deepundergroundpoetry.com
ONE WORD OF TRUE DESIRE
ONE WORD OF TRUE DESIRE
On His right, the thief was hopeless,
but his faith in Christ was perfect.
He was stunned when earthquakes happened
and the clouds poured down their buckets.
He repented his corruption,
and he said, "My Lord forgive me
and accept me in Your heaven.
You're the Lord, Whom l believe in."
Jesus said, "You'll have your comfort
in the upper land of calmness.
Passion showed your good behaviour.
Your desire cleans your evil."
Having shown your full intention
to be one of my believers
is enough for your acquital
and accepting your repentance.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
________________________________
On His right, the thief was hopeless,
but his faith in Christ was perfect.
He was stunned when earthquakes happened
and the clouds poured down their buckets.
He repented his corruption,
and he said, "My Lord forgive me
and accept me in Your heaven.
You're the Lord, Whom l believe in."
Jesus said, "You'll have your comfort
in the upper land of calmness.
Passion showed your good behaviour.
Your desire cleans your evil."
Having shown your full intention
to be one of my believers
is enough for your acquital
and accepting your repentance.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
________________________________
Published 10th Oct 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 21
reads 142
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
''Your desire cleans your evil."
so true, it's only about good intentions that we are human beings, evil is always done, but one moment of repentance could turn all our sins into blessings..
Thanks again for the wisdom my friend..
God bless
so true, it's only about good intentions that we are human beings, evil is always done, but one moment of repentance could turn all our sins into blessings..
Thanks again for the wisdom my friend..
God bless
10th Oct 2023 4:29pm
Very dear P.D.,
Thank you very much for your reading and commenting. You are very kind, indeed. I think that your mentality is very close to mine. I appreciate your comment. J.Z.
Thank you very much for your reading and commenting. You are very kind, indeed. I think that your mentality is very close to mine. I appreciate your comment. J.Z.
10th Oct 2023 5:40pm
Oh, the miracle of forgiveness which we all need from time to time. Thanks for the homily. LOL, Oral
10th Oct 2023 8:19pm
Very dear Oral,
Thank you very much for your read and very kind comment. Indeed, we all need forgiveness, protection from all dangers, and inner happiness. They are all provided spiritually. Thank God.
Thank you very much for your read and very kind comment. Indeed, we all need forgiveness, protection from all dangers, and inner happiness. They are all provided spiritually. Thank God.
11th Oct 2023 10:55am
The gospel that records the story of the so-called "repentant thief" mentions "darkness" coming over the crucifixion scene, but it does not say anything about earthquakes. Nor is its theme "repentance" and its benefits. And no Gospel account of Jesus' crucifixion tells us that Jesus and those crucified with him were rained upon, let alone drenched by a heavy storm..
Moreover, it is simply not the case that the author of Luke's Gospel has the thief (who is not said to be on Jesus' right) and Jesus say what you claim they said to each other before Jesus died.
Here's Luke's text:
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[e] When he had said this, he breathed his last.
So you are once again misrepresenting events in the life of Jesus and falsely presenting him as proclaiming that the destiny of humankind is in some place in the sky.
Moreover, it is simply not the case that the author of Luke's Gospel has the thief (who is not said to be on Jesus' right) and Jesus say what you claim they said to each other before Jesus died.
Here's Luke's text:
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[e] When he had said this, he breathed his last.
So you are once again misrepresenting events in the life of Jesus and falsely presenting him as proclaiming that the destiny of humankind is in some place in the sky.
11th Oct 2023 12:07pm
Very dear Baldwin,
I don't depend on the letter of what was written. I depend on the spirit of the BIBLICAL events. Don't you know the letter kills and the spirit revives. No letters in the whole world can show one percent of the purity and greatness of Jesus Christ, so we refuge to the spirit of the events. J.Z.
I don't depend on the letter of what was written. I depend on the spirit of the BIBLICAL events. Don't you know the letter kills and the spirit revives. No letters in the whole world can show one percent of the purity and greatness of Jesus Christ, so we refuge to the spirit of the events. J.Z.
"Don't you know the letter kills and the spirit revives.
Actually, the expression (found in 2 Cor. 3:6) is "... the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ.
In any case, what's your evidence that for Paul, the referent of τὸ γράμμα is not only a written document like Luke's Gospel but that he is claiming
(1) that taking what is written in a document at face value deals death to one who does so and
(2t) that the referent of τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα is what a text actually says?
(3) and it is knowing what the real meaning of a text actually is that "gives life"?
Actually, the expression (found in 2 Cor. 3:6) is "... the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ.
In any case, what's your evidence that for Paul, the referent of τὸ γράμμα is not only a written document like Luke's Gospel but that he is claiming
(1) that taking what is written in a document at face value deals death to one who does so and
(2t) that the referent of τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα is what a text actually says?
(3) and it is knowing what the real meaning of a text actually is that "gives life"?
"Very dear Baldwin,
I don't depend on the letter of what was written. I depend on the spirit of the BIBLICAL events."
And what makes you think that you have understood, let alone correctly and authoritatively represented, the spirit of Luke's crucifixion story, especially when you have lied about what Luke says happened on and during that event?
"No letters in the whole world can show [even] one percent of the purity and greatness of Jesus Christ",
For this statement to be true, it has to be the case that you know for certain what the full extent of the purity and greatness of Jesus is. But what is the source of this knowledge? What is it that supports your claim that what the NT says about the purity and greatness of Jesus is deficient and woefully incomplete?
"so we refuge to the spirit of the events"
" we refuge to"?
I don't depend on the letter of what was written. I depend on the spirit of the BIBLICAL events."
And what makes you think that you have understood, let alone correctly and authoritatively represented, the spirit of Luke's crucifixion story, especially when you have lied about what Luke says happened on and during that event?
"No letters in the whole world can show [even] one percent of the purity and greatness of Jesus Christ",
For this statement to be true, it has to be the case that you know for certain what the full extent of the purity and greatness of Jesus is. But what is the source of this knowledge? What is it that supports your claim that what the NT says about the purity and greatness of Jesus is deficient and woefully incomplete?
"so we refuge to the spirit of the events"
" we refuge to"?
11th Oct 2023 8:17pm
Yes, Baldwin, we refuge to. What's wrong with it?
Refuge is a noun, not a verb. It was once used as a verb, but its meaning was then "to afford refuge to". But I doubt that you are saying that you are affording a place of protection to the spirit of something that doesn't need it.
Doesn't proper English demand that the expression be "we take/seek refuge in ..".
Please show me where I may find someone saying "we refuge to"
Refuge is a noun, not a verb. It was once used as a verb, but its meaning was then "to afford refuge to". But I doubt that you are saying that you are affording a place of protection to the spirit of something that doesn't need it.
Doesn't proper English demand that the expression be "we take/seek refuge in ..".
Please show me where I may find someone saying "we refuge to"
11th Oct 2023 9:34pm
Look it up in Webster and Google. It has the meaning of TO GIVE REFUGE TO. " So we refuge to the spirit of the events to show the purity and greatness of Jesus Christ. To mean, So we give refuge to ourselves in the spirit to show ...."
12th Oct 2023 11:55am
"Look it [i.e., the definition of "refuge"] up in Webster and Google. It has the meaning of TO GIVE REFUGE TO. "
And this is something I already noted.
But I asked you to show me examples of anyone's use of the phrase "we refuge to". It is not done in the entry on "refuge" from MW.
"refuge
noun
1 : shelter or protection from danger or distress
2 a place that provides shelter or protection
3 something to which one has recourse in difficulty
refuge
verb
refuged; refuging
transitive verb
to give refuge to
intransitive verb
to seek or take refuge"
And what appears when Google is searched for examples of the phrase "we give refuge to" are entries that mirror what is said here
"At the request of the person referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Asylum Office shall also grant the right to refuge to his/her family members who ..."
which when examined is not an instance of someone saying "we refuge to" , but that the "right of refuge" is going to be given to family members of persons seeking asylum.
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/47b46e2f9.pdf
"So we refuge to the spirit of the events to show the purity and greatness of Jesus Christ. "
Given that when used as a transitive verb, refuge means "give refuge to someone , to say "we refuge to the spirit" is not only a solecism ["to " is redundant] but means "we give shelter or protection from danger or distress to the spirit".
"To mean, So we give refuge to ourselves in the spirit to show ...."
Really? THAT"S what you were saying when you wrote, "we refuge to the spirit" It seems to me that for you to have said this, you would have to have written, "we take refuge in the spirit to show ..."
In any case, you still haven't shown that your understanding of what is actually being said by Jesus and the crucified criminal in Luke's account of Jesus' crucifixion story should be taken seriously and is not something you have read into that account because that's what you want it to say.
And this is something I already noted.
But I asked you to show me examples of anyone's use of the phrase "we refuge to". It is not done in the entry on "refuge" from MW.
"refuge
noun
1 : shelter or protection from danger or distress
2 a place that provides shelter or protection
3 something to which one has recourse in difficulty
refuge
verb
refuged; refuging
transitive verb
to give refuge to
intransitive verb
to seek or take refuge"
And what appears when Google is searched for examples of the phrase "we give refuge to" are entries that mirror what is said here
"At the request of the person referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Asylum Office shall also grant the right to refuge to his/her family members who ..."
which when examined is not an instance of someone saying "we refuge to" , but that the "right of refuge" is going to be given to family members of persons seeking asylum.
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/47b46e2f9.pdf
"So we refuge to the spirit of the events to show the purity and greatness of Jesus Christ. "
Given that when used as a transitive verb, refuge means "give refuge to someone , to say "we refuge to the spirit" is not only a solecism ["to " is redundant] but means "we give shelter or protection from danger or distress to the spirit".
"To mean, So we give refuge to ourselves in the spirit to show ...."
Really? THAT"S what you were saying when you wrote, "we refuge to the spirit" It seems to me that for you to have said this, you would have to have written, "we take refuge in the spirit to show ..."
In any case, you still haven't shown that your understanding of what is actually being said by Jesus and the crucified criminal in Luke's account of Jesus' crucifixion story should be taken seriously and is not something you have read into that account because that's what you want it to say.
12th Oct 2023 12:21pm
I've already explained the usage of [refuge] as a verb to you. We give refuge to ourselves in the spirit of the sentence and not the literal meaning of the words in order to understand a little about the greatness of Jesus Christ.
12th Oct 2023 5:32pm
You are changing your tune. You previously said "So we [give?] refuge to the spirit of the events **to show** the purity and greatness of Jesus Christ" which, BTW, conveys what "refuging to the Spirit" **does** (i.e, shows the purity and the greatness of Jesus)..
And now you are saying that "We give refuge to ourselves in the spirit of the sentence [??] ** in order to understand** a little about the greatness of Jesus Christ.
And now you are saying that "We give refuge to ourselves in the spirit of the sentence [??] ** in order to understand** a little about the greatness of Jesus Christ.
"I've already explained the usage of [refuge] [sic] as a verb to you"
Why did you think that it was necessary to do so since I showed you that I already cited a dictionary entry on how the verb could be used and that I already understood what the verb could mean?
The issue, however, is what the expression "we refuge to the spirit" conveys given what the verb means and whether in writing it you have actually conveyed to readers what you say you intended to convey, let alone what you've actually conveyed when you wrote "we refuge to the spirit"
"We give refuge to ourselves in the spirit of the sentence". [of the sentence or of the Lucan account of Jesus' crucifixion?]
But that's not what you wrote.
And how does what you take to be what Jesus and the crucified criminal are actually saying in Luke's account of Jesus'' crucifixion give "us" a place of protection?
In any case, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate with evidence that what you take is the real meaning of what Jesus and the crucified criminal say is not you reading into the text of Luke's account of Jesus' crucifixion things you want it to say in order to demonstrate your claim about how pure and great Jesus was. How do you know that what you say is what that text really says is true?
Why did you think that it was necessary to do so since I showed you that I already cited a dictionary entry on how the verb could be used and that I already understood what the verb could mean?
The issue, however, is what the expression "we refuge to the spirit" conveys given what the verb means and whether in writing it you have actually conveyed to readers what you say you intended to convey, let alone what you've actually conveyed when you wrote "we refuge to the spirit"
"We give refuge to ourselves in the spirit of the sentence". [of the sentence or of the Lucan account of Jesus' crucifixion?]
But that's not what you wrote.
And how does what you take to be what Jesus and the crucified criminal are actually saying in Luke's account of Jesus'' crucifixion give "us" a place of protection?
In any case, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate with evidence that what you take is the real meaning of what Jesus and the crucified criminal say is not you reading into the text of Luke's account of Jesus' crucifixion things you want it to say in order to demonstrate your claim about how pure and great Jesus was. How do you know that what you say is what that text really says is true?
12th Oct 2023 3:03pm
I am not talking about the literal meaniing in the text of luke concerning the Lord Jesus and the thief on the right. I told you l consider the spirit of the account, but here l am talking about REFUGE as a verb. Don't change the subject,
"I am not talking about the literal meaning in [of] the text of luke concerning the Lord Jesus and the thief on the right. ...but here l am talking about REFUGE as a verb.
I never said you weren't
" Don't change the subject"I
Actually, YOU changed the subject when you ignored what was the main subject of my message in which my question about whether "give refuge to" was good English was only a secondary one..
In any case, I have not changed the subject since I have been noting what "refuge' means when used as a verb and whether, given the meaning that the word has when so used, the expression "we refuged to the spirit" conveys what you think it conveys.
.
""I told you l consider the spirit of the account,"
And I raised a question -- that, notably, you have yet to answer --- about how you know not only that there is a "spirit" of the account, but that what you have claimed to be the spirit of the account is not something you have read into Luke's account of what Jesus and the crucified criminal (who is not anywhere described in Luke's account of the crucifixion as being on the right of Jesus) said to each other..
I never said you weren't
" Don't change the subject"I
Actually, YOU changed the subject when you ignored what was the main subject of my message in which my question about whether "give refuge to" was good English was only a secondary one..
In any case, I have not changed the subject since I have been noting what "refuge' means when used as a verb and whether, given the meaning that the word has when so used, the expression "we refuged to the spirit" conveys what you think it conveys.
.
""I told you l consider the spirit of the account,"
And I raised a question -- that, notably, you have yet to answer --- about how you know not only that there is a "spirit" of the account, but that what you have claimed to be the spirit of the account is not something you have read into Luke's account of what Jesus and the crucified criminal (who is not anywhere described in Luke's account of the crucifixion as being on the right of Jesus) said to each other..
12th Oct 2023 8:17pm
I'll answer your question after you answer my questions about how you know that the conversation between Jesus and the crucified criminal recorded by Luke at Lk. 23::30-47 means something other than what a literal reading of that text indicates it has, that your understanding of what Jesus and the crucified criminal are actually saying to each other is what we should see is what they are really saying to each other rather than something you have read into Luke's account of what Jesus and the crucified criminal (who is not anywhere described in Luke's account of the crucifixion as being on the right of Jesus) said to each other.. and why anyone should believe that your exposition of what Jesus and the crucified criminal are really saying to each other in Lk. 23:39-47 is not rank eisegesis.
12th Oct 2023 10:13pm
Dear Baldwin,
Usually, l don't take the literal meaning but the deeper one. J.Z.
Usually, l don't take the literal meaning but the deeper one. J.Z.
"Dear Baldwin,
Usually, l don't take the literal meaning but the deeper one."
But you haven't shown that there is a deeper one in Luke's story of Jesus' crucifixion, let alone that what you think this deeper meaning does not smack not pure eisegesis, or that you are in any way competent to speak authoritatively on how a Biblical text is to be understood since you don't possess the skills necessary (such as knowing koine Greek) to do so.
In any case, I note that your claim about what you do and do not take into account when you are making pronouncements on the meaning of a biblical text does not answer my question of how you know that the conversation between Jesus and the crucified criminal recorded by Luke at Lk. 23:39-47 is to be understood as dealing with subjects other than the ones that a "literal" reading of that text leads one to believe the conversation is centered on, that your understanding of what Jesus and the crucified criminal are actually saying to each other is what we should see is what they are really saying to each other rather than something you have read into Luke's account of what Jesus and the crucified criminal (who is not anywhere described in Luke's account of the crucifixion as being on the right of Jesus) said to each other.. and why anyone should believe that your exposition of what Jesus and the crucified criminal are really saying to each other in Lk. 23:39-47 is not rank eisegesis.
Usually, l don't take the literal meaning but the deeper one."
But you haven't shown that there is a deeper one in Luke's story of Jesus' crucifixion, let alone that what you think this deeper meaning does not smack not pure eisegesis, or that you are in any way competent to speak authoritatively on how a Biblical text is to be understood since you don't possess the skills necessary (such as knowing koine Greek) to do so.
In any case, I note that your claim about what you do and do not take into account when you are making pronouncements on the meaning of a biblical text does not answer my question of how you know that the conversation between Jesus and the crucified criminal recorded by Luke at Lk. 23:39-47 is to be understood as dealing with subjects other than the ones that a "literal" reading of that text leads one to believe the conversation is centered on, that your understanding of what Jesus and the crucified criminal are actually saying to each other is what we should see is what they are really saying to each other rather than something you have read into Luke's account of what Jesus and the crucified criminal (who is not anywhere described in Luke's account of the crucifixion as being on the right of Jesus) said to each other.. and why anyone should believe that your exposition of what Jesus and the crucified criminal are really saying to each other in Lk. 23:39-47 is not rank eisegesis.
