In
Biblical the meaning of the name Canaan is, «Merchant, trader, or that humbles and subdues»
In
Biblical the meaning of the name Elias is, «God the Lord; the strong Lord»
I have in my life time attended many churches and I do know tyhe
biblical meaning of the word, but in the «christian» world there are so many factions and every one of them believing that they hold a corner on the truth!
Do you know the prebilical and
biblical meaning of the word «god»?
But
the biblical meaning of faith can not be reduced to individualistic voluntarism.
It underlines that Liberation Theology is necessary to respond to the aspirations of liberation and reflects
the biblical meaning of liberation which is an essential theme of the Old Testament and the New Testament.5
In fact, what he described concerning justice was a fruit of salvation, not salvation itself — for he isolated
the biblical meaning of justice in the same way that he asserts «Christians» isolate the usage of salvation!
«To be separate» is
the biblical meaning of «holy.»
The franchises only exist because of the originating business.He only stated that he believes in
the biblical meaning of marriage, one man one woman.
God intimately chose His people, and this foreknowing is the foundation of His predestination, so if we were to translate
the Biblical meaning of foreknowledge into Romans 8:29 it would read like this, «For those whom God intimately set His affection upon beforehand, He also predestined...» And this meaning is in sync with the rest of the Bible.
Since Christian mission directly concerns the world beyond the bounds of Christianity, or the interaction with those beyond the frontier line, any definition of mission — including deductive works on
the biblical meanings of mission — has to take the world beyond the bounds of Christianity seriously.
Not exact matches
Biblical law offers a
means for limiting the ravages
of the disease
of avarice, and as a result it is the Church, not economists, that must lead in offering the corrective.
I spent a lot
of time ostracized by fellow churchgoers because I dared question
meanings and interpretations
of biblical passages.
Never - the-less, I am fascinated by
biblical scholarship, the history
of the early church, and at any rate think people should have the correct facts about what was written and what the original authors
meant it to
mean.
Jews believe that they are the chosen people and the rest
of us some sort
of second class humanoids (Note:
biblical jews I
mean)
The masses
of people during
Biblical times had no formal education and no
means of employment.
For at least a decade and a half before the appointment
of Tietjen to the presidency
of Concordia Seminary, some
of its faculty had begun to turn away from such understandings — though without claiming that this turn
meant giving up
biblical inerrancy.
This is what is funny about christianity, Christians change the
meaning of the bible so that it makes every satam act as
biblical, one day everything will be
biblical even walking naked in the streets.
CNN: Name
of Israel's anti-Hamas operation has
biblical meaning To English speakers, the name
of Israel's anti-Hamas campaign sounds pretty straightforward: «Operation Pillar
of Defense.»
-- there is no «price» (again American Christian reference, not
biblical); «his agents»: if you
mean the Holy Spirit and / or Christ then since those are God then it's just the worship
of God because you DESIRE to worship Him not as if there was anything any
of us could offer that would be reciprocal for Christ's sacrifice.
But the task
of preserving even our moral floor is complicated by the determination
of many that «we» should have free and full access to the remissive power
of Christian forgiveness without any
of the interdictory authority
of biblical faith — even if this
means that this power can only be «pried from God's clutches» by corrupting it, on at least some important occasions, into nihlistic nonjudgmentalism.
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.
Biblical prophets practice it which
means God approves
of it.
Like
biblical Hebrew, Atwood's witty prose is thick with double entendre and allusion, including hidden puns whose
meanings dawn on us only later, and outrageous jokes that don't so much dawn as «bomb» (one
of the book's metaphors and an effect
of Atwood's powerfully laconic style)
Two comments.One, the atheist / materialist claims that he / she... «Did «nt believe in free will»... O.K.Should we take that to
mean some mindless, heretofore unknown force apllied those words in your behalf?Did someone put the proverbial «gun to your head «and force you to post your comments?we await you presumably forced answer with bated breath.Two.As for Mr.Gingrich, beware.Politics aside, the one question yet remains for Calista: How did you, a professed «devout «Roman Catholic, carry on a 6 - year affair with a man you knew was married?How does that square with the
Biblical prohibition against committing adultery?Oh wait!I know!As a «devout «Roman Catholic you can sin with impunity; just go to your priest, say a couple
of «hail Marys and Our Fathers», ask the priest to bless your sinning, and resume.
Of course!I had forgetton how easily Catholics excuse their trangressions (ex opere operato, anyone).
We are called to live holy lives that honour Christ and sometimes doing so may
mean we get put in jail / persecuted (like Joseph, Daniel and a host
of other
biblical examples, including Jesus himself.
Biblical criticism means nothing but applying to the biblical documents the rational or scientific methods of scholarship which are applied in other fields o
Biblical criticism
means nothing but applying to the
biblical documents the rational or scientific methods of scholarship which are applied in other fields o
biblical documents the rational or scientific methods
of scholarship which are applied in other fields
of study.
Certainly Equiano became an eloquent critic
of slavery; nevertheless, for him, Noll writes,
biblical religion
meant «the nearly total application
of Scripture to the liberating effect
of the Christian gospel for the individual person.»
Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis
of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage it has broadened to
mean a critical explanation
of any text, and the term «
Biblical exegesis» is used for greater specificity.
Many
of our found!ng fathers were deist, who, while they often mentioned «God», did not
mean it in the + radi + ion @l
Biblical sense.
Does Piper's response not «reinterpret apparently plain
meanings of biblical texts» and rely on a bit
of «technical ingenuity»?
In the complementarian manifesto, the Danvers Statement, egalitarians are accused
of «accepting hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain
meanings of biblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity
biblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to
Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity
Biblical authority as the clarity
of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility
of its
meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm
of technical ingenuity.»
Historical events — a bloody Civil War — forced us to look more closely at how exactly the Bible talks not only about slavery but the
biblical meaning and value
of a human being.
Only
Biblical scholars «know» the true «
meaning»
of the Book?
But I also
meant the continuing work
of our great high priest, helping to provide
meaning to this altered world from the depths
of our faith and the
biblical drama.
So Grudem claims that any selectivity whatsoever represents an arbitrary «pick - and - choose» approach to Scripture and a threat to
biblical authority, and that those who support functional gender equality in the home and church are simply bending the «plain
meaning of Scripture.»
They are also concerned that I presented and explored a variety
of divergent perspectives on what «
biblical womanhood»
means (from Jewish, Catholic, Amish, feminist, polygamist, Christian fundamentalist and complementarian viewpoints, to name a few), including some viewpoints with which they do not agree.
In the
biblical history we are to find a revelation
of God that can be understood as to give
meaning to history in our own time.
I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «
biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles
of Peter and Paul, about the
meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line
of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really
mean when we talk about «
biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.
But the
Biblical concept
of prayer, as practiced by Christ Himself as a model for us, is to seek and obtain God's will, and they pray for God's will to be done (even if that
means going to the cross).
Not only is this not a faithful approach, but it also
means that
Biblical literalism denies the very literal truth
of the Bible which it purports to defend.
my answer is either «Yes» or «What do you
mean by» salvation» and is that the
Biblical use
of that term?»
Yet the early Church itself, when it departed from
biblical idiom at the Council
of Nicea and used for theological purposes a non-
biblical word, homo - ousion, as the guarantor
of true
biblical meaning, gave Christians in later days a charter for translation — provided always that it is the gospel, its setting and its significance, that we are translating, and not some bright and novel ideas
of our own.
And in a way meditation on
biblical material is just that: after all the other «senses» have been exhausted, there is the imaginative approach that will make it possible for the reader to grasp the big
meaning of what he is reading.
This is significant not only because it is a
biblical text, but because it seems for her to sum up in a decisive way the
meaning of her self - discovery.
But Richard A. Shenk points out in his new book, The Virgin Birth
of Christ: The Rich
Meaning of a
Biblical Truth, that in Evangelical churches, the why
of the virgin birth receives less attention than the fact
of it.
The story makes innumerable references to the Bible, from the opening parody
of biblical language in the description
of Astor, to the parody
of Pilate's questioning
of Christ in the lawyer's interview with a mute Bartleby, to the seriously
meant quotation from Job.
One might call this the soteriological captivity
of creation, because it succeeds in emptying the world
of its own
meaning as a realm
of divine governance and human involvement prior to and apart from the
biblical story
of salvation culminating in Christ.
Brooke reminds us that «two quite different
meanings could... be attached to Darwin's Origin [
of Species]-- that it was consistent with a
biblical religion (as long as one did not take Genesis literally) and, conversely, that it undermined it.
Session 2: «My Year
of Biblical Womanhood» (Thursday, 7 - 8 p.m.) How the Bible is
meant to be a conversation - starter, not a conversation - ender