Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Leslie P

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Leslie P

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Xian

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Private

Recent Profile Visitors

601 profile views
  1. Jesus was a prophet, but he had several other roles as well. For example, from Luke 24: “What things?” he asked.“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. Jesus was seen as a prophet, but also as the Messiah (Am I correct that Islam also says this?). Two roles. And in a short space of time the Early Church declared Him to have another role as wel
  2. Thanks for the reply. The literal translation of that verse out of its context could lead one to think an angel was being talked about, rather than God, but that's not the case. Firstly, if you read on, the passage is extremely clear that the Burning Bush (and hence the Angel of God) was an appearance of God Himself, not simply an angel: Here Secondly, to think of the 'Angel of God' as being independent of God is to misunderstand the ancient Jewish meaning of the phrase- it's simply a way of speaking about God Himself. See for other clear examples Hagar saying that to see the An
  3. It's an interesting thought. I think I would say this: Judaism has a list of appearances of God to humanity: the Burning Bush, the Pillar of Fire and Cloud, the Presence in the Tabernacle, the appearance to David (Psalm 18), etc. Now who is to tell God that He can't add to that list by appearing in full human form that can get hurt or die? Apparently He can do that, although the dying bit is only temporary...
  4. Thanks for the reply. Once the purpose for Torah was over (focusing sin into one place), the need for Torah observance was over. It's like a taxi that drops you off. You say thanks and goodbye for doing the job. So yes, in that sense Jesus certainly did verify the truth in the Torah. V18 from your quotation “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished ”. Everything was accomplished. So the status of Torah changes, as above. No, yo
  5. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Incarnation is an essential part of the Trinity Incarnation could imply modalism, but could equally imply Trinity. Clearly I'm using the latter. Yes, to interested readers please do read that discussion, which we were in the middle of, and one which I would like to continue. (The title is Was Jesus a Liar or a Madman) Exactly. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says He's on earth to fulfil the Law, to complete its purpose. The word pleroo refers to OT prophecy coming to fruition (eg Matthew 2:23 indeed all 20 uses in Matthew). O
  6. This is an interesting post. I wonder if I could make a couple of observations on it. Firstly the phrase “Son of God” at the start of the first century would be used of Israel as a whole or the messianic son of David. However after Jesus' resurrection, the meaning changed when used about Jesus, and expresses the idea of Jesus as the embodiment of God. Secondly more than one word gets used for Son (e.g. huion in Galatians 4:4) Thirdly the bits of Jesus' body that detached from him decayed in the normal way. Jesus was God in human form, and that was the point. It's not a denial of
  7. OK, let's take a bit of a look again, then. First Century Judaism was expecting the arrival of the Kingdom of God. This was not a small event- it was the declaration that forgiveness for God's people had arrived, that a new stage of humanity had begun, that the problem of death had been solved. This Kingdom would be inaugurated by God Himself- He had reserved that role for Himself. Jesus spent a lot, lot, lot of time talking about how the Kingdom of God was arriving at that time. The historical evidence that this was the case is clear- multiple attestation of forms and sources. Then
  8. Hi there. I wonder if I might put a slightly different perspective on things. The basic concepts underlying the Trinity have been present from the beginning. Christianity has always believed that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were in some way God. The New Testament writings are pretty clear on that. However in the centuries after, various church theologians started asking questions about what that might mean in detail, and based their answers on the New Testament. Now those questions didn't need asking then, and don't get asked today outside of university theology courses. A few writers
  9. Thanks for the reply. What they did at Nicea was bring together a number of conclusions from the New Testament documents, and put them together. As such I agree with it. However they did it in a way that is complex, unhelpful and deliberately exclusionary. As such I prefer the simpler expressions of Jesus' divinity found in the New Testament. As for “servant”, the Greek word used in the Didache is pais, which can be translated as servant, but also as child or boy (Strong's 3816). In any case, any use of servant would be a reference to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, an iconic and
  10. Hi there. An interesting article. However I can't agree at all with with your conclusion, and I think the evidence against it is overwhelming. You seem to miss out the New Testament entirely, much the best source for what the earliest church believed. You might not like Paul, but he worked very closely with the disciples who knew Jesus thoroughly, and that they gave him a highest level role within the Early Church is excellent evidence that they agreed with him. Paul was very clear that Jesus was God. Clement 1 who you use as evidence was also a big fan of Paul, as can be seen in his
  11. Thanks for the reply. Clement had orthodox beliefs about Jesus as God. The quotes above should be enough for most, but for a different perspective, lets try what neutral commentators have to say, starting with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria in particular the comments on Clement's use of Christ as the divine Logos and Christ's unique sharing of the likeness of God the Father. Also the commentary on Brittanica confirming Clement's use of Jesus as divine Logos: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology/Early-history And Encyclopedia
  12. Hi there. Clement had pretty orthodox beliefs about Jesus as God. He talks about the Trinity: Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? (46:6) For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect, (58:2) He was happy to use God and Christ interchangeably: Let him that hath love in Christ fulfill the commandments of Christ. Who can declare the bond of the love of God? Who is sufficient to tell the majesty of its beauty? (49:1-3) For it is better for you to be fo
  13. I think I would also echo Dave's advice to find a sensible local minister, preferably at a church with a good pastoral support ministry. Although certain drugs can be mixed blessings for mental health, beta blockers have few side effects and work well for anxiety. Obviously talk to a properly qualified doctor to access them first!
  14. Hopefully this can be helpful. I'll add to it if I run across anything else. Firstly, some specific Christian perspectives on anxiety: Here Here Here Secondly, some books dealing with anxiety from a Christian perspective: Here Here A couple of websites: Here Here Finally, some general Christian speakers who talk sense without yelling: Here Here Here (All British, but we tend not to shout!)
  15. Thanks for your thoughts. With regard to the Homilies/Recognitions, I did a bit of looking at a range of academic books to see what mention they get. The general resource books don't mention them at all. Some more specialist books give them a brief mention, in the context of the development of 2/3/4th century heretical groups. None of these books- all standard resources for Biblical history- use them at all in the context of Paul or indeed anything else in the first century. They have simply been rewritten too much for any weight at all to be placed on them, hence they are totally ignored
×
×
  • Create New...