Sentences with phrase «much of the old testament»

Reminds me very much of the Old Testament and idol worship that the Israelites engaged in.

Although much of the Old Testament does have historically verifiable occurances, the lead characters are heads of state or high priests or the stories are about the nation as a whole.

We must read the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus, and see that Jesus shows us what God is truly like, even though much of the Old Testament portrays something quite different.

The main problem with this view is that those who hold a Christological approach sometimes simply write off much of the Old Testament revelation of God as being hopelessly in error.

Much of the old testament was written by Moses.

Many of us find a God presented in much of the Old Testament who looks much different than the Jesus we find in the New Testament.

Much of the Old Testament centers in the attempts of the Hebrews to live up to the requirements of this covenant, their apostasies, God's judgments upon them, his promise of a Messiah to deliver them even in spite of their sins.

In particular, he said, he began to see much of the Old Testament as unoriginal stories that had been told in many pagan traditions.

I was just telling the congregation at the church I serve about how I learned so much of the Old Testament from the Picture Bible.

They had trouble knowing how much of the Old Testament law they still had to keep, and if they were supposed to keep any of it.

Much of the Old Testament is filled with blood, whether it is the blood spilled in the sacrificial rituals of the Mosaic Law or the blood spilled during Canaanite Conquest and subsequent wars of Israel.

What's more, they reinterpreted as much of the Old Testament as they could to make it seem predictive of their new theology.

A comparison with the European setting — where so much of Old Testament method was developed — is revealing.

If I can not get Jesus and the God of the Old Testament to fit together in a coherent way which maintains the love, grace, and mercy of God, then I may find myself within the ranks of those who simply write off much of the Old Testament as hopelessly full of errors.

Enns goes on to remind readers that «a text's meaning is rooted in its historical and literary context,» and to argue that the historical and literary context of much of the Old Testament can be found in the questions and concerns of post-exilic Israel.

While I'll agree that much of the bible is stories and fables (Catholics don't typically view much of the old testament as hard fact, but as a way for God to teach mankind right from wrong and ways to live), even some atheists follow the teachings of Christ.

William Tyndale (c. 1494 - 1536), a priest who had been in both Oxford and Cambridge, using Greek, Hebrew, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Latin translation by Erasmus, and Luther's German Bible, made an English translation of the New Testament and of much of the Old Testament which were of substantial assistance to later translators.

Not exact matches

There is sooooo much more proof that religion is a farce then there is supporting the fables in your book of Mormons, old testaments, new testaments and Quran!!!

Old testament scripture shows us that God the Father hated homosexuality so much He destroyed two entire cities because of it.

If a lot of radical Xtians had their way then we would be under a theocracy and using the laws of the old testament, which aren't much different than the koran.

For your information Mormons also believe in the New Testament and Old Testament and study it as much as the Book of Mormon.

In this discovery, I owed much to Karl Löwith's lectures on the theological rootage of modern philosophies of history as well as to Gerhard von Rad's interpretation of the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, besides Jesus, only John the Baptist is praised as much as Mary, yet in spite of her scriptural credentials she has functioned less in my Protestant theology than has John — and certainly less than the Old Testament prophets and such remarkable Old Testament women as Miriam and Deborah.

This is very much the case for a spiritual people growing spiritually, as we clearly read concerning the people of the Old Testament.

Anyway, last week, we talked about Chapter 2 — «The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature» — in which Enns tackles the difficult question of how to understand the Bible as special and revelatory when Genesis in particular looks so much like other literature from the ancient Near Eastern world.

A subtle form of oppression has been the subjection of the congregation to the preacher's own private canon of Scripture, which frequently excluded most of the Old Testament and much of the New.

The body was taken for granted as the basic and necessary constituent of a man — so much taken for granted that there is no special and distinct word for body in the Old Testament at all.

Don't have much else to add — I don't know where you get the idea that the Bible is not exclusive, unless you completely ignore the Old Testament and quite a bit of Paul's letters, and the parable which speak of Hell.

Indeed, in no particular is the distinction between the Testaments much more marked than in the slight stress on faith in the Old and the centrality of it in the New.

But since the way God behaves in the Old Testament looks much different from the way God behaves in the revelation of Jesus Christ, the chronological approach to learning about God leaves us with what Greg Boyd calls a «Janus faced God.»

Jeremiah 18:21, 23) A notable amount of praying in the Old Testament is thus cursing, and lest Christians should assume too much credit in this regard, a similar abuse of prayer, all the more inexcusable because sinning against light, stands in the New Testament — «How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?»

In Old Testament times the problem of subsistence was frequently so difficult and national calamities fell with such repeated dreadfulness that much of the supplication recorded was motived by crisis and was aimed at material recovery.

Yet the Old Testament says much about the final end of the wicked — in principles, pictures, prototypes, and prophecies.

Their followers wrote them and the church patriarchs connected much of the words spoken by Christ with writings of the old testament especially prophets.

The Old Testament is the product of many individuals using many forms, and the content must be identified not merely with individuals but with an entire people and their faith, for the Old Testament developed out of a spoken «literature,» much of it anonymously, corporately, and even spontaneously formed.

Yes, I have been struggling a lot with the way God is portrayed in the Old Testament, and feel like slowly, I am starting to come to grips with much of what is written there.

At the time of the Old Testament, God's Covenants were in place for His people of the time, as revealed first verbally from generation to generation, then when Hebrew became a written language, by Moses and the prophets, and through all time the intended audience knew as much about their condition and need for salvation as God wanted them to know at the time.

In the Old Testament God said His name was I Am in the New Testament Jesus called Himself I Am, much to the annoyance of the religious Jews.

Much of the Koran is an adaptation of the Bible (both Old Testament and New Testament).

So I don't view much of what is in the old testament as historical.

When you do look at references to cannibalism in the Old Testament, you can infer from the context of Deuteronomy 28:53 - 57, Leviticus 26:29, 2 Kings 6:26 - 29 and Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:10, and Lamentations 4:10 that just as much as now people at time understood it to be an act of desperation, but it is never explicitly forbidden by God.

But Old Testament writers had a very different and a much more profound understanding of memory in God, as indeed also of memory among us humans.

James Sanders, for example, a well - known and respected figure in American biblical studies, receives less than a page, since, Barr explains, «he does not do much to claim that [his work] leads toward an «Old Testament theology» or a «biblical theology,»» while David Brown, a British theologian of whom Barr says the same, is the subject of a substantial and highly laudatory chapter.)

He's the one that really brought the concept to the bible much more than anything in the old testament where there's verses that say that the dead know nothing and that sort of thing.

My own view is that it makes a great deal of difference which religious tradition a biblical theologian belongs to, so much so that I have argued in print that a common Jewish and Christian Old Testament theology is impossible.

He spent SO much time in The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (most of volume 1) defending the idea that the crucifixion of Jesus should be our guiding lens through which to read the entire Old Testament, including the violent portions of the Old Testament.

Some peoples have a memory of a long migration before reaching their permanent home, very much as in the Old Testament is recorded the migration under divine direction of Abraham who went out, he knew not whither, and his descendants.

Such an approach, for example, led Cyril of Alexandria to interpret chapter one, verse thirteen («My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh, that lies between my breasts») as referring to the Old and New Testaments, between which hangs Christ.52 Not all interpretation that followed through the centuries was as ludicrous as this, although much of it was.

We've already discussed Chapter 2 — «The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature» — in which Enns tackles the difficult question of how to understand the Bible as special and revelatory when Genesis in particular looks so much like other literature from the ancient Near Eastern world, and Chapter 3 --- «The Old Testament and Theological Diversity» — which addresses some of the tension, ambiguity, and diversity found within the pages of Scripture.

It is significant that interpreters, both of the Old and the New Testaments, have been able to determine much more clearly and precisely the «Eigenart» of these documents and their views of God, world, and men on the basis of studies in the religions of the ancient Near East than could be done before the discoveries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.