Sentences with phrase «kerygma there»

In the Jerusalem kerygma there is an equal sense of immediacy.

Not exact matches

Now when one compares these typical instances of Jesus» message and the Church's kerygma, one can readily observe that there is a complete separation in terminology, and even in doctrine: Jesus» message is eschatological, the Church's kerygma is christological.

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.

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.

In this survey of the apostolic Preaching and its developments two facts have come into view: first, that within the New Testament there is an immense range of variety in the interpretation that is given to the kerygma; and, secondly, that in all such interpretation the essential elements of the original kerygma are steadily kept in view.

It is true that in other forms of the kerygma in Acts there is no such explicit reference to the Spirit in the Church, except in v. 32, which belongs to what is probably a secondary doublet of the story given in iii - iv.

There is, it seems to me, in the kerygma of hope, both an innovation of meaning and a demand for intelligibility, which simultaneously create the measure and the task of approximation.

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

The phrase «Son of God with power» there carries much the same ideas as the phrase «Lord and Christ» in the Jerusalem kerygma, for its significance is Messianic rather than properly theological.

But it also means that wherever the Gospels keep close to the matter and form of the kerygma, there we are in touch with a tradition coeval with the Church itself.

First, there can be no question of getting behind the mythological form of the kerygma by extracting a non-mythical kernel of truth.

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.

Hence there is hermeneutics in the Christian order because the kerygma is the rereading of an ancient Scripture.

Now that we have learnt to regard them as the word of the Church, there is no excuse for failing to recognize the importance attached by the Church to the kerygma of the earthly Jesus.

That there was a Jesus and that he was crucified is the necessary historical presupposition for the kerygma, the proclamation of the Church.

This is a question of peculiar force in America, where the tradition is to «believe in Jesus» and where there are a multitude of conflicting and competing kerygmata; where everything from radical right racism to revolutionary Christian humanism is proclaimed as kerygma, and as Christian.

But the subsequent discussion showed that Bultmann was concerned to minimize this element of continuity for the following reasons: (1) he was fearful that historical research might come to be used to legitimate the kerygma, which would be a denial of its nature as kerygma; and (2) he insisted that there can be no real material continuity, because the kerygma lays major emphasis upon a particular understanding of the death of Jesus, whereas we can never know how the historical Jesus understood his own death, and must always face the possibility that he simply broke down before it.

But, in regard to historical study, there is no difference between historical - critical study of a past form of the kerygma arid that study of the teaching of Jesus.

The «Christology» emergent here is of a piece, I believe, with parabolic indirection: there is no kerygma about Jesus, no Superstar Christology, only a hidden, mysterious, indirect pointing through the familiar events of this very human life to the unfamiliar: «he's just a man» but «he scares me so.»