HIS WAY IS TOO HARD.

"He saved Magdalene from the stones;  
they'd have no pity on her head.  
They moved like insects in their hands  
to bleed her skin and that of Christ."  
   
Your ignorance of matters Biblical and your tendency to read into scripture things that are not there to support your claims about the gentleness of Jesus is showing again.  
   
There are no New Testament texts that report Jesus saving Mary Magdalene from being stoned to death, let alone that present her as an adulteress or as being accused of adultery.  In the NT story, you are obviously referring to -- the one that appears at John 7:53–8:11 and is named by Johannine scholars as the  Pericope Adulterae  -- the woman whom Jesus is presented as saving from such a fate is unnamed.  And there is nothing in that story that says that the woman’s accusers had stones in their hands or that any one of the characters in that story was set upon stoning Jesus. To wit:  
   
“Then each of them went home, while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say? They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground.  When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again." (NRSV)

"He had great passion on the weak"    
   
It is grammatically unsound to say that one has passion ON anything.  The grammatically correct expression is "has [a] passion FOR".    
   
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/passion#passion__2    
   
In any case,  no NT text says Jesus had "passion" for , let alone on, the weak.  What he showed was COMpassion for them.    
   
"and saved them from the senseless hearts".    
   
Leaving aside the fact that "the senseless hearts" is deictic,  Jesus is never described in the NT as saving anyone from "senseless hearts". even in the Pericope Adulterae.   He saved people from illness, death, possession, physical danger, and hunger. none of which were caused by "hearts" of any kind.    
   
So once again your ignorance of proper English grammar, the meaning of English words (passion and compassion are not synonymous), and what the NT says about Jesus is on display.  

P.S.  Jesus is hardly the only person in history, let alone today, who (had (has) compassion for the weak, (or the outcast, the orphan, the widow, the dead, and those suffering disability and disease)  and moved to save them from oppression, exploitation, and imminent death,  nor was he the only person who was mocked and even put to death for doing so. or fogave his torturers.

Very dear Baldwin,
Thank you for your great concern, but:
1-"...to bleed her skin and that of Christ." As they wished they could have done. Their hearts were full of hatred, but they were afraid o Jesus' followers.
2- "...the senseless hearts of those who hated Him stubbornly.

"1-"...to bleed her skin and that of Christ." As they wished they could have done. Their hearts were full of hatred, but they were afraid o [sic] Jesus' followers.        
2- "...the senseless hearts of those who hated Him stubbornly."        
         
There is nothing in the Pericope Adulterae that supports your eisegetical claim that those who were asking Jesus to rule on whether the woman taken in adultery should be stoned had hearts full of hatred for her or for Jesus., let alone that they wished to bleed Jesus' skin or were afraid of Jesus' followers.        
     
In fact, there is nothing in the Gospel of John or in any of the Synoptic Gospels that speaks of those who in the Pericope Adulterae asked Jesus to rule on whether the law of Moses demanded that an adulteress be stoned were afraid of Jesus followers.      
     
The closest we come to any such statement appears in Mark's gospel at Mk. 11:27-33 where Jesus asks the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders whether the baptism of John the Immerser was from heaven, or of human origin and they do not answer one way or the other because they feared offending τὸν ὄχλον, (the people.) who were followers of John, not Jesus.    
     
27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”  29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”  31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)  33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”  Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”      
     
Cp. Matt.21:23-25//Lk. 20:1-10.      
     
Beyond that,  it is hard to explain the fact that according to John "The scribes and the Pharisees"  made an open call for, and showed themselves publically in support of, Jesus being put to death, and were known for wanting, before the incident narrated in what is now John  7:53-8:11 to see him done in,  and engaged as John tells us in 8:59 in an action that if carried out would have resulted in Jesus being be put to death if they feared how Jesus' followers would have reacted to this.    
        
Moreover, if the hearts of those who were asking Jesus to rule on whether the woman taken in adultery should be stoned were full of hatred, they hardly had hearts that were incapable of sensation.        
         
So here's another example of your reading into scripture things it does not say or support and of your misunderstanding of the meaning and implications of the words you use in your submissions.

Please show me now
that it is there
within the Gospel texts
that Jesus said
his way
was much too hard
if not impossible
for anyone to live
or bear.

I’ve searched  
in Luke and John
in Mark and Matthew, too,
and do not find
that such a charge
like this
is set out in them
anywhere.

In fact, it’s clear
that Jesus thought
his way
could be,
despite its cost,
quite faithfully
observed
if one just had the nerve
the firm resolve
to follow him;
and that your clam
about what Jesus said
in this regard
is scripturally
unfounded and
is thoroughly absurd.

28 Δεῦτε πρός με πάντες οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι, κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς.
29 ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς καὶ μάθετε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι πραΰς εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν ·
30 ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.

Some other dubious claims based upon unwarranted eisegesis:
    
"He was not frightened by their flint".    

Where is it said in the  Pericope Adulterae that those who were testing Jesus carried, let alone threatened Jesus with,  flint?  
    
"He loved us much and wept man's fate."  

The only fate Jesus is said in the NT to weep for or over was Jerusalem's
    
"We dressed Him with a crown of thorns".    

"We" did no such thing.  It was Roman soldiers who did so.  

"He said, " Forgive them," and we said,    
" We got rid of whose way is hard." "    

Leaving aside the fact that to be grammatically correct, this sentence should read "We got rid of him whose way is hard",  "we" did no such thing. Nor does any canonical account of Jesus' crucifixion and death present anyone as saying"We got rid of [him] whose way is hard"   So once more, you are reading into scripture things that are not there.

Furthermore, there is no evidence anywhere in the NT that those who conspired to or actually put Jesus to death thought his way was hard, let alone too hard, to follow.

I see that you have changed (as I noted that you needed to do for your line to be grammatically correct)    
   
"He had great passion on the weak"    to "He had great passion for the weak"    but still incorrectly think that "passion for" is semantically synonymous with "compassion for"..  So you are still writing poorly and showing that your grasp of the meaning of English words is not as great as you have often claimed it is.    
   
I see, too, that you've changed  "He saved Magdalene from the stones;" to "He saved that woman from the stones", thus relieving yourself of the charge of scriptural ignorance and misrepresentation of what is said in the Pericope Adulterae.  But in doing so,  you end up laying yourself open to the charge that you do not write well since you (once more) are engaging in deixis.    
   
But you are still claiming (however implicitly), quite contrary to fact,   that those who brought "that woman" before Jesus to  "test" him had stones in their hands or that any one of the characters in that story was set upon stoning Jesus.    
   
So you have not relieved yourself entirely of the charge of engaging in rank eisegesis when you appeal to scripture to support your claims about Jesus' character and accordingly is likely to put off anyone who has read the Pericope Adulterae from thinking that your submission is in any way artful.

Very dear Baldwin,
I like you as you have helped me a lot. Therefore, l'll do my best to cooperate with you for the benefit of both of us. This is if you don't mind, Baldwin, and if you accept my friendship.
_" We got rid of whose way is hard,"  is correct. Whose way is hard, is a NOUN CLAUSE. It can be replaced by, SOMEONE.J.Z

"_" We got rid of whose way is hard,"  is correct.    
   
It is not correct.    
   
whose    
determiner    
UK  /huːz/ US  /huːz/    
     
used for adding information about a person or thing just mentioned:    
     
Cohen, whose short film won awards, was chosen to direct the movie .    
There was a picture in the paper of a man whose leg had been blown off.    
They meet in an old house, whose basement has been converted into a chapel.    
Fraud detectives are investigating the company, three of whose senior executives have already been arrested.    
     
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/whose    
     
whose /huːz/ ●●● S2 W1 determiner, pronoun        
1 used to ask which person or people a particular thing belongs to    
 Whose is this?    
 Whose keys are those?    
2 used to show the relationship between a person or thing and something that belongs to that person or thing    
 That’s the man whose house has burned down.    
 Solar energy is an idea whose time has come.    
3 used to give additional information about a person or thing    
 Jurors, whose identities will be kept secret, will be paid $40 a day.    
     
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/whose  
   
"Whose way is hard, is a NOUN CLAUSE"  
   
No. since "whose" functions here is as a determiner, it is, if anything, a    
 nominal relative clause.  
   
"It can be replaced by [SIC with] , SOMEONE.J.Z"    
   
If so, your sentence becomes nonsense since "we got rid of someone" makes no sense without a determiner specifying who that someone was or what it was that characterized that someone.

"This is if you don't mind, Baldwin, and if you accept my friendship"  
 
Why would I ever want to be friends with someone who has frequently verbally abused me, who has  attacked my person and my intelligence when he should be focused on my criticisms of, and my remarks about,  his submissions,  who refuses to take responsibilty for his claims, who has repeatedly lied about how almost all of my submissions are imitations of his, who thinks his submissions provoke jealousy in me,  who has labeled my legitimate criticisms of his submissions as not worth replying to, who has frequently misrepresented what I have said to him in order to score points against me and has refused to acknowledge that he has done even when this is pointed out to him, who arrogates to himself privliges he won’t allow others, who makes claims to knowledge he demonstrably does not possess and then excoriates those who demonstrate with solid and irrefutable  evidence that he does this, who finds flimsy excuses for not dealing with questions raised about his poetic competence, his conceptual coherence,  his misuse of words, and his clumsy writing style?  
 
.

Very dear Baldwin,
Relative clause = ADJECTIVE, e.g. We got rid of Sam, whose car is old. = We got rid of OLD Sam.
Noun clause = NOUN or SOMEONE e.g. We got rid of whose car is old. = We got rid of SOMEONE.

"Noun clause = NOUN or SOMEONE e.g. We got rid of whose car is old. = We got rid of SOMEONE."

"whose" is not a noun.  

And in any case,  where can I find in any of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and death anyone saying "we got rid of someone"?

Very dear Baldwin,
We are writing about GRAMMAR. Why do you change to other subjects? Please, let us end this enmity at Christmas. You are a good Christian, and much better than l am. It is impossible to know the NEW TESTAMENT in such a deep way and not become a good Christian. J.z.

"We are writing about GRAMMAR."  
 
No.  I am writing about how poorly you write and whether you know what you are talking about when it comes to matters biblical.  
 
"Why do you change to other subjects?"  
 
The subjects I've been dealing with are things you've said in this thread. So it's false to say that  I've been dealing with subjects other than the ones you have brought up.  

And how is your (question-begging) claim about what it is that knowing the NT deeply results in not a change of subject?

"Please, let us end this enmity at Christmas"

If you want "this enmity" to end, then acknowledge that you have done all the things that I noted above you have done to me. and apologize for doing them.

But if you are true to form, you won't.