Sentences with phrase «testament teaching about himself»

The full New Testament teaching about the cross involves both expiation, which means providing a covering for sin, and propitiation, which means averting divine judgment.

In lecturing on Plato's dialogue Phaedo, where Socrates sets forth the view that the afterlife is a state of being where the soul passively contemplates the eternal Forms, I would draw a clear contrast between that and the New Testament teaching about the resurrection of the body.

In essence the New Testament teaching about «fulfillment» deals with the question of the presence of redemption in history.

We have now to look at the New Testament teaching about the human expressions and forms of love.

When we put all this together, then we also begin to understand the New Testament teaching about the anti-Christ.

In his comprehensive book on the subject of corporate election, William Klein summarized his position on what the New Testament teaches about election with these words:

The Old Testament teaches about wrath and punishment.

Not exact matches

How is it that an inspired woman could write scripture (e.g., Mary's song), and an inspired woman could determine for both a king and a high priest whether something is scripture (e.g., the prophet Huldah in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34)-- or at least could do these things in the time of the Old Testament — but an inspired woman can not now teach about God?

Traditional Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments, but unfortunately they don't accept that God brought forth Another Testament to help resolve all this conflict about the bible's teachings.

Just yesterday in church, I taught a Sunday school lesson to children about the Apostle Peter from the New Testament.

In the meantime: What have you been taught about the New Testament household codes?

Then came the sermon, which was based on one of the most important passages of the New Testament, the one where Jesus teaches at the synagogue in Nazareth and explains exactly what his ministry is all about:

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

The Old Testament reflects not at all Platonic teaching about the soul as imprisoned in the flesh and escaping at death to the realm of pure spirit, but rather Egyptian teaching, with its hope of a physical resurrection.

The factors of chief importance in the development of this theology were: (a) the Old Testament — and Judaism --(b) the tradition of religious thought in the Hellenistic world, (c) the earliest Christian experience of Christ and conviction about his person, mission, and nature — this soon became the tradition of the faith or the «true doctrine» — and (d) the living, continuous, ongoing experience of Christ — only in theory to be distinguished from the preceding — in worship, in preaching, in teaching, in open proclamation and confession, as the manifestation of the present Spiritual Christ within his church.

As he summarized some of what he taught in that sermon back in July, I thought to myself, «Hmmm... this sounds surprisingly similar to what I have been writing about in my recent series on how to understand the violence of God in the Old Testament and especially in relation to what Jesus did on the cross.»

But a couple of bona fide scholars — not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament — have taken this position and written about it.

What about the examples of this same kind of teaching that are, on occasions, still present in the New Testament?

Before the flourishing of Bultmann's career, New Testament scholarship had been dominated by literary criticism, which attempted to uncover the secret of how the texts were compiled; by investigation of the Hellenistic background, especially the mystery religions surrounding the early church, as part of a sociological critique of the history of religion; and by excitement about the apocalyptic content of the teaching of Jesus as a first century Jew.

Since the teaching about being loving, even to someone that hates you, was a part of the Old Testament Law, we need to carefully examine the words Christ spoke.

Furthermore, how can Jesus be the exact representation of God, when everything Jesus taught about God seems to contradict what we see about God in the Old Testament?

Gustav Aulen's contention, for example, that the New Testament teaching on Christ's death is teaching simply about his conquest of the devil — the «classic motif» falls into this category as does Karl Barth's understanding of evil conveyed in his term das Nichtige or Karl Rahner's «supernatural existential.»

We are working our way through several of the views about how to understand the violence of God in the Old Testament in light of the love and mercy taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

Into the brief period of which we have a record are compressed his baptism by John the Baptist — a prophet of the Old Testament stamp — his time of solitary meditation and temptation in the wilderness, the calling of his twelve most intimate disciples, his going about with them healing and teaching in Galilee and its environs, the journey to Jerusalem and his triumphal entry, the stormy events of passion week, his crucifixion, and resurrection.

Reading Old Testament books in the light of this principle, which was long ago expressed in the jingle «the New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed,» I find in their teaching about God and godliness a significance which a Jewish colleague would miss.

This deceit of Islam has to be spoken about and make common knowledge that Mohammad is not a messenger of God The Almighty from the Old and New Testament if he was the next step for Christians or Jews who believe in God The Almighty would God the Almighty teach his followers to kill their wives, mothers, sisters and brothers or fathers and call this honor.

Many people struggle with how to teach and preach about Jesus from the Old Testament.

Almost every time the New Testament talks about the roles and responsibilities of the spiritual leaders of the church, teaching Scripture is at the top of the list (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 3:2; 4:6 - 16; 2 Tim 4:1 - 4; Titus 1:3; 2:1; 1 Pet 5:2).

Finally, the third section is written by Darrel Bock, and deals with the concept and teaching about the Messiah from the books of the New Testament.

As Protestant ministers were groping about for a solution that would embrace both a personal and social reality, a brilliant Lutheran theologian, J. H. W. Stuckenberg, worked out a solution in terms of the New Testament teachings of Jesus as related to all of life.

Of course he was no literary artist, but only a humble clerk, not very familiar with Judaism or with the Old Testament; perhaps he had never seen Palestine in his life, but he had a good memory, and he had heard a great deal about that land, or rather about the Master who had lived and taught there.

Included among these might be those parts of the New Testament other than the Gospels which are consistent with Jesus» teachings; other Christian writings; Christian places of worship or songs and prayers used in this worship; the sacraments; perhaps the life of a Christian we know or read about who exemplifies for us the way Jesus told us to live.

Such things might be included here as natural theology (the making of inferences about God from a study of the natural world); the teachings of other great religions — again, to the extent they are compatible; or even the Old Testament prophets, depending on how you view their relationship to Jesus.

Then after giving unconditional election a second and more Biblical look, I went through the musing s about how it could be true if all unbelievers go to eternal hellfire torment, and then I got hit with the realization that the New Testament teaches eternal torment for Satan and his followers, which I heartily endorse, but It teaches destruction for unbelievers.

If you look superficially at what Paul said about women in the New Testament, women should be silent, remain at home, ask their husbands and abstain from teaching.

This being the case, the teaching of the New Testament writers about the revelation should not be identified with the revelation itself.

'» I love the way you have taught us to understand the Old Testament, but here it seems like Jesus is agreeing with Moses about «God's law» to put someone to death if they do not honor father or mother.

When Philip In Acts 8 had finished teaching the Ethiopian Eunuch about Jesus from the old testament till the present moment why did Philip baptise him with water if all it took was belief in Jesus?

To me, it's just a messy mix of between racism and hypocrisy — they just don't like the guy because he's less than 100 % white and they're all still bitter about it, and they're fighting against many of the principles that is taught in their own New Testament.

Best of all, this book closed with several chapters on pertinent theological questions for today, such as how to reconcile the Bible and science, how to understand the violence of God in the Old Testament, and how to make sense of what the Bible teaches about women, homosexuality, and the fate of those who have never heard the gospel.

New Testament attitudes about the expression of sexuality — and what happens when people try to repress sexual desire — seem more realistic and more merciful than current Protestant teaching would indicate.

I do not understand why Protestant theologians [including Barth] are so afraid of the New Testament position when the New Testament teaches only, this much about the «interim condition»: (1) that it exists, (2) that it already signifies union with Christ [this because of the Holy Spirit]-RRB-.

The interpretation of the teaching of Jesus about the kingdom, which bears the name of realized eschatology, is always associated with the name of the distinguished British New Testament scholar, C. H. Dodd.

The New Testament speaks frequently about true and false teaching and doctrine.

Christ (and later the writers of the New Testament) taught that we shoud gather together to worship and discuss how better to serve both God and our fellow men and women, but nothing about building elaborate piles of masonry and writing tomes of regulations.

The Catholic Church views the old testament as a book that teaches us about our relationship with God not as a historical text.

In consequence, we can now see that what we have in the New Testament is what I have called throughout this book «the witness of apostolic faith», while the Old Testament has its particular Christian significance in giving us the background of the event of Jesus Christ in the religious faith, worship, and teaching about God's will and way in the world as these were set forth in the Jewish scriptures which then became part of the Christian Bible.

The impression you will get from the book is that the authors are simply teaching what Jesus, Paul, and John really thought and cared about, when in reality, what you will be getting is a strong Calvinistic interpretation of the New Testament.

You may say Deborah is of the Old Testament, what about the New Testament Church?Well, we have Priscilla who taught a man named Apollos.Whether Apollos was taken outside the congregation or whatever (and ofcourse he couldn't be interrupted that way) the point is, a woman together with her husband, taught a man.If this was such a grave thing, Priscilla could've backed out and left the teaching for her husband alone, instead she does the opposite.

The church decided that Jesus» teaching about loving our enemies superseded even the Old Testament provision allowing Israelites to charge interest on loans to foreigners.