Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Siegfried The Red

What he meant was that Aslan LITERALLY WAS CHRIST in the film, not just a Christ-like figure


You can't mean that. If it wasn't an allegory, then it either wasn't intended to a have religious theme or Christ really was a lion.


9 posted on 12/17/2005 11:18:23 AM PST by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: durasell

It WAS intended to have a religious theme. And Christ was a lion, an powerful force for good, but maybe also he was thinking that God could be wrathful against the wicked as well. Keep in mind, it's fiction. He didn't mean Christ literally was a lion on Earth. Narnia was a different place. If Christ returned to Earth, would he be full of wrath? I don't know, I'm not an expert in the Book of Revelations.

Maybe he saw Christ as a the Lion of Judah?

http://www.geocities.com/coolpoete/lionofjudahsymbol.htm

I don't know, just thinking aloud here.


25 posted on 12/17/2005 11:23:37 AM PST by Siegfried The Red (Subgeniuses are the last TRUE Americans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: durasell

No, Aslan is literally supposed to be Christ. If you read all seven books, especially 'The Magician's Nephew' and 'The Last Battle', Lewis makes it abundantly clear.


223 posted on 12/17/2005 3:24:00 PM PST by ovrtaxt (The FAIRTAX. A powerplay for We The People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: durasell
You can't mean that. If it wasn't an allegory, then it either wasn't intended to a have religious theme or Christ really was a lion.

Sig sure as heck can mean that. The idea is that Narnia is an other world, but one just as real as this one. The Christ lives and moves in that world too; but when he does, it's in the form of a lion. Aslan.

So Aslan is literally Jesus.

268 posted on 12/17/2005 5:32:46 PM PST by Oberon (As a matter of fact I DO want fries with that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: durasell

"If it wasn't an allegory, then it either wasn't intended to a have religious theme or Christ really was a lion."

Isn't the the best authority on this point Lewis himself?
Lewis always denied Narnia was an allegory.
Lewis differentiates allegory from something he calls supposal. In a December 1959 letter to a young girl named Sophia Storr, he explains the difference. He wrote to Sophia: "I don't say. 'Let us represent Christ as Aslan.' I say, 'Supposing there was a world like Narnia, and supposing, like ours, it needed redemption, let us imagine what sort of Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection Christ would have there.'"
According to Lewis, Aslan isn't an allegory of Jesus Christ. He's a supposal. Lewis makes the point in a December 1958 letter to another correspondent, a Mrs. Hook:
"[Aslan] is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all."
In an allegory, the ideas, concepts, and even people being expressed are true, but the characters are make-believe & always behave in a way reflective of the underlying concepts they're representing. In a "supposal" the fictional character becomes "real" within the imaginary world, taking on a life of its own and adapting to the make-believe world as necessary. If, for example, you accept the supposal of Aslan as true, then Lewis says,
"He would really have been a physical object in that world as He was in Palestine, and His death on the Stone Table would have been a physical event no less than his death on Calvary."


368 posted on 12/19/2005 1:40:06 PM PST by EdJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson