deepundergroundpoetry.com
JESUS, THE GREATEST MAN EVER [ AS A MAN, NOT AS A GOD]
JESUS, THE GREATEST MAN EVER [ AS A MAN, NOT AS A GOD]
Lamb of God, You knew Your killers,
and You knew what they intended,
but Your love could stay as burning
till Your death and not affected.
You could teach the deepest lesson
from the start till our present.
Those who wished to see You suffer
Continued to be Your brothers.
I adore the people who can
offer something of great value.
Ere the Passion, You could conquer
with Your angels those offenders.
On the cross your love was heartfelt.
You forgave those who were butchers,
and You asked Your mighty Father
to absolve those simple hearted.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
________________________
Lamb of God, You knew Your killers,
and You knew what they intended,
but Your love could stay as burning
till Your death and not affected.
You could teach the deepest lesson
from the start till our present.
Those who wished to see You suffer
Continued to be Your brothers.
I adore the people who can
offer something of great value.
Ere the Passion, You could conquer
with Your angels those offenders.
On the cross your love was heartfelt.
You forgave those who were butchers,
and You asked Your mighty Father
to absolve those simple hearted.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
________________________
Published 25th Jan 2023
Author's Note
I am writing about Jesus as a man not as a God.
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 3
reading list entries 0
comments 41
reads 634
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
25th Jan 2023 2:01pm
If forgiving your murderers makes one the greatest man who ever lived, then you must say that Stephen,
who according to Luke did great wonders and miracles among the people of Israel and caused many people to turn to God through his ministry and created much joy in Jerusalem,
was the greatest man.
For Stephen not only forgave those that murdered him in cold blood. He also called upon God to forgive those who murdered him.
"Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60)
In any case, your meter is off in a number of your lines. So you have violated one of your stated criteria for what a writing must display if it is to be looked upon as "good poetry".
who according to Luke did great wonders and miracles among the people of Israel and caused many people to turn to God through his ministry and created much joy in Jerusalem,
was the greatest man.
For Stephen not only forgave those that murdered him in cold blood. He also called upon God to forgive those who murdered him.
"Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60)
In any case, your meter is off in a number of your lines. So you have violated one of your stated criteria for what a writing must display if it is to be looked upon as "good poetry".
25th Jan 2023 2:35pm
If you don't mind, Baldwin, could you tell me about these lines, please?
from the start till our present.
should be
from the start until our present
Continued to be Your brothers.
Should be
Continued then to be your brothers
Moreover, these lines are not consistently trochaic.
should be
from the start until our present
Continued to be Your brothers.
Should be
Continued then to be your brothers
Moreover, these lines are not consistently trochaic.
Given that simple-hearted means
"free of deceit; artless; sincere."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/simple-hearted
"Sincere; guileless".
https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/web/s/simple-hearted.html
Your assertion that Jesus asked his mighty Father "to absolve those simple hearted [SIC simple-hearted"] shows a fundamental misreading of Luke's crucifixion story in Luke 23. He did no such thing.
Moreover, "simple-hearted" is an adjective, not a noun. So your line is solecistic. It needs "who were" after "those" to be grammatically correct. Claiming that "who were" is implied" is petitio principii.
"free of deceit; artless; sincere."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/simple-hearted
"Sincere; guileless".
https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/web/s/simple-hearted.html
Your assertion that Jesus asked his mighty Father "to absolve those simple hearted [SIC simple-hearted"] shows a fundamental misreading of Luke's crucifixion story in Luke 23. He did no such thing.
Moreover, "simple-hearted" is an adjective, not a noun. So your line is solecistic. It needs "who were" after "those" to be grammatically correct. Claiming that "who were" is implied" is petitio principii.
25th Jan 2023 7:27pm
1- from the start till our present: our: it is two syllables actually aw SHWA, so it is 'aw Shwa. So my meter is correct.
2- continued to be Your brothers. It is correct.
Yours: continued then to be Your brothers. It is incorrect. You can read it rhythmically yourself.
2- continued to be Your brothers. It is correct.
Yours: continued then to be Your brothers. It is incorrect. You can read it rhythmically yourself.
1- from the start till our present: our: it is two syllables actually aw SHWA, so it is 'aw Shwa."
I know what a Shwa is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa
But I don't know what "aw SHWA" is, let alone that this is how "our" is pronounced.
"So my meter is correct".
So you think "our" should be pronounced, "ow wer"?
"2- continued to be Your brothers. It is correct."
Is it? It's a 9-syllable line that scans
con TIN ued TO BE your BRO thers
or
con TIN ued TO be YOUR BRO thers
So unless "your" is a two syllable word, (YOU er} and it isn't [see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/your], your meter is off
I know what a Shwa is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa
But I don't know what "aw SHWA" is, let alone that this is how "our" is pronounced.
"So my meter is correct".
So you think "our" should be pronounced, "ow wer"?
"2- continued to be Your brothers. It is correct."
Is it? It's a 9-syllable line that scans
con TIN ued TO BE your BRO thers
or
con TIN ued TO be YOUR BRO thers
So unless "your" is a two syllable word, (YOU er} and it isn't [see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/your], your meter is off
25th Jan 2023 7:41pm
Who said SIMPLE HEARTED is a noun, Baldwin? I didn't. But THOSE WHO WERE SIMPLE HEARTED is A RELATIVE CLAUSE, which can be written WHO WERE SIMPLE HEARTED, or we can use the only the PAST PARTICIPLE to replace the relative clause.
Who said SIMPLE HEARTED [SIC] is a noun, Baldwin?"
No one said it. But you used the adjective as a noun.
And what's with "or we can use **the** only **the** PAST PARTICIPLE (even assuming there is a past particle of "simple-hearted".? It is also solecistic. and therefore shows that your grasp of how to write proper English is deficient.
In any case, your assertion that Jesus asked his mighty Father
to absolve those [who were] simple-hearted is a false one that once again shows that your grasp of what Luke says is way off base and that when it comes to matters Biblical, you are woefully uninformed.
No one said it. But you used the adjective as a noun.
And what's with "or we can use **the** only **the** PAST PARTICIPLE (even assuming there is a past particle of "simple-hearted".? It is also solecistic. and therefore shows that your grasp of how to write proper English is deficient.
In any case, your assertion that Jesus asked his mighty Father
to absolve those [who were] simple-hearted is a false one that once again shows that your grasp of what Luke says is way off base and that when it comes to matters Biblical, you are woefully uninformed.
25th Jan 2023 9:10pm
...and You asked your mighty Father
to absolve those who were simple hearted.
SIMPLE HEARTED.
Can we say: to absolve SIMPLE HEARTED those?
This is a relative clause which is replaced by simple hearted which is an ADJECTIVE. Heart is a Noun used in the form of the past participle to be used as an Adjective and replace THE RELATIVE CLAUSE.
to absolve those who were simple hearted.
SIMPLE HEARTED.
Can we say: to absolve SIMPLE HEARTED those?
This is a relative clause which is replaced by simple hearted which is an ADJECTIVE. Heart is a Noun used in the form of the past participle to be used as an Adjective and replace THE RELATIVE CLAUSE.
25th Jan 2023 10:47pm
"..and You asked your mighty Father
to absolve those who were simple hearted.
SIMPLE HEARTED.
Can we say: to absolve SIMPLE HEARTED those?:
No, we can't if we want to speak intelligibly and/or grammatically correctly.
And why would anyone want to?
But we can say "to absolve simple-hearted folk" or " to absolve those of/with a simple heart."
In any case, please show me where in Luke's story of Jesus' crucifixion Jesus asks God to absolve the simple-hearted?.
To help you out with this, here's the part of Luke's story: in which Jesus asks God to forgive those who had crucified him.
32 Ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο ⸃ σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι.
33 καὶ ὅτε ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον, ἐκεῖ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους, ὃν μὲν ἐκ δεξιῶν ὃν δὲ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν.
34 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν · Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.⸃ διαμεριζόμενοι δὲ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔβαλον κλήρους.
35 καὶ εἱστήκει ὁ λαὸς θεωρῶν. ἐξεμυκτήριζον δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες λέγοντες · Ἄλλους ἔσωσεν, σωσάτω ἑαυτόν, εἰ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ⸃ ἐκλεκτός.
Oh, forgive me. I forgot you don't read Greek
So here it is in Syriac
Luke 23:32-35 - ܘܳܐܬ݂ܶܝܢ ܗ݈ܘܰܘ ܥܰܡܶܗ ܬ݁ܪܶܝܢ ܐ݈ܚܪܳܢܺܝܢ ܥܳܒ݂ܕ݁ܰܝ ܒ݁ܺܝܫܳܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܢܶܬ݂ܩܰܛܠܽܘܢ ܀
ܘܟ݂ܰܕ݂ ܐܶܬ݂ܰܘ ܠܕ݂ܽܘܟ݁ܬ݂ܳܐ ܚܕ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܡܶܬ݂ܩܰܪܝܳܐ ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ ܙܰܩܦ݁ܽܘܗ݈ܝ ܬ݁ܰܡܳܢ ܘܰܠܗܳܢܽܘܢ ܥܳܒ݂ܕ݁ܰܝ ܒ݁ܺܝܫܳܬ݂ܳܐ ܚܰܕ݂ ܡܶܢ ܝܰܡܺܝܢܶܗ ܘܚܰܕ݂ ܡܶܢ ܣܶܡܳܠܶܗ
ܗܽܘ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܐܶܡܰܪ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܐܰܒ݂ܳܐ ܫܒ݂ܽܘܩ ܠܗܽܘܢ ܠܳܐ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܝܳܕ݂ܥܺܝܢ ܡܳܢܳܐ ܥܳܒ݂ܕ݁ܺܝܢ ܘܦ݂ܰܠܶܓ݂ܘ ܢܰܚܬ݁ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܘܰܐܪܡܺܝܘ ܥܠܰܝܗܽܘܢ ܦ݁ܶܣܳܐ
ܩܳܐܶܡ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܥܰܡܳܐ ܘܚܳܙܶܐ ܘܰܡܡܰܝܩܺܝܢ ܗ݈ܘܰܘ ܒ݁ܶܗ ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܰܪܟ݂ܽܘܢܶܐ ܘܳܐܡܪܺܝܢ ܠܰܐ݈ܚܪܳܢܶܐ ܐܰܚܺܝ ܢܰܚܶܐ ܢܰܦ݂ܫܶܗ ܐܶܢ ܗܽܘܝܽܘ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܓ݁ܰܒ݂ܝܶܗ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ
And in case you don't read Syriac, here's an English translation of those verses:
32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[c] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.”
I don't see Jesus asking his Father to absolve "those siomple-heared" What am I missing?
to absolve those who were simple hearted.
SIMPLE HEARTED.
Can we say: to absolve SIMPLE HEARTED those?:
No, we can't if we want to speak intelligibly and/or grammatically correctly.
And why would anyone want to?
But we can say "to absolve simple-hearted folk" or " to absolve those of/with a simple heart."
In any case, please show me where in Luke's story of Jesus' crucifixion Jesus asks God to absolve the simple-hearted?.
To help you out with this, here's the part of Luke's story: in which Jesus asks God to forgive those who had crucified him.
32 Ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο ⸃ σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι.
33 καὶ ὅτε ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον, ἐκεῖ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους, ὃν μὲν ἐκ δεξιῶν ὃν δὲ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν.
34 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν · Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.⸃ διαμεριζόμενοι δὲ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔβαλον κλήρους.
35 καὶ εἱστήκει ὁ λαὸς θεωρῶν. ἐξεμυκτήριζον δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες λέγοντες · Ἄλλους ἔσωσεν, σωσάτω ἑαυτόν, εἰ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ⸃ ἐκλεκτός.
Oh, forgive me. I forgot you don't read Greek
So here it is in Syriac
Luke 23:32-35 - ܘܳܐܬ݂ܶܝܢ ܗ݈ܘܰܘ ܥܰܡܶܗ ܬ݁ܪܶܝܢ ܐ݈ܚܪܳܢܺܝܢ ܥܳܒ݂ܕ݁ܰܝ ܒ݁ܺܝܫܳܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܢܶܬ݂ܩܰܛܠܽܘܢ ܀
ܘܟ݂ܰܕ݂ ܐܶܬ݂ܰܘ ܠܕ݂ܽܘܟ݁ܬ݂ܳܐ ܚܕ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܡܶܬ݂ܩܰܪܝܳܐ ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ ܙܰܩܦ݁ܽܘܗ݈ܝ ܬ݁ܰܡܳܢ ܘܰܠܗܳܢܽܘܢ ܥܳܒ݂ܕ݁ܰܝ ܒ݁ܺܝܫܳܬ݂ܳܐ ܚܰܕ݂ ܡܶܢ ܝܰܡܺܝܢܶܗ ܘܚܰܕ݂ ܡܶܢ ܣܶܡܳܠܶܗ
ܗܽܘ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܐܶܡܰܪ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܐܰܒ݂ܳܐ ܫܒ݂ܽܘܩ ܠܗܽܘܢ ܠܳܐ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܝܳܕ݂ܥܺܝܢ ܡܳܢܳܐ ܥܳܒ݂ܕ݁ܺܝܢ ܘܦ݂ܰܠܶܓ݂ܘ ܢܰܚܬ݁ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܘܰܐܪܡܺܝܘ ܥܠܰܝܗܽܘܢ ܦ݁ܶܣܳܐ
ܩܳܐܶܡ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܥܰܡܳܐ ܘܚܳܙܶܐ ܘܰܡܡܰܝܩܺܝܢ ܗ݈ܘܰܘ ܒ݁ܶܗ ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܰܪܟ݂ܽܘܢܶܐ ܘܳܐܡܪܺܝܢ ܠܰܐ݈ܚܪܳܢܶܐ ܐܰܚܺܝ ܢܰܚܶܐ ܢܰܦ݂ܫܶܗ ܐܶܢ ܗܽܘܝܽܘ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܓ݁ܰܒ݂ܝܶܗ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ
And in case you don't read Syriac, here's an English translation of those verses:
32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[c] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.”
I don't see Jesus asking his Father to absolve "those siomple-heared" What am I missing?
Anonymous
26th Jan 2023 5:48am
I love and enjoyed your poem. Jesus Christ was a great man and an awesome God.
26th Jan 2023 1:47pm
"I love and enjoyed your poem. Jesus Christ was a great man and an awesome God."
"AN awesome God"?? So he was one among many gods some of which were not awesome?
"AN awesome God"?? So he was one among many gods some of which were not awesome?
Anonymous
26th Jan 2023 3:12pm
It's hilarious how the demons come out at the mention of the name, Jesus. Have a wonderful day.
26th Jan 2023 8:11am
1- Father, forgive them. They do not know what they are doing. This is what you are missing. The second point which you are missing is the RESURRECTION. Who can resurrect except God Himself. What can you say about that?
2- Why don't we finish the grammatical points first? THOSE is a pronoun and it is qualified by a relative clause abbreviated. What is wrong with that? Then, why didn't you finish your corrections of your supposed rhythmic mistakes?
2- Why don't we finish the grammatical points first? THOSE is a pronoun and it is qualified by a relative clause abbreviated. What is wrong with that? Then, why didn't you finish your corrections of your supposed rhythmic mistakes?
"THOSE is a pronoun and it is qualified by a relative clause abbreviated. What is wrong with that?"
"those" in your assertion functions as a relative pronoun that **introduces** a restrictive relative clause. And the subject of a relative clause cannot be an adjective -- which is what "simple-hearted" is. To be a nominative, it needs to have the word "the" before it (i.e., "the simple-hearted").
And you are engaging in petitio principii to claim that "simple-hearted"" is an abbreviation of "who are/were simple-hearted"
"those" in your assertion functions as a relative pronoun that **introduces** a restrictive relative clause. And the subject of a relative clause cannot be an adjective -- which is what "simple-hearted" is. To be a nominative, it needs to have the word "the" before it (i.e., "the simple-hearted").
And you are engaging in petitio principii to claim that "simple-hearted"" is an abbreviation of "who are/were simple-hearted"
26th Jan 2023 8:13am
" The second point which you are missing is the RESURRECTION. Who can resurrect except God Himself. [SIC question mark, not full stop]. What can you say about that?"
I can say that this point is irrelevant to what is at issue -- which is not whether Jesus was raised (an assertion that no New Testament writer takes as proof that Jesus was God) -- but whether you can show with evidence from the Gospel of Luke that Luke says that while on the cross Jesus asked his Father to absolve the simple-hearted and whether you have put words into Jesus' mouth.
Why are you changing the subject? Is it because you know that there is no such evidence and that you don't want to admit that you have put words into Jesus' mouth?
Cue the red herrings.
I can say that this point is irrelevant to what is at issue -- which is not whether Jesus was raised (an assertion that no New Testament writer takes as proof that Jesus was God) -- but whether you can show with evidence from the Gospel of Luke that Luke says that while on the cross Jesus asked his Father to absolve the simple-hearted and whether you have put words into Jesus' mouth.
Why are you changing the subject? Is it because you know that there is no such evidence and that you don't want to admit that you have put words into Jesus' mouth?
Cue the red herrings.
26th Jan 2023 5:52pm
26th Jan 2023 6:58pm
I know a person who stands at the corner and yells "fuck" over and over again and says that he is speaking from his heart. Would you call this poetry? It is heartfelt. But it does not display any adhesion to what Pope noted were "the rules of the dance" .
And as Oscar Wilde said "“All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling. To be natural is to be obvious, and to be obvious is to be inartistic.”
And as Oscar Wilde said "“All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling. To be natural is to be obvious, and to be obvious is to be inartistic.”
27th Jan 2023 1:46pm
Thank you for your insights on my comment, Looks like you have the impetus for a poem there Mr. Baldwin!? Blessings
27th Jan 2023 6:59pm
28th Jan 2023 4:05pm
Your question, seeking answers?
"I know a person who stands at the corner and yells "f--k" over and over again and says that he is speaking from his heart. Would you call this poetry? It is heartfelt" ( I feel this may be a fictitious person to make a point but if not...)
Maybe ,if you spoke to this person you might find out their perspective?
Everybody has interpretations and they are all different and this draws poetry out of us.(from our hearts)
"I know a person who stands at the corner and yells "f--k" over and over again and says that he is speaking from his heart. Would you call this poetry? It is heartfelt" ( I feel this may be a fictitious person to make a point but if not...)
Maybe ,if you spoke to this person you might find out their perspective?
Everybody has interpretations and they are all different and this draws poetry out of us.(from our hearts)
Dear Tig,
It's great honour to me to get such a wonderful comment from you, and you are famous for writing about religious subjects. Thank you very much, Tig. J.Z.
It's great honour to me to get such a wonderful comment from you, and you are famous for writing about religious subjects. Thank you very much, Tig. J.Z.
One does not "write subjects". One writes **about** subjects. Once again, your inability to write well in English is showing.
27th Jan 2023 6:17pm
I like this poem, my poet; I like the mental enlightenment of your words in its entirety..
27th Jan 2023 7:18pm
Dear SKC,
Thank you very much for your very kind comment. It's a great encouragement to me.
Thank you very much for your very kind comment. It's a great encouragement to me.
27th Jan 2023 7:51pm
Dear Ownly,
And it's hilarious how calm and happy you feel when you have great faith and confidence in Jesus. He is the source of inner happiness that makes life worth living.
And it's hilarious how calm and happy you feel when you have great faith and confidence in Jesus. He is the source of inner happiness that makes life worth living.
27th Jan 2023 8:10pm
What has this to do with whether your submission is well-written and displays poetic artistry?
27th Jan 2023 9:21pm
"And it's hilarious how calm and happy you feel when you have great faith and confidence in Jesus"
What a strange claim, given what "hilarious" means (= extremely funny)
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/hilarious
You are saying that you find it amusing that Jesus gives calmness, as if this is not what Jesus was supposed to do and that it is highly ironic that people think it's so.
"He is the source of inner happiness that makes life worth living"
Many people would claim with strong support that it is the Buddha who is the one who does this. Have you any evidence that they are wrong to think so?
And where in the New Testament is it stated that Jesus is the source of human happiness that makes life worth living?
The note sounded in the Gospels is that he is what makes giving up one's life for the Gospel's sake worthwhile.
What a strange claim, given what "hilarious" means (= extremely funny)
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/hilarious
You are saying that you find it amusing that Jesus gives calmness, as if this is not what Jesus was supposed to do and that it is highly ironic that people think it's so.
"He is the source of inner happiness that makes life worth living"
Many people would claim with strong support that it is the Buddha who is the one who does this. Have you any evidence that they are wrong to think so?
And where in the New Testament is it stated that Jesus is the source of human happiness that makes life worth living?
The note sounded in the Gospels is that he is what makes giving up one's life for the Gospel's sake worthwhile.
27th Jan 2023 9:53pm
Dear Baldwin,
According to Webster:
Hilarious: adj marked by or allowing Hilarity
Hilarity: n exhilaration of spirit that may be carried to the point of boisterous conviviality or merriment
It is a sort of EXHILARATION. I think it is alright.
According to Webster:
Hilarious: adj marked by or allowing Hilarity
Hilarity: n exhilaration of spirit that may be carried to the point of boisterous conviviality or merriment
It is a sort of EXHILARATION. I think it is alright.
Actually, here's what Websters says the meaning of "hilarious is"
" marked by or causing hilarity : extremely funny"
So once again, you've engaged in selective quotation to make your point.
It then goes on to define the noun "hilarity" as meaning "boisterous merriment or laughter"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hilarity
with the note
"as in glee
a mood characterized by high spirits and amusement and often accompanied by laughter"
but, so far as I can see, does NOT say"exhilaration of spirit that may be carried to the point of boisterous conviviality or merriment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hilarity
but is something that taken -- with words added to it -- from this site
https://quizlet.com/282639219/the-great-gatsby-chapter-3-vocabulary-flash-cards/
or this one
https://slovar-vocab.com/english/merriam-webster-vocabulary/hilarity-7184936.html
So you've not only misquoted Webstern but "put words" in that dictionary's attestation of the meaning of the noun that are not there.
In any case, if you meant to say by writing "IT'S hilarious" that you find the fact that Jesus brings calmness exhilarating, why didn't you use that word rather than use one that suggested that you saw the effect Jesus has on people as something ironical?
And why did you ignore my other comment that challenged your claim about Jesus being the only source of human happiness and leave unanswered my request that you provide me with citations from the New Testament that clearly state that Jesus is the source of human happiness that makes life worth living?
" marked by or causing hilarity : extremely funny"
So once again, you've engaged in selective quotation to make your point.
It then goes on to define the noun "hilarity" as meaning "boisterous merriment or laughter"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hilarity
with the note
"as in glee
a mood characterized by high spirits and amusement and often accompanied by laughter"
but, so far as I can see, does NOT say"exhilaration of spirit that may be carried to the point of boisterous conviviality or merriment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hilarity
but is something that taken -- with words added to it -- from this site
https://quizlet.com/282639219/the-great-gatsby-chapter-3-vocabulary-flash-cards/
or this one
https://slovar-vocab.com/english/merriam-webster-vocabulary/hilarity-7184936.html
So you've not only misquoted Webstern but "put words" in that dictionary's attestation of the meaning of the noun that are not there.
In any case, if you meant to say by writing "IT'S hilarious" that you find the fact that Jesus brings calmness exhilarating, why didn't you use that word rather than use one that suggested that you saw the effect Jesus has on people as something ironical?
And why did you ignore my other comment that challenged your claim about Jesus being the only source of human happiness and leave unanswered my request that you provide me with citations from the New Testament that clearly state that Jesus is the source of human happiness that makes life worth living?
28th Jan 2023 11:53am
Dear Baldwin,
First Hilarity is not an adjective. Correct your definition.
Second, when you are Hilarious and shouting, you are in an extreme state of happiness driven to by fun or a high state of spirituality. It is like Exhilarating. I am writing about HILARIOUS, NOT HILARITY.
Third, it is not mentioned in the NEW TESTAMENT verbally, but this is what the whole NEW TESTAMENT is about.
First Hilarity is not an adjective. Correct your definition.
Second, when you are Hilarious and shouting, you are in an extreme state of happiness driven to by fun or a high state of spirituality. It is like Exhilarating. I am writing about HILARIOUS, NOT HILARITY.
Third, it is not mentioned in the NEW TESTAMENT verbally, but this is what the whole NEW TESTAMENT is about.
:First Hilarity is not an adjective."
You are correct. My mistake. And I've corrected it. But the noun does NOT mean being in a state of extreme happiness. It means "the state of finding something very funny".
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/hilarity
a feeling of fun
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/hilarity
And I never said that you were using anything but "hilarious". It was YOU who used a definition of "hilarity" that does NOT appear in Webster (see below) as "evidence" that when you spoke of something being "hilarious" it meant that it was "exhilarating. To whit":
"Dear Baldwin,
According to Webster:
Hilarious: adj marked by or allowing Hilarity
Hilarity: n exhilaration of spirit that may be carried to the point of boisterous conviviality or merriment"
And you did NOT say that YOU were in a state of hilariousness, let alone were shouting joyously. You said that you found something to be hilarious" ("AndIT'S hilarious ... "). i.e. something that ordinarily should be taken seriously as "very funny and that serves as a source of amusement.
And by the way, when one is "hilarious". one has engaged in behavior that causes others to find that person amusing.
"Third, it [i.e, where in the New Testament is it stated that Jesus is the source of human happiness that makes life worth living][ is not mentioned in the NEW TESTAMENT verbally, but this is what the whole NEW TESTAMENT is about."
Really? And your evidence for this is what? Is this what, say, 2 Thessalonians or Mark or James or Revelation or Hebrews, is about?
*****
hilarity
noun
hi·lar·i·ty hi-ˈler-ə-tē hī-
boisterous merriment or laughter
Synonyms
cheer
cheerfulness
cheeriness
festivity
gaiety
gayety
gayness
glee
gleefulness
jocundity
joviality
merriment
merriness
mirth
mirthfulness
Example Sentences
My attempt to carve the turkey was a source of great hilarity at the dinner table.
hilarity is the last thing you expect to find at a funeral, but we were there to celebrate his life rather than to dwell on his death
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hilarity
You are correct. My mistake. And I've corrected it. But the noun does NOT mean being in a state of extreme happiness. It means "the state of finding something very funny".
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/hilarity
a feeling of fun
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/hilarity
And I never said that you were using anything but "hilarious". It was YOU who used a definition of "hilarity" that does NOT appear in Webster (see below) as "evidence" that when you spoke of something being "hilarious" it meant that it was "exhilarating. To whit":
"Dear Baldwin,
According to Webster:
Hilarious: adj marked by or allowing Hilarity
Hilarity: n exhilaration of spirit that may be carried to the point of boisterous conviviality or merriment"
And you did NOT say that YOU were in a state of hilariousness, let alone were shouting joyously. You said that you found something to be hilarious" ("AndIT'S hilarious ... "). i.e. something that ordinarily should be taken seriously as "very funny and that serves as a source of amusement.
And by the way, when one is "hilarious". one has engaged in behavior that causes others to find that person amusing.
"Third, it [i.e, where in the New Testament is it stated that Jesus is the source of human happiness that makes life worth living][ is not mentioned in the NEW TESTAMENT verbally, but this is what the whole NEW TESTAMENT is about."
Really? And your evidence for this is what? Is this what, say, 2 Thessalonians or Mark or James or Revelation or Hebrews, is about?
*****
hilarity
noun
hi·lar·i·ty hi-ˈler-ə-tē hī-
boisterous merriment or laughter
Synonyms
cheer
cheerfulness
cheeriness
festivity
gaiety
gayety
gayness
glee
gleefulness
jocundity
joviality
merriment
merriness
mirth
mirthfulness
Example Sentences
My attempt to carve the turkey was a source of great hilarity at the dinner table.
hilarity is the last thing you expect to find at a funeral, but we were there to celebrate his life rather than to dwell on his death
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hilarity
Very dear Tig,
People are the poorest creatures on earth. There problem is that they are
like God, and they have a mind. They can think. The other creatures are mindless, and they live only for earthly needs, and they are very content. Man can't be content with that way of life as the problem of death is too hard for him to solve. This problem makes him think that everything on earth is worthless as it has an end. What is the use of it? It is," Waiting For Godot".
Man is created not for the earthly world. He is created for heaven as Jesus Christ says, "My kingdom is not of this world." It is of heaven. Unfortunately, a lot of people are unbelievers in Christ. What can be done? When they believe, all their problems will be solved. The problem here is faith. What can be done to increase our faith first, and then theirs. We should cooperate to reach a solution for ourselves and then for them.
People are the poorest creatures on earth. There problem is that they are
like God, and they have a mind. They can think. The other creatures are mindless, and they live only for earthly needs, and they are very content. Man can't be content with that way of life as the problem of death is too hard for him to solve. This problem makes him think that everything on earth is worthless as it has an end. What is the use of it? It is," Waiting For Godot".
Man is created not for the earthly world. He is created for heaven as Jesus Christ says, "My kingdom is not of this world." It is of heaven. Unfortunately, a lot of people are unbelievers in Christ. What can be done? When they believe, all their problems will be solved. The problem here is faith. What can be done to increase our faith first, and then theirs. We should cooperate to reach a solution for ourselves and then for them.
Again, you show how woefully insufficient your knowledge of scripture is. Jesus did not say "my kingdom is not for this world", let alone "my kingdom is for heaven". What he says in John 18:36 is "my kingdom is not OF this world".
Ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου·
and what this means is that the values that Jesus taught his followers to live by IN this world and that characterized the Kindom that he (notably very seldom} preaches about in John) were not the values that Pilate thought humans should live by and that characterized the kingdom of the Roman world.
Your translation of John 18:36 rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of what the preposition ἐκ meant in Koine (or for that matter Classical) Greek.
Your understanding of what Jesus claimed about his kingdom is rooted in a theology that the author of the gospel of John does not share in or proclaim and that was condemned as heretical by orthodox teachers of Christianity from the second century C.E onwards and finds no support in the New Testament which not only teaches that the earth is humankind's only home and looks forward to the earth being restored to its Edenic state
".
Ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου·
and what this means is that the values that Jesus taught his followers to live by IN this world and that characterized the Kindom that he (notably very seldom} preaches about in John) were not the values that Pilate thought humans should live by and that characterized the kingdom of the Roman world.
Your translation of John 18:36 rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of what the preposition ἐκ meant in Koine (or for that matter Classical) Greek.
Your understanding of what Jesus claimed about his kingdom is rooted in a theology that the author of the gospel of John does not share in or proclaim and that was condemned as heretical by orthodox teachers of Christianity from the second century C.E onwards and finds no support in the New Testament which not only teaches that the earth is humankind's only home and looks forward to the earth being restored to its Edenic state
".
28th Jan 2023 9:59pm
"Man can't be content with that way of life as the problem of death is too hard for him to solve."
To solve or to bear?
"This problem makes him think that everything on earth is worthless as it has an end"
What nonsense.
You are fundamentally ignorant of what ancient Hebrews believed was true in this regard and of what the ancient Greeks thought was, and proclaimed to be, the case despite their certainty that there was no life after death, let alone some disembodied one. For many throughout history, it was the fact that life had an end that gave life meaning and made the experiences of life something to be treasured and both worthless..
To solve or to bear?
"This problem makes him think that everything on earth is worthless as it has an end"
What nonsense.
You are fundamentally ignorant of what ancient Hebrews believed was true in this regard and of what the ancient Greeks thought was, and proclaimed to be, the case despite their certainty that there was no life after death, let alone some disembodied one. For many throughout history, it was the fact that life had an end that gave life meaning and made the experiences of life something to be treasured and both worthless..
Dear Baldwin,
I don't agree with you, Baldwin. You are attached to the letter, while l believe in the spiritual essence of the New Testament. However, l made a mistake when l said, "for this world," and l corrected it.
I don't agree with you, Baldwin. You are attached to the letter, while l believe in the spiritual essence of the New Testament. However, l made a mistake when l said, "for this world," and l corrected it.
There is no such thing as "the spiritual essence" of the New Testament. And even if there were, you lack the competence to uncover what it was.
And what I am attached to is what scholarship has demonstrated to be what the authors of the New Testament were actually saying and testifying to - which is something you have no grasp of or ability to evaluate, especially since you are wholly unversed in first-century Koine Greek, -- not the Gnostic teachings through which you read the NT.
Please tell me what university courses in New Testament interpretation you have completed and what academic degrees in New Testament studies you have been granted from certified academic institutions that would be grounds for anyone to see, let alone to think, that what you claim about the New Testament, not to mention what you say Jn. 18:36 means, should be regarded as well-grounded, well-researched and informed, and as having merit.
And what I am attached to is what scholarship has demonstrated to be what the authors of the New Testament were actually saying and testifying to - which is something you have no grasp of or ability to evaluate, especially since you are wholly unversed in first-century Koine Greek, -- not the Gnostic teachings through which you read the NT.
Please tell me what university courses in New Testament interpretation you have completed and what academic degrees in New Testament studies you have been granted from certified academic institutions that would be grounds for anyone to see, let alone to think, that what you claim about the New Testament, not to mention what you say Jn. 18:36 means, should be regarded as well-grounded, well-researched and informed, and as having merit.
29th Jan 2023 7:17am
Dear Baldwin,
1- lt is rather clear from your continual writings that you are not a Christian, or else you wouldn't continually write in such a way. Don't ask me which way. You know it very well.
2- l asked you simpler questions about your nationality and your education, but you answered me it was not my business. Why should l answer you about the same subjects that concern me?
3- You are always a very clear enemy to me and always looking for the smallest opportunities to attack me though l have always tried to be a friend to you, but you have always rejected my friendship. Baldwin, simply speaking, you consider yourself a fierce enemy to me. How can l trust such a person?
1- lt is rather clear from your continual writings that you are not a Christian, or else you wouldn't continually write in such a way. Don't ask me which way. You know it very well.
2- l asked you simpler questions about your nationality and your education, but you answered me it was not my business. Why should l answer you about the same subjects that concern me?
3- You are always a very clear enemy to me and always looking for the smallest opportunities to attack me though l have always tried to be a friend to you, but you have always rejected my friendship. Baldwin, simply speaking, you consider yourself a fierce enemy to me. How can l trust such a person?
"lt is rather clear from your continual writings [???] you are not a Christian, or else you wouldn't continually write in such a way"
Did you mean to say " **what** I write" rather than "the way I write"? The way I write has to do with how I put sentences together rather than what I say in my responses to your claims.
How could the way I construct sentences -- not to mention that what I write -- which BTW shows that I know something about the New Testament, Koine Greek, New Testament eschatology, early Christianity, what the Gnostics taught about Jesus,and what the Evangelists did and did not report Jesus having said or taught -- show that I am not a Christian???
What I write about shows that I am not a Gnostic Christian..
In any case, all of what you write has no bearing on the issue at hand --which is whether your claim about the import of Jn 18:36 is what the author of the Gospel of John intended Jesus to be seen as claiming and whether there's any Scriptural evidence that while on the cross Jesus asked his father. to absolve the simple-hearted.
How what I am vis a vis being a Christian is relevant to determining this is hardly apparent just as my not being a pagan is irrelevant to determining what the import of certain claims made by Zeus in the Homeric Hymns is and whether the author of those Hymns accurately reported what Zeus said in his recounting of Zeus's addresses to other gods.
And why should I answer your question about my nationality? Does the fact that you are Syrian have any bearing on whether your claims about how well you write are true? The proof is in the pudding, not in where one was born.
Moreover, have you not appealed to the fact that you hold (an undergraduate) degree in English literature as a guarantee when you are challenged over whether your claims about English grammar are sound and claimed that my claims in this regard are invalid that you know what you are talking about?
So it doesn't take much imagination to see that your excusing yourself from telling me whether you hold any university degree, or have had any kind of academic training, in New Testament studies that would give a reader reason to think that you are actually well informed enough to speak with any degree of authority when you make the claims you make about what the New Testament is all about, what, according to scripture and to Jesus, humankind's destiny is, and what the Gospels report that Jesus said is because you don't want to admit if truth be told, that you do not hold any academic (even a BA) degree, and had no formal training, in New Testament/Biblical studies and therefore that what you say about matters Biblical should not be trusted..
Did you mean to say " **what** I write" rather than "the way I write"? The way I write has to do with how I put sentences together rather than what I say in my responses to your claims.
How could the way I construct sentences -- not to mention that what I write -- which BTW shows that I know something about the New Testament, Koine Greek, New Testament eschatology, early Christianity, what the Gnostics taught about Jesus,and what the Evangelists did and did not report Jesus having said or taught -- show that I am not a Christian???
What I write about shows that I am not a Gnostic Christian..
In any case, all of what you write has no bearing on the issue at hand --which is whether your claim about the import of Jn 18:36 is what the author of the Gospel of John intended Jesus to be seen as claiming and whether there's any Scriptural evidence that while on the cross Jesus asked his father. to absolve the simple-hearted.
How what I am vis a vis being a Christian is relevant to determining this is hardly apparent just as my not being a pagan is irrelevant to determining what the import of certain claims made by Zeus in the Homeric Hymns is and whether the author of those Hymns accurately reported what Zeus said in his recounting of Zeus's addresses to other gods.
And why should I answer your question about my nationality? Does the fact that you are Syrian have any bearing on whether your claims about how well you write are true? The proof is in the pudding, not in where one was born.
Moreover, have you not appealed to the fact that you hold (an undergraduate) degree in English literature as a guarantee when you are challenged over whether your claims about English grammar are sound and claimed that my claims in this regard are invalid that you know what you are talking about?
So it doesn't take much imagination to see that your excusing yourself from telling me whether you hold any university degree, or have had any kind of academic training, in New Testament studies that would give a reader reason to think that you are actually well informed enough to speak with any degree of authority when you make the claims you make about what the New Testament is all about, what, according to scripture and to Jesus, humankind's destiny is, and what the Gospels report that Jesus said is because you don't want to admit if truth be told, that you do not hold any academic (even a BA) degree, and had no formal training, in New Testament/Biblical studies and therefore that what you say about matters Biblical should not be trusted..
"You are always a very clear enemy to me and always looking for the smallest opportunities to attack me"
What I am is someone who finds it very odd that a claimant to be one who knows how to write well should keep making grammar and orthographic mistakes and who therefore deserves to have these things pointed out to him. So it is not because I am your enemy that I do this, let alone that I am looking for any opportunity, small or large, to do so, but because you keep openly inviting my (entirely justified) remarks. And I don't "attack" you. I point out that you do not write English well. If that is an attack upon your person, then your person deserves it for making claims that you have demonstrated time and again that you have no right to make and for giving me the opportunity t(as well as the justification) to make my points. I
"though l have always tried to be a friend to you,"
What demonstrable nonsense this is given the way you have treated me here and how often you have excoriated me as a know-nothing and responded to my questions with ad hominem attacks
"... simply speaking, you consider yourself a fierce enemy to me."
I consider myself an opponent of bad writing who has been invited to point out mistakes in such things as word choice, meter, phrasing, punctuation, and grammar and to note that claims within a submission are question-begging, contrary to fact, off-putting, and unfounded are when they are. And if I have become your enemy, you are responsible for this by continuing to make the same grammar and orthographic mistakes despite having these pointed out to you.
" How can l trust such a person?"
Trusting me about what? My claims about the way you write are either valid or invalid on their own grounds whatever my motives for making them may have been..
The only person here who shouldn't be trusted to make well-informed or true claims about the aims of Jesus and the meaning of the writings of the New Testament, not to mention about what all people feel in the face of the fact that life ends in death, is you.
What I am is someone who finds it very odd that a claimant to be one who knows how to write well should keep making grammar and orthographic mistakes and who therefore deserves to have these things pointed out to him. So it is not because I am your enemy that I do this, let alone that I am looking for any opportunity, small or large, to do so, but because you keep openly inviting my (entirely justified) remarks. And I don't "attack" you. I point out that you do not write English well. If that is an attack upon your person, then your person deserves it for making claims that you have demonstrated time and again that you have no right to make and for giving me the opportunity t(as well as the justification) to make my points. I
"though l have always tried to be a friend to you,"
What demonstrable nonsense this is given the way you have treated me here and how often you have excoriated me as a know-nothing and responded to my questions with ad hominem attacks
"... simply speaking, you consider yourself a fierce enemy to me."
I consider myself an opponent of bad writing who has been invited to point out mistakes in such things as word choice, meter, phrasing, punctuation, and grammar and to note that claims within a submission are question-begging, contrary to fact, off-putting, and unfounded are when they are. And if I have become your enemy, you are responsible for this by continuing to make the same grammar and orthographic mistakes despite having these pointed out to you.
" How can l trust such a person?"
Trusting me about what? My claims about the way you write are either valid or invalid on their own grounds whatever my motives for making them may have been..
The only person here who shouldn't be trusted to make well-informed or true claims about the aims of Jesus and the meaning of the writings of the New Testament, not to mention about what all people feel in the face of the fact that life ends in death, is you.
