Sentences with phrase «as an historian with»

As an historian with may publications and awards I have suspected that Limbaugh is biased in a manner that reflects his lack of depth and integrity in his voicing of his views.

As an historian with memories of the NSL and a passion for the purple and orange, Chris is able to contextualise the game as part of a longer legacy than the era defined as «New» Football.

Not exact matches

Someday, racing historians will look back and see Dale's concussion — and, more importantly, that he chose to deal with it publicly — as a turning point in the way the sport treats head injuries.

Modest about her own pioneering achievements, she is on record (in an interview with computer historian Janet Abbate) as saying that her biggest contribution was to be «the grandmother of the web».

Women's suffrage — or the political fight to enfranchise women — is widely considered to have begun with the Seneca Fall convention, as chronicled by this U.S. House's Office of the Historian.

Roberts cites an observation by labour historian Jan Kainer: «Women's labour organizing contributed significantly to the building and sustaining of rank - and - file participation, developing new democratic structures such as women's caucuses, organizing the unorganized, and forging political alliances with non-labour groups.»

The first century historian, Josephus wrote about him and expressed «Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

Please, any Christian, honestly answer the following: The completely absurd theory that all 7,000,000,000 human beings are simultaneously being supervised 24 hours a day, every day of their lives by an immortal, invisible being for the purposes of reward or punishment in the «afterlife» comes from the field of: (a) Astronomy; (b) Medicine; (c) Economics; or (d) Christianity You are about 70 % likely to believe the entire Universe began less than 10,000 years ago with only one man, one woman and a talking snake if you are a: (a) historian; (b) geologist; (c) NASA astronomer; or (d) Christian I have convinced myself that gay $ ex is a choice and not genetic, but then have no explanation as to why only gay people have ho.mo $ exual urges.

The first Christians were never systematically persecuted by the Romans, and most martyrdom stories - with the exception of a handful such as Perpetua's - were exaggerated and invented, several scholars and historians say.

As the architectural historian Walter C. Kidney once commented, «It was not that he was eccentric; indeed, confronted with Cram, the modern world probably seemed aberrant.»

----- I will not bore you with all of the proofs such as --- the # of ancient documents of the Bible, of its contemporary historians, archeology, etc, verses other religions.

You don't agree with the man, but you're doing the job you were intended to do; and thus successfully completed your mission as a historian.

Goldberg is a political journalist, not a historian, and readers more familiar with the ideological twists and turns of the modern era will be familiar with his thesis: While the left has long depicted the right as fascist, it is in fact the left — from Hegel to Hitler to Hillary and, yes, the politics of meaning, too — that follows the fascist formula most influentially articulated by Mussolini: «Everything within the state; nothing outside the state; nothing against the state.»

historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and stuck in your head... you have a right to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...

As a historian, Marxsen rejects the physical resurrection not because he does not believe in miracles, but because the earliest tradition simply doesn't identify resurrection with a resuscitated body.

This is NOT to say the resurrection did or did not happen, it is to say with Troeltsch, that the resurrection is not a «historical» fact in the sense that it is not possible for historians to consider it — just as a supernova would not be a biological or sociological «fact» because it is outside their scope, don't mean novae don't happen!

So meaning would be created» and thus was born (with the help of popular historian Theodore White and Life magazine) the familiar imagery of the Kennedy White House as an Arthurian Camelot, a «brief shining moment» that must «never be forgot» (as Alan Jay Lerner's lyrics, from the contemporary Broadway musical, put it).

Science Works We have traced the evolution of salads and food historians tell us salads (generally defined as mixed greens with dressing) were enjoyed by ancient Romans and Greeks.

In a narrative account, the historian offers events in a sequence designed to evoke in the reader's imagination the contrasting elements and potential configurations discussed above, with the expectation that the reader will hold them together in an emerging synthesis as the story progresses.

(I am an active volunteer in the church's library, as the church archivist / historian and with a major mission fundraiser.

And as Alexis de Tocqueville observed, some of this has to do with the profound intellectual changes characteristic of a democratizing world, changes that alter both the subject matter of history and the historian's manner of approach to it.

The eminent English historian Michael Burleigh agrees with Feldkamp, and adds that «Soviet attempts to smear Pius had actually commenced as soon as the Red Army crossed into Catholic Poland».

Although future historians will be able to isolate its most distinctive features with more precision and detachment than we can, we have the thrill of passionate engagement with the present as we reshape the church.

As Bass asserts, solutions for dea1ing with the increasing pressures of time — pressures that mar our days — will not be found in the writings of historians, economists or sociologists.

Charles Long, a black historian of religion, has long sought to widen the scope of black theology so as to include serious dialogue with African, Islamic, and other non-Western and traditional religions.

At one point, in what appears a clever lawyerlike play, Pagels discredits Augustine's doctrine of the literal fall of Adam and Eve with the observation that it is hopelessly unscientific, and as a historian she feels compelled to add that Augustine's great foe, Pelagius, would also have had no use for science.

In addition their is a great book called the 7 Truths of the Bible that have nothing to do with proving religion but the historical facts as agreed upon by archaelogist / historians / anthropologists, many of whom are nonbelievers / skeptics / atheists

Samuel Eliot Morison, a canny sailor himself and judicious historian of Columbus, describes Irving's dramatic scenes of Columbus in argument with the learned doctors at the University of Salamanca as «pure moonshine.»

If you look back where I first (I think) explored the analogy of performance, in a piece titled «Performing the Scriptures» (first published in 1982, reprinted in a collection called Theology on the Way to Emmaus in 1986), you will see that I contrast the notion of interpretation as performance not with the historian's craft but with the supposition that a text (any text, although it is with scripture that I am most concerned)-- a set of black marks on white paper — tells you how to take it, without any interpretative labor on the reader's part, a labor for which the reader must take personal responsibility.

Its bearer, who has no peer as a John Wesley scholar, is a historian with a vast knowledge of Christian theology.

Thus the philologist would ascertain the meaning of a passage of the Indian Atharva - Veda; the historian would assign it to a period in the cultural, political, and religious development of the Hindu; the psychologist would concentrate on its origin and significance as an expression of feeling and thought; and the anthropologist would deal with it from a folkloristic point of view.

Yet it is precisely because of this complete openness to all that is human, that the historian must open himself to encounter with humans who understand their existence as lived out of transcendence.

Picture yourself as one in the middle generation of Christian historians, who has been given a renewed time with Outler.

He is a historian and editorialist with Corriere della Sera, who described himself in the piece as «devoid of faith.»

Though the church historian, as a person of like faith, must walk on common ground with all the pilgrim people of God, perhaps he or she may see just a bit more clearly as together they strain toward their first glimpse of that eternal «city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God» (Heb.11: 10).»

One historian summarized the point this way: «Religious freedom was clearly envisaged as the deliberate creation of a situation where every religious opinion and practice, having the right to free expression, would continually contend with all the others in order that error might be exposed to view and the truth be recognized.»

Beneath and behind the postconservatives» approach to theology lies a growing discontent with evangelical theology's traditional ties to what Wheaton historian Mark Noll describes as the «evangelical Enlightenment,» especially common - sense realism.

Connelly is writing as a historian and, for the most part, he seeks to avoid direct engagement with theological debates.

As a historian of performance, I am interested in how bodily presence and speech became issues in Paul's conflict with the Corinthian superapostles in the 50's CE.

On the other hand, his narrative of Louverture's tragic end — lured across the Atlantic by Napoleon and then locked away to die in a stone fortress in the Jura without so much as a trial — is told with more pathos than the average academic historian could manage.

We have some hearsay «historians» of the day like Josephus, but, as it turns out, there is much contention among scholars about his works and how much they may have been tampered with.

As the historian Caroline Walker Bynum has summarized Bernard's views, «the glorified body... will possess immortality so it does not become dust, impassibility so that it does not experience suffering or disorder, lightness so it will have none of the downward pull of weight, and beauty so it will be clear and shining, with no spot of shadow or dirtiness.»

For example, at one point he quotes the distinguished historian of ancient science G. E. R. Lloyd, who said of Greek science: «Much as the Egyptians and Babylonians contributed to the content of these studies, the investigations only acquire self «conscious methodologies for the first time with the Greeks.»

But the memory with which the historian is concerned, in so far as it reproduces facts of the past in their purely worldly actuality, is of wholly different order, and memory in that sense can imperil and even destroy «historic» existence, as Nietzsche showed in Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben.

It is not the historian's place to prefer one set of Christian data to another, or to side with the orthodox over the heretics but only to decide whether the datum is definitely linked with the cumulative Christian tradition as a whole.

So wait you aren't going to blame what was obviously Politics on Religious Wars lets not forget that there were a few things involved in these «Wars of Religion» and I am sure most historians will agree with me, firstly the Crusades weren't thought up as some ideological crusade to protect Christians from some horde of Muslims coming from the east, they were in - fact land grabbing and trying to stave off the eventual fall of what is now known as Istanbul, secondly I highly doubt that most of the average religious person had any idea just how politicized the church became during this time period or up until probably John Paul the II took over, I mean the Thirty Years War could have been called a Religious war under this Videos silly assumptions.

This would not be true if we went only so far as the «objective» historian can go and stopped with a recognition of the distinctiveness of the Christian community and of the historical ground of that distinctiveness in Christ, without any judgment of value or truth.

This is precisely what the historian aims to do — penetrate the literature so that, as far as possible, the writer may communicate with his modern reader as he once did with his contemporaries.

Her book strengthens our understanding of Niebuhr's friendships with such luminaries as Episcopal Bishop Will Scarlett, Methodist Bishop Francis McConnell, Anglican Archbishop William Temple, English politician Stafford Cripps, historian R. H. Tawney, poet W H. Auden and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

As the famous Elizabethan historian A. L. Rowse rightly points out, «We know more about him than about any other dramatist of the time, with the exception of Ben Jonson, who lived rather later and had a longer life.»