Sentences with phrase «biblical theological interpretations»

Not exact matches

On exegetical and theological grounds, it is difficult for Christians to interpret the return to the land in our day as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, i.e., to give the return a «political» interpretation, without abandoning the confession that in Jesus of Nazareth the Messianic age has commenced.

In fact, over two thousand years of biblical interpretation, the Christian religion has proved to be ridiculously flexible, able to tolerate significant theological and practical differences without, you know, us having to say «farewell» to people who land on a different interpretation.»

In undertaking a non-religious interpretation of Biblical and theological concepts such as he proposes, Bonhoeffer believes the church would only be permitting the Bible to assume its own true character; for the Bible knows nothing of the «religious» in the sense enumerated above.

Biblical interpretation must be missiological, not theological.

Some of the insights provided by the first phase of liberation theology seem too important to let slip between the cracks — for instance, the centrality of the category «the poor» for biblical interpretation; the awareness of structural, not just individual, evil; the use of the social sciences as dialogue partner for theological discourse; and the need to apply a hermeneutic of suspicion to theology itself.

- «The scholarly community will need to see the full report and images of the artifacts to make a judgment in regard to the interpretation of these objects as coins,» Steven Ortiz, associate professor of archaeology and biblical backgrounds at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, said.

Paul D. Koptak, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Communication and Biblical Interpretation, North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago.

We need further theological interpretation of the biblical witness to Jesus» suffering and death as revelation of God's suffering love.

While debate over the understanding of Biblical interpretation lies at the heart of current evangelical discussions concerning women, differences in theological tradition lie at the center of discussions over social ethics, and disagreement over one's approach toward the wider secular culture is surfacing as the focus of controversy regarding homosexuality.

Such a theological and ecclesiological position has a long cultural heritage in Christian tradition, but it must not imperialize Biblical interpretation by becoming the sole authoritative stance from which the Biblical witness is read.

Several Biblical feminists similarly find Galatians 3:28 the «theological breakthrough» that is determinative of their interpretation of liberation in Christ.

That evangelicals, all claiming a common Biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation.

From Childs's perspective, the nature of the biblical material itself makes interpretation inescapably theological.

The nature of the biblical material itself makes interpretation inescapably theological.

But to isolate conclusions concerning Biblical interpretation from the theological judgments and experience of the Christian community through the ages is almost as unsatisfactory.

Bishop Paulose says, «It is by this reasoning, namely by a bold effort to answer the question of how Jesus Christ can become lord even of the religionless, that Bonhoeffer arrived at his conclusion that the church should work out and proclaim a «non-religious» interpretation of Biblical and theological concepts».

Barr is surely right in insisting that while fundamentalists have made many changes in style (as evidenced, for example, by Christianity Today) on the theological level and especially with regard to biblical interpretation, there is more continuity than discontinuity.

A form of polarization of long standing is theological with biblical interpretation as its center.

When there were contradictions in those materials, a reconciliation was effected, or at least attempted, through the use of the «different levels of interpretation», where the historical meaning, the moral meaning, the theological meaning, and the highly mystical meaning could be distinguished and an appropriate distribution made in the discussion of this or that biblical text.

In Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (2015), Allen and Swain presented «a programmatic assessment of what it means to retrieve the catholic tradition on the basis of Protestant theological and ecclesiological principles.»

On the major questions of theological controversy — creation ex nihilo, individual providence, miracles, prophecy — Maimonides typically surveys the opinions offered by Aristotle and others alongside the Torah, in order to arrive at an interpretation of the biblical text that is religiously plausible and philosophically sound.

A couple of years later I left work to go to theological college and study first an honours in theology and than a masters in biblical interpretation.

others will argue with it, desiring the role of tradition to be enhanced, or a christocentric concentration within biblical interpretation, or desiring the Holy Spirit to provide our theological entry point.

Besides such biblical scholars with theological concerns there is of course a very large number of other theologians for whom the interpretation of scripture is central.

The mainstream theological community is already way beyond the literal interpretation of the biblical accounts of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden and seven days of creation.