Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all. It appears to me that at the most basic of levels, the notions Jesus endorsed and his means of doing so were quite effective insofar as today Christianity is the most frequently ascribed-to belief system in the world.Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
And what are you going to do? Sit there and criticize what we posit? I think your independent exposition on the matter is due before you critique ours, if that be what you do.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all. It appears to me that at the most basic of levels, the notions Jesus endorsed and his means of doing do were quite effective insofar as today Christianity is the most frequently ascribed-to belief system in the world.Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
In anyone's estimation, regardless of how many people reject Jesus, his philosophical approaches, and/or his dogmatic ideas, no matter how dutifully, aptly or glibly Christianity's adherents embrace and live in accordance with Jesus' guidance, one must still agree that Jesus was and remains, far and away, history's most successful "politician," evangelist, missionary, and social activist.
Did Jesus forget to make 'em laugh? I don't know, but I suspect not and that instead he was deliberately not part comedian when delivering his messages and expounding on his systematic approach to life and the harmonious living of it by and among otherwise disparate people. I suspect that he was "dead serious" and wanted that he and his messages to be perceived as such, which wouldn't surprise me as the preservation of one's "immortal soul" probably isn't, assuming there is such a thing, not a joking matter.
Having said that, I realize humor's role as a rhetorical device, and it's not as though modern day humans invented humor. Inasmuch as Jesus was no "lightweight" as an orator, odds are he was also well aware of the rhetorical power and uses of humor. Why, then, didn't John and the Synoptics bother to share examples of Jesus' use of humor? I suspect that regardless of the extent to which Jesus did or didn't rhetorically employ humor, a number of factors played into those writers' decision not to tell of those instances in which Jesus might have done. I posit that some such factors might include the following:
So did Jesus forget to use humor? I don't objectively know, but using what I know about a few things to guide my thoughts about the thoughts about the OP's question, I suspect he didn't and I suspect that whether Jesus did or did not rhetorically use humor, it's unlikely that his having done so would have made it into the tales about his remarks and deeds.
- Time and Place -- As far as we know, the Synoptics and other New Testament writers composed their texts decades after Jesus was dead. It's quite possible they just didn't remember any of it. I know I damn sure don't recall the humorous devices used by non-fiction speakers whose lectures and so on that I've attended. I'm hard pressed to think anything different applied to first century writers. After all, the point of using humor as a mnemonic rhetorical device is to get people to remember the point one is making, not the humor one used to make that point.
- Integrity -- To the extent those writers were not present at the specific events of which they wrote, mere integrity would require them, assuming they saw themselves as telling a tale with as accurately and representationally faithfully as possible, they wouldn't deign to include statements they could not be certain were indeed Jesus'. Too, in the first century, much that happened and that was important for people to know about and remember was maintained via an oral tradition. That was all the more so regarding the ideas of an individual who by the authorities was construed, essentially, as illegitimate, seditionist, traitorous and as a would-be usurper of power and instigator of unrest among the polity. Accordingly the chroniclers of the day were not for posterity's sake going to document Jesus' sermons and ideas.
- Nature of Humor -- The very nature of humor and the proclivities of differing individual's senses of humor make it a rhetorical device that does not easily convey in writing, except where an express rhetorical objective is to be humorous for whatever purpose(s) one might be. That was surely recognized by first century writers just as it is by today's non-fiction writers.
- Economy -- Durable writing materials were not cheap or easy to come by in the first century. Accordingly, writers had to be as linguistically economical as possible. Remember that, for the most part and when they wanted their words to survive, people wrote on vellum back then. Sure, they could have written the humorous anecdote, but they'd have needed also to explain it for the benefit of readers who didn't share Jesus' sense of humor, be it due to cultural and/or language differences, or some other reason. Well, doing so requires one to use more vellum that does not doing so and instead just succinctly writing the key points and utterances.
What that I wrote did you find funny? Yes, there was something of a humorous tone in the opening rhetorical question I wrote and my immediate answer to it, but that was the beginning and end of the humor in that post.Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
And what are you going to do? Sit there and criticize what we posit? I think your independent exposition on the matter is due before you critique ours, if that be what you do.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all. It appears to me that at the most basic of levels, the notions Jesus endorsed and his means of doing do were quite effective insofar as today Christianity is the most frequently ascribed-to belief system in the world.Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
In anyone's estimation, regardless of how many people reject Jesus, his philosophical approaches, and/or his dogmatic ideas, no matter how dutifully, aptly or glibly Christianity's adherents embrace and live in accordance with Jesus' guidance, one must still agree that Jesus was and remains, far and away, history's most successful "politician," evangelist, missionary, and social activist.
Did Jesus forget to make 'em laugh? I don't know, but I suspect not and that instead he was deliberately not part comedian when delivering his messages and expounding on his systematic approach to life and the harmonious living of it by and among otherwise disparate people. I suspect that he was "dead serious" and wanted that he and his messages to be perceived as such, which wouldn't surprise me as the preservation of one's "immortal soul" probably isn't, assuming there is such a thing, not a joking matter.
Having said that, I realize humor's role as a rhetorical device, and it's not as though modern day humans invented humor. Inasmuch as Jesus was no "lightweight" as an orator, odds are he was also well aware of the rhetorical power and uses of humor. Why, then, didn't John and the Synoptics bother to share examples of Jesus' use of humor? I suspect that regardless of the extent to which Jesus did or didn't rhetorically employ humor, a number of factors played into those writers' decision not to tell of those instances in which Jesus might have done. I posit that some such factors might include the following:
So did Jesus forget to use humor? I don't objectively know, but using what I know about a few things to guide my thoughts about the thoughts about the OP's question, I suspect he didn't and I suspect that whether Jesus did or did not rhetorically use humor, it's unlikely that his having done so would have made it into the tales about his remarks and deeds.
- Time and Place -- As far as we know, the Synoptics and other New Testament writers composed their texts decades after Jesus was dead. It's quite possible they just didn't remember any of it. I know I damn sure don't recall the humorous devices used by non-fiction speakers whose lectures and so on that I've attended. I'm hard pressed to think anything different applied to first century writers. After all, the point of using humor as a mnemonic rhetorical device is to get people to remember the point one is making, not the humor one used to make that point.
- Integrity -- To the extent those writers were not present at the specific events of which they wrote, mere integrity would require them, assuming they saw themselves as telling a tale with as accurately and representationally faithfully as possible, they wouldn't deign to include statements they could not be certain were indeed Jesus'. Too, in the first century, much that happened and that was important for people to know about and remember was maintained via an oral tradition. That was all the more so regarding the ideas of an individual who by the authorities was construed, essentially, as illegitimate, seditionist, traitorous and as a would-be usurper of power and instigator of unrest among the polity. Accordingly the chroniclers of the day were not for posterity's sake going to document Jesus' sermons and ideas.
- Nature of Humor -- The very nature of humor and the proclivities of differing individual's senses of humor make it a rhetorical device that does not easily convey in writing, except where an express rhetorical objective is to be humorous for whatever purpose(s) one might be. That was surely recognized by first century writers just as it is by today's non-fiction writers.
- Economy -- Durable writing materials were not cheap or easy to come by in the first century. Accordingly, writers had to be as linguistically economical as possible. Remember that, for the most part and when they wanted their words to survive, people wrote on vellum back then. Sure, they could have written the humorous anecdote, but they'd have needed also to explain it for the benefit of readers who didn't share Jesus' sense of humor, be it due to cultural and/or language differences, or some other reason. Well, doing so requires one to use more vellum that does not doing so and instead just succinctly writing the key points and utterances.
In context to the OP ... You're lucky that is funny ...
.
“If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they’ll kill you.”
– Oscar Wilde
Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
What that I wrote did you find funny? Yes, there was something of a humorous tone in the opening rhetorical question I wrote and my immediate answer to it, but that was the beginning and end of the humor in that post.
Okay. TY for the clarification.What that I wrote did you find funny? Yes, there was something of a humorous tone in the opening rhetorical question I wrote and my immediate answer to it, but that was the beginning and end of the humor in that post.
I read the piece ... It is obvious you put thought into it (not uncommon for you).
The funny part is how while reading it, I imagined you to be the type person that would take their brain out and play with it ... Just to get a better look.
.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all.
Based on the actual NT, Jesus was one angry, Jew hating dude who tolerated every non-Jewish asshole he encountered.Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
And what are you going to do? Sit there and criticize what we posit? I think your independent exposition on the matter is due before you critique ours, if that be what you do.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all. It appears to me that at the most basic of levels, the notions Jesus endorsed and his means of doing so were quite effective insofar as today Christianity is the most frequently ascribed-to belief system in the world.Jesus forgot to make them laugh.
Discuss.
In anyone's estimation, regardless of how many people reject Jesus, his philosophical approaches, and/or his dogmatic ideas, no matter how dutifully, aptly or glibly Christianity's adherents embrace and live in accordance with Jesus' guidance, one must still agree that Jesus was and remains, far and away, history's most successful "politician," evangelist, missionary, and social activist.
Did Jesus forget to make 'em laugh? I don't know, but I suspect not and that instead he was deliberately not part comedian when delivering his messages and expounding on his systematic approach to life and the harmonious living of it by and among otherwise disparate people. I suspect that he was "dead serious" and wanted that he and his messages to be perceived as such, which wouldn't surprise me as the preservation of one's "immortal soul" probably isn't, assuming there is such a thing, not a joking matter.
Having said that, I realize humor's role as a rhetorical device, and it's not as though modern day humans invented humor. Inasmuch as Jesus was no "lightweight" as an orator, odds are he was also well aware of the rhetorical power and uses of humor. Why, then, didn't John and the Synoptics bother to share examples of Jesus' use of humor? I suspect that regardless of the extent to which Jesus did or didn't rhetorically employ humor, a number of factors played into those writers' decision not to tell of those instances in which Jesus might have done. I posit that some such factors might include the following:
So did Jesus forget to use humor? I don't objectively know, but using what I know about a few things to guide my thoughts about the OP's question, I suspect he didn't, and I suspect that whether Jesus did or did not rhetorically use humor, it's unlikely that his having done so would have made it into the tales about his remarks and deeds.
- Time and Place -- As far as we know, the Synoptics and other New Testament writers composed their texts decades after Jesus was dead. It's quite possible they just didn't remember any of it. I know I damn sure don't recall the humorous devices used by non-fiction speakers whose lectures and so on that I've attended. I'm hard pressed to think anything different applied to first century writers. After all, the point of using humor as a mnemonic rhetorical device is to get people to remember the point one is making, not the humor one used to make that point.
- Integrity -- To the extent those writers were not present at the specific events of which they wrote, mere integrity would require them, assuming they saw themselves as telling a tale as accurately and representationally faithfully as possible, they wouldn't deign to include statements they could not be certain were indeed Jesus'.
- Oral Tradition -- In the first century, much that happened and that was important for people to know about and remember was maintained via an oral tradition. That was all the more so regarding the ideas of an individual who by the authorities was construed, essentially, as illegitimate, seditionist, traitorous and as a would-be usurper of power and instigator of unrest among the polity. Accordingly the chroniclers of the day were not for posterity's sake going to document Jesus' sermons and ideas.
- Nature of Humor -- The very nature of humor and the proclivities of differing individual's senses of humor make it a rhetorical device that does not easily convey in writing, except where an express rhetorical objective is to be humorous for whatever purpose(s) one might be. That was surely recognized by first century writers just as it is by today's non-fiction writers.
- Economy -- Durable writing materials were not cheap or easy to come by in the first century. Accordingly, writers had to be as linguistically economical as possible. Remember that, for the most part and when they wanted their words to survive, people wrote on vellum back then. Sure, they could have written the humorous anecdote, but they'd have needed also to explain it for the benefit of readers who didn't share Jesus' sense of humor, be it due to cultural and/or language differences, or some other reason. Well, doing so requires one to use more vellum that does not doing so and instead just succinctly writing the key points and utterances.
Oh, I don't know...HIs humor was subtle and filled with irony and sarcasm, but it was there...It might have been a little mean-spirited, but it was there.
Thank you for acknowledging that. Thanks too for reading my posts and doing so often enough that my ID is familiar to you. You didn't have to share that with me; however, I sincerely and respectfully appreciate that you did. Regardless of what others think of one's remarks, it's always nice to know they have read them.It is obvious you put thought into it (not uncommon for you).
Thank you for acknowledging that. Thanks too for reading my posts and doing so often enough that my ID is familiar to you. You didn't have to share that with me; however, I sincerely and respectfully appreciate that you did. Regardless of what others think of one's remarks, it's always nice to know they have read them.
Jesus forgot to make them laugh.