Sentences with phrase «doctrine of the resurrection of»

Perhaps today the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is simply too particular, too specific, too... biblical.

This is not gruesome: as Addis and Arnold wrote in relation to relics in their Catholic Dictionary, because of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body «Christians have lost that horror of dead bodies which was characteristic of the heathen».

The recovery of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body overagainst the immortality of the soul helped to prepare for Christian reaffirmation of the goodness of bodily existence and its sexuality.

Even if we believe the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body, it is beyond our power to alter or manipulate the glorified body that will come after our time on earth.

Nonetheless, in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body many generations of thoughtful and imaginative people have tried to envision what eternal life might be like; and, even more to the point, what it ought to be like if we are sensibly to desire it.

If scientists think through the consequences of their research, they will find considerable wisdom in the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

Theology responded to this new situation by reviving the ancient doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

The belief in the survival of the soul did not give rise to difficulties, but the impious objected with irony to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body: «Give us back our fathers if you speak the truth!»

His devotion to the Torah exhibits a knowledge of both written and oral law (a basic definition of Pharisaism as opposed to Sadducism and Essenism), and he repeatedly affirmed the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the eternal life of the soul.

The author provides an extended review of a book that describes how patristic and medieval thinkers dealt with the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

While using little of the traditional language of resurrection and judgment, Teilhard's figure of an ecstasy in the noosphere retains two essential elements in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

The Pope reaffirms the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body as the definitive accomplishment of the redemption of the body and then considers Christ's words, «For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.»

Not exact matches

My point was according to doctrine of the time, resurrections were fairly commonplace (in comparison to modern times, when we know the dead can not come back to life) and therefore not so special.

Our theology and doctrines, no matter how they are interpreted or by whom, do not make any of us righteous — the resurrection of Christ does.

The difficulties with the doctrine of resurrection did not disappear after the victories of the Pharisaic party in Judaism and the orthodox in early Christianity.

5 / Any modern - day or other Christian denominations accepting the mainstream doctrine of the Friday Crucifixion and Sunday Resurrection?

That's not about doctrines of «repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.»

That the souls of the just enjoy the Beatific Vision while yet awaiting the resurrection of their bodies is also solemnly defined doctrine (Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000; cf. Lumen Gentium 49).

While it is impossible in a scientific age to consider any literal acceptance of the doctrine of resurrection, it does point even better than the doctrine of immortality to some of the fundamentals of religious experience mentioned above.

Among evangelicals, so much emphasis has been placed on the doctrine of substiutionary atonement that the focus has shifted away from FOLLOWING the life and teachings of Jesus (in order to be saved from sin) to simply BELIEVING in the death and resurrection of Jesus (in order to be saved from judgment).

The age - long and still influential Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection thus goes back to primitive Hebrew behaviorism, which always conceived soul as a function of the material organism and never, like Greek philosophy, conceived immortality as escape from the imprisoning flesh.

The doctrine of resurrection is that man's destiny is to die but one day to be raised again to life, not as a disembodied spirit, but with a body — usually the original one possessed during life.

I have to agree with the resurrection and there fore the word of God, but what issues aside from these issues (assuming you disagree with these minor issues), what issues as doctrine make the new testament something that would not be acceptable, considering that the issue is sin?

To be sure, we have an expanded canon of Scripture, but nothing within the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price contradicts what is taught in the Bible regarding the virgin birth (which, by the way, we definitely believe in), teachings, miracles, atoning sacrifice, or bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

The result was an attempt to «demythologise» religion, to prune away all references to the supernatural: events like miracles and the resurrection of the dead, and doctrines like the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

More will be said on the Biblical view of man later, but it is sufficient to point out here, that it is just because the Bible hardly anywhere reflects a doctrine of an immortal soul, that the Christian hope took the form of the resurrection of the body.

Nygren gives an important suggestion about the history of doctrine when he says that the Church Fathers were saved from falling completely into a Greek pattern of thought by the three biblical assertions of Creation, Incarnation, and Resurrection.32 But rather than conclude, as Nygren does, that these themes require us to reject all metaphysics, why not say that they require us to reconsider our metaphysics?

The church affirmed an increasingly detailed body of authoritative Christian doctrine in which hope for the world to come had been subtly transferred to a distant future, to be reached only after death and resurrection.

Unless one can accept, say, the doctrines of the Virgin Birth, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, and the Trinity, then one can not be a Christian believer.

He emphasizes the affirmation of the goodness of the material world, the refusal to regard the body as evil, and the significance of the resurrection doctrine in opposition to the Greek views of the immortality of the soul.

That a congregation's defining practice of worship is a response «in Jesus» name» implies study of that to which it is a response: Just how is God understood to be «present» is Jesus» ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection appearances; what understanding of God follows from this; who is Jesus; what are the sources and the warrants of these characterizations of Jesus and of God (scripture, tradition, history of doctrine); what understanding of these sources makes them not only sources but also authoritative for these understandings of God and Jesus?

The resurrection life, when it comes in fullness, is the life of fellowship with God at the feast of Is 25:6 - 8, which he quotes in 1 Cor 15 as being the source of his resurrection doctrine.

He's developing an argument about the significance of the doctrine of the resurrection by discussing the logical consequence of denying it (verses 12 - 19), going on a very typical Pauline digression almost as if he's overcome by joy at the positive truth and has to triumphantly proclaim it (verses 20 - 28) then finally returning to drive home the practical point again (verses 29 - 35).

The doctrine of resurrection presupposes a reembodied soul, not a disembodied one.5

This model conflicts with the Christian affirmation of the body that is implicit in the doctrines of creation, incarnation and the resurrection of the body.

But when I have seen this, my next task is to let the book's message universalize itself in my mind as God's own teaching or doctrine (to use the word that Calvin loved) now addressed to humankind in general and to me in particular within the frame of reality created by the death, resurrection, and present dominion of Jesus Christ.

And... if Jesus was sinful... then, entire doctrines of justification and resurrection can be erased from the Bible.

It upholds core doctrines such as the Incarnation, God as Trinity, Christ's physical resurrection, and the necessity of Christ for salvation.

The booklets reaffirmed what the writers took to be the fundamental and unchangeable doctrines of Christianity: the infallibility of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, miracles, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the substitutionary view of the Atonement.

The biblical expression for this action is the resurrection of the body, thus preserving the doctrine of the unity of man, and rejecting the conception of the soul as a spiritual entity in man which is naturally endowed with the capacity to persist beyond death.

Anyway from Wiki A fourth point of conflict, specifically religious, involved different interpretations of the Torah and how to apply it to current Jewish life, with the Sadducees recognizing only the Written Torah and rejecting doctrines such as the Oral Torah and the Resurrection of the Dead.

Debate at Fuller has never touched such major orthodox doctrines as the deity of Christ, the resurrection, virgin birth, or second coming.

Just as in the gospels the most important thing is the incarnation, death and resurrection, while the how of the incarnation, the virgin birth, lies in the hinterland; so also in respect to the doctrine of Scripture, while inspiration is as clearly taught as the virgin birth, it lies rather in the hinterland.»

’26 Clearly, some members of the Corinthian church had rejected the Pharisaic doctrine of resurrection (or its Greek equivalent)-- a doctrine that was accepted by Jesus, by Paul, and by the evangelists.

It deals with Christology and the doctrine of God, as well as prayer, the resurrection, heaven, etc. and it provides a general introduction to Whitehead's thought.128 The Task of Philosophical Theology by C. J. Curtis, a Lutheran theologian, is a process exposition of numerous «theological notions» important to the «conservative, traditional» Christian viewpoint.129 Two very fine semi-popular introductions to process philosophy as a context for Christian theology are The Creative Advance by E. H. Peters130 and Process Thought and Christian Faith by Norman Pittenger.131 The latter, reflecting the concerns of a theologian, provides a concise introduction to the process view of God together with briefer comments on man, Christ, and «eternal life.»

In these terms, the proposition that Jesus lives on subjectively is the supreme instance of some more general proposition as to individual survival after death: to reach a decision as to this supreme instance one would first have to investigate the general concept of resurrection, which lies beyond our present task.25 It must here suffice to answer that these proposals neither affirm nor deny the doctrine that both Jesus and the «souls of the righteous» live on subjectively.

We can not here embark on the doctrine of God, but I would wish to affirm both God's transcendence in one aspect of his being and his temporality in another aspect, and to say that God does act within our temporal history, and that the response of faith itself a part of history, affecting what follows — is a response to the ontological reality to which it points in saying God has acted.1 I affirm that God so acted within the wider event «Jesus Christ,» and in particular in his resurrection.

Indeed I commend them for your consideration largely because they offer a meaningful interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus, and of ourselves, which does not depend upon that doctrine.

Secondly, the doctrine of resurrection had always had a close association with martyrdom, and consequently held a strong attraction for a struggling, persecuted community.

We shall now trace the path taken in Christian thought by the hope of a general resurrection, a doctrine, which, far from being unique to Christianity, has been shared by Jew and Muslim, and which, in the first place, as we have seen, was partly borrowed from Persian Zoroastrianism.