Sentences with phrase «historical means from»

Not exact matches

The pace of Fed rate increases is likely to be gradual, meaning rates should stay low from a historical perspective for the foreseeable future.

Note on forward - looking statements: This press release contains «forward - looking statements» within the meaning of federal securities laws, including the timing of and benefits resulting from the separation of Marriott International and Marriott Vacations Worldwide, and similar statements concerning anticipated future events and expectations that are not historical facts.

Note on forward - looking statements: This press release contains «forward - looking statements» within the meaning of federal securities laws, including the information concerning possible or assumed future results of operations, business strategies, financing plans, potential growth opportunities, potential operating performance improvements, benefits resulting from the separation of Marriott International and Marriott Vacations Worldwide, and similar statements concerning anticipated future events and expectations that are not historical facts.

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

Thus no event can realize the full potential of any ideal or group of ideals, and still less the full potential of antecedent occasions from which their historical meaning was derived.

The ten essays collected in In Search of Lost Meaning range broadly, from «anniversary» pieces (of the 1989 elections, the emergence of Solidarity, the imposition of martial law, and Hungary's 1956 revolt) to treatments of historical memory and judgment (that part of the book is titled «The Work of Hatred») to Catholic «Jewish relations.

I find the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 12) more difficult to accept as historical, although its symbolic meaning as brought out by John is powerful.

You mean those stories that have nothing to back them up from a historical or archeological standpoint?

But these legends are the historical witness for the meaning of Jesus» message concerning the Kingdom, which tears men up by the roots from their business life and from their social relationships and commands the dead to bury their dead.

I find it a very suggestive and rich way to describe the process of historical change from «meant» to «means.»

But there is no apparent reason for excluding it from a political theology as long as its socio - historical grounding and political meaning are not neglected.

The confession of creation must be set free from its bondage to the myth of protological beginnings if that means the reading of the first eleven chapters of Genesis in a literal - historical manner.

The meaning of the cross is not disclosed from the life of Jesus as a figure of past history, a life which needs to be reproduced by historical research.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that here the historical Jesus becomes disjoined from the Word of faith, and all too naturally the priestly followers of Bultmann have reinstituted a quest for the historical Jesus as a means of reviving a Protestant form of orthodoxy.

Since we can not survey history from some universal, purely rational point of view, narrative theologians argue, we have no choice but to operate out of the historical narrative in which we find ourselves — and for the Christian theologian that means the Christian narrative, shaped by the story (ies) of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible.

Because of the limited perspective from which every historical interpretation is carried out, no single event can be seen to embody or express the ultimate meaning or direction of history in a way that the historical interpreter can know with finality.

This doctrine of empiricism would rule out, for example, all historical doctrines, such as assertions about Jesus» experience in itself, as distinct from phenomenological descriptions of Jesus» meaning for me or my community.

Not only that but sentences only have meanings within wider literary contexts — «a man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho» would mean one thing in a historical account, and another in a parable.

It may be that kerygmatic allusions to Jesus» humility, meekness, gentleness, love, forgiveness and obedience derive from historical memory of Jesus; but the «historical value» which such material may have is far from its kerygmatic meaning, which is more accurately stated by Bultmann, in language actually intended to state the significance of the pre-existence in the karygma: «That Jesus, the historical person, did this service for us, and that he did it not out of personal sympathy and loveableness, but rather by God acting in him, in that God established his love for us through Jesus dying for us sinners (Rom.

For the first time historical events appeared as radically particular, as confined in their meaning and value to the actual but singular process in which they occur, and thus as being wholly detached from a universal order or law.27

Even though the «historical section» or humiliation seems even to disappear from some of these kerygmatic texts, their original intention was to emphasize the meaningfulness of Jesus» historicity or humiliation, and only with gnosticism was this original meaning lost.

«41 Not even Altizer's assertion that this does not mean a mere submission to the brute realities of historical process clearly differentiates it from Zen.

Whilst this approach was disturbing for many Christians at the time, it again meant that defenders of Christianity, instead of calling for a leap of faith, could start from historical events and argue from them to the divinity of Jesus Christ His divinity was seen as the perfection of his humanity and this fitted with the approach of Schleiermacher, who saw Jesus, whose consciousness was entirely taken up with awareness of God, as «the ideal representative of religion».

Yet to those who participated in or benefited from the wrestling with historical meaning and the concept of God, there seems no reason to forget what was learned.

He remembers that there have been plenty of theologians down to the present day who by subtle doctrines and distinctions have not wanted to admit the meaning of that text from the Letter to Timothy, or who tried to evacuate its clear sense and force by saying that such non-Christians could not believe because they have not got the historical revelation of God's word and so could not be saved, because without real faith salvation is impossible.

Does this mean that we should then move from a historical to an existential understanding of the text?

With its appeal to the so - called historical - critical method for gaining an insight into the meaning of the text, this approach is to be associated with the liberal theology stemming from the Enlightenment.

Here we raise the question of the precise relationship of evangelicalism and fundamentalism as historical phenomena, I do not mean here to give any credence to what I predict will be the common evangelical response to Barr — that he fails to distinguish appropriately a modern enlightened evangelicalism from a more benighted fundamentalism.

With a priori alienation (Verfremdung) from the text as the starting point, the intelligibility of mind, laboring in and through methodology, would transport the interpreter into the realm of another time and place and by the determination of meaning in relation to a specific historical context would illuminate the obscure text.

Tocqueville, for one, said it was the religion of Americans — and not their theory — that protected them from the Historical temptation to employ all means necessary to secure a more perfect future.

The debate among Christians about the meaning and nature of the resurrection of Jesus has moved from the appeal to inerrant scripture, which was regarded by most until a century ago as being quite sufficient, to the arena where the tools of historical and literary criticism are regarded as legitimate.

What could have inspired these men to willingly die as martyrs preaching peace and forgiveness from God through Jesus Christ and preaching the invitation from Jesus Christ to call God «Our Father in Heaven» by means of the Holy Spirit among us other than the historical reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead — proof that Jesus is both God and Man?

This is the scarcely questioned and surprising result today of an enquiry which for almost two hundred years has devoted prodigious and by no means fruitless effort to regain and expound the life of the historical Jesus, freed from all embellishment by dogma and doctrine.»

We need context and interpretation, and sometimes that means we need historical insight or other kinds of analysis that comes only from a lot of study.»

In short, theology embraces wisdom from any historical or contemporary source that assists in making sense out of the meaning of human life.

From a purely naturalistic perspective, what is theology but abstract reflection on the alleged meaning of historical uncertainties?

A common view of how adoptionism became incarnationism is that the moment of «adoption,» which was originally the resurrection, was, as the early communities reflected on the meaning of Jesus, moved forward into the historical life, and there pushed to an earlier and earlier point — from transfiguration, to baptism, to birth — until finally it was pushed out of the earthly life entirely and Jesus was conceived of as having been the Son of God before his birth.

Making a place for faith beyond the support of historical research is also removing faith from the threat of historical research, which means security par excellence.

Quite obviously, we do not know all that he meant by it — we can not hope to, separated as we are by twenty centuries from his time and dependent as we are upon a few meager records — but we are by no means altogether in ignorance of his meaning, and as historical research enables us to recover more fully the mental climate of Jesus» environment, our understanding becomes deeper and more adequate.

This means in effect that we must look for indications that the saying does not come from the Church, but from the historical Jesus.

Their use of Wesleyan sources (meaning material from John and Charles Wesley or the «Wesleyan» traditions after them) typically blends historical investigation with concern for contemporary relevance.

The real question is this: how can an ultimate authority (a Word from God) function through relative, historical, and contingent means?

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

Since Catholics believe in tradition as a channel of revelation, they do not expect everything to be demonstrable from biblical evidence alone, nor by means of neutral historical research.

By this we do not mean just the temporal development that historical criticism discerns in the redaction of these codes, the evolution of moral ideas that may be traced out from the first Decalogue to the Law of the Covenant, on the one hand, and from the Decalogue itself through the restatements and amplifications of the book of Deuteronomy to the new synthesis of the «Holiness Code» in the book of Leviticus and the legislation subsequent to Ezra, on the other; more important than this development of the content of the Law is the transformation in the relationship between the faithful believer and the Law.

Bultmann's procedure of eliminating Jesus» message from primitive Christianity means ultimately that «Christian faith is understood as faith in the exalted Lord for whom the historical Jesus as such no longer possesses constitutive significance».

[16] This heritage, which many Indian - Christian theologians have too often accepted uncritically, accepting the broad brush - strokes, without going into the nitty - gritty details, needs to be re-examined and re-evaluated so that the meaning of several concepts which such a heritage has spawned and which is reflected, often unconsciously, in the present attitudes of Indian - Christians, can be liberated «from the socio - cultural, philosophical and historical contexts in which they have been deified, and make their theological insights reincarnate in the life and concerns of the people.

Since the twentieth century worked out its initial attitude toward the «historical Jesus» in terms of the only available reconstruction, that of the nineteenth century with all its glaring limitations, it is not surprising to find as a second consequence a tendency to disassociate the expression «the historical Jesus» from «Jesus of Nazareth as he actually was», and to reserve the expression for: «What can be known of Jesus of Nazareth by means of the scientific methods of the historian».

In the Old Testament, God is known as Creator only because he is first known as Sustainer - Redeemer.27 The creation faith of the Old Testament nowhere gives the impression that its Primary interest is in origins as origins; rather is it a faith that speaks from, and back to, historical human existence and in its articulation is concerned to say what man is and what in that faith his existence means.

Yet the extent to which the meaning of the term is inextricably related to historical research must be explained in some detail, if the concept is to be freed from the ambiguity which continues to haunt it.