Sentences with phrase «many other biblical texts»

Together with the opening line of the Letter to the Hebrews («In ancient times God spoke to man through prophets and in varied ways, but now he speaks through Christ, His Son...»), as well as many other biblical texts, this passage reveals to us a startling truth.

For example, Moses Stuart of Andover Seminary in Massachusetts (who was sympathetic to the eventual emancipation of American slaves, but was against abolition), published a tract in which he pointed to Ephesians 6 and other biblical texts to argue that while slaves should be treated fairly by their owners, abolitionists just didn't have Scripture on their side and «must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the fiery course which they are pursuing.»

Romans 1 and other biblical texts state that God has revealed certain truths about Himself in nature so that men are without excuse.

THAT is, or at least should be, the «common sense» one brings to evaluating the veracity of the gospels and other biblical texts.

We remember other biblical texts written in the same vein: «Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors» (Matt.

You also now have some Biblical interpretation skills that you can apply to other Biblical texts — those that are your favorites or those that have proven difficult to understand.

Not exact matches

And all of these others have also based their views on careful exegesis of the biblical text, in its grammatical, cultural, historical contexts.

No rational person makes decisions based on such distorted logic in any other area of life, and decisions regarding the textual veracity of the Biblical text should not be an exception to that rule.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

By providing only fragments from biblical books (in this case part of an oracle from Isaiah, a reassurance from Paul, a parable from Jesus), they leave a suggestive opening, not only to other texts...

Theology in the Reformation tradition has explored other alternatives, as in the «Andover theory» which views biblical texts such as 2 Peter 3:19 «20 and 4:6 and Christ's descent to the dead referenced in the Apostles» Creed as warranting belief in the Hound of Heaven pursuing the last and the least.

Without sources other than the biblical texts themselves, there are no absolutely certain criteria for establishing historicity.

It is not an interactive discussion of a biblical text for the instruction and edification of other believers.

But this is to misread the biblical texts in order to make them serve other than their intended purposes.

The loss of biblical language in public rhetoric or in public education may have telling effect (Lincoln might be incomprehensible today) Sunday school and other agencies of biblical education, where the texts can be restored and minds can as well be re-stored, are neglected, signaling that citizens are not really serious when they ask for more religion in the schools.

Secondly, selective use of other scriptures is in tune with the Christian principle of selective use of Biblical texts.

Theological hermeneutics should have a «spiral structure» in which there is ongoing circulation between culture, tradition, and biblical text, each enriching the understanding of the other.

We know that there is also wisdom to be found, much of it similar to Biblical wisdom, in the sacred texts and stories of other faiths and traditions and we are glad to have those, also, to help us discern the direction of our lives and paths.

Other feminists, more critical of the Bible itself, have attempted to expose and analyze the patriarchal elements in the biblical text in order to show how the patriarchal values can be separated from the essentially liberating values that form its primary message.

Other writers — e.g., Virginia Mollenkott and Paul Jewett — admit that various biblical texts do inculcate male domination, but that such «problem texts» (problematic only to feminists, note) should be ignored in favor of the implicit thrust of other, egalitarian texts such as Galatians Other writers — e.g., Virginia Mollenkott and Paul Jewett — admit that various biblical texts do inculcate male domination, but that such «problem texts» (problematic only to feminists, note) should be ignored in favor of the implicit thrust of other, egalitarian texts such as Galatians other, egalitarian texts such as Galatians 3:28.

Consequently, we welcome the readings offered by feminists and other interpreters whose experience enables them to hear the biblical texts in new and challenging ways.

One side expects too little from the Biblical text; the other, too much.

I have a hunch that one explanation accounts for the silence of evangelical biblical scholars more than any other: the basic fear that their findings, as they deal with the text of Scripture, will conflict with the popular understanding of what inerrancy entails.

I'm talking to these Christians posting biblical texts all over here, they love to quote the first 4 gospels and pretend their religion is soft and cuddly, when in reality it's just as dangerous as any of the other religions.

and that just as you want them to listen to how you arrived at your conclusions regarding the text (and don't say, «I just read the Bible,» because you didn't), so also, that other person likely engaged in deep study of the biblical text to arrive at their understanding and it would benefit you to hear how they came to their understanding.

Disagree with the other person if you want to, but recognize that they are trying to understand and explain the text just as much as you are, and that just as you want them to listen to how you arrived at your conclusions regarding the text (and don't say, «I just read the Bible,» because you didn't), so also, that other person likely engaged in deep study of the biblical text to arrive at their understanding and it would benefit you to hear how they came to their understanding.

In The Fidelity of Betrayal, Rollins goes on to criticize the Western Church's almost frantic attempt at «closing over this traumatic rent in the text» by affirming some biblical narratives over others and by explaining away passages that are inconsistent with favored narratives.

The joy of self - discovery in the biblical text leads directly to the joy of teaching the text to others.

By providing only fragments from biblical books (in this case part of an oracle from Isaiah, a reassurance from Paul, a parable from Jesus), they leave a suggestive opening, not only to other texts but also to the even more fragmented tissues of our individual lives.

The alleged subordination of the gospel to Karl Marx is illustrated, for example, by charging that «false» liberation theology concentrates too much on a few selected biblical texts that are always given a political meaning, leading to an overemphasis on «material» poverty and neglecting other kinds of poverty; that this leads to a «temporal messianism» that confuses the Kingdom of God with a purely «earthly» new society, so that the gospel is collapsed into nothing but political endeavor; that the emphasis on social sin and structural evil leads to an ignoring or forgetting of the reality of personal sin; that everything is reduced to praxis (the interplay of action and reflection) as the only criterion of faith, so that the notion of truth is compromised; and that the emphasis on communidades de base sets a so - called «people's church» against the hierarchy.

Still other Christian theologians and biblical scholars maintain that faith is built not on what we know about the historical Jesus, nor on interpretations that offer the demythologized message of the New Testament texts, but on what we find in the texts themselves.

with the exception of some small bits out of the books of the prophets — virtually none of the other biblical scribblings were contemporaneous with events described within them, and ALL of the texts were subject to revision for a really long time from people who came along after they were originally written.

But the normativeness of Scripture should still take seriously the reality of a spectrum of other views among listeners, ranging from the Bible as an imprimatur on the preached word to the biblical text as having little inherent authority (Allen).

But evangelicals are included in the «others»; no less than liberals they seek to understand Scripture according to the particular historical contexts in which biblical texts were written ¯ with the one difference being that they consider themselves bound to receive what they conclude the text to say as authoritative rather than open to improvement.

One can point to the emergence of a variety of critical approaches to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular, which have contributed to the breakdown of certainties: These include historical - critical and other new methods for the study of biblical texts, feminist criticism of Christian history and theology, Marxist analysis of the function of religious communities, black studies pointing to long - obscured realities, sociological and anthropological research in regard to cross-cultural religious life, and examinations of traditional teachings by non-Western scholars.

There were other issues too: The way the accounts of Israel's monarchy contradicted one another, the way Jesus and Paul quoted Hebrew Scripture in ways that seemed to stretch the original meaning, the fact that women were considered property in Levitical Law, the way both science and archeology challenged the historicity of so many biblical texts, and the fact that it was nearly impossible for me to write a creative retelling of Resurrection Day because each of the gospel writers tell the story so differently, sometimes with contradictory details.

We will show how Gregory weaves scriptural resources intrinsically into his pastoral care in such a way that biblical texts and pastoral practice are inseparable, and the one can not be conceived without the other.

«Listener to the Christian message, «2 occasional preacher, 3 dialoguer with biblical scholars, theologians, and specialists in the history of religions, 4 Ricoeur is above all a philosopher committed to constructing as comprehensive a theory as possible of the interpretation of texts.5 A thoroughly modern man (if not, indeed, a neo-Enlightenment figure) in his determination to think «within the autonomy of responsible thought, «6 Ricoeur finds it nonetheless consistent to maintain that reflection which seeks, beyond mere calculation, to «situate [us] better in being, «7 must arise from the mythical, narrative, prophetic, poetic, apocalyptic, and other sorts of texts in which human beings have avowed their encounter both with evil and with the gracious grounds of hope.

Many times, when people of faith are challenged about their anti-gay views, they cite biblical verses or other religious texts as a safe haven when they are unable to articulate why they hold prejudiced atudes toward LGBT people.

I will not engage in a contest of pitting «experts» opinions against each other as such an exercise is as pointless as biblical proof texting.

On the major questions of theological controversy — creation ex nihilo, individual providence, miracles, prophecy — Maimonides typically surveys the opinions offered by Aristotle and others alongside the Torah, in order to arrive at an interpretation of the biblical text that is religiously plausible and philosophically sound.

A new addition to the Passage Guide that helps you connect concepts that are common to the Biblical world, and explore them in other ancient texts.

The errors of Valentinus and Marcion are thus exposed before Hurtado analyzes other influential texts, both biblical and extrabiblical, which express Christ's godliness: The Book of Revelation, The Ascension of Isaiah, and The Shepherd of Hermas.

WITNESSES OF JESUS: Please provide any other reference that Jesus existed and was the son of God that is not a biblical text.

Similarly today, Pastors and professors who develop a fresh way of understanding a biblical text are often afraid to share it with others, due to the theological backlash they are sure to receive.

but all of the others who quote biblical text annoy the sh & * out of me shut the f up and just state your opinion, we do nt need a lecture!

In part three of the section dealing with «Relationship with Other Theological Disciplines», entitled «Exegesis and Moral Theology» the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission states:

The more I studied, the more convinced I became that we Christians had applied a different standard to the homosexuality texts than we had to other Scriptural texts, and that condemning Christ - centered relationships solely based on gender was actually inconsistent with biblical teaching.

This approach tends, then, to set up transactional views as «atonement plus,» and to lend weight to their claims to be more biblical and more authentically Christian, since they deny nothing in the other approaches but include positive readings of the central sacrificial texts and images of the tradition.

Others — most notably Ricoeur — have made the same observation, arguing that metaphor contributes to the multivalency of biblical meaning and thus to the enduring appeal of biblical texts.8 But Frye's argument is different.