Sentences with phrase «not historical understanding»

Not exact matches

all things were created by nothing with nothing and for nothing... that takes more faith than i have... i prefer to believe in Jesus Christ — the one and only who rose from the dead — the most astounding historical fact ever recorded; Christians don't have all the answers but as the author Don Miller noted: «I can no more understand the complexity of God than the pancakes I made for breakfast can understand the complexity of me»

We need to be reminded of these origins, not least for the sake of historical truth, and it is important that we understand these roots properly, so that they can feed the present day, too.»

It is as though those shaping the domestic agenda of the government do not see the explicitly racial character of this problem, as if they do not understand the historical experiences that link, symbolically and sociologically, the current urban underclass to our long, painful legacy of racial trauma.

Fifi doesn't understand ANY historical event that is depicted in the Bible, despite vast archaeological evidence — ergo, it must be all fiction.

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

As Evangelicals and Catholics fully committed to our respective heritages, we affirm together the coinherence of Scripture and tradition: tradition is not a second source of revelation alongside the Bible but must ever be corrected and informed by it, and Scripture itself is not understood in a vacuum apart from the historical existence and life of the community of faith.

In our historical freedom we are able to transcend that natural fact, and we certainly need not let it be determinative for our understanding of what motherhood means.

When properly understood in it's historical, cultural, grammatical, and contextual contexts, Ephesians 2 is a chapter which does not defend the Calvinistic system of theology, but disproves it at every turn.

«David Wells of the World Pentecostal Fellowship confessed that too often evangelicals did not understand or appreciate historical churches, their centuries - old stand for Christ, and their presence in countries in which their witness and pastoral ministry has been dominant,» Stiller wrote.

If one holds that during the course of human history a process of development and refinement in the Church's understanding of Christ has taken place, this does not mean that one is rushing headlong into a position of historical relativism that is ultimately corrosive of the objectivity of our faith.

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.

My belief is that the Scriptures have been carelessly ripped out of their cultural and historical contexts, but when properly understood, they are not so cut - and - dry.

I do not know if the flood is a literal historical account based on natural laws or some other construct we can not yet understand.

On this point, he placed himself in alliance with Arthur Holmes and quoted approvingly of Holmes» criticisms that Clark had not properly understood the purpose of philosophy to elaborate a vision of life through a number of sources, including the philosopher's own historical context.

Hence there arises what I think is one of the major reasons why the miraculous birth recorded in Matthew and Luke should not be regarded as a historical fact but as a midrashic or mythical way of expressing the truth that the person of Christ can not be understood exclusively within the dimension of humanity, but belongs also to the divine dimension.

This is not to say that Bornkamm has moved to the position of «realized eschatology» (91); rather he sees (with Bultmann) the tension between future and present as inherent in the involvement of the imperative in the indicative, i.e. inherent in the historical understanding of the self.

Although the historical existence of Jesus could not be proved objectively by any quantity of the authenticity of his sayings, yet that historical existence can be encountered historically and understood existentially.

The people whose interpretations of experience we are studying are not Trobiand Islanders, but Jews of the first - century Mediterranean world; to understand how they interpret their lives, we need to learn as much as possible about the properly historical realities within which they lived: the social and symbolic worlds of Roman rule, Hellenistic culture, and a variegated Judaism.

If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large - scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case.

For although it can not lead to a suspension of that method, it does draw our attention to the basic problem which it presents: «According to our historical method employed thus far, we have before us apparently authentic material about Jesus in the tradition of the sayings of the Lord, only when the material can be understood neither [as derived] from primitive Christian preaching nor from Judaism.

I say this because I realize that in what I have written it is not simply a matter of a dogmatic theologian commenting on the work of a disciplined historical critic; there are issues involved here which are neither purely theological nor historical; they touch the manner in which we understand our existence and our need, an existence and an understanding that we allow it possible that Christ has redefined for us.

For example, a study on Celtic Christianity includes historical background but also suggests a broad lesson:» «I don't understand you» can become «How can I learn from you?»

Because theological truth and therefore theological language belong to the eschatological dimension, linguistic analysis as now understood and practiced which deals with empirical and historical truths can not decide on the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of theological language.

On the other hand the scribe who fears the Pharisee does not teach the differences between heresy and sound Bible doctrine; nor does he teach the historical views to understanding the Bible.

The very arrangement of the biblical books in the Hebrew canon of scripture presupposes this definition of prophetism.1 Between the first division of the Law and the third division of the Writings, the central category of the Prophets embraces not only the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve prophets from Hosea to Malachi (all together termed «Latter Prophets») but also the historical writings of Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings («Former Prophets») In this way the Hebrew Bible formally and appropriately acknowledges that prophetism is more than the prophet and his work, that it is also a way of looking at, understanding, and interpreting history.

We simply do not know what the doctrines of atonement, incarnation and redemption mean until we understand what they mean for persons shaped by this historical milieu.

To affirm that in this way a necessary, unavoidable, historical process of development on a large scale in the doctrines which are not defined dogma is legitimate and a matter of course, is not to say that this history does not also contain mistakes, over-hasty (though only provisional and revocable) decisions, cases of short - sightedness and lack of understanding.

There have been many such changes, 8 so significant, in fact, that one wonders if Darwin must not be regarded, even by the biologists themselves, more as a precursor of developments leading to present - day evolutionary thinking rather than as a continuing historical source of our scientific understanding of man.

A simple appeal to the Bible without reference to the historical particularities of doctrinal debate could not help me to understand why this should be the case.

So the Supreme Court, when it practices judicial activism, undercuts democratic participation not only by substituting its own assertoric judgment for democratic deliberation, or by ignoring the plain letter of the constitution in favor of its own political inclinations, but also by understanding itself as a council of philosopher kings (versus really good lawyers) prudentially adjusting the fundamental nature of American democracy to fit the ever changing historical horizon that provides the context for its expression.

Therefore we must recognize that to understand the Christian Word as an historical Word need not mean that it is identified with a history that is past.

This is the concept of that beyond which thought can not go, in which it completes its search for understanding, at which it really affirms only itself, and through which it relates all else.2 Leaving aside his views on its historical character, this is what R. G. Collingwood seems to be suggesting when he says that Anselm's argument does not prove «that because our idea of God is an ideal of id quo maius cogitari nequit therefore God exists, but that because our idea of God is an idea of id quo maius cogitari nequit we stand committed to belief in God's existence.

by the way, I do have a better understanding of historical criticism, I wasn't trying to get out of answering your original question!

The particular resources of contemporary liberal theology that have especial relevance for a Christian approach to our culture's current difficulties are these: (1) the contemporary historical consciousness, (2) the conclusions of biblical scholars regarding Jesus and the Kingdom of God, and (3) the current «process» understanding of God, Which allows a positive relation (but not a surrender!)

Earlier historical periods may not have engaged in linguistic analysis, but still they may have understood that important terms have complex and multidimensional meanings.

When you tell people you are questioning the creation accounts of Genesis 1 - 2, a lot of Christians get very angry, and some religious types will actually fire you from your job... What they don't realize is that you are simply using historical - cultural research to understand Genesis 1 - 2 the way Moses and the Israelites would have understood it.

Today history is increasingly understood as essentially the unique and creative, whose reality would not be apart from the event in which it becomes, and whose truth could not be known by Platonic recollection or inference from a rational principle, but only through historical encounter.

Bob doesn't understand the basics of reading comprehension 101 by putting the scriptures into historical context.

Liberal education is in trouble today, he contends, because its proponents do not know its past and do not understand the historical tensions that could be exploited to give it new life.

The Revolution of 1989 in east and central Europe» a world - historical series of events ignited by moral passion, informed by moral conviction, sustained by deft and morally sophisticated politics, and supported by a resolute demonstration that the Soviet Union could not compete with the United States in a serious arms race» raised further questions about classic foreign - policy realism and its narrow focus on «hard power» as the analytic prism for understanding both the dynamics of world politics and the exigencies of American foreign policy.

It should be presupposed, however, that we can not do this unless we approach the matters to be discussed from the standpoint of both a historical understanding and spiritual appropriation of the Bible, and bring our theology to bear at every point on the human situation.

If religion is understood in its elemental sense, and not merely in its sectarian expressions, it is entirely practicable for the public schools to educate religiously without violating any ideals of religious freedom, without partisanship for any historical tradition, and without transgressing the principle of persuasion, not compulsion, in all matters of faith.

I should add that such a historical approach is not wrong provided it is clearly understood that self - determination and responsibility whether in the early or later historical stages, has a tendency to get perverted by the false position of self - centredness in relation to God and others.

Whatever happened, whatever a camera would or would not have recorded (and both a total acceptance as historical and a confident rejection as legendary are unwise), a significant moment in the disciples» understanding of Christ is portrayed.

One may need to look up words not used in ordinary conversation to understand what Berger means when he writes: «the problem of theodicy was solved in terms of eschatology» or «one should not confuse epistemology (i.e., knowledge) with historical gratitude.»

Thus to say that a philosopher, even when he is Heidegger, all by himself sees what the New Testament says, is to appear to have no sense of historical context; certainly not the kind of contextual sensitivity which the cultural anthropologist has come to understand and value.

Yet there is a limit to how closely we can identify the historical person Jesus of Nazareth with the Christ, for two reasons: first, there is much we do not know about the historical person, and clearly it is not necessary to know this or to include this in the understanding that serves as «the Christ» for us.

We do not think of God as merely immanent in the historical process or that human history can be understood as a natural unfolding of the cosmos.

Critical scholarship — not only historical critical scholarship, but also newer approaches to the Bible using critical theory — has pressed our understanding of the texts and traditions of ancient Christianity to the point where organized Christianity, if it were to be guided by such work, would have to begin to rethink some of its basic theological commitments.

The problem that exists that I agree with in the columnist is not the «Spiritual, not religious» mentality, it is the FACT THAT PEOPLE SCREAM AND THROW OUT HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL OPINIONS but yet have never read anything and do not have an accurate understanding of the topic they are discussing.