Sentences with phrase «kerygma does»

But the kerygma does not void the myths by which society characterizes itself.

The kerygma does, however, demand faith in the Christ present in it, and offers salvation now to those who believe in him.

The kerygma does not require that; in fact, everything it says about understanding, apprehension, truth, and teaching implies the contrary.

The historical Jesus confronts us with existential decision, just as the kerygma does.

Thus the kerygma is largely uninterested in historiography of the nineteenth - century kind, for the kerygma does not lie on the level of objectively verifiable fact.

The kerygma does not commit one to assume the historicity of this or that scene in Jesus» life, but it does commit one to a specific understanding of his life.

Not exact matches

Now since Paul understands the kerygma as calling for basically the same decision as did the historical Jesus, it would seem that faith in the heavenly Lord not only coincides with commitment to the selfhood of the historical Jesus, but also involves a positive response to his message.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

The Gospels have in their way met this problem, not only by placing the kerygma on Jesus» lips, but also by presenting individual units from the tradition in such a way that the whole gospel becomes visible: At the call of Levi, we hear (Mark 2.17): «I came not to call the righteous, but sinners»; at the healing of the deaf - mute, we hear (Mark 7.37): «He has done all things well; he even makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak.»

It is therefore quite significant that a recent article by Bultmann seems to be by implication a defence of Ksemarm's position against an initial criticism by the Barthian Hermann Diem: Diem had maintained that when all is said and done Käsemann has presented Jesus as only proclaiming «general religious and moral truths» about «the freedom of the children of God», rather than a message in continuity with the Church's kerygma.

For its «historicity» depends upon the demonstration that it does not present the Church's view and consequently could not have originated there since the new quest of the historical Jesus is primarily concerned with investigating the area in which Jesus and the Church's kerygma overlap, the limitation of current methods for identifying historical material is apparent, and the resultant methodological difficulty must be recognized.

It is precisely after we have made an effort to face such problems as these that we can bring the kerygma in all its glory to the people with whom we have to do.

We are convinced that this restatement does better justice to the real meaning of the New Testament and to the paradox of the kerygma.

Rev Gumbel has done a fine job mediating between various protestant theologies, and arguing that he is presenting a sort of common denominator «kerygma» between Catholic and reformed traditions.

It is in the epistles of Paul, therefore, that full justice is done for the first time to the principle of» realized eschatology» which is vital to the whole kerygma.

Mark did not follow the outline of the collected «Sammelbericht» simply because he was unaware of them as assembled into a chronological outline by Dodd, but knew of them only as he himself presents them: a series of independent generalizing summaries, probably, like the kerygma and the Gospels, primarily topical in nature.

I will here only state my belief that it will be found that the primitive kerygma arises directly out of the teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God and all that hangs upon it; but that it does only partial justice to the range and depth of His teaching, and needs the Pauline and Johannine interpretations before it fully rises to the height of the great argument.

There are three points in the Pauline kerygma which do not directly appear in the Jerusalem kerygma of Acts:

According to Acts, Paul did preach in terms closely similar to those of the Petrine kerygma of Acts x.

All this is no more than is implied in the phrase of the kerygma which describes Him as «going about doing good, because God was with Him,» and it affords a necessary and valuable supplement to the Marcan picture of the strong Son of God, and the Matthaean picture of the royal Lawgiver.

For the kerygma maintains that the eschatological emissary of God is a concrete figure of a particular historical past, that his eschatological activity was wrought out in a human fate, and that therefore it is an event whose eschatological character does not admit of a secular proof.

The God of the Apocalypse can hardly be recognized as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor has the fierce Messiah, whose warriors ride in blood up to their horses» bridles, many traits that could recall Him of whom the primitive kerygma proclaimed that He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.

It speaks of this person in mythological terms, but does this mean that we can reject the kerygma altogether on the ground that it is nothing more than mythology?

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do, after all, fall well within the general scheme of the kerygma, though they subtly alter its perspective.

But I am glad to note your agreement with me on the other points, and I do not deny that the resurrection kerygma is firmly rooted to the earthly figure of the crucified Jesus.

Can we recover the truth of the kerygma for men who do not think in mythological terms without forfeiting its character as kerygma?

Does this drastic criticism of the New Testament mythology mean the complete elimination of the kerygma?

The kerygma of the early Christians did not know of a redemptive act of God which was not directed to the whole world.

Bultmann agrees that modern man can not accept the mythology, but he does not want him to have to content himself with a timeless sublimation of the gospel: he is looking for another alternative, which will rescue the historicity of the gospel and so retain its character as kerygma.

More especially, it has to do with the enterprise known as «de-mythologization», in relation to what the father of that enterprise calls existenzialinterpretation of the biblical material and most importantly of the material that has to do with the kerygma or the Christian gospel to which faith is a response.

In doing so we shall bear in mind that such instruction, both in the literature and in the established practice of the primitive church, was made to depend upon the affirmations of the kerygma.

Of course this does not mean that the historian automatically accepts the kerygma as the correct interpretation of Jesus» meaning, for it, like any other interpretation, is subject to critical reexamination.

The historical Jesus does not legitimize the kerygma with a proven divine fact, but instead confronts us with action and a self which, like the exorcisms, may be understood either as God's Spirit (Mark 3.29; Mart.

It is for this reason that the kerygma has become a whole unified theological position which has just as nearly swept the field in twentieth - century theology as did the theology of the historical Jesus in the nineteenth century.

Does one encounter in the kerygma a symbolized principle, or interpreted history?

This is not to say that faith hangs upon the question in the history of ideas as to whether Jesus appropriated any specific title available in his culture, or whether he ever spoke as does the kerygma in terms of his death and resurrection.

The Gospels however do not present the historical Jesus in distinction fr9m the kerygma, but rather present a kerygmatized history of Jesus

The first alternative conceives of the kerygma much as did the comparative - religious school, i.e. as a symbol objectifying a given type of piety, which in turn is the principle or essence of the religion.»

How does he expound the kerygma within purely Christian terms?

The responsibility of Christians today is to proclaim the kerygma in our situation, but `... we must nevertheless implement the kerygma's claim to be proclaiming a Lord who is at one with Jesus, and we must do this by critical participation in the discussion of the Jesus - tradition of our day».