Sentences with phrase «kerygma from»

To separate kerygma from myth is the positive function of demythologization.

We agree with HBK that the second alternative is the right one, for only that can prevent the kerygma from disintegrating into philosophy.

I should answer that such an understanding of the way in which the compilation of the gospel narratives took place, and also of the nature of the material which they contain, delivers us in our preaching of the kerygma from much that was troublesome and confusing to an earlier generation.

Not exact matches

And on the other hand the historical Jesus can not for methodological reasons be approached in terms of sayings where kerygmatic language occurs, but only in terms of sayings diverging from the language of the kerygma.

This parallel has been obscured by the fact that the term «kerygma» can ambiguously refer both to fragments of primitive Christian preaching embedded in the New Testament text, and to the word of God I encounter from the pulpit or in my neighbour today.

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.»

Nor has anything been more characteristic of recent research than the gradual detection of early kerygmatic fragments in the New Testament, in which the original eschatological meaning of the christological titles used in the kerygma is still apparent, and is clearly distinct from their later metaphysical use: Jesus is «exalted» to the rank of cosmocrator with the «name that is above every name,... Lord Jesus Christ», in order to subjugate the universe (Phil.

Hence the classical Protestant distinction between law and grace no longer seems necessarily to separate Jesus from the Church's kerygma.

The extent to which the kerygma continues to reveal the existential meaning of Jesus can be illustrated from an interesting Pauline passage, I Cor.

This criticism might lead one to suppose that such a method is valid only in terms of the original quest, which largely rejected the kerygma as a falsification of Jesus, and consequently set Out to distinguish him sharply from that theological perversion.

There is virtually no teaching on creation, even in the first talk - yet this is a foundational aspect of the Christian kerygma, and has been from the earliest times.

Sölle criticizes Bultmann for turning from Jesus to the witness to Jesus's death and resurrection in his search for the kerygma.

A good example wd be to consider the differences and obvious growth of Christological understanding in the four gospels.Also, the difficulty is in trying to seperate the kerygma (the message) from the meaning (theology)... they're two sides of the same coin

It's true that scholars say M, M, L, and J wrote their gospels «from the kerygma», or after salvation.

The evangelist, therefore, is deliberately subordinating the «futurist» element in the eschatology of the early Church to the «realized eschatology» which, as I have tried to show, was from the first the distinctive and controlling factor in the kerygma.

For Dodd's approach to succeed, it would be necessary to show that the inclusion of details from Jesus» life is not part of the adiaphora, i.e. not just one means among others of emphasizing the incarnation, but rather that it is indispensable for conveying the existential meaning of the kerygma, i.e. is constitutive of the kerygma as eschatological event.

While theology advanced from the positions established by Paul and John, the form and language of the Church's worship adhered more closely to the forms of the kerygma.

And here too, just as in the case of the sermons in Acts (2.22; 10.38), the use of various Jewish and Hellenistic styles of narrating the divine in history» should not mislead us as to the normative kerygmatic significance which is to be maintained throughout this transition from «kerygma» to «narrative».

The complete absence from the kerygma of a chronology for the public ministry should have been sufficient evidence to indicate that the kind of historicity in which the kerygma was interested differed basically from that with which Dodd was occupied.

Nowhere are we closer to the Christian kerygma: hope is hope of resurrection, resurrection from the dead.

Comparison with other forms of the kerygma may enable us to expand the outline with probability; but so much of its content can be demonstrated from the epistles, and the evidence they afford is of primary value.

As we shall see, this formula is deeply rooted in the kerygma, and is ultimately derived from Ps.

In fact, the task of the philosopher appears to me here to be distinguished from that of the theologian, in the following manner: biblical theology has the function of developing the kerygma according to its own conceptual system; it has the duty of criticizing preaching, both by confronting it with its origin and by reorganizing it in a meaningful framework, in a discourse of its own kind, corresponding to the internal coherence of the kerygma itself.

It is true that the kerygma as we have recovered it from the Pauline epistles is fragmentary.

I therefore see as converging toward the idea of a post-Hegelian Kantianism the spontaneous restructurings of our philosophical memory and those which proceed from the shock effect of the kerygma of hope on the philosophical problematic and on the structures of its discourse.

As the epistles from which we have quoted belong to the fifties of the first century, they are evidence of prime value for the content of the early kerygma.

Apart from faith in the resurrection no kerygma would have been proclaimed and no Gospel would have been written.

So far, then, from running away from Historie and taking refuge in Geschichte, I am deliberately renouncing any form of encounter with a phenomenon of past history, including an encounter with the Christ after the flesh, in order to encounter the Christ proclaimed in the kerygma, which confronts me in my historic situation.

The last twenty years have witnessed a movement away from criticism and a return to a naïve acceptance of the kerygma.

We discern, however, in Matthew and Luke a certain departure from the original perspective and emphasis of the kerygma.

It is my aim also to show that the appearance or garb of mythology can to a large extent be removed from the New Testament kerygma.

The nativity narratives, on the other hand, which are in formal contradiction to the genealogies (since these trace the Davidic descent of Jesus through Joseph, though he was not, according to the nativity narratives, His father) can not be derived from the kerygma.3.

Now, if the Gospel according to Mark may be regarded as based upon an expanded form of the middle, or historical, section, we must observe that this section is not, in Mark any more than in the kerygma, isolated from the general scheme.

Can the kerygma be interpreted apart from mythology?

(g) The mythological element in the kerygma is not, we have shown, the importation into the New Testament of ideas from non-Biblical religions, ideas which could be eliminated or superseded by interpreting the underlying understanding of human life.

From this position at which Bultmann has arrived it is only one step to the «post-Bultmannian» recognition that the actual demythologizing which went on within the primitive Church was the «historicizing» process taking place within the kerygma and leading to the writing of Gospels, as has been discussed above.

Reading these words, we wonder how directly Ricoeur believes that he can move from the Resurrection kerygma to the determinate concrete actions.

Thus the kerygma proclaims the death in which resides life (Mark 8.35), a kerygma incarnated in Jesus and therefore shifting terminologically from Jesus» own eschatological message into the Church's christological kerygma: this death in which life resides is Jesus» death, and becomes available only in dying and rising with him.

Thus they largely precluded their situation for the following generations, until we today attempt to disengage their historical information about Jesus from the kerygma in terms of which they remembered him.

If such encounter is not (like the encounter with the kerygma) the eschatological event, i.e. «Christian», then one must conclude that the message, intention, self, i.e. person, of the historical Jesus is different from what the kerygma says his reality is.

This emphasis in the kerygma upon the historicity of Jesus is existentially indispensable, precisely because the kerygma, while freeing us from a life «according to the flesh», proclaims the meaningfulness of life «in the flesh».

Therefore, far from the objective and the existential being contraries — as happens when there is too exclusive an attachment to the opposition between myth and kerygma — it must be said that the meaning of the text holds these two moments closely together.

Bultmann the philosopher argues, jumps directly from the kerygma stated in the barest terms, «that God has drawn near to us in Christ,» to faith understood equally starkly as the surrender of my self - will that I may stand radically before God.22 This leap ignores the question of how the actual language of the Bible — in its various literary forms — conveys content, sense, meaning, to

«69 Once this kerygma is disentangled from Hellenistic epiphany religion, we see that «the Resurrection, interpreted within a theology of promise, is not an event which closes, by fulfilling the promise, but an event which opens, because it adds to the promise by confirming it.

In a celebrated essay published during World War II, he acknowledged that the classical form of Christian proclamation (kerygma) in which the living Christ was communicated was couched in terminology drawn from the now obsolete cosmology of the ancient world.»

For in spite of this factuality of the cross, it would none the less be a purely mythological kerygma — i.e. a kerygma speaking of a selfhood which never existed — if the «cross» were looked upon only as a physical, biological occurrence, as accidental or involuntary, i.e. as completely distinct from his existential selfhood.

In any case, I have taken a narrative from the Gospels, rather than the apostolic kerygma, as my illustration of how faith is generated mainly because the Gospels pose the problem of historical veracity much more acutely.

Recurring items in the kerygma include the statements that Jesus was the promised messiah; that he was crucified, died and was buried; that he was raised from the dead and exalted to Cod's right hand; that he will come again as judge.

It is interesting that in Romans 10:17 Paul seems to think) of Christ himself as speaking through his messengers, who proclaim the kerygma: «So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.»

Cross and resurrection, in so far as they have a place in the kerygma at all, figure only as symbols of detachment from the world.