C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity

[AnAtheist]

dennisknapp:

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

He didn’t say “I will not go now, but later.” (at least not in my Bible, perhaps in yours ?) He just said “I will not go”, then he went.

Don’t tell me the omniscient, eternal God did not know then, that he will go later.

 

[EquusNomVeritas]

AnAtheist:

He didn’t say “I will not go now, but later.” (at least not in my Bible, perhaps in yours ?) He just said “I will not go”, then he went.

Don’t tell me the omniscient, eternal God did not know then, that he will go later.

Context…CONTEXT!
Earlier in this chapter, it is stated that Jesus was moving about in Galilea, but did not wish to move to Judea because the Jews were trying to kill Him. The uote you are referencing was to His brothers. He states (at least in my version):

(John 7:6)
“You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled.”

The key here is His explanotry statement (time not yet fulfilled), namely He’s saying that He is not going up to the feast right now, because if He were to do so, the Jews would kill him, and the time was not yet right for that to happen. Basically, He was saying that in going at that time, and in public, He would be making Himself an easier target for the Jewish leaders, who already hated Him. Implied in the statement is that He may go later, in secret (which He does) if it would be possible to do so without getting caught by those whom wanted Him dead or imprisoned. Oh, and also, one translation of the Greek version has the quote as being that He won’t yet go up, because the opportune time had not yet come.

In any case, He goes to the feast when it is half-over (by which time the people, including the Pharisees, were no longer expecting His arrival) and goes into the temple to teach; apparently the Pharisees and high priests were not present in this general area (see John 7:32), and they sent guards to capture Him, but He was able to escape. Why? Because He had caught them all by surprise in coming late, and was thus able to to go, teach, and then escape without harm from that incident. In other words, the time was opportune for Him to go (using that translation), or alternatively, He was able to go safely, which means that His stated reason for not going no longer applied. Hence, the statement was not a lie.

 

[Deus_Solus]

AnAtheist:

He didn’t say “I will not go now, but later.” (at least not in my Bible, perhaps in yours ?) He just said “I will not go”, then he went.

If you look at the Greek “εγω ουπω αναβαινω εις την εορτην ταυτην οτι ο εμος καιρος ουπω πεπληρωται (emphasis mine)”, the Greek adverb oupo literally means “not-as-yet”. So, in a truncated form He is saying “I will not-as-yet go because my time has not-as-yet been fulfilled.”

No lies there.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

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.

I believe it’s “C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, the Story of Friendship” Wouldn’t you know I’ve run around looking for it and can’t put my hands on it. This is excellent and a quick read. I’ll PM you when I get the exact title and author. You could probably get into Amazon and do a search as well.

Also another excellent book is** “The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and the Meaning of Life”** by Dr Armand Nicholl. It is a ‘virtual’ debate between Lewis and Freud. I think our friend “an Atheist” would benefit from reading it.

Lisa N

 

[AnAtheist]

Deus Solus:

If you look at the Greek “εγω ουπω αναβαινω εις την εορτην ταυτην οτι ο εμος καιρος ουπω πεπληρωται (emphasis mine)”, the Greek adverb oupo literally means “not-as-yet”. So, in a truncated form He is saying “I will not-as-yet go because my time has not-as-yet been fulfilled.”

No lies there.

Yep, you’re right. I wonder, why it is missing in so many versions.

 

[Deus_Solus]

AnAtheist:

Yep, you’re right. I wonder, why it is missing in so many versions.

Most likely because they took this text from different manuscripts that have a slightly different wording and perhaps also to understand the Middle-Eastern culture from which Jesus came. Some manuscripts have the Greek ouk (not) as opposed to oupo (not-as-yet), though the manuscripts that contain oupo are of earlier origin and were discovered later. Oupo is suppoted by these major manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.) as well as the scholarly compositions of the various manuscripts (i.e. Scrivener, Wescott-Hort, Stephanus).

EquusNomVeritas made a good contextual argument even in the case of ouk. If one reads the whole chapter, it is clear that the thematic issue is timing.

However, we must also remember that Jesus was operating in the framework of a Middle-Eastern culture, where it is considered polite to initially refuse an invitation and shift the onus to the host to offer again (typically the third offer is considered the genuine offer, and the “real” answer is given then). This brings to mind another “proof-text” for Jesus’ lack of truthfulness, Luke 24:28, where he displays the culturally polite method of refusal. This time, however, the disciples “strongly urge” him to eat with them, most likely indicating repeated asking until Jesus finally gives his assent on the third and genuine offer.

This shows the danger of proof-texting without an understanding of grammar, context, and culture. Sorry to distract the thread, I was just trying to bring some clarity to AnAtheist’s question.

 

[Writer]

Deus Solus:

Most likely because they took this text from different manuscripts that have a slightly different wording and perhaps also to understand the Middle-Eastern culture from which Jesus came. Some manuscripts have the Greek ouk (not) as opposed to oupo (not-as-yet), though the manuscripts that contain oupo are of earlier origin and were discovered later. Oupo is suppoted by these major manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.) as well as the scholarly compositions of the various manuscripts (i.e. Scrivener, Wescott-Hort, Stephanus).

EquusNomVeritas made a good contextual argument even in the case of ouk. If one reads the whole chapter, it is clear that the thematic issue is timing.

However, we must also remember that Jesus was operating in the framework of a Middle-Eastern culture, where it is considered polite to initially refuse an invitation and shift the onus to the host to offer again (typically the third offer is considered the genuine offer, and the “real” answer is given then). This brings to mind another “proof-text” for Jesus’ lack of truthfulness, Luke 24:28, where he displays the culturally polite method of refusal. This time, however, the disciples “strongly urge” him to eat with them, most likely indicating repeated asking until Jesus finally gives his assent on the third and genuine offer.

This shows the danger of proof-texting without an understanding of grammar, context, and culture. Sorry to distract the thread, I was just trying to bring some clarity to AnAtheist’s question.

Great information!

 

[rubycanoe]

the main thing i remember about that book , is he says something to the extent where he takes away our sin and we think “alright, i am good enough, now” but no ,he keeps working on us to become saints. because i was like that at that time. i had given up alcohol, which was the cause of most or all of my sins, so i thought, ok i am good now, i dont drink, and for the most part dont sin, but no he doesnt leave us there. he keeps working on us because he wants even more , he does want to make us saints. and we as people think ,no , it is too hard, i am happy just not to drink anymore, i am better than i was before. i know he explained it much differently but it was a very profound moment for me.