C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter cardenio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
AnAtheist:
Facing death for heresy? :rotfl:
Heresy was not a crime in the Roman Empire, noone was put to death by the Romans for having a diffierent religion. And the Jews were not allowed to hand out death sentences.
One did not face death for heresy in the Empire until the Christians took over.
Click to expand...
Wrong!

Throwing Christians to the lions became a popular sport with the Romans.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Facing death for heresy? :rotfl:
Heresy was not a crime in the Roman Empire, noone was put to death by the Romans for having a diffierent religion. And the Jews were not allowed to hand out death sentences.
One did not face death for heresy in the Empire until the Christians took over.
Click to expand...
You need to brush up on your history. During the Roman Empire it was illegal to refuse to worship the Roman gods. The penalty was death and Christians were killed on a scale of genocide–particularly under Nero. What do you think the Colliseum was built for?
 
I read a few sources saying that the Inquisition was actually to help make the courts against heretics more fair, and that heresy was a crime against the State, not Church. Remember, Catholicism was the only thing keeping Medieval Europe together. If it were to split like this, especially with the pressure of the Islamic Empire…well then there’d be no more white folk;).
 
40.png
petra:
You need to brush up on your history. During the Roman Empire it was illegal to refuse to worship the Roman gods.
Click to expand...
Gladly. Care to provide some proof, like some Roman law, that says so?
The penalty was death and Christians were killed on a scale of genocide–particularly under Nero. What do you think the Colliseum was built for?
Click to expand...
The Collosseum was started to be built 72 AD for the games, Nero btw reigned from 54 to 68.
The main persecution of Christians took place during the reign of Diocletian (284-305), and started under Maximinus Thrax in 235. Nero had 200-300 christians killed for burning the city, and even that is doubtful, as Tacitus wrote that “chrestiani” (profiteers) not “christiani” were responsible for the fire.
So, whoever wrote the gospels facing death for heresy, either did that in the 3rd or 4th century, which hardly qualifies them as eyewitnesses, or did not face death for heresy at all.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Gladly. Care to provide some proof, like some Roman law, that says so?
Click to expand...
Will you refuse to accept any Roman law that does not happen to survive to this day (as *most *Roman law does NOT)? I could, for example, cite the seventh of the (ten lost) books of Ulpian, which we know by reference only, but which was said (by contemporaries) to form the basis of Christian persecution.

But, umm, weren’t we supposed to be discussing Lewis’ book? Maybe this discussion belongs in a thread of its own.
 
40.png
DavidFilmer:
Will you refuse to accept any Roman law that does not happen to survive to this day (as *most *Roman law does NOT)? I could, for example, cite the seventh of the (ten lost) books of Ulpian, which we know by reference only, but which was said (by contemporaries) to form the basis of Christian persecution.
Click to expand...
That may well be, Ulpian died about the same time, when the persecutions started. The point is, when the gospels were written, no Christian was persecuted, because he was a Christian. That changed, when Christianity was regarded to be a threat to the Roman state, and that was nearly 150 years later.
So the argument, why would anybody risk his life in inventing a new religion, is invalid.
But, umm, weren’t we supposed to be discussing Lewis’ book? Maybe this discussion belongs in a thread of its own.
Click to expand...
We still do. Lewis argumented, Jesus was either God, a liar or a lunatic. And I argumented, he overlooked some very obvious other scenarios, which we debate right now.
 
asteroid -
Yes, it is a much loved book by preachers!
Click to expand...
That’s part of the reason I figured I’d better read it.

AnAtheist - You’re right; it’s not a perfect argument. However, I agree with you that Pascal’s Wager is completley pointless and stupid. (No offense to Pascal.) Especially since you can make the same wager in any religion. Bleah. Logic-lacking.

Lisa N -
Glad to hear you were there to take down every word. You really don’t know what Jesus said or didn’t say so that argument falls flat.
Click to expand...
The argument does not fall flat. AnAtheist never once claimed to know. He simply claimed that the gospel writers might not know. I could tell you that you probably don’t know how many different kinds of bacteria there are, and this statement is true, but it’s not saying I do.

AnAtheist -
We still do. Lewis argumented, Jesus was either God, a liar or a lunatic. And I argumented, he overlooked some very obvious other scenarios, which we debate right now.
Click to expand...
Good call. Thanks.
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
I read a few sources saying that the Inquisition was actually to help make the courts against heretics more fair, and that heresy was a crime against the State, not Church. Remember, Catholicism was the only thing keeping Medieval Europe together. If it were to split like this, especially with the pressure of the Islamic Empire…well then there’d be no more white folk;).
Click to expand...
Indeed, the Spanish Inquisition was a facinating institution. Very misunderstood, I have actually had the privelege of reading a good deal of documents from the Inquisition–they were fantastic record keepers. While the authorities under the Spanish Crown (NOT the Church) did execute a few hundred heretics over the many centuries the Inquisition existed, it usually only acted like a kind of Grand Confessor, handing out penances to those who had a particular problem with specific sins, or tried to humiliate heretics into conformity. This may seem bad by our standards, but you have to remember that these people had just spend 700 years fighting with the Moors and weren’t interested in tolerating Catholics (the Inquisition only tried Catholics, usually who converted or were of Jewish or Muslim descent) who were undermining the faith and state laws. The numbers killed are actually far lower than the numbers of people killed in the witch trials of many German-Protestant countries a few hundred years later. A very misunderstood institution but a very interesting one.

PS Sorry for hijacking the thread, I just read Mere Christianity earlier this summer and LOVED it, he really was a quite brilliant man wasn’t he?
 
So the argument, why would anybody risk his life in inventing a new religion, is invalid.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the argument is invalid because every Apostle (except Judas, who killed himself, and John, who died naturally) was martyred for the faith. Whether or not this was done based on Roman law, the fact remains that when faced with the choice to deny Christ or die, these men chose death.
In the Gospel accounts, the disciples are terrified after Jesus is arrested for fear of being arrested themselves. This would seem to show that the early Christians knew very well that they could face persecution for following Christ even as a man, and certainly they would not face less persecution for claiming Jesus was God risen from the dead. I know that you don’t accept the Bible as the word of God, but this can show a few things. (1) It would be a very odd group of people who started a religion and wrote books in support of that religion detailing their fear if they weren’t actually frightened. (2) If the Gospels were written not by eyewitnesses, but by others, the others who wrote them claimed that the Apostles wrote them, and it wouldn’t be a great way to impress readers with the apostolic authority of the books if the Apostles are portrayed as scared and timid. A much more reasonable option is that the disciples did have reason to be frightened. The question then remains: Why would they have overcome their fear and been willing to suffer and die for the belief that Jesus was God if they were just making it up?
 
40.png
petra:
You need to brush up on your history. During the Roman Empire it was illegal to refuse to worship the Roman gods. The penalty was death and Christians were killed on a scale of genocide–particularly under Nero. What do you think the Colliseum was built for?
Click to expand...
You are right!

Tertullian documented 1st century Roman persecutions of Christians. Suetonius wrote of Domitian(81-96) who is known to have punished with death Christian members of his own family on the charge of ‘atheism’. Trajan(98-117) spelled out his dictats against Christians in his famous letter to Pliny. Trajan’s rulings against Christians had the force of law throughout the second century

There is more, of course. It’s a shame that people revise history to downplay the sufferings of Christians.
 
Lisa N:
FWIW there is a GREAT book about the friendship of Lewis and Tolkein that I read over the weekend. It’s not a ‘spiritual’ book but is very helpful in understanding both of these two great men.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Lisa,

What was the name of the book? I just recently re-read Tolkien and would be interested in learning more about his friendship with Lewis.
 
(AnAtheist)
Out of my head I can think of 4 other scenarios:
  • Jesus never said, he was God, the gospel-writers put it in his mouth.
  • Jesus meant that metaphorically and the gospel-writers misunderstood him. He did speak in parables after all.
  • Jesus said something different, but the gospel-writers were lost in translation.
  • Jesus never existed, the gospel-writers made the whole story up.
Click to expand...
I’ll make an attempt to answer this (there really is a lot to be said to properly address this).
In truth, there is no Jesus quote that says directly, “I am God.” However, when asked up front, He always answered in such a manner that would sho Him to be God to those asking: namely, by making references to scriptures as prophesied in the Psalms, Isaiah, etc (OT). Also he was executed (according to the Gospels) for the crime of Blasphemy- understood in this case to mean that He did in fact make this claim. This eliminates your second argument, ie that He was speaking metaphorically.
Your fourth argument is that He never existed. This is argument is wrong- Tacitus and Josephus, both non-Christian Roman historians from that time period, made references to His existence. Also, from non-Christian historical sources, we know that the death and resurrection of Christ were being preached in Jerusalem within 7 weeks of their occurrence. Seeing as the Jewish authorities would have not liked this to have happened, it would be fairly easy for them to prove that the man never existed, but this is NOT the approach that they took. Rather, they tried to explain His nature as God away. Thus, Christ did in fact exist. Of your four conclusions, we now are down to two, namely:
  • Jesus never said, he was God, the gospel-writers put it in his mouth.
    …
  • Jesus said something different, but the gospel-writers were lost in translation.
Click to expand...
I’ll address number 4 (lost in translation) first. You see, more ancient fragments of the Bible have survivved to us than ANY other piece of historical writing (from that general time period or earlier). How much more? Well, the next closest document would be the Illiad, with I believes it’s 450 surviving pieces. There are about 20,000 surviving fragments of the Bible dating from shortly after the time of its authorships to within a few hundred years. By the way the oldest surviving copy of the Illiad is from I believe the 5th century. Furthermore, there are countless pieeces of writings from the early days of the church that quote from the Bible, so many that if we had only these writings, we could reproduce virtually the ENTIRE Bible! So, the Bible as we have it is pretty dang accurate, especially when compared to other historical documetns from that time period and earlier. Translating it is relatively easy in comparison, especially when 1)there are that many experts working on doing so and 2) there are that many places in the Gospels where the references to Christ’s Divine Nature are made.
This leaves only one of your conclusions, namely that the Gospel writers would have put those words in His mouth. But there are problems with tis conclusion as well. First, there are FOUR DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS, and all agree as to Christ’s Divine Nature. Sure, there are descrepancies within the accounts on little details here and there, but this actually STRENGTHENS these accounts (between these little differences and the differences in writing style, these accounts must have had different authors), and plus the differences point to a probable lack of collaboration (in the sense of a plot to make something up) on the parts of the authors. Especially becasue in many cases, details are almost exactly the same, but a few little differences occurs (think of the different accounts given of when the women went to visit CHrist’s tomb that Easter Sunday). Second, many of the early apostles DIED for their belief. These men would have been in a position to know the truth of the matter. Why would they die for a lie?
No, I would have to say that the only conclusion that can be draw here is that Christ made the claim that He was God- and that something happened to back that claim up.

And because I know you’re going to ask if I don’t list it, my main source is Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.” It’s a very good read, I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in this.
 
40.png
Viki59:
C.S. Lewis is my hero. I returned to Christianity because of Mere Christianity.
Lewis was very close to Catholicism, but if I recall correctlly, people speculate that he had been raised in such an anti-Catholic time and place that he couldn’t make the switch.

Peter Kreeft is a writer who is very much like Lewis, and is Catholic. I enjoy him too, especially Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Heaven.
Click to expand...
Another great book about Lewis is by a Catholic scholar named Joseph Pearce. It is called, not too surprisingly, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church. I found an out-of-print collection of Lewis’ essays recently called *The Fern-Seed and the Elephant. *It is about as wonderful as his Weight of Glory. In the “Fern-Seed and the Elephant” essay (contained in the book of the same name), he warns Anglican priests in the seminary, I think, that the Anglican Church is in serious trouble, and that its members will be jumping to the Catholic Church, if changes were not set in place. His essay “Membership” also touches on the distinction of roles and his opposition to the ordination of women (as he more clearly spells out in *God in the Dock *and his personal letters to Dorothy Sayers).

I call Lewis the unaware Catholic. Pretty amazing writer.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
As usual in arguments like this one (Pascal’s Wager is another good example), other possibilies are willfully omitted. So the “either” is unjustified.

Out of my head I can think of 4 other scenarios:
  • Jesus never said, he was God, the gospel-writers put it in his mouth.
  • Jesus meant that metaphorically and the gospel-writers misunderstood him. He did speak in parables after all.
  • Jesus said something different, but the gospel-writers were lost in translation.
  • Jesus never existed, the gospel-writers made the whole story up.
That argument is only a good argument, if you already believe a great deal of the NT, or better to say, you already are a Christian. But then, you don’t need the argument…
Click to expand...
Or it could be a good argument if you include the word IF, which works just the same.

IF Jesus claimed to be God…etc.

So, you don’t have to be a Christian to see it is a good argument.

Peace
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Or it could be a good argument if you include the word IF, which works just the same.

IF Jesus claimed to be God…etc.

So, you don’t have to be a Christian to see it is a good argument.

Peace
Click to expand...
Ok, but you need to be already convinced that the whole story is true, to dismiss other explanations so easily. After all, why shouldn’t he have lied from time to time? Because he was God, and God does not lie? If so, than this argument fails to show he’s God, because it is a circular one. It may show consistency of the belief, but does not prove anything, that was what I meant with “no good argument”.

Besides, one of Jesus’ lies is recorded in Jn 7,8.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Ok, but you need to be already convinced that the whole story is true, to dismiss other explanations so easily. After all, why shouldn’t he have lied from time to time? Because he was God, and God does not lie? If so, than this argument fails to show he’s God, because it is a circular one. It may show consistency of the belief, but does not prove anything, that was what I meant with “no good argument”.

Besides, one of Jesus’ lies is recorded in Jn 7,8.
Click to expand...
How is that a lie? He stayed in Galilee and went up at a later time. He never said he would never go up to the feast. He just didn’t go up publically, for it was not his time.

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top