What's On
Menu
On or around AD33 a Jewish man called Jesus from Nazareth, in Galilee, was crucified by the Roman authorities after a period of preaching and teaching in the region – pretty much every serious historian of the ancient world can agree on this much. But the earliest writings in the New Testament also claim that this man Jesus had been “raised” by God, and refer to him as “the Lord” and as the “Son of God”. By the time of the Nicean Council, in 325, this has become “One Lord Jesus Christ” who is “the only begotten Son of the Father”, “very God of very God”. And now the man from Nazareth is also said to be the one “by whom all things were made”. How did this happen? Why did it happen? And does it make sense? What does it really mean to say that the wandering Jewish teacher from Nazareth was—and is—fully God, whilst also being fully human? This course offers an introductory opportunity to explore these questions, and get a better understanding of a central pillar of Christian teaching.
Note:
The organisation of the sessions will vary slightly on the Saturday course.
Week 1: Who is Jesus?
As a starting point, we map out and explore some of the different ways in which we each understand and imagine Jesus. Are we satisfied with the understanding that we have? What have been the most important influences on our own imagination of Jesus? Where does this understanding come from; where should it come from?
Week 2: The quest for “the historical Jesus”
In the 18th and 19th centuries, European scholars began to try to apply historical methods to the study of the New Testament: the “quest for the historical Jesus” had begun, and is still ongoing. In this session, we look at a few examples of historical Jesus research, and ask the difficult question that recurs again and again: what does the historical figure of Jesus have to do with “the Christ of faith”? We focus, in particular, on Pope Benedict’s response to these problems.
Week 3: “The stone the builders rejected”: Jesus in the New Testament
The New Testament texts leave us with a range of ways of thinking about Jesus. Why was the idea of “the kingdom of God” so important for the Gospel writers, but not for Paul? Why does Paul have so little to say about Jesus’ preaching and parables? In this session we explore some of the contrasts and differences between the different New Testament writers, and get a sense of what the very earliest Christians thought was most important about Jesus.
Week 4: Early Christology I
Over two weeks we explore the way in which controversy and disagreement in early Christianity led to the formulation of the creedal statements that Christians still profess faith in today. In this session we look at the role that the range of ideas now known as “Gnosticism” played in the development of early Christian doctrine. We look in particular at Irenaeus of Lyon, and his emphasis on the material humanity of Jesus.
Week 5: Early Christology II
Finally, we look at the idea that is expressed in the “definition” of Chalcedon, that Jesus Christ is two natures in one person. The question of what it could mean to say that ‘God suffers in Christ’ will help us to explore these issues. We will see what difference there may be between claiming that “God suffers” and claiming that “in Christ, God suffers”.
As a starting point, we map out and explore some of the different ways in which we each understand and imagine Jesus. Are we satisfied with the understanding that we have? What have been the most important influences on our own imagination of Jesus? Where does this understanding come from; where should it come from?
Audio Recording
Questions:
1. Which texts, songs, images, phrases, ideas or stories have had the most decisive influence on the way that you think, feel, imagine and speak about Jesus?
2. To what extent do you find that these add up to a coherent picture? Are there big differences, or even tensions between the different influences?
3. What is the role of the Creed—especially the ‘Christological’ portions—in your understanding of Jesus?
In the 18th and 19th centuries, European scholars began to try to apply historical methods to the study of the New Testament: the “quest for the historical Jesus” had begun, and is still ongoing. In this session, we look at a few examples of historical Jesus research, and ask the difficult question that recurs again and again: what does the historical figure of Jesus have to do with “the Christ of faith”? We focus, in particular, two response to these problems from Pope Benedict XVI, and the biblical scholar N T Wright.
Audio Recording
In the centuries, European scholars began to try to apply historical methods to the study of the New Testament: the “quest for the historical Jesus” had begun, and is still ongoing. In this session, we look at a few examples of historical Jesus research, and ask the difficult question that recurs again and again: what does the historical figure of Jesus have todo “the Christ of faith”? We focus, in particular, two response to these problems from Pope Benedict XVI, and the biblical scholar N T Wright.
Reading:
- BenedictXVI, Jesus of Nazareth, forward
- N T Wright, The meaning of Jesus, ch. 2
Questions:
1. On p.xv, Benedict says that ‘faith must expose itself to the historical method –indeed, faith itself demands this.’ What do you think he means – and what do you make of this suggestion?
2. On pp.24-6, Wright discusses the relationship between knowing about someone, and knowing someone. How do you see the relationship between these two aspects of knowledge of Jesus?
3. Overall, how do you see the relationship between faith in Jesus, and historical understanding of Jesus?
The New Testament texts leave us with a range of ways of thinking about Jesus. Why was the idea of “the kingdom of God” so important for the Gospel writers, but not for Paul? Why does Paul have so little to say about Jesus’ preaching and parables? In this session we explore some of the contrasts and differences between the different New Testament writers, and get a sense of what the very earliest Christians thought was most important about Jesus.
No audio recording for this week
Reading:
- New Testament, extracts (see handout)
- Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, ch. 2
Additional reading:
- O’Collins, Christology, ch. 2
Questions:
1. Read through the extracts from the New Testament. Have a think about what each one is (and is not) saying, or implying about Jesus;
2. Are there any interesting differences between them? Do some seem like they have a low’ rather than a ‘high’? What do you make of these differences?
3. Think about how these texts would look to someone for whom belief in God as one was absolutely central (i.e. a first-century Jewish monotheist).
4. Now read Richard Bauckham’s chapter: what does this tell us about what it might have meant for the early Christians to describe Jesus as having received ‘all things’ from the Father?
The interview with Richard Bauckham below may help you with the reading: Jesus'Divinity and Monotheism in the New Testament: Dr. Richard Bauckham and Dr. BenWitherington - YouTube
Over two weeks we explore the way in which controversy and disagreement in early Christianity led to the formulation of the creedal statements that Christians still profess faith in today. In this session we look at the role that the range of ideas now known as “Gnosticism” played in the development of early Christian doctrine. We look in particular at Irenaeus of Lyon, and his emphasis on the material humanity of Jesus.
Audio Recording
Reading
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies (extracts)
- Osborn on Irenaeus (from The First Christian Theologians)
Questions for reflection
1. Irenaeus says that ‘he came to save all by means of himself’. How do you understand this phrase ‘by means of himself’?
2. How do you understand the reasoning in a phrase like ‘unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility’? What does it mean for man to be ‘joined’ to God?
3. Irenaeus imagines Jesus as a ‘second Adam’. How helpful do you find this idea?
Finally, we look at the idea that is expressed in the“definition” of Chalcedon, that Jesus Christ is two natures in one person. Thequestion of what it could mean to say that ‘God suffers in Christ’ willhelp us to explore these issues. We will see what difference there may bebetween claiming that “God suffers” and claiming that “in Christ, God suffers”.
Audio Recording
Reading
Second letter of Cyril to Nestorius
Questions for reflection
.jpg)
Stuart is the Theology Lead at LJC. He graduated with a degree in Literature and Theology from the University of Hull in 2000. From 2003-9 he studied Philosophical Theology part-time at the University of Nottingham, whilst continuing to work in the third sector with vulnerably-housed or homeless people, and young asylum seekers (as well as pulling pints in a pub). He was Lecturer at York St John University for almost a decade, before moving to London Jesuit Centre in 2021. He now lives in South East London, and spends as much time as he can in the woods.
