Resurrection

you mean the entity who took credit for my presence now get back I hav4 my match.

Are you capable of writing an intelligible sentence let alone offering a thoughtful and evidenced critique of the poetic quality of a submission?

baldwin are you losing your hair here? you know Chery noble happened here... the energy has to go somewhere you know?

So the answer to my (yes or no) question is "no"..

you don't know what happened there professor I do.

How is this an on-point answer to my question?  That is to say, how does knowing what happened "there" show that you can write intelligibly?

What do you depend on for your calmness and peace of mind when you think of diseases and death? I am serious Baldwin, and l sympathize with you? Please speak seriously with me and not as a hated one.

How is the question begging query of  what (not who?) I depend on for  calmness relevant to whether the New Testament says that the intended (or actual) effect of Jesus' resurrection was to give mankind "mirth", let alone, given that I've requested honest criticism of my submission (whose subject is important and whose lines are set out without solecisms or grammar mistakes, contain and display good meter and unforced rhyme), is something that deals with whether or not my submission shows poetic art?

I am asking about belief, Baldwin. Please, tell me what you rely on to feel tranquil. Again, l tell you that l sympathize, and don't condemn.

"Please, tell me what you rely on to feel tranquil."

Why should I, especially when the issue at hand is whether or not I write well, not to mention that I am right to say that when it comes to matters biblical, you don't know what you are talking about and that no New Testament author ever uses the word κέφι ,let alone in any of their descriptions of what it was that the raising of Jesus by the God of Israeι made men experience?

Because l believe that nobody can depend on himself to achieve this purpose. Are you an exception?

Good for you. But whether or not I am an exception has nothing to do with whether I  write well, let alone whether my submission above speaks truth.    
 
And when did this site become one for discussing what one relies on to achieve some desirable physical, psychological, or emotional state rather than how and why compositions submitted here are or are not good poetry?    
 
Your question is as appropriate and relevant here as my asking you to say what you rely on to achieve sexual satisfaction and to ensure that your wife is pleased when you take her to bed would be as a response to one of your submissions.  
 
   
Perhaps you'll tell me now where one can find a New Testament author using the word κέφι ("mirth") as a description of what it was that the raising of Jesus by the God of Israeι made men experience.  
   
cue the crickets, the red herrings, the ad hominems, and the lame excuses for not speaking directly to what I've just now said.

J-Z wrote:
"Please, tell me what you rely on to feel tranquil."

I responded:

Why should I ...?

He replied

"Because l believe that nobody can depend on himself to achieve this purpose."

I now ask:

So I'm to answer your (wholly irrelevant)  question because of a belief you hold?

Why do you continue to poniard yourself upon a lackluster point of ancient Levantine translational miscarriage?

I fail to see that I am poniarding myself upon anything except your obtuseness when I ask if you are capable of wring something that is intelligible.   What is a Levantine translational miscarriage?

It's interesting that you are so quick to level a charge of obtusion at me when you apparently are equally obtuse in your own comprehension of the Queen's English. I wonder what the Lord Jesus would have to say about humility.  

But no matter. Your poem and the subsequent comments indicate a measure of trouble with the word "mirth", its etymology, and/or its association with some sort of resurrection. Are you unable to specify?  

Perhaps you will find relief in a consultation with the works of Erasmus.

My point is that J-Z is wrong when he claims, as he does, that  Jesus' being raised from the dead ("the" resurrection) is noted in the NT as something that caused  "amusement, especially as expressed in laughter"";  "gaiety or jollity, especially when accompanied by laughter:"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mirth

in Jesus' followers.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mirth

And perhaps you'll specify what trouble I have with the word's etymology

https://www.etymonline.com/word/mirth

What does Erasmus have to do with whether the noun κέφι is found in any description of what the NT says the resurrection caused "men" to experience or be immersed "with" [sic]?  Perhaps you'll show me where in his collocation of NT witnesses he attests to the use of the noun κέφι in it.

Are you saying by way of prolix lexical litigation that Jesus was not a happy zombie?

Because I'm not about to spend my day chasing down definitions I'm already aware of when the real problem is the large arthropod lodged in your posterior concerning someone else's opinion regarding the quality of your poem. Have you not yet arrived at the epiphany wherein you realize that good poetry is able to defend itself, thoroughly backed up by the author's customary attitude of insouciance?  

Maybe poetry isn't for you.

I referenced Erasmus more as a suggestion that you familiarize yourself with THE PRAISE OF FOLLY more so than for his accomplishment as a New Testament translator.

But by all means continue to be swamped in misery if that is your true heart's desire.

"Are you saying by way of prolix lexical litigation that Jesus was not a happy zombie?"

No.  And you have misread what I wrote if you think so.

I was saying that J-Z's claim that the NT says that the message that Jesus had been raised from the dead caused them to be amused and to burst out in laughter cannot be substantiated by the text of the NT.  The issue is not whether the resurrection actually happened, let alone whether its stories about Jesus are fictional.  It's what it says the resurrection caused his disciples to experience.

Because I'm not about to spend my day chasing down definitions I'm already aware of when the real problem is the large arthropod lodged in your posterior concerning someone else's opinion regarding the quality of your poem. Have you not yet arrived at the epiphany wherein you realize that good poetry is able to defend itself, thoroughly backed up by the author's customary attitude of insouciance?  


And here I thought the issue was whether you could write intelligible sentences and produce thoughtful and articulate critiques of people's submissions.

"I referenced Erasmus more as a suggestion that you familiarize yourself with THE PRAISE OF FOLLY more so than for his accomplishment as a New Testament translator."

The Praise of Folly has no bearing on whether the text of the NT that Erasmus produced and translated into Latin anywhere substantiates the claim that the NT says that what the disciples experienced when they came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead was "mirth".


P.S.  Could you please demonstrate that my citing dictionary entries of the meaning of the word "mirth" to justify my claim about what the NT says the disciples did not experience was uncalled for let alone something that was marked by or an excess of words?

Care to enlighten me with a citation of the originally disputed chapter and verse,

as if you were a scholar?

And please place the appropriate marks around my comments when you quote the folly of my own remarks.

Folly is weaved into all human affairs, sir, therefore...it bears.

"Care to enlighten me with a citation of the originally disputed chapter and verse,"

What's in dispute is a claim that J-Z made.  And since this is not set out in versified  chapters, how would anyone be able to do what you ask?

And I believe the expression is "folly is woven" not "is weaved".  But be that as it may, where in The Praise of Folly is what Erasmus understood the NT to have said about what the resurrection made the disciples to experience was jollity that expressed itself in laughter.?

If you are unable or unwilling to cite the original source of the dispute, then I will be unable to assist you with your dilemma.  

It seems you argue for argument's sake, which will be interpreted by some as an advocacy for the Devil himself.  

Good day to you.

Source  
 
https://deepundergroundpoetry.com/poems/479383-whats-the-secret-of-the-change/  
 
And so far as I can see, I have not asked you to "assist" me in "my dispute" with J-Z.

Baldwin, not every MIRTH MAKER is a clown. Mirth can have a meaning much deeper than that.

That may be so.  But you have indicated that the purpose of main purpose of the resurrection was to give to "men" what a clown aims at doing -- amusing an audience and making them laugh.  

In any case, you are avoiding answering the question of where it is said anywhere in the New Testament that when the disciples of Jesus realized Jesus had been raised from the dead they were filled with a kind of jollity that erupted in laughter,   not to mention showing me where the Greek word for "mirth" (κέφι) is used to describe what the disciples experienced in reports of their encountering the resurrected Jesus.

And of course, there's the issue of the validity of your implied claim that the resurrection was something that Jesus was responsible for..

"Baldwin, not every MIRTH MAKER is a clown. Mirth can have a meaning much deeper than that"."

It can?? Even those whose intended purpose is to make people experience mirth are clowns or comedians?   And who said that the meaning of "mirth" was "a clown" -- which is what your syntax makes you claim?

You said so in your first stanza of this poem.

"You said so in your first stanza of this poem.

No, I didn't. I noted that I was unaware that Jesus intended his resurrection to be seen as the act of a clown -- one purposely l designed to immerse men in mirth.  And I certainly did not define "mirth" as meaning "clown".

How can you paraphrase the first stanza if you don't mind?

How am I able [can]  to paraphrase the statement?

You did not know something, so you mean by that l said it.  You know that l didn't say anything like that. What an argument!

"You did not know something, so you mean by that l said it. "    
     
Er .. what?      
     
"You know that l didn't say anything like that."      
     
Anything like what?      
     
     
Did you not say that their coming to know that Jesus had been raised from the dead was something that caused the disciples to experience "mirth"?      
   
"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."  
     
If so, I was unaware that the NT says any such thing and was therefore expressing my surprise to be told that it did.    
   
P.S.  I see now that you have changed your  lines to read  
   
"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."  
 
so that you can (falsely) say, as you did above, that you never spoke of the resurrection producing mirth in the disciples.  
 
Wow.  What lengths you will go to -- including lying -- to hide the fact that you spoke untruly,  to avoid being legitimately changed with not knowing what you are talking about,  and to make things appear that there is no reason for anyone to assert that you've made baseless claims.  
   
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.