Sentences with phrase «biblical texts»

I quoted biblical texts that say «act like a man» and to «fight the good fight.»

There are some biblical texts interspersed.

But evangelicals are included in the «others»; no less than liberals they seek to understand Scripture according to the particular historical contexts in which biblical texts were written ¯ with the one difference being that they consider themselves bound to receive what they conclude the text to say as authoritative rather than open to improvement.

The heroes of modern - day evangelicalism, from scholars like N.T. Wright to pastors like Rob Bell, are passionately and unapologetically contextual textualists, working diligently with a host of ancient literary and archaeological sources to make sense of biblical texts as they would have been understood in their day.

Surveying the past several election cycles, Berlinerblau finds that personal piety need not correlate to effective leveraging of biblical texts.

But today's chapters are just too important to rush through, as they focus on Justin's wrestling with biblical texts that relate to homosexuality.

But it's an interesting story if you find the political edits of biblical texts to be a topic you find amusing.

Archaeologists have found new evidence about the time frame of the biblical texts, based on what's essentially a shopping list.

But my connection with the cartoon was that in our obsession to find this single intent we have completely deskilled and discouraged people to share their views on the Biblical texts, and confined that to pseudo-specialists.

«Where else in the world do you find non-Christians so engrossed in biblical texts?»

[6] More recent authors, among them Joel Goldsmith, Jack Addington, and Ervin Seale, have published further discussions of the metaphysical interpretation of Biblical texts.

First, it is interesting that in the fourth century, the road to Constantinople in 381 is not paved by blunt appeals to church authority but by extensive wrestling over biblical texts and fine - tooling of extra-biblical language (most notably the term «hypostasis») in an attempt to establish which exegetical claims made sense of Scripture as a whole and which fell short.

We must rediscover myth and symbol in reading biblical texts, and help our people to escape the leaden touch of literalism.

By contrast, a teaching such as the Immaculate Conception, as with so much Marian dogma, makes claims that not only stand on a highly contestable reading of an extremely narrow scriptural base but also seem to stand in tension with, if not even in contradiction to, significant biblical texts.

The alleged subordination of the gospel to Karl Marx is illustrated, for example, by charging that «false» liberation theology concentrates too much on a few selected biblical texts that are always given a political meaning, leading to an overemphasis on «material» poverty and neglecting other kinds of poverty; that this leads to a «temporal messianism» that confuses the Kingdom of God with a purely «earthly» new society, so that the gospel is collapsed into nothing but political endeavor; that the emphasis on social sin and structural evil leads to an ignoring or forgetting of the reality of personal sin; that everything is reduced to praxis (the interplay of action and reflection) as the only criterion of faith, so that the notion of truth is compromised; and that the emphasis on communidades de base sets a so - called «people's church» against the hierarchy.

In later posts we will look at some of the biblical texts used to support and defend this Calvinistic interpretation of people being dead in sin.

The Greek word used in the biblical texts which use this word is dokimos.

This is the tenth post in our series, One In Christ: A Week of Mutuality, dedicated to discussing an egalitarian view of gender — including relevant biblical texts and practical applications.

(We can ignore studies like Blaquart's on the Word of God that claim to be scientific but confine themselves to imposing a classifying framework on biblical texts.

I have recognized as one reason for the overall superiority of the theologians of continental Europe their ability to relate their theological reflections directly to their own fresh encounter with the biblical texts.

Not the text itself, because it's pretty hard to overrate Biblical texts, but rather the way the text is interpreted.

It does not matter that all the biblical texts speak of the calf in the masculine; that the Bible tells us clearly that a bull is called a «calf» in order to ridicule it, or that we know concretely that such worship was related to the masculine fertility cult and to the bulls of Canaan or Babylon.

So one is left with deciding on a hemeneutic of faith or a hermenutic of suspicion when considering biblical texts.

I also anticipate that in the coming years, theologians will re-approach those biblical texts used to condemn homosexuality and perhaps present evangelicals with some optional interpretations.

I'm talking to these Christians posting biblical texts all over here, they love to quote the first 4 gospels and pretend their religion is soft and cuddly, when in reality it's just as dangerous as any of the other religions.

I was sick and tired of the bible thumpers quoting biblical texts and telling me the bible fact.

For theology is more than a scientific assessment of the text; the Biblical texts must also be received as address (they are God's word to us) and made relevant by application (they are God's word to us).

Convinced that certain Biblical texts allow only a chauvinistic interpretation, she concludes that though she respects Paul greatly for his central affirmation about humanity (Gal.

Implicit here is the idea that the biblical texts have a great potential for transforming human thought and life; but this potential has been vitiated during the history of Christianity, as the biblical message has been watered down and made to conform to the pre-existing mimetic psychology of the «world.»

But whatever the reason, these two fundamentally different descriptions and justifications for one's non-work on the Sabbath found their way successively into the inspired biblical texts.

We read the Bible «through the Jesus lens» — which looks suspiciously like it means using the parts of the Gospels that we like, with the awkward bits carefully screened out, which enables us to disagree with the biblical texts on God, history, ethics and so on, even when Jesus didn't (Luke 17:27 - 32 is an interesting example).

I found Mark's insights into these biblical texts to be insightful and helpful.

It's amazing that a «religion scholar» who writes books about God exhibits such poor exegesis of basic biblical texts.

There are all sorts of biblical texts that all of us know aren't literally true, ranging from the obviously poetic («Your breasts are clumps of dates») to the obviously symbolic («I saw a beast coming out of the sea, Revelation 13:1) and the obviously hyperbolic («gouge [your eye] out and throw it away», see Matthew 5:29).

Or this: «Why do our evangelical theologies give so much attention to questions relating to only a few obscure biblical texts while completely ignoring the topic of «poorology» to which are devoted hundreds of clear texts?»)

As a result, they endlessly critique the biblical texts but rarely get around to hearing scripture's critique of us or hearing its message of grace.

I heard him preach a number of times during the Lenten season and he had that wonderful ability to both penetrate and amplify Biblical texts.

It allowed me to reconceptualize the study of «women in the Bible,» by moving from what men have said about women to a feminist historical reconstruction of early Christian origins as well as by articulating a feminist critical process for reading and evaluating androcentric biblical texts.

The Bible speaks about the transformation of selves by the acts of God: thus the psychological realities coming to expression in the biblical texts may be either descriptions of the imprisonment of the self needing release, or those of the liberated, transformed person.

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, for example, writes that «a feminist critical hermeneutics of suspicion places a warning label on all biblical texts: Caution!

Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts.

Anyone who spends time browsing there will find the stalls flooded with books that apply a hermeneutic of suspicion to biblical texts.

I wanted to learn and to teach a method of publically reading scripture, for example, that respected the intrinsic value of studying biblical texts while enhancing their communicative value in worship.

As primary actors in the speaker's drama they stage in pulpits, chancels, or at Table, preachers first play roles in the speaker's dramas present in the canon as biblical texts.

Levenson's reading of biblical texts suggests a view of creation as «combat» against the onslaughts of chaos.

Consequently, we welcome the readings offered by feminists and other interpreters whose experience enables them to hear the biblical texts in new and challenging ways.

They choose, for whatever reason (spiritual experience, fear, apathy) to not waiver from their interpretation and understanding of biblical texts even in the face of reason and logic.

(4) Biblical texts must be understood in their human context: for otherwise we shall fail to read their real point out of them and instead read into them points they are not making at all.

THAT is, or at least should be, the «common sense» one brings to evaluating the veracity of the gospels and other biblical texts.

When biblical texts are the only sufficient reason for holding ethical and political views, a dubious «divine voluntarism» results.