deepundergroundpoetry.com
WHAT'S THE SECRET OF THE CHANGE?
WHAT'S THE SECRET OF THE CHANGE?
The apostles were afraid
and escaped from place to place.
After resurrection, they
did not care about their death.
What could make them bold and willed
to defy abuse and pain,
with no wish to shun an end
passed through boiling oil or worse?
They beheld in Christ the might
that could make their world so cheap
when compared with what He'd done
that submerged their hearts with bliss.
Kinds of bliss equal to joy,
seen in heaven, rare in sorts,
like resurrection which man
never witnessed in the world.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
The apostles were afraid
and escaped from place to place.
After resurrection, they
did not care about their death.
What could make them bold and willed
to defy abuse and pain,
with no wish to shun an end
passed through boiling oil or worse?
They beheld in Christ the might
that could make their world so cheap
when compared with what He'd done
that submerged their hearts with bliss.
Kinds of bliss equal to joy,
seen in heaven, rare in sorts,
like resurrection which man
never witnessed in the world.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 10th Apr 2023
| Edited 21st Apr 2023
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 1
reading list entries 0
comments 15
reads 153
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
11th Apr 2023 7:15am
Very dear S.S.,
Thank you very much for your very pleasing comment. But do you think this influence is only on the first followers, or on us as well, and why did it have such great influence?
Thank you very much for your very pleasing comment. But do you think this influence is only on the first followers, or on us as well, and why did it have such great influence?
"The apostles were afraid
and escaped from place to place.
After resurrection, they
did not care for jails or death."
Besides the facts (1) that the NT does NOT say that (presumably after Jesus was arrested), the disciples "escaped" anywhere, (they were not being held captive) let alone to **many** places Cf Matt. 26:56 τότε οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον.and (2) that "resurrection" needs the article "the" for your line to make sense,
your claim that the disciples "did not care for jails or death" is a false one since the expression "did not care for X" means "to not like something or someone"
In other words, what you are saying is that after the disciples had been made aware that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they came to dislike jails and death -- which is what the Acts of the Apostles denies.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/not-care-for
So too Macmillan:
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/not-care-for-someone-something
"not care for someone/something "
PHRASE
FORMAL
DEFINITIONS1
1
"to not like someone or something"
If you meant to say that after "the resurrection of Jesus" the disciples came to have no fear of jails or death, you haven't done so. In fact, you've said the opposite. But you have once again shown that your grasp of English idiom is tenacious and that you do not write well.
And
I would like to know
just where the Bible says
that any of the chosen twelve
did not recoil
from being boiled in oil.
I cannot find in holy writ
a passage or a verse
that stands as testament
to this.
The legend comes from one Tertullian
who wrote in Century the Third CE
and noted quite ferociously
the clam
that Jesus was the gnostic savior you propose
he is
was full of shit.
and escaped from place to place.
After resurrection, they
did not care for jails or death."
Besides the facts (1) that the NT does NOT say that (presumably after Jesus was arrested), the disciples "escaped" anywhere, (they were not being held captive) let alone to **many** places Cf Matt. 26:56 τότε οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον.and (2) that "resurrection" needs the article "the" for your line to make sense,
your claim that the disciples "did not care for jails or death" is a false one since the expression "did not care for X" means "to not like something or someone"
In other words, what you are saying is that after the disciples had been made aware that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they came to dislike jails and death -- which is what the Acts of the Apostles denies.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/not-care-for
So too Macmillan:
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/not-care-for-someone-something
"not care for someone/something "
PHRASE
FORMAL
DEFINITIONS1
1
"to not like someone or something"
If you meant to say that after "the resurrection of Jesus" the disciples came to have no fear of jails or death, you haven't done so. In fact, you've said the opposite. But you have once again shown that your grasp of English idiom is tenacious and that you do not write well.
And
I would like to know
just where the Bible says
that any of the chosen twelve
did not recoil
from being boiled in oil.
I cannot find in holy writ
a passage or a verse
that stands as testament
to this.
The legend comes from one Tertullian
who wrote in Century the Third CE
and noted quite ferociously
the clam
that Jesus was the gnostic savior you propose
he is
was full of shit.
"They beheld in Christ the might
that could make their world so cheap
when compared with what He'd done
that submerged their hearts with mirth."
BTW, the NT does NOT say that Jesus' resurrection was something that he did.
The testimony there is that it was something that the God of Israel did to Jesus.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Raising-Christ
And according to Luke, the disciples did NOT see that the resurrection was due to an action on Jesus' part. They saw it as the work of the God of Israel(who (in case you want to play the post New Testament Calcedoniam card) to them is hardly identical to Jesus.
So once again, your lack of knowledge of matters biblical and your tendency to read into the NT what is not there is showing.
that could make their world so cheap
when compared with what He'd done
that submerged their hearts with mirth."
BTW, the NT does NOT say that Jesus' resurrection was something that he did.
The testimony there is that it was something that the God of Israel did to Jesus.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Raising-Christ
And according to Luke, the disciples did NOT see that the resurrection was due to an action on Jesus' part. They saw it as the work of the God of Israel(who (in case you want to play the post New Testament Calcedoniam card) to them is hardly identical to Jesus.
So once again, your lack of knowledge of matters biblical and your tendency to read into the NT what is not there is showing.
20th Apr 2023 8:12pm
Dear Baldwin,
I write what l believe in. I don't find it necessary to explain what l believe in here and now, but you know very well what every Christian says when he makes the sign of the cross.
I write what l believe in. I don't find it necessary to explain what l believe in here and now, but you know very well what every Christian says when he makes the sign of the cross.
20th Apr 2023 9:31pm
The issue is not that you write [about] what you believe in, but whether your claims about what the NT says can be substantiated by the text of the NT.
And given what you write, it's clear that you believe in things that the NT does not say or profess.
And given what you write, it's clear that you believe in things that the NT does not say or profess.
"I write [about] what l believe in. I don't find it necessary to explain what l believe in here and now"
I'm not asking you to "explain" anything, let alone what you believe. I'm asking you to provide texts from the NT that show me that the NT says what you say it says.
In any case, how does "what every Christian says when they make the sign of the cross" show that the NT says that what the resurrection of Jesus caused ti disciples to experience was "mirth.?
And BTW, saying "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" when making the sign of the cross is a relatively recent practice.
As is noted here
https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/contributors/a-short-history-of-the-sign-of-the-cross/
"In every age Christians commonly, but not indispensably, accompanied the act of making the sign with words of prayer. But the prayers varied greatly. In the earlier period, they used invocations like “The sign of Christ,” “The seal of the living God,” and “In the name of Jesus.” In later ages, they prayed, “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth,” “In the name of the Holy Trinity,” and “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” the latter being the most common prayer that we use today. Christians have also used formulas suggested by the liturgy, like “O God come to my assistance” and “Our help is in the name of the Lord.”
So not only do you not know your NT well;, you are not very familiar with the history of Christian liturgical practice.
I'm not asking you to "explain" anything, let alone what you believe. I'm asking you to provide texts from the NT that show me that the NT says what you say it says.
In any case, how does "what every Christian says when they make the sign of the cross" show that the NT says that what the resurrection of Jesus caused ti disciples to experience was "mirth.?
And BTW, saying "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" when making the sign of the cross is a relatively recent practice.
As is noted here
https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/contributors/a-short-history-of-the-sign-of-the-cross/
"In every age Christians commonly, but not indispensably, accompanied the act of making the sign with words of prayer. But the prayers varied greatly. In the earlier period, they used invocations like “The sign of Christ,” “The seal of the living God,” and “In the name of Jesus.” In later ages, they prayed, “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth,” “In the name of the Holy Trinity,” and “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” the latter being the most common prayer that we use today. Christians have also used formulas suggested by the liturgy, like “O God come to my assistance” and “Our help is in the name of the Lord.”
So not only do you not know your NT well;, you are not very familiar with the history of Christian liturgical practice.
20th Apr 2023 9:48pm
But Jesus, the Son of God, is equal to His Father. As He says that who sees Him sees the Father as They are One.
Leaving aside the question of whether in the NT the title Son of God -- something used in the Bible of Israel and angels and the righteous man in Wisdom -- means "God", please show me where in the Gospel of John the author of that book says explicitly that Jesus raised himself from the grave?
Does any other NT writer say this? In fact, don't they deny this claim?
And is the Jesus of John saying in your quotation of "his" words that he and the FatherI are ontologically identical or is he saying that they are identical in identical in purpose and will? How do you maintain the validity of the former claim in the light of the fact that for Jesus to have been asserting ontological identity with his Father, he would have to have said ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ **εἷς** ἐσμεν, not, as he does, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ** ἕν** ἐσμεν
(on this see Haenchen, Ernst ; Funk, Robert Walter ; Busse, Ulrich: _John : A Commentary on the Gospel of John._ Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1984 (Hermeneia--a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), S. 50)
and that he elsewhere distinguishes himself from the Father in such texts as John 5:30
"I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."
and John 7:16
"Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is not mine, but His that sent me."
And that, as prominent Johannine scholars have noted,
"It has been customary, following the habit of the patristic commentators, to interpret these significant words in the light of the controversies of the fourth century. Bengel, e.g. (following Augustine), says: “Per sumus refutatur Sabellius, per unum Arius”; the words thus being taken to prove identity of essence between the Father and the Son, while the difference of persons is indicated by the plural ἐσμέν. ***But it is an anachronism to transfer the controversies of the fourth century to the theological statements of the first.*** We have a parallel to ἕν ἐσμεν in 1 Cor. 3:8, where Paul says ὁ φυτεύων καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, meaning that both the “planter” and the “waterer” of the seed are in the same category, as compared with God who gives the increase. A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 5:18, 19, 14:9, 23 and 17:11, 22), and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of οὐσία, is to introduce thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century."
Bernard, J. H.: McNeile, Alan Hugh (Hrsg.): A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. New York : C. Scribner' Sons, 1929, S. 2:365-366
Does any other NT writer say this? In fact, don't they deny this claim?
And is the Jesus of John saying in your quotation of "his" words that he and the FatherI are ontologically identical or is he saying that they are identical in identical in purpose and will? How do you maintain the validity of the former claim in the light of the fact that for Jesus to have been asserting ontological identity with his Father, he would have to have said ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ **εἷς** ἐσμεν, not, as he does, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ** ἕν** ἐσμεν
(on this see Haenchen, Ernst ; Funk, Robert Walter ; Busse, Ulrich: _John : A Commentary on the Gospel of John._ Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1984 (Hermeneia--a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), S. 50)
and that he elsewhere distinguishes himself from the Father in such texts as John 5:30
"I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."
and John 7:16
"Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is not mine, but His that sent me."
And that, as prominent Johannine scholars have noted,
"It has been customary, following the habit of the patristic commentators, to interpret these significant words in the light of the controversies of the fourth century. Bengel, e.g. (following Augustine), says: “Per sumus refutatur Sabellius, per unum Arius”; the words thus being taken to prove identity of essence between the Father and the Son, while the difference of persons is indicated by the plural ἐσμέν. ***But it is an anachronism to transfer the controversies of the fourth century to the theological statements of the first.*** We have a parallel to ἕν ἐσμεν in 1 Cor. 3:8, where Paul says ὁ φυτεύων καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, meaning that both the “planter” and the “waterer” of the seed are in the same category, as compared with God who gives the increase. A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 5:18, 19, 14:9, 23 and 17:11, 22), and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of οὐσία, is to introduce thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century."
Bernard, J. H.: McNeile, Alan Hugh (Hrsg.): A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. New York : C. Scribner' Sons, 1929, S. 2:365-366
21st Apr 2023 10:44am
Baldwin, is there any difference between your thoughts when characterised in a poem and yourself? God the Father is the person and Jesus Christ is the Person Who characterises His ideas in the Son. The Son has been born by the Father without being created since eternity. Moreover, the sign of the cross is in the name of the Father, the Son and th Holy Spirit, One God Amen.
You still haven't shown that the NT says that the knowledge of Jesus's having been raised from the dead caused his disciples to experience "mirth"..
BTW, doesn't the text of the Nicene Creed say that the Son was begotten of the Father (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ), not born by him, before all ages (πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,) not "since [?] eternity"?
BTW, doesn't the text of the Nicene Creed say that the Son was begotten of the Father (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ), not born by him, before all ages (πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,) not "since [?] eternity"?
"Baldwin, is there any difference between your thoughts when characterised [British spelling of characterized] in a poem and yourself?"
Since "to characterise/characterize" means "to describe something by stating its main qualities"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/characterize
"to describe the character... or quality of something",
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/characterize
to describe the qualities of someone or something in a particular way
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/characterize
the answer is yes, if only because I did not characterise my thoughts in the submission above. I simply stated something I was puzzled by.
"God the Father is **the*** person " Er... what? Which person is he?
Did you mean to say that God the Father is A Person?
Since "to characterise/characterize" means "to describe something by stating its main qualities"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/characterize
"to describe the character... or quality of something",
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/characterize
to describe the qualities of someone or something in a particular way
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/characterize
the answer is yes, if only because I did not characterise my thoughts in the submission above. I simply stated something I was puzzled by.
"God the Father is **the*** person " Er... what? Which person is he?
Did you mean to say that God the Father is A Person?
21st Apr 2023 3:59pm
But here, God the Father has embodied in His son, Jesus, what concerns the whole humanity and sent Him to us to show us what to do, the way and to redeem us all. So Christ is the incarnation of the Father on the earth. How can this incarnation be but exactly like His Father. Moreover, Christ says so. Who sees Me, He has seen the Father. I am giving you the meaning and not the exact words of the NT.
21st Apr 2023 4:38pm
What this has to do with your claim that the resurrection was a source of amusement for the disciples? Where in the NT is this depicted? Note: I am not asking what you believe to be the case. I'm asking where I can find a NT author plainly stating it was the case.
And while we're at it, let's also get back to the questions
(1) of where the NT backs up your claim that (presumably after Jesus was arrested), the disciples "escaped" (found a way out of captivity) to **many** places,
(2) of whether the word "resurrection" in line 3 of your submission needs to be prefaced with the article "the" for your line to make sense, and
(3) of whether, given the meaning of the expression "to not care for", you have said when you noted that the resurrection of Jesus made the disciples "not care for jails and death", you have said that it made them dislike (if not also fear) jails and death.
And while we're at it, let's also get back to the questions
(1) of where the NT backs up your claim that (presumably after Jesus was arrested), the disciples "escaped" (found a way out of captivity) to **many** places,
(2) of whether the word "resurrection" in line 3 of your submission needs to be prefaced with the article "the" for your line to make sense, and
(3) of whether, given the meaning of the expression "to not care for", you have said when you noted that the resurrection of Jesus made the disciples "not care for jails and death", you have said that it made them dislike (if not also fear) jails and death.
How nice of you to edit your text so that you can deny that you ever claimed that the resurrection was a source of mirth for the disciples.
Here's what you originally posted:
"They beheld in Christ the might
that could make their world so cheap
when compared with what He'd done
that submerged their hearts with mirth."
How interesting it is to observe what you do -- including lying -- to avoid being legitimately changed with not knowing what you are talking about, to refuse to admit that your claims are baseless, and to score points against someone who has offered criticisms of what you write that you can't refute.
BTW, there is no NT text that speaks of the hearts of the disciples being submerged with bliss when they became aware of the resurrection. So here we go again.
Here's what you originally posted:
"They beheld in Christ the might
that could make their world so cheap
when compared with what He'd done
that submerged their hearts with mirth."
How interesting it is to observe what you do -- including lying -- to avoid being legitimately changed with not knowing what you are talking about, to refuse to admit that your claims are baseless, and to score points against someone who has offered criticisms of what you write that you can't refute.
BTW, there is no NT text that speaks of the hearts of the disciples being submerged with bliss when they became aware of the resurrection. So here we go again.
