[gthomas] Re: The 'World' of the Lion
>Question to anyone:First, if you speak plainly, nobody listens to you. Secondly if he said
>(1) Why would the writer have used a symbol if he meant to say simply "the
>body" or "beast within"?
"body" instead of "lion" the connotation of its ferrocious animal likeness
would not be conveyed, and thus we might confuse a heavenly body with an
earthly body or something else might be confused. If the writter went in
depth about what he meant then it would not be catchy and would be
forgotten as soon as it had been read.
"Lion" was the perfect desicriptive word and any other "explanitory" word
in its place would have confused more than it would have explained. We all
understand this saying as it is but when we try to explain it , to
ourselves and especially to others, we run into problems.
>(2) If he merely wanted to be poetic, why would he have chosen 'lion' -- aTell me what was more IMPORTANT to the early Christians (Many of whom were
>symbol connoting e.g. Judah, the devil etc -- instead of something less
>cliche and misleading?
GENTILES), THE BLESSING OF JUDAH, OR THE VERY REAL THREAT OF THE ROMAN
ARENA AND ITS TORTUROUS AND HUMILIATING DEATH?! You tell me what they were
pondering about more. (Let me just add that these two "Lions" are
glances and stares