Sentences with phrase «by means of cross»

Gluten can also get into foods processed in facilities that manufacture gluten - containing foods by means of cross contamination.

Not exact matches

As the number of initial fundings balloons, and as nontraditional money creates a powerful updraft for companies that make it through the initial cull, the imperative to cross the valley by any means necessary becomes ever more urgent.

As I've said that the 10 yr bond crossed over 3.0 % means the US$ will be going to be weaker and weaker further and further by the 1st half of 2020 yr:) Also, the commodity price esp WTI will be going up to the level of 70 - 80 $ no later than 1st half of May (at the earliest), or no later than 2nd week of June, and then it will be in the range to the end of Trump Era:)

The City has established that P3 contractors for the Valley Line must provide means for wildlife to cross Connors Road and the tracks by means of an underpass, providing access for smaller animals (skunks, coyotes, rabbits, etc.) to Gallagher Park and the Edmonton Ski Club grounds.

Though crucifixion on this cross only means physical death, not spiritual.The ankh was a symbol, not of death, but of life, and it is the ankh that was used by all Christians until the 4th century when the Vatican introduced the Roman cross for the first time.

It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to «receive» the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.

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).

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.

By clarifying what it means for Christ to share our nature it clarifies our understanding of the cross.

The cross is not a symbol of conquest, but rather a means by which Jesus, the man actualized the highest possible state of intimacy (uns) with his pre-existent or creation - generating state.

Not sure i am convinced because how do you explain the verse an eye for an eye in the old testament there have always been consequences for wrong doing and stiill are for sin.If we believe the word then that word is from God not satan.As far as satan is concerned he uses violence as his tools of trade he works on our fears and is limited to robbing stealing and destroying he does nt have anything else.Violence confirms to us that there is a spiritual battle going on both on the earthly plane and in the heavenlys and the battle is over souls.The verse the kingdon of heaven is expanding and violent people take it by force is referring to that spiritual battle and as satan uses violence to expand his dominion so does God use violence to counter him.So what does he mean by that term for me i think it is saying that the the force of evil that satan uses or violence is overcome by a greater violence or force a more powerful one that being the Love of Christ.Through the cross we see that clearly portrayed and in our lives that very same battle is still happening right now for dominion be clear if we walk in the flkesh satan will have dominion over us but if we walk according to the spirit and abide in Christ we have freedom from our old nature.and satan.He can oppose us but he wont be able to influence us if we are in Christ.

To take the cross by itself out of the context of Jesus» total life and ministry is to attach an artificial meaning to it.

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

Jesus is the son of The Living God, son meaning rightful heir to His kingdom (every other heir such as myself is adpoted through Jesus's finished work on the cross), The Holy God has only proclaimed one to be His beloved Son and this message was heard by many people.

The story opened in a swank Protestant church where at the conclusion of the service a poor, unemployed, shabby young man got up and told his story of unemployment to the startled parishioners and ended by saying: «You can't all go out hunting up jobs for people like me, but what I am puzzled about when I see so many Christians living in luxury and singing, «Jesus, I my cross have taken, all to leave, and follow Thee,» is what is meant by following Jesus?

Thérèse Souga from Cameroon says that «Christ is the true human, the one who makes it possible for all persons to reach fulfillment and to overcome the historic alienations weighing them down... The realism of the cross every day tells me, as a woman of the Third World, that the laws of history can be overcome by means of crucified love.»

He states, «The line between the human and the subhuman is crossed in the life of each one of us, if by human one means, actually rational» (WM 119).

Thus, as C. F. Evans points out, «the evangelist indicates that this spiritual ascent takes place at the cross and by means of it, and through the love and obedience which lie within it.

Paul's meaning is that by virtue of the death (and resurrection) of Christ the boundary between the two ages is crossed, and those who believe belong no more to the present evil age, but to the glorious Age to Come.

Based on our common study of the Bible, we were able to agree that the work of redemption has been accomplished (a word which means done, completed) by Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.

«Since it has been entrusted to the Church to reveal the mystery of God, Who is the ultimate goal of man, she opens up to man at the same time the meaning of his own existence, that is, the innermost truth about himself... For by His incarnation the Father's Word assumed, and sanctified through His cross and resurrection, the whole of man, body and soul, and through that totality the whole of nature created by God for man's use» (41).

And no miracle means more than the atoning death of Jesus on the cross — and his resurrection from the dead, by which he proved his identity as the unique Son of God.

This is not to say that the form through which the meaning of the Christian cross is interpreted or the form through which its truth is incarnated in the life of any age is not conditioned by the culture of that age.

This does not mean that we downplay the reality of sin and the importance of the cross, far from it, but we think that it is only by understanding the cosmic significance of the Incarnation that we can understand the full drama and measure of redemption.

2:1 - l1) 95Mary's faith in Jesus as the one who is able to fulfil the needs of the people by means of a sign and her faithfulness to follow him till the cross, sharing the bitter anguish and pain, make her an ideal disciple of Jesus.

Some highlights of this collection are Khaled Abou El Fadl's eloquent explication of the complexities and restraints behind implementation of the death penalty under Islamic law; an interesting intersection between Fadl's discussion of reticence in the use of the death penalty and David Novak's review of capital cases in Jewish tradition; Stanley Hauerwas's unequivocal claim that the cross is justice (negatively in terms of Jesus» execution according to human law and positively in terms of the ultimate meaning of the cross as mercy and forgiveness); and, conversely, the claim by Beth Wilkinson, prosecutor in the Timothy McVeigh case, that «Even as a Christian, I felt nothing for Mr. McVeigh.»

Hi Jeremy, I have been thinking and trying to put all the pieces together... I still believe that Jesus flesh was still struggling through the ordeal but His Spirit was willing... I agree that Jesus wasn't asking to be saved and was in fact saying He is ready to drink the cup but It appears that's Jesus was asking for strength and that God will give Him the power to endure... Such as Heb 5:7 says that Jesus prayer was heard and that God was able to save Him from death meaning Jesus wasn't allowed to die until He fulfilled the prophecy of the cross... I believe Jesus had the power to lay down His life and the strength was given by God the Father.

The folly of the cross, so inexplicable by the intellect, has yet its indestructible vital meaning.

Mission for a congregation means the crossing over of the boundaries of its cultural matrix into a world where the congregation's household webs of significance no longer obtain and the household is threatened by different discourses, stories, and social forces.

By this he meant he must be raised up on his cross in death in order for the people to receive the full benefit of his ministry.

If there is to be a compelling theology of the cross, one that is a true alternative to views of Christ's death as a sacrificial punishment administered by God, it must be one that does not abandon these texts and this language, but offers a different vision of their meaning.

It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to «receive» the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109 This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ's cross, the source of all Christian life.

- people believe the Savior is named «Jesus» and remain unsaved... - that Jesus» name really isn't «Jesus» He was never called «Jesus» in His life... - most people don't know the meaning of the name «Jesus»... - you say a person does not need to know ANYTHING about «Jesus» (e.g., that He is a man, that He is God, that He died for sins and rose again, that He isn't a Mexican somewhere in Tiajuana)-- other than that this guy is the guarantor of eternal life by faith alone... - you discount passages that say the lost are saved by the «preaching of the cross» (1Cor.

[24] See also Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei (1965), para. 27: «by means of the eucharistic mystery, the sacrifice of the cross, achieved once on Calvary, is marvellously symbolised, continually recalled to the memory, and its saving virtue is applied to the remission of sins...» (translated by Byron, op.cit., p. 70).

Whether they fed on him by faith in their hearts with thanksgiving by eating the bread and drinking the wine with «him at meal, or whether they gratefully permitted him to wash and dry their feet before the meal in anticipation of being cleansed by his blood on the cross, the meaning of both symbols was the same: We are saved from sin and transformed into new creatures in Christ Jesus only as we freely and gladly receive from him the benefits of his passion and death on the cross for our redemption.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

I'd play him in midfield with jack he reminds me Micheal Thomas we have bring sead kolosinic back in or even put him right back cause bellerin has being nothing short of disastrous in every way I like him as a man but my god he has not pushed on and I must say Cech looks so old and sluggish like last nite when Hernandez hit cross bar Cech looked so slow reactions gone we need keeper and I think Forster be great for us da guy at Southampton I think ozil will stay he's trying a lot more so would I to get 280 thousand weekly and Sanchez won't go cause not that he wants stay but he's form is very worrying hard take 3 weeks ago I looked at table and said we'll finish above spuds by ten points and in top 4 easily now we're behind them we have no consistency and manager that's just too old I love wenger always will but it's time and I think artery would be great choice for manager he meant be great coach maybe he's the one get Man City so great after all he loves arsenal maybe it's wenger plan go learn from pep and come bk when I leave take over and mersaker as he's no2 arteta and bfg take us forward and hand picked by wenger conspiracy theory begins

No matter how you slice it, you can't run an uptempo offence with Giroud on the pitch and that means sideways soccer and an over-reliance on crosses into the box, thereby negating many of the very reasons Lacazette was on your radar in the first place... we simply aren't clinical enough from wide positions to continue with that approach, which is why many fans have been clamoring for a viable alternative to Giroud for several years... once again this isn't an attack on Giroud, he clearly has some tangible skills, but his mere presence on the pitch greatly impacts your tactical options... Giroud's weaknesses are simply highlighted by the way in which our offence now moves in a more horizontal than vertical manner, which allows most teams ample time to regroup defensively before a scoring opportunity even arises... a player of Ibra's or Benzema's ilk would have been far more effective as they had size, speed and the first touch capabilities required to for intricate link - up play... once again square peg in a round hole

Madrid had some quality scoring chances, but a series of top - notch saves from Gianluigi Buffon and one brave block by Miralem Pjanic that may have rearranged his face a tad bit meant that Juventus hung on long enough for Mandzukic to score a second time in the 37th minute, this one a header off a perfectly weighted cross from Stephan Lichtsteiner.

We conceded a corner which didn't see the best of clearances, afterwards we had Gibbs take out Giroud and in the mean time a cross from the wing found both our defenders outdone by Vokes.

Keeping Giroud on this squad with the promise of substantial playing time... the offensive tactics of this squad is way too indirect and is much more reflective of a hold up play / cross in the box scheme that suits Giroud's skill - sets but can't continue if Wenger really wants Lacazette to be successful... without Sanchez on the pitch this offence is a little bit like a headless chicken, passing sideways, providing relatively poor service to undersized players and sub-par finishing... this isn't to suggest that Arsenal can't perform without Alexis but this offensive scheme is antiquated and ill - advised, especially considering our personnel (poor man's Barca)... if Arsenal doesn't want to pay the price to get topnotch players so we can press high and play all out attack, we would be better served by adopting a counterattack approach... unfortunately that would mean developing a far less skittish defensive group that could withstand the pressure and we all know that Wenger hasn't opted for that approach considering our defensive pickups in recent years and the lack of a «boss» in the midfield

In August 2012, the initial report on a review of the MMP system by the Electoral Commission recommended abolishing the one electorate seat threshold, meaning a party winning an electorate seat but not crossing the 5 % threshold (which the same report recommends lowering to 4 %) is only awarded that electorate seat.

Still, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by 40,000 in this district, meaning that Arcuri needs to convince thousands of GOPers to cross party lines.

Sifting through all of the possibilities for an 11 - set diagram would be an impossible task even for the combined might of Earth's computers, so the researchers narrowed the options by restricting the search to diagrams with a property called crosscut symmetry, meaning that a segment of each set crosses all the other sets exactly once.

This is no mean feat: An Earth - sized planet crossing in front of a sun - sized star dims its light by a mere 0.01 percent.

Light that is emitted or reflected by objects takes time to travel, and the vast distances it must cross to reach us from the farthest parts of the universe means that we see the most distant galaxies as they were billions of years ago.

What this means is that if the gut is unhealthy or «leaking», it will promote the formation of inflammatory cytokines which are able to reach the brain by crossing the blood brain barrier.

With Miitomo out and celebrating 10 million users, it was the first of five mobile games (even though Miitomo is more of an app than a game,) that was meant to be released by March 2016, which clearly never happened but it seems two of the remaining four are to be aFire Emblem and Animal Crossing title, which are expected for release, sometime during the Fall.

In Animal Crossing: Wild World, bugs are rated by size only, meaning the same species of insect may be able to overwrite an already existing entry.

Though not a challenging game by any means, Animal Crossing more than makes up for that with its sheer number of activities and a good sense of humor.