Tash

Parthian King said:
We should not mess with His word simply because we don't see the end from the beginning like He does.
Click to expand...

I didn't think I was messing with His word.

It's my sincere belief, and I believe it's backed up by my faith, that no human being can say anyone is damned. That's not within our authority. That doesn't mean that I don't think that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. None of us deserves salvation, and our only hope is for God's mercy.

What I am saying, is that in a case of a person brought up hating Aslan's (or Jesus' name), and yet being a decent and God-fearing person, who am I to say he's going to Hell? I'm not ignoring Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, I'm just saying I'm not fit to judge anybody. Didn't Jesus die for all?

And no, when I say I'm not fit to judge anybody, I'm not saying I can't recognize and condemn a sin when I see it. I'm talking about judging a person's soul. That's God's job, and I'll stay out of it.
 
With respect, Inklet, I think you're misunderstanding Parthian King's meaning. He never said anywhere that anyone is damned. What he did say was that, based on what we've been told, people who haven't heard of Christ run a substantial risk of damnation - one we dare not take lightly.
 
A couple responses are in order here. Basilides, I appreciate the tact and thoroughness of your response. Based on some careful reading I have done, however, I cannot hold that Christ preached the the imprisoned souls of the antediluvian peoples. As I noted before, a careful unpacking of the text in the light of other Jewish literature as well as what the text itself does and does not say points to another meaning. Again, nowhere does it say these sprits are or have ever been human, and no where does it say Christ preached the gospel to them. In fact, the Greek verb used is kerusso (proclaim) rather than the typical euangelizo (preach the gospel) which would normally be used for heralding the glad tidings of salvation. With a rather large contigent of scholars (though admittedly there is no unanimity on this text, which is to be expected considering how sticky it is), I consider these to be fallen spirits, disobedient angels, probably in reference to the debacle mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. However, your insight into the application of the verse stands either way it is interpreted.

My most important response, however, is to Inklet, who I feel has almost totally misunderstood me, though surely that is my fault. Let me make clear, God wants to condemn no one, and wants everyone to be eternally saved (John 3:17, 1 Timothy 2:4, and a host of others). I consider it a life work to share the good news with as many as possible to this end. I have never looked at anyone, either in my heart nor to their face (nor to a third party) and said with finality, "Because of what you have done or failed to do, you are/shall be damned." That is unbiblical and, quite frankly, disobedient, since the Lord commands us to leave the judgment up to him. HOWEVER, some confuse this rather obvious (and in today's pluralistic society, everpresent and oft-cited) truth, and make it the ONLY thing that can EVER be applied when dealing with those who do not know Christ. There is a difference between me, in my heart and by my faculties of discernment (not to mention my corrupt human emotions) determining the eternal fate of a particular soul, and the matter of me faithfully reading, applying, and declaring the word of God. The Bible makes clear that we will all be judged by that word. I think we can all agree that even while we are not appointed to judge, God certainly is. And he is not mute on this issue. The Scriptures about God's desire to save are true, more, they are TRUTH. But there are other truths within his word that must be considered as well, and we must hold these "complex whole truths" (to quote Prince of the West from another post) in tension so as to avoid "simple half truths." Consider these passages:


And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. --1 John 5:11-12 (the same epistle wherein it is written, "God is love," 1 John 3:16)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him. --John 3:36 (the same chapter wherein it is written 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, etc.')

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. --John 12:47-48.

Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it. --Matthew 7:13-14.

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."--Mark 16:15-16

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! --Galatians 1:8-9.
Click to expand...

There are many more, but I think this is enough to work with. My question is simply this: If we don't tell them, who will? If we don't warn them, who will? If speaking God's word as a herald, not condemning any individual with finality or even in my heart (i.e., not casting either the first or any stone), but warning of a universal condemnation that hangs over the race for sin--if that preaching is wrong, then the first apostles were wrong. For that truth forms the essential justification for their mission. It is not our word that condemns or justifies, it is God's. Don't ask me why he appointed us to it declare it, but it is inescapable that he did. When the gospel in our mouths speaks of condemnation, it is the fire alarm going off for a world sleeping in a burning home, not the gavel coming down on the bench. That court is not yet in session, nor do I pretend that it is.
 
Last edited:
I do not hold it either, Parthian King. Peter was referring to a past event, while Noah was building the ark. Christ preached (not using "Euangeloo" due tot he fact that this was prior to His incarnation) to the antedeluvians through Noah while they were alive, and their lack of response is the reason for their current imprisonment. Sorry about the complex way I originally wrote that simple idea. Albert Barnes also held this theory, as surely he explained better in his "notes".

Your own theory would, by the way, be my second choice and was the one held by the majority of my friends and teachers back in Bible college.
 
Got it. Thanks for the clarification, and the fault surely lies with me (early morning posts and all that). Your interpretation is also legitimate and falls within the bounds of orthodoxy, Aslan be praised.
 
YOU ARE ALL WRONG! TASH IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!
TO DISOBEY HIS WILL IS TO DISOBEY MY WORD!
I, COMMANDER OF THE FAITHFUL, SHALL BRING THE SWORDS OF CALORMENE TO THINE NECKS











(just kidding)
 
The Tisroc said:
YOU ARE ALL WRONG! TASH IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!
TO DISOBEY HIS WILL IS TO DISOBEY MY WORD!
I, COMMANDER OF THE FAITHFUL, SHALL BRING THE SWORDS OF CALORMENE TO THINE NECKS
Click to expand...


LOL! May you live forever, Tisroc! Wecome to the site.
 
Since we've been in the spirit lately of reviving old threads, I thought I'd do the same. I think this thread should be required reading for new members, especially this post I only regret that the main discussion ended just before I joined the forum; there are some gems in here :)
 
Having followed the link to the earlier comments by Prince of the West, I feel a modest addendum coming on.

Imagine that I were an aspiring professional baseball player, but that I never amounted to much--couldn't even get out of the minors. Then suppose that, instead of accepting my limitations gracefully, I worked hard at convincing myself that the major league team owners were plotting against me, arranging _everything_ in their hiring policies for the sole purpose of _uniquely_ holding ME back and refusing to let my greatness be seen. If I managed to deceive myself that profoundly, I might also decide that the world should know how terribly corrupt the baseball establishment was. I might thus write a book full of half-truths, quarter-truths, and lots of entirely made-up "disclosures" from anonymous "inside sources"--all to convince my readers that there was no honesty in the game, that _everything_ was rigged.

The actual Devil, of whom the literary character Tash is an echo or a shadow, probably exists continually in an emotional state like the failed baseball player of my analogy. He has had God knows how many millenia to stew in his bitter self-justifications. Nothing is his fault, the whole problem is that God is so mean and unfair. So he wants mortals to feel the same way about God--not that he feels any affection for mortals and wants an alliance with them, but because it's a way to lash out at his Maker. And it follows like a mathematical equation that the Devil would want to discredit God's communications to mankind.

So we see movies appearing like "The DaVinci Code," and "scholarly" TV specials like "From Jesus To Christ": attacks on the validity of Scripture, saying _anything_ they can come up with to contradict God's Word.
 
In considering the questions PotW asks in his first post, I would have to say:

What mightTash correspond to on our spiritual battlefield?

In my mind, Tash must be the devil, or at least a high-up Demon.

Since Jadis was the primordial evil presence in the Narnian world, what role does Tash play? Where might he have come from?

Actually, Jadis is there at the beginning of the world, not before it, Tash seems to have a different role in the world that Jadis cannot occupy because when Jadis came to Narnia, she could die. It was only after eating fruit in the garden atop the hill, that she came to the point where natural causes could not kill her. Perhaps it would be better to look at Jadis as representing the fallen nature of man, something that could only be gotten rid of when the Christ died.

What does Aslan have to say about Tash?

Aslan tells the Calormene, Emeth, that He and Tash are opposites: nothing good can be done in the service of Tash, and nothing bad can be done in the service of Aslan.

What might the High King mean when he refers to Tash's "rightful prey"?
The people who willfully chose to turn their backs on God, and decieve others into doing the same.

What summoned Tash to Narnia? Is there an equivalent in our world?

The ape and the Calormene summoned Tash into Narnia, the anti-Christ and his prophet fit the bill for the ape and the Calormene.

How do the Calormenes worship Tash? What kind of people does it make them?

It seems to me that Tash was worshipped in the same way that a lot of pagan gods were worshiped i.e. with great festivals (HHB) and sacrifices (also HHB)

What does it mean to say Tash is "inexorable"?

The definiton of the word inexorable is "Not capable of being persuaded by entreaty; relentless" therefore, to call Tash inexorable is to call him relentless, a quality that probably would have been highly regarded by the Calormenes.

What might the coming of Tash to Narnia mean for Narnia?

The End Times, the book of Revelations talks about the Dragon, who the angel chains up for a thousand years, then for a short time the dragon will be released. After that, the Last Judgement occurs.

This is just my take on the questions PotW asks.
 
Good summation, Lava; it will earn you a Magma Cum Lava degree.

Now for the shameless plug.

In my Narnian story, still reachable via my graphic, I imagine that, at the time of the events in "The Magician's Nephew," Satan was aware of Uncle Andrew's experiment, and issued an invitation for any demon interested in "stowing away" with Andrew to become the "lesser Satan" of a new world. Tash was the demon who took the offer, slipping into the newly-made Narnian world with Andrew, Digory and the other characters. No one but Aslan was aware that Tash had come; and Aslan didn't bother mentioning Tash to Digory because Tash's presence was irrelevant for the moment. As soon as Tash saw Aslan, being FAR more knowledgeable than Jadis, he fled into the deepest depths of the new world, much deeper than Bizm, to hide trembling until he thought Aslan was no longer taking notice of him. I imagine Tash subsequently contacting Satan, and being advised by Satan to take it easy and allow Jadis to achieve as much evil as she could first. By seeing how quick or slow Aslan might be to make an end of Jadis, Tash would form an idea of what he in turn could get away with.
 
Whoa, is that what your story winds up explaining, Joseph? That's very cool. I like it.

I like Lava's explanations, too, but I have wondered why Tash has nay "rightful prey" in Narnia, if he is evil. Would we say sinners are the "rightful prey" of Satan in our world? We know he goes about seeking whom he may devour, but we're taught there is nothing "rightful" in this exchange, that in fact Satan came to "rule" here as he does by deceit of Adam and Eve, so there's nothing rightful about it.

Could Aslan have appointed the hideous Tash to be a kind of Grim Reaper in the new world, but then the demon in his own way rebelled and set himself up as a god, at least among the Calormenes?
 
Well, if you like it, then click the tiger and read it!

Tash's rightful prey are inhabitants of the Narnian world who have been given clear opportunity to obey Aslan, but who in their pride preferred falsehood over truth.
 
I have read The Left Behind Series during lock down, and in one of the books, there were three demons that look like frogs that Carpathia and Fortunato exhaled from their mouths (you might recall that in Revelation, evil spirits that look like frogs came out of the mouths of the Dragon, the Beast, and False Prophet). In the series, the three demons were named Baal, Ashteroth, and Cankerworm. Baal and Astheroth were name of the gods of the ancient Canaanite religion, not sure where the Cankerworm comes from.

Anyhow, it would imply that Tash could be a demon, along the lines of Baal, Moloch and Ashteroth, if that were the case. I think that's the mystery of it: we don't know how Tash originally came to be in Narnia or was he even real all that time, and we just didn't know it.
 
If we stay close to Biblical reality, then yes, Tash would have to be a demon-- a fallen angel who joined in Satan's idiotic rebellion.

As for how Tash comes to be present in Narnia: we really don't know what limits may be placed on the ability of the fallen angels to go places. In the Book of Job, Satan is even allowed a visitor's pass to re-enter Heaven briefly. Perhaps Jadis conjured Tash into the Narnian world in pre-Pevensie times.
 
Back
Top