Which is a generically classic Muslim position on scripture which looks down
on other scriptures as corrupt and theirs as pure and wonderful.
As I said, earlier «classic Muslim position on scripture which looks down
on other scriptures as corrupt and theirs as pure and wonderful.»
Not exact matches
The
other part of me also knows that if you do believe by
Scripture, tradition and your own internal barometer that homosexuality is a sin (let's say), then you are not going to wish to give the thumbs up to someone being
on staff who is openly living that lifestyle.
Heck I just the
other day finally got a new take
on the idea of «two become one» in Genesis, the gospels, and Paul — and that's 14 years after the fact I first heard that
scripture.
It is one thing to offend by speaking truth, that'll happen, but any
other type of offence is unnecessary and against the teachings (which show God's heart
on the matter) in
scripture for those who claim to «know Him».
Some actively encourage meditation
on Scripture, and Pentecostalism has long been known for its tendency to privilege the inner voice of the Spirit over all
other ways of knowing.
edition; and when all these are consulted, the reader will see how little dependence can be placed
on the most learned conjectures relative to these and the
other animals mentioned in
Scripture.
If you want to say that two men or two women is an abomination then you might want to read some more of that
scripture and you would find puting two seeds in the same hole, working
on sundays, wearing cloths with more than one color and lots of
other dumb things are mentioned in a list why do you all foucus
on just one part of that list it has lots of abominations that we all do every day
In his encyclical
on Holy
Scripture, Pius XII warmly acknowledges that the inquiry of modern exegetes «has also clearly shown the special preeminence of the people of Israel among the
other ancient nations of the East....»
Though this is the most common view of these chapters, there are numerous clues left by the text itself, by the surrounding context, and by
other passages in
Scripture which indicate that something else is going
on in the flood account.
Rather than base his arguments
on a detailed analysis of pertinent
Scripture texts, he tended to quote St. Augustine (who predated Calvinism), John Calvin, and
other prominent Calvinistic theologians.
I think we all like to claim that our theology alone is based
on Scripture, etc, when in reality, there is a whole host of
other influences that get poured into our theology as well.
Again,
other Christians do this with our favorite beliefs: We'll claim our views are wholly based
on scripture, but in fact our favorite proof - texts are cherry - picked, and least - favorites are dismissed, wholly based
on our theology.
He concludes with an important point: ``... the Reformers» insistence
on the authority of
scripture made several important points, but left many
other matters open for further discussion.
Gambling your soul away
on a guess based
on ancient texts out of fear of torture doesn't sound logical at all, especially considering how many
other versions of the
scriptures have been found and conflict with today's bible.
While I do not consider myself an expert
on all the religious writings of all of the main religions in the world, I have read most of the main religious texts for most of the main world religions, and while it is not uncommon to find violent events being described in these
other religious books, no
other set of religious writings comes even close to describing the violence and bloodshed that one finds within the pages of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
«From this history of the Bible in early American history,» Noll writes in his concluding chapter, «the moral judgment that makes the most sense to me rests
on a difference between
Scripture for oneself and
Scripture for
others.»
Other projects include an exploration of motherhood in messianic genealogies in «Mother Knows Best: Messianic Surrogacy and Sexploitation in Ruth» in Mother Goose, Mother Jones, Mommie Dearest: Biblical Mothers and their Children (Brill), and a commentary
on Ruth and article
on «Responsible Christian exegesis of the Hebrew
Scriptures» in the African diasporic biblical commentary The Africana Bible (Fortress).
On the other hand, it gave a basic signpost on the way: the great truths taught in scripture are indeed the way of salvation, and those entrusted with the teaching office in the church have no right to use that office to teach anything else.&raqu
On the
other hand, it gave a basic signpost
on the way: the great truths taught in scripture are indeed the way of salvation, and those entrusted with the teaching office in the church have no right to use that office to teach anything else.&raqu
on the way: the great truths taught in
scripture are indeed the way of salvation, and those entrusted with the teaching office in the church have no right to use that office to teach anything else.»
Take 10 minutes from patting yourself
on the back and take a look at my blog / websites, and / or my comments
on other threads here, and you'll be quickly disabused of the notion that I treat the
Scriptures «as though they are written directly to 20th Century A.D. Americans» (For what it's worth, I'm not American, so why would I do such a thing).
Teaching,
on the
other hand, is an interactive discussion with a group of believers about specific texts of
Scripture, which are explained and applied within the group.
This is an example of cherry - picking — using Christian (or
other religious)
scripture and teachings to justify one's position
on a given issue.
(Yes... It IS bigotry) When one seeks to deny
others the same rights they themselves enjoy, based solely
on a very narrow and privileged view of
scripture, they become an abuser.
If you are looking for
other devotional ideas
on the theme of Christmas, try some of my
Scriptures on Christmas.
And so many
other wonderful
scripture... beautifully written
on a 4th grade level in the King James Version.
The notion that the Bible is «true»
scripture and all
other scriptures are «false» is so stamped in the mind of many Christians that any discussion
on scriptural authority becomes almost impossible.»
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that Jesus rose in a glorified, eternal, incorruptible body, and that He went
on to ascend into heaven, or can they believe that He went
on to live, grow old, and die again of old age like the
others who were resurrected in
Scripture?
Accordingly,
on this night, after the usual period of questions and answers, Nathaniel took Jesus away from the
others and asked: «Master, could you trust me to know the truth about the
Scriptures?
Teaching, however, was in smaller settings, to groups of disciples or
others who wanted to learn
Scripture, and focused
on explaining and applying the Bible for the audience.
If «
Scripture is to interpret
Scripture» and all the
other references to an «unquenchable fire» in the OT and NT are fiery judgments
on the Nations / Peoples... either Israel or the Enemies of Israel... does that mean «the Lake of Fire» is to be interpreted likewise?
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and
other elements of the world... Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense
on these topics... How are they going to believe these books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?
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.»
While each individual passage in
Scripture bears consideration, my general approach toward elders is similar (though not identical) to that of
other organic church proponents
on the issue of elders and deacons.
Worse still — and more to the point of my concern — the translation of the one Word of God into direct social and political terms has meant that the churches neglect the message for which they do have sole responsibility, that which constitutes their specific raison d'etre, and which no
other agency in the world is called
on or is competent to proclaim: the gospel of Holy
Scripture which has the power to make people wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15).
On the other hand, there were other men who disagreed: Tertullian, who believed that the soul would live on forever, that the wicked would suffer misery in proportion to the righteous» reward; St. Augustine, who came up with the doctrines of Original Sin and Predestination (some would be saved, the rest would be damned); and Jerome, who would end up retranslating the Latin Bible into what would become the Latin Vulgate and would twist various scriptures that talked about eonian chastening into teaching eternal tormen
On the
other hand, there were
other men who disagreed: Tertullian, who believed that the soul would live
on forever, that the wicked would suffer misery in proportion to the righteous» reward; St. Augustine, who came up with the doctrines of Original Sin and Predestination (some would be saved, the rest would be damned); and Jerome, who would end up retranslating the Latin Bible into what would become the Latin Vulgate and would twist various scriptures that talked about eonian chastening into teaching eternal tormen
on forever, that the wicked would suffer misery in proportion to the righteous» reward; St. Augustine, who came up with the doctrines of Original Sin and Predestination (some would be saved, the rest would be damned); and Jerome, who would end up retranslating the Latin Bible into what would become the Latin Vulgate and would twist various
scriptures that talked about eonian chastening into teaching eternal torment.
Some Christians might believe this, but it is not explicitly taught in
Scripture, and there are many
other views
on how the «atonement» worked and what the death of Jesus accomplished.
Point taken (Google «Wesleyan Quadrilateral» for some good discussions
on how
Scripture should be taken with
other elements in establishing doctrine).
One way to begin to free ourselves from the bondage of power that we put
on others and put upon ourselves is to unravel the theology and
Scripture texts which have been used to support our claim to power and authority.
you
on the
other hand know nothing about
scripture so you should probably just shut your mouth.
But I believe he's been taught by his pastor father the old school teachings
on tithing and
other beliefs so much that he hasn't seen the truth in
Scripture.
On the one hand, by our historical amnesia we break our continuity with historic Christian faith as did the liberals and, on the other, we accord to some preachers a magisterial authority in interpreting Scripture not unlike Roman Catholics d
On the one hand, by our historical amnesia we break our continuity with historic Christian faith as did the liberals and,
on the other, we accord to some preachers a magisterial authority in interpreting Scripture not unlike Roman Catholics d
on the
other, we accord to some preachers a magisterial authority in interpreting
Scripture not unlike Roman Catholics do!
I am repeating some of what
others have already said in this blog but also including
scripture which I think is always important when we voice an opinion based
on God's word.
And,
on the
other hand, it sickens and dies when it is enslaved by its past instead of being disciplined by the new beginning which it must always make in the
Scriptures....
On the
other hand, in our questioning of
Scripture we must never fix in advance what
Scripture will say.
If you were invited to speak to
others on the
scripture, with which portions would you be qualified or most comfortable?
On both sites, I am always open to input from
other students of
Scripture about how to translate Greek and Hebrew, or how best to explain a particular word or phrase.
On the other hand, if we look at the Jewish scriptures in light of some of the more extreme expressions coming from deep ecologists and others, we do find an emphasis on discontinuity as wel
On the
other hand, if we look at the Jewish
scriptures in light of some of the more extreme expressions coming from deep ecologists and
others, we do find an emphasis
on discontinuity as wel
on discontinuity as well.
- Genesis 1 (100 % written)- The Unforgivable Sin (Revised and Expanded, 80 % written)- The Gospel According to
Scripture (80 % written)- Pastoral Leadership (100 % written)- Close Your Church for Good (100 % written)- The Bible Mirror (20 % written)- Commentary
on Esther (100 % written)- Jesus among
Other Religions (10 % written)- A «Redeeming God» book series
on the topic of divine violence (30 % written)
Calvin, Institutes, I.vii.5: «Enlightened by him (the Spirit), no longer do we believe that
Scripture is from God
on the basis of either our judgment or that of
others; but, in a way that surpasses human judgment, we are made absolutely certain, just as if we beheld there the majesty (numen) of God himself, that it has come to us by the ministry of men from God's very mouth....
Overall we are
on the same page, but as we present a different understanding (though not a new understanding of
scripture — just hidden in the presupositions built up over time), sometimes it takes a while to get through all those years of presupositions till we see what the
other has been showing from
scripture.