have never **demonstrated** the truth of your claim that I engage in any (let alone "a lo"t of) exaggeration when I criticize your submissions. In fact, you always run away from doing this when you are asked to do so.
"When l look at all your poetry, l find that 3/4 of it is about JOSEPH ZENIEH. "
If anyone is exaggerating here, it's you. As I have shown countless times, **there is no truth to this claim**. I have on a number of occasions provided you with a list of the 260 or so submissions I have made to DUP and asked you to tell me what evidence there is that 3/4 (or even half) of them are about you. But you've run away from doing that as well. presumably because you know that your claim cannot be sustained.
And if I spend time on your submissions, it's not because I find any worth in them. It's in the (alas, increasingly forlorn) hope that you will finally produce something that (1) is absent of concrete appeals to the senses, dull language, didacticism, your known and demonstrable penchant for solecisms, inversions, misuse of words, your sacrificing good grammar in order to make your lines fit a particular meter, your counterfactual and question-begging claims. and of for your continuing tendency to sacrifice sense on the altar of rhyme, and (2) that is worth reading and brings readers inside an experience through showing and not telling. You should actually be thanking me for how much detailed and warranted attention I pay to your submissions.
"Now why do you attack the lady who tries to write her real point of view in my poetry"
What kind of English is this? She writes **in** your poetry? (shouldn't you have written "of"?). And is it true that she only **tries ** to write her" point of view"? Did you mean to say "... who expresses what she truly feels about the quality of my poetry"?
In any case, I do not attack this person. I ask her to back up her claims and call "her" out, as one should, when she dodges doing so and commits logical fallacies.
So you say. But one thing is true, you have never **demonstrated** the truth of your claim that I engage in any (let alone "a lo"t of) exaggeration when I criticize your submissions. In fact, you always run away from doing this when you are asked to do so.
"When l look at all your poetry, l find that 3/4 of it is about JOSEPH ZENIEH. "
If anyone is exaggerating here, it's you. As I have shown countless times, **there is no truth to this claim**. I have on a number of occasions provided you with a list of the 260 or so submissions I have made to DUP and asked you to tell me what evidence there is that 3/4 (or even half) of them are about you. But you've run away from doing that as well. presumably because you know that your claim cannot be sustained.
And if I spend time on your submissions, it's not because I find any worth in them. It's in the (alas, increasingly forlorn) hope that you will finally produce something that (1) is absent of concrete appeals to the senses, dull language, didacticism, your known and demonstrable penchant for solecisms, inversions, misuse of words, your sacrificing good grammar in order to make your lines fit a particular meter, your counterfactual and question-begging claims. and of for your continuing tendency to sacrifice sense on the altar of rhyme, and (2) that is worth reading and brings readers inside an experience through showing and not telling. You should actually be thanking me for how much detailed and warranted attention I pay to your submissions.
"Now why do you attack the lady who tries to write her real point of view in my poetry"
What kind of English is this? She writes **in** your poetry? (shouldn't you have written "of"?). And is it true that she only **tries ** to write her" point of view"? Did you mean to say "... who expresses what she truly feels about the quality of my poetry"?
In any case, I do not attack this person. I ask her to back up her claims and call "her" out, as one should, when she dodges doing so and commits logical fallacies.
19th May 2022 6:07pm
Dear Baldwin,
What is the real percentage of your poetry about JOSEPH ZENIEH? Why are you so much interested in this poet? If he is a real failure, he does not need all that very long criticism and a certain percentage of your poetry to prove it.
Please don't attack those who consider me a good poet. It is a shame to do that, Baldwin.
What is the real percentage of your poetry about JOSEPH ZENIEH? Why are you so much interested in this poet? If he is a real failure, he does not need all that very long criticism and a certain percentage of your poetry to prove it.
Please don't attack those who consider me a good poet. It is a shame to do that, Baldwin.
"Dear Baldwin,
What is the real percentage of your poetry about JOSEPH ZENIEH?"
It's not my job to tell you. You're the one who claimed that it was 75%. Are you now saying that that figure is wrong?
And if, despite your claims to be a master poet, it's true that you are a failure at writing good poetry, then you need to hear how and why you are a failure as well as what you need to avoid doing if you are to become successful at writing well -- unless you have been lying all this time when you've noted that you want honest criticism of your submissions and instead want only praise.
And the length and number of my criticisms of any particular submission of yours is determined by how fault-filled and poorly written your submissions are, again assuming that you really want honest and thorough criticism of them.
I suspect that the real reason you are complaining about the length and number of my criticisms of particular submissions of yours, as well as the fact that a portion of my submissions are devoted to showing that you write poorly and don't know what you are talking about Is that you don't like being shown so thoroughly and precisely that you don't have the poetic talent that you claim you have.
But if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
What is the real percentage of your poetry about JOSEPH ZENIEH?"
It's not my job to tell you. You're the one who claimed that it was 75%. Are you now saying that that figure is wrong?
And if, despite your claims to be a master poet, it's true that you are a failure at writing good poetry, then you need to hear how and why you are a failure as well as what you need to avoid doing if you are to become successful at writing well -- unless you have been lying all this time when you've noted that you want honest criticism of your submissions and instead want only praise.
And the length and number of my criticisms of any particular submission of yours is determined by how fault-filled and poorly written your submissions are, again assuming that you really want honest and thorough criticism of them.
I suspect that the real reason you are complaining about the length and number of my criticisms of particular submissions of yours, as well as the fact that a portion of my submissions are devoted to showing that you write poorly and don't know what you are talking about Is that you don't like being shown so thoroughly and precisely that you don't have the poetic talent that you claim you have.
But if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
28th May 2022 7:54pm
A response from Alan R. Bevere to anyone who, like you, J-Z, who domesticates Jesus"
"One of the flaws of the most characteristic Liberal portrayal of Jesus was the unlikelihood that anyone would have wanted to crucify such an attractive moral teacher. In recent questing it has been more widely recognized that a test of any hypothesis' viability is whether it provides a satisfactory answer to the question, Why was Jesus crucified?—James D.G. Dunn"
The great challenge for preachers of the Gospel in the West is to overcome the intellectually shallow and theologically inept summaries of Jesus’ life and ministry being first and foremost, primarily, and basically about love. The focus on the concept of love marginalizes cross and resurrection, which ironically in turn undermines the radical nature of the kind of love Jesus displayed.
Stanley Hauerwas likes to get at this problem by asking if it’s possible to imagine Jesus walking around Judea and saying something like, “Hey, Guys... I have this radical idea. I think we should love each other.” And the response of the religious establishment is, “What! Love one another! We can’t let this guy spread his subversive message! Let’s string him up!”
Now before I get all the comments and emails reminding me of how much Jesus and the New Testament writers mention love, let me respond by saying that I know such is the case. I am not exactly ignorant when it comes to Scripture. The problem is that the modern tendency to dehistoricize and detheologize Jesus and his ministry into principles and concepts robs us of the context which makes the biblical notion of love intelligible. Without it we lose what it truly means for Jesus to tell his followers to love one another. The great sacrifice of cross and the wonderful victory of resurrection by which Christian love is understood is replaced by the modern romanticism of love as primarily a feeling, as the justification for behavior without consequences, and living a life devoid of transformation. We move from Jesus’ statement that no greater love can be displayed in laying down one’s life to it doesn’t matter how we behave because God loves us no matter what.
It doesn’t take a profound thinker to know that the primary motivation for this dehistorizing and detheologizing of Jesus is to domesticate his life and work into something more palatable to modern sensibilities. The Jesus who comes to us from the pages of the New Testament demands too much from us. We need to reduce Jesus, to simplify him. We simply cannot have a Jesus running around doing miraculous things. So in Bishop Spong and John Crossan fashion we first deconstruct the Jesus we can’t accept and then we reconstruct him after our own image and our own expectations. Jesus now becomes safe to follow. Yes, Jesus is still presented as a radical, but he is a domesticated revolutionary. He is one who looks like a hippie from the 1960s or a political activist whose methods of power and coercion look no different from the politics of the nations.
But a domesticated revolutionary will not bring about serious change; he will just reinforce the agendas of those who are frankly doing nothing more than using Jesus as a prop to get what they want. Jesus was crucified because he presented a true alternative to the ways of the world that could not and will not be displayed in the politics of the current age. Jesus was not killed for promoting right-wing violence on behalf of the state, and he was not crucified for advocating a progressive social agenda. Jesus was crucified because he presented a serious threat to the status quo in all forms; and it will not do just to present his life and ministry as supporting any modern political and social agenda. And those Christians who attempt to do so are domesticating Jesus into doing their bidding.
But the real Jesus, the Jesus who comes to us from the pages of the New Testament, will not be so domesticated. Jesus has not come to conform to our expectations. We must conform to his. You don’t get strung up on a cross by running around telling everyone to love each other, and we won’t be able to understand the nature of discipleship without knowing that cross and resurrection stands at the heart of what it means to walk with Jesus. Cross and resurrection are about more than what God has done for us (and what God has done for us is much more than sentimental niceties about love); they also provide the blueprint for how Christians are to bear witness to the love of God in the world.
___
"One of the flaws of the most characteristic Liberal portrayal of Jesus was the unlikelihood that anyone would have wanted to crucify such an attractive moral teacher. In recent questing it has been more widely recognized that a test of any hypothesis' viability is whether it provides a satisfactory answer to the question, Why was Jesus crucified?—James D.G. Dunn"
The great challenge for preachers of the Gospel in the West is to overcome the intellectually shallow and theologically inept summaries of Jesus’ life and ministry being first and foremost, primarily, and basically about love. The focus on the concept of love marginalizes cross and resurrection, which ironically in turn undermines the radical nature of the kind of love Jesus displayed.
Stanley Hauerwas likes to get at this problem by asking if it’s possible to imagine Jesus walking around Judea and saying something like, “Hey, Guys... I have this radical idea. I think we should love each other.” And the response of the religious establishment is, “What! Love one another! We can’t let this guy spread his subversive message! Let’s string him up!”
Now before I get all the comments and emails reminding me of how much Jesus and the New Testament writers mention love, let me respond by saying that I know such is the case. I am not exactly ignorant when it comes to Scripture. The problem is that the modern tendency to dehistoricize and detheologize Jesus and his ministry into principles and concepts robs us of the context which makes the biblical notion of love intelligible. Without it we lose what it truly means for Jesus to tell his followers to love one another. The great sacrifice of cross and the wonderful victory of resurrection by which Christian love is understood is replaced by the modern romanticism of love as primarily a feeling, as the justification for behavior without consequences, and living a life devoid of transformation. We move from Jesus’ statement that no greater love can be displayed in laying down one’s life to it doesn’t matter how we behave because God loves us no matter what.
It doesn’t take a profound thinker to know that the primary motivation for this dehistorizing and detheologizing of Jesus is to domesticate his life and work into something more palatable to modern sensibilities. The Jesus who comes to us from the pages of the New Testament demands too much from us. We need to reduce Jesus, to simplify him. We simply cannot have a Jesus running around doing miraculous things. So in Bishop Spong and John Crossan fashion we first deconstruct the Jesus we can’t accept and then we reconstruct him after our own image and our own expectations. Jesus now becomes safe to follow. Yes, Jesus is still presented as a radical, but he is a domesticated revolutionary. He is one who looks like a hippie from the 1960s or a political activist whose methods of power and coercion look no different from the politics of the nations.
But a domesticated revolutionary will not bring about serious change; he will just reinforce the agendas of those who are frankly doing nothing more than using Jesus as a prop to get what they want. Jesus was crucified because he presented a true alternative to the ways of the world that could not and will not be displayed in the politics of the current age. Jesus was not killed for promoting right-wing violence on behalf of the state, and he was not crucified for advocating a progressive social agenda. Jesus was crucified because he presented a serious threat to the status quo in all forms; and it will not do just to present his life and ministry as supporting any modern political and social agenda. And those Christians who attempt to do so are domesticating Jesus into doing their bidding.
But the real Jesus, the Jesus who comes to us from the pages of the New Testament, will not be so domesticated. Jesus has not come to conform to our expectations. We must conform to his. You don’t get strung up on a cross by running around telling everyone to love each other, and we won’t be able to understand the nature of discipleship without knowing that cross and resurrection stands at the heart of what it means to walk with Jesus. Cross and resurrection are about more than what God has done for us (and what God has done for us is much more than sentimental niceties about love); they also provide the blueprint for how Christians are to bear witness to the love of God in the world.
___
