deepundergroundpoetry.com
WE'RE AWAITING CHRISTMAS.
WE'RE AWAITING CHRISTMAS.
Greatest hope to mankind will occur
in that cave faraway from the rich.
He's the king of all kings and He'll start
His own life in a cave shepherds have.
He conceives that His task is so hard.
They will end His short life on a cross,
and the start will be poor with no cash,
but He's pleased; His soul lives to no end.
He'll tell man nothing can spoil the glee;
a poor life, a harsh end won't bring fear
as man knows that his soul has no end
in a place full of calmness and peace.
Come, my Lord, show us that one is glad
as his joy overflows from inside
where no worms can destroy what he feels
which is wrought by Your hand of high mace.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Greatest hope to mankind will occur
in that cave faraway from the rich.
He's the king of all kings and He'll start
His own life in a cave shepherds have.
He conceives that His task is so hard.
They will end His short life on a cross,
and the start will be poor with no cash,
but He's pleased; His soul lives to no end.
He'll tell man nothing can spoil the glee;
a poor life, a harsh end won't bring fear
as man knows that his soul has no end
in a place full of calmness and peace.
Come, my Lord, show us that one is glad
as his joy overflows from inside
where no worms can destroy what he feels
which is wrought by Your hand of high mace.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 22nd Dec 2022
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 13
reads 128
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no scriptural warrant for saying that Jesus was born in a cave -- or that Jesus had a soul -- and that you show once again that when it comes to matters biblical you don't know what you are talking about, you've just provided more evidence that your grasp of the meaning of English expressions is woefully deficient.
"His soul lives to no end".
means that {Jesus'] soul lives without success or a result; in vain.
since the expression "to no end" means "to no purpose" or "to no significant effect".
https://tinyurl.com/bp7dkk8p
And I doubt that this is what you meant to say.
Moreover, can you provide me with something from the Gospel of Luke (which is apparently the Gospel your text is alluding to) that the baby Jesus, not to mention the adult Jesus, is pleased because he has a soul or that he knows that it will not become extinct? (Cue the crickets to this request.)
And what justifies your claim that Jesus has, let alone wields, a "high mace" or that his primary message to "man" was that "man" should be joyous, even if he is poor because he is going to leave this earth when "he" dies to end up in some ghostly realm where there is no pain?
"His soul lives to no end".
means that {Jesus'] soul lives without success or a result; in vain.
since the expression "to no end" means "to no purpose" or "to no significant effect".
https://tinyurl.com/bp7dkk8p
And I doubt that this is what you meant to say.
Moreover, can you provide me with something from the Gospel of Luke (which is apparently the Gospel your text is alluding to) that the baby Jesus, not to mention the adult Jesus, is pleased because he has a soul or that he knows that it will not become extinct? (Cue the crickets to this request.)
And what justifies your claim that Jesus has, let alone wields, a "high mace" or that his primary message to "man" was that "man" should be joyous, even if he is poor because he is going to leave this earth when "he" dies to end up in some ghostly realm where there is no pain?
23rd Dec 2022 12:35pm
Here's more evidence of poor writing.
"He'll tell man nothing can spoil the glee;" is deictic and raises the question "What glee are you talking about?".
And in writing
"He conceives that His task is so hard.
They will end His short life on a cross",
i
you've flubbed noun-verb agreement.
Syntactically the antecedent of the subject of the second line is "task". So you should have written
"iT will end his short life on a cross.
"He'll tell man nothing can spoil the glee;" is deictic and raises the question "What glee are you talking about?".
And in writing
"He conceives that His task is so hard.
They will end His short life on a cross",
i
you've flubbed noun-verb agreement.
Syntactically the antecedent of the subject of the second line is "task". So you should have written
"iT will end his short life on a cross.
23rd Dec 2022 12:50pm
Dear Baldwin,
You doubt that this is what l meant to say. Thank you for doubting it.
Now the word END has several meanings. It means AIM or PURPOSE, but it also means THE LATEST POINT IN TIME OR IN ORDER. Guess which one l mean. To live to no end can have the two meanings, the idiomatic one and the literal one. Guess again which one l mean.
You doubt that this is what l meant to say. Thank you for doubting it.
Now the word END has several meanings. It means AIM or PURPOSE, but it also means THE LATEST POINT IN TIME OR IN ORDER. Guess which one l mean. To live to no end can have the two meanings, the idiomatic one and the literal one. Guess again which one l mean.
The issue is NOT what the word "end" means. It's what the expression "to no end" means.
And you have not shown that the expression "to no end" means anything other than "to no purpose" or refuted with evidence what is said at the site the link to which I gave you.
And you have not shown that the expression "to no end" means anything other than "to no purpose" or refuted with evidence what is said at the site the link to which I gave you.
23rd Dec 2022 1:18pm
His task is hard, but why? Because"They will end His short life on the cross.", and not"It will end... .". The task can't end anything.
23rd Dec 2022 2:10pm
You have not shown that the antecedent of "they" is not "task", let alone that you have not violated the rule of noun-verb agreement.
Do you have any evidence that anyone has been put to death for proclaiming that there is life after death?
Do you have any evidence that anyone has been put to death for proclaiming that there is life after death?
24th Dec 2022 5:25pm
Actually, it was Jesus' pursuit of his tasks that brought about his being crucified.
In any case, the only people mentioned before your line "they will end ..." are the shepherds you mention. So without further specification of who "they are, you end up saying that shepherds were the ones who crucified Jesus.
In any case, the only people mentioned before your line "they will end ..." are the shepherds you mention. So without further specification of who "they are, you end up saying that shepherds were the ones who crucified Jesus.
TO NO END: can be used idiomatcally, and literally. Any word can be used in both ways. Words are not specified to be used only adiomatically.
"Re. WE'RE AWAITING CHRISTMAS.
Joseph-Zenieh
TO NO END: can be used idiomatcally, and literally. Any word can be used in both ways. Words are no specified to be used only axiomatically."
From Alice in Wonderland
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Please cite evidence that contrary to what I quote below "to no end" IS an idiom and is used by anyone other than you to mean something other than "to no purpose".
"To no end" means "to no purpose" or "to no significant effect". So far as I can see, ***it is not an idiom*** at all, but entirely literal, although it may confuse some because it uses the word "end" in one of its less common senses."
https://painintheenglish.com/case/5070#:~:text=%22No%20end%22%20(without%20a,%22to%20no%20significant%20effect%22.
(cue the unsubstantiated assertion)
And I take it that when you wrote "Words are no specified to be used only axiomatically" you meant to say "Words are NOT specified to be used only axiomatically.' Or does "no" have the same meaning as "not"?
BYW, what evidence do you have to back up your apodictically stated claim that "Words are no [sic] specified to be used only axiomatically""? Haven't you used dictionaries to show that words ARE specified to be used only in certain ways and therefore are being hypocritical when you say they are not "specified to be limited in meaning?
And is "axiomatically" really the word that is appropriate to use to convey the claim you are making given that it means "in a way that is obviously true and therefore does not need to be proved"?
Joseph-Zenieh
TO NO END: can be used idiomatcally, and literally. Any word can be used in both ways. Words are no specified to be used only axiomatically."
From Alice in Wonderland
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Please cite evidence that contrary to what I quote below "to no end" IS an idiom and is used by anyone other than you to mean something other than "to no purpose".
"To no end" means "to no purpose" or "to no significant effect". So far as I can see, ***it is not an idiom*** at all, but entirely literal, although it may confuse some because it uses the word "end" in one of its less common senses."
https://painintheenglish.com/case/5070#:~:text=%22No%20end%22%20(without%20a,%22to%20no%20significant%20effect%22.
(cue the unsubstantiated assertion)
And I take it that when you wrote "Words are no specified to be used only axiomatically" you meant to say "Words are NOT specified to be used only axiomatically.' Or does "no" have the same meaning as "not"?
BYW, what evidence do you have to back up your apodictically stated claim that "Words are no [sic] specified to be used only axiomatically""? Haven't you used dictionaries to show that words ARE specified to be used only in certain ways and therefore are being hypocritical when you say they are not "specified to be limited in meaning?
And is "axiomatically" really the word that is appropriate to use to convey the claim you are making given that it means "in a way that is obviously true and therefore does not need to be proved"?
What tidings did the angel give
to Shepherds tending flocks
upon the sleepy hills near Bethlehem?
I note the Gospel does NOT say
that there was born
a babe intent to give them life
beyond the grave.
The context of this story
makes it plain
it was that this small swaddled one
would be a “David’s” son
who’d save God’s people, Israel
from the enslavement
and the depredations,
the taxations and the insults
that they’d known while under
Rome’s Imperium.
For, after all, it cannot be
denied
this was the hope that Mary showed
in her Magnificat,
and Simeon long entertained
that rested deep inside the poor
the lame, the hard oppressed
they knew the God of Israel
must satisfy and first fulfill
before all else
and to which end,
if he indeed was their
deliverer and shield,
he’d send a Savior to his Israel
to see that this was done.
And note just what
the adult Jesus said in this regard
before a gathering of his compatriots
when he so boldly spoke to them
about the purpose of his ministry:
The Spirit of the Lord has now
appointed me to make take a stand
to here announce good news unto the poor
that they would have
their poverty relieved on earth
that prisoners, would their freedom know
the blind would have their sight restored
while still alive
that the oppressed
would have within the here and now
their liberty from tyranny,
and tasked me begin within the land
God’s debt reducing
Jubilee.
So if you think the angel’s message was
there’s born today
a babe who will you guarantee
you’re heaven bound
when he announced
“a Savior has been born to you;”
you haven’t now the slightest clue
of what the content of this tiding
was about
or why it was a thing
to cause God’s people joy.
to Shepherds tending flocks
upon the sleepy hills near Bethlehem?
I note the Gospel does NOT say
that there was born
a babe intent to give them life
beyond the grave.
The context of this story
makes it plain
it was that this small swaddled one
would be a “David’s” son
who’d save God’s people, Israel
from the enslavement
and the depredations,
the taxations and the insults
that they’d known while under
Rome’s Imperium.
For, after all, it cannot be
denied
this was the hope that Mary showed
in her Magnificat,
and Simeon long entertained
that rested deep inside the poor
the lame, the hard oppressed
they knew the God of Israel
must satisfy and first fulfill
before all else
and to which end,
if he indeed was their
deliverer and shield,
he’d send a Savior to his Israel
to see that this was done.
And note just what
the adult Jesus said in this regard
before a gathering of his compatriots
when he so boldly spoke to them
about the purpose of his ministry:
The Spirit of the Lord has now
appointed me to make take a stand
to here announce good news unto the poor
that they would have
their poverty relieved on earth
that prisoners, would their freedom know
the blind would have their sight restored
while still alive
that the oppressed
would have within the here and now
their liberty from tyranny,
and tasked me begin within the land
God’s debt reducing
Jubilee.
So if you think the angel’s message was
there’s born today
a babe who will you guarantee
you’re heaven bound
when he announced
“a Savior has been born to you;”
you haven’t now the slightest clue
of what the content of this tiding
was about
or why it was a thing
to cause God’s people joy.
23rd Dec 2022 8:25pm
Dear Baldwin,
You are writing about what people thought about the task of Jesus, but Jesus' real task was to save the spiritual lives of the people.
You are writing about what people thought about the task of Jesus, but Jesus' real task was to save the spiritual lives of the people.
"Dear Baldwin,
You are writing about what people thought about the task of Jesus,"
I'm writing about what the author of the Gospel of Luke not only proclaimed Jesus' task was but noted, after consulting with eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and original hearers of Jesus' words, Jesus himself said his task was. Are you saying Luke was wrong even though you often use what he says in your own (ill-informed)" claims about what scripture says??
" but Jesus' real task was to save the spiritual lives of the people."
No, it wasn't.
See G.B. Caird, "Jesus and the Jewish Nation"
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/emwl/jesus_caird.pdf
the thesis of which I challenge you to refute with well-supported arguments, not assertions.
Any prescinding on your part to do this by saying that you have no time to read the essay, let alone to refute it means that you don't want to admit that you are incapable of refuting what Caird says.
Nor, I wager, will you be able to fulfill any request to produce texts from the Gospels that show Jesus refuting those who believed his task was to bring about the consolation of occupied Israel without misrepresenting what scripture says.
It's only the Gnostics who said that Jesus came to save "the spiritual lives" of people and these folks were deemed by Early Church fathers as heretics.
"The Gnostics (pronounced näs-tik) were some of the earliest heretics to infiltrate the church with their poisonous doctrines, arising shortly after the gospel began penetrating the Roman world near the Mediterranean Sea in the first century. The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "knowledge." The Gnostics believed there was a mysterious or secret knowledge reserved for those with true understanding, leading to the salvation of the soul. Spiritual salvation was of preeminence to the Gnostics because they thought the human spirit was naturally good and was entrapped or imprisoned in the body, which was naturally evil or merely an illusion. Their goal, therefore, was to free the spirit from its embodied prison, and the only key to unlock the prison doors was the mysterious knowledge they possessed.
This radical distinction between our bodies and our spirits led Gnostics to twist the early church's understanding of who Jesus was and is. The Gnostics saw Jesus as a messenger bringing the special knowledge of salvation to humanity's imprisoned soul. ...
The implications of these Gnostic beliefs had profound effects on the church. Not only did the Gnostics successfully deceive some people in the church into becoming Gnostic themselves, but their misleading ideas about how Christians should live crept into some church teaching. In practice, some Christians came to the false conclusion that they must literally beat their bodies into submission and live such ascetic lives that they never allowed themselves the enjoyment of bodily pleasures. Others went to the opposite extreme and permitted their physical passions to run whatever course they chose. Those in this second group justified their libertine lifestyles with the erroneous notion that their evil bodies were destined for destruction anyway, while their spirits, which they believed were good, would remain unharmed.
Unfortunately, traces of Gnostic thought continue to permeate the thinking of many well-meaning Christians today. For example, some Christians think that only two things will last into eternity: God's Word and the souls of men and women—an emphasis on the spiritual and an exclusion of the physical. But this is wrong. The Bible explicitly teaches that not only will these two last into eternity but so will our bodies, in a glorified state (John 5:28–29; 1 Corinthians 15:42–44)."
https://insight.org/resources/article-library/individual/mind-over-matter-the-heresy-of-gnosticism-both-then-and-now
In any case, even if Jesus's task **was** to "save the spiritual lives of people", that does not change the fact that your submission is poorly written.
You are writing about what people thought about the task of Jesus,"
I'm writing about what the author of the Gospel of Luke not only proclaimed Jesus' task was but noted, after consulting with eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and original hearers of Jesus' words, Jesus himself said his task was. Are you saying Luke was wrong even though you often use what he says in your own (ill-informed)" claims about what scripture says??
" but Jesus' real task was to save the spiritual lives of the people."
No, it wasn't.
See G.B. Caird, "Jesus and the Jewish Nation"
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/emwl/jesus_caird.pdf
the thesis of which I challenge you to refute with well-supported arguments, not assertions.
Any prescinding on your part to do this by saying that you have no time to read the essay, let alone to refute it means that you don't want to admit that you are incapable of refuting what Caird says.
Nor, I wager, will you be able to fulfill any request to produce texts from the Gospels that show Jesus refuting those who believed his task was to bring about the consolation of occupied Israel without misrepresenting what scripture says.
It's only the Gnostics who said that Jesus came to save "the spiritual lives" of people and these folks were deemed by Early Church fathers as heretics.
"The Gnostics (pronounced näs-tik) were some of the earliest heretics to infiltrate the church with their poisonous doctrines, arising shortly after the gospel began penetrating the Roman world near the Mediterranean Sea in the first century. The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "knowledge." The Gnostics believed there was a mysterious or secret knowledge reserved for those with true understanding, leading to the salvation of the soul. Spiritual salvation was of preeminence to the Gnostics because they thought the human spirit was naturally good and was entrapped or imprisoned in the body, which was naturally evil or merely an illusion. Their goal, therefore, was to free the spirit from its embodied prison, and the only key to unlock the prison doors was the mysterious knowledge they possessed.
This radical distinction between our bodies and our spirits led Gnostics to twist the early church's understanding of who Jesus was and is. The Gnostics saw Jesus as a messenger bringing the special knowledge of salvation to humanity's imprisoned soul. ...
The implications of these Gnostic beliefs had profound effects on the church. Not only did the Gnostics successfully deceive some people in the church into becoming Gnostic themselves, but their misleading ideas about how Christians should live crept into some church teaching. In practice, some Christians came to the false conclusion that they must literally beat their bodies into submission and live such ascetic lives that they never allowed themselves the enjoyment of bodily pleasures. Others went to the opposite extreme and permitted their physical passions to run whatever course they chose. Those in this second group justified their libertine lifestyles with the erroneous notion that their evil bodies were destined for destruction anyway, while their spirits, which they believed were good, would remain unharmed.
Unfortunately, traces of Gnostic thought continue to permeate the thinking of many well-meaning Christians today. For example, some Christians think that only two things will last into eternity: God's Word and the souls of men and women—an emphasis on the spiritual and an exclusion of the physical. But this is wrong. The Bible explicitly teaches that not only will these two last into eternity but so will our bodies, in a glorified state (John 5:28–29; 1 Corinthians 15:42–44)."
https://insight.org/resources/article-library/individual/mind-over-matter-the-heresy-of-gnosticism-both-then-and-now
In any case, even if Jesus's task **was** to "save the spiritual lives of people", that does not change the fact that your submission is poorly written.
30th Dec 2022 1:58pm
J-Z,
You've taken me to task here:
https://deepundergroundpoetry.com/poems/469574-angel/
Perhaps you did not see my responses to what you wrote or the challenge I issued to you there. So I'm reproducing the challenge that, given your track record, I anticipate you'll find some excuse for not meeting it that is most likely grounded in your desire to avoid showing that you do not have the talent or the skill to do so.
But I would delight in your showing me that you can do what I asked you to do.
"Hey, J-Z! Assuming you know what an ekphrastic poem is and how to write one, I challenge you to do so using the following image as your subject and ensuring that it is not grammar gaffed, syntactically and idiomatically questionable. filled with deixis, all tell and no show, verbally stale and inept, theologically heretical, and coherent as well as comprehensible
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Giotto_-_Scrovegni_-_-14-_-_The_Angel_Gabriel_Sent_by_God.jpg
And any excuse you use for not doing so (i.e., you haven't the time, you are not interested in ekphrastic poetry, you won't be dictated to, etc.), will be good reason to take you as admitting you lack the skill to do so. Are you or are you not a master of all things poetical? If you are, then producing such a poem should be easy for you."
You've taken me to task here:
https://deepundergroundpoetry.com/poems/469574-angel/
Perhaps you did not see my responses to what you wrote or the challenge I issued to you there. So I'm reproducing the challenge that, given your track record, I anticipate you'll find some excuse for not meeting it that is most likely grounded in your desire to avoid showing that you do not have the talent or the skill to do so.
But I would delight in your showing me that you can do what I asked you to do.
"Hey, J-Z! Assuming you know what an ekphrastic poem is and how to write one, I challenge you to do so using the following image as your subject and ensuring that it is not grammar gaffed, syntactically and idiomatically questionable. filled with deixis, all tell and no show, verbally stale and inept, theologically heretical, and coherent as well as comprehensible
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Giotto_-_Scrovegni_-_-14-_-_The_Angel_Gabriel_Sent_by_God.jpg
And any excuse you use for not doing so (i.e., you haven't the time, you are not interested in ekphrastic poetry, you won't be dictated to, etc.), will be good reason to take you as admitting you lack the skill to do so. Are you or are you not a master of all things poetical? If you are, then producing such a poem should be easy for you."
