Sentences with phrase «only by interpretations»

If however the New Testament can be emancipated from the world view of mythology only by interpretation, what is to be the source of that interpretation?

Not exact matches

He refused to believe that Vatican II, the ecumenical council he had experienced as a powerful work of the Holy Spirit, could only lead to permanent incoherence and division in Catholicism; and by providing an authoritative interpretation of the Council, John Paul II's pontificate energized the living parts of the Church and made Vatican II the launch platform for the new evangelization and for the Church's rediscovery of itself as a missionary enterprise.

By the way... the bible is clear and there is certainty in it, and there is also only one interpretation, thank you very much!

One way to illustrate the full scope of this problem would be to look more closely at the horizonal character of the ecstatic past in contrast with the past of the ordinary interpretation of time, which is only understood by negative contrast with the present.5 Here Mason, apparently following Whitehead, allows us to make a particularly striking contrast: we can never change the past» he says (p. 95), meaning to evoke what Heidegger calls Dasein's «facticity» and to compare it with the objectivity with which perished actual occasions confront the concrescing actual entity in Whitehead.

Hence, only the first interpretation is meaningful, and it can not be used to deduce from the existence of (genuine) moral evil the nonexistence of benevolent omnipotence, since «whether the free men created by God would always do what is right would presumably be up to them» (GPE 271).

I love how catholics always point to their INTERPRETATION of Matthew as the basis for their belief that they have the «only» church that was sanctioned by jesus.

Yet «God's history with the world» is not only the interpretation put upon the history of Jesus by the kerygma, but is already the meaning residing in it for Jesus himself.

First, it must again be stressed that the eschatological message of Jesus, the preaching of the coming of the Kingdom and of the call to repentance, can be understood only when one considers the conception of man which in the last analysis underlies it, and when one remembers that it can have meaning only for him who is ready to question the habitual human self - interpretation and to measure it by this opposed interpretation of human existence.

Man finds himself only by opening and entrusting himself to others and hence his self - interpretation which, if correct, is religion or at least some form of belief, can also happen only in the risk of this intercommunication.

However, it is unclear whether she links the tradition of ontological change only to the «newer» (that is, from the 11th and 12th centuries onwards) and «narrower» (pp205 - 206) interpretation of ordination, for she suggests that an ontological change took place in both St Peter and St Paul symbolised by their name changes in the New Testament (p47).

He knows that Scripture receives its full meaning only through the preacher's actual interpretation, by which faith is awakened.

But both the course and the result of this interpretation presented to the reader will still be only the opinion of the interpreter for which he will once more be held accountable by the book itself in an ideal, though certainly not in a real sense.

Kraus supports her view by producing an argument against what she apparently takes to be the only alternative position open to Whiteheadians, the «interpretation of God as a personal order of divine occasions» of Charles Hartshorne (p. 163).

@Sabio... I agree that there are many interpretations that get stated, and maybe I'm just chiding at the idea that my own are always «confirmaton bias»... but I think I'm not the only one who has been suprised by a reading of David's cartoons or blogs that challenge my usual belief or interpretation.

I end here by repeating my conviction that the canonical interpretation of Scripture is the theologians main job and by adding to it my further conviction that only those who give themselves to this task first and foremost will ever be fit to interpret anything else on God's behalf.

The triadic character of interpretation is embodied in each element — object, sign, interpreting sign; each is what it is only by virtue of mediating relations to the other two.

But this more active element in interpretation only follows on the initiative taken by the painting itself.

The only issue is that when one observes the evidence, evidence must necessarily be interpreted, and interpretations are based on paradigms that are informed by beliefs.

It would take a complete lyrical analysis to show that every song on the album is haunted by the shadow of the cross, but a closer reading of the song «The Only Thing» should suffice to open the door to an interpretation the critics miss.

Hartshorne's interpretation of God resolves the problem of the past, granted, but it does so only by violating the principle of contemporary independence and assuming that it is possible for the region that constitutes the standpoint of one occasion to include the regions that constitute the standpoints of other occasions, an assumption which I trust by now has been seen to be quite incompatible with Whitehead's scheme of ideas.

On the other hand there is an interpretation which not only gives due weight to the old tradition underlying the presbyter's words, but also maintains full contact with historical probability: it is the interpretation made possible by what is called form criticism.

A cosmic interpretation of revelation is important today not only because of our need to address the question of purpose in the universe, but also because our globe is now threatened by an environmental crisis of unprecedented proportions.

The contradiction is denied, on this interpretation, only by exempting God from those principles by means of which we can attain any knowledge of him in the first place.

Presupposing that there was only one possible interpretation of Hamlet, she decided to test her theory by narrating the story of Shakespeare's tragedy.

In thus presenting a theistic interpretation of Jesus and his resurrection, insisting upon an ontological element where others see only myth, I will be held by some to have abandoned all claim to offer proposals for a modern Christology.

Indeed, validity in interpretation can only occur when the otherness of the text, as it is conveyed by the textual structures of the implied author and the implied reader, is realized by the structured acts of the actual reader.

I figured as much; you've never taken any classes in religion that weren't taught in YOUR church by YOUR preacher, and you believe that's the ONLY interpretation that could possibly be correct.

Whether and how far these reflections concerning a positive relation between spirit and matter may be significant when it is a question of asking in philosophical and theological terms whether an ontological connection between man and the animal kingdom asserted by the natural sciences to be a fact, is open to an explanatory interpretation on the basis of the nature of spirit and matter, can only be judged after we have examined some aspects of «becoming» in general.

But such an interpretation is by no means the only one.

Insofar as this authorization of freedom towards absolute being is experienced as absolute nearness to this goal permitted by grace, the character of creaturely freedom becomes clearer when this goal opens itself, even though this experience can become objective only through its interpretation in supernatural revelation and in faith.

The distinction Hartshorne insists on making here as applied to our present question can be expressed by saying that, whereas mere experience or feeling of God can be not only direct but immediate, high - level thought or cognition of God, being mediated, as it is, by the conscious judgment or interpretation of such feeling, is of necessity mediate.

He is able to delude himself into thinking that this is exegesis of St. Paul and of the New Testament generally only because he gets rid of everything mythological in I Corinthians by subjecting it to an interpretation which does violence to its meaning.

In fact, it is only by such an interpretation that the real meaning of the New Testament can be disclosed and made accessible for those who would otherwise find its mythological elements a stumbling block.

Thus it is almost impossible in each case to express the ideas of a text by one interpretation only, either in Arabic or in a foreign language, even with the greatest care.

It can be done only by what he calls interpretation.

Let it be acknowledged then that Josephus is not a first - class historian; but the failure to recognize the validity of his facts, especially in that part of his work which lay largely within his own experience and recollection, and the truth of his interpretations, as far as they go — he is never exhaustive — is surely responsible for the neglect of his writings by too many interpreters of the New Testament at the present time, and for the rise of theories which leave not only Josephus but likewise the New Testament out of the reckoning.

Apart from the initial conviction that knowledge is consummated in communion the dialectic of interpretation does not climax in transcendence but only reversal, in an infinite series of reversals: the antithesis simply becomes a new thesis, which is displaced by a new antithesis, ad infinitum.

Why settle for those ten as a summary, when Jesus gives us an even more complete and succint version — guaranteed by Jesus to cover the only correct interpretation of all the Law and the Prophets?

But this would be meaningless if the significance of the death of Christ rested only on the interpretation placed upon it by the disciples and were not even in the life of Jesus related as an act to his resurrection»)

Just as in Bultmann's analysis the questions of belief and truth that theology now faces can be adequately answered only by way of radical demythologizing and existentialist interpretation, so it is now clear to me that what is required if theology is to deal satisfactorily with the issues of action and justice (which for many persons are even more urgent) is a theological method comprising thoroughgoing de-ideologizing and political interpretation.

Furthermore, even the identification of the putative content of experience proves to be normed by whatever hermeneutical analysis is employed, for one can only imagine, much less recognize as present, what one can come to identify somehow.16 Finally, some hermeneutical analysis is also presupposed by and, therefore, normative of any argument from experience, whether of the individual or the communal type, since it is only experience as interpretable in terms of some description or other to which one can ever appeal either for the mutual corroboration of such descriptions or for their illustration of a theistic interpretation.

The three major forms of the interpretation of love in the Christian tradition are: the Augustinian with its neo-platonic roots and existential developments; the Franciscan with its radical nonconformity and nonintellectual approach; and the Lutheran with its insistence that love of God can only be known by grace through faith.

The authors allow that rational choice theory is unlikely to explain a phenomenon such as Mother Teresa in «all its fullness,» but they conclude that, «While not sufficient by itself and certainly not the only interpretation the data will bear, rational choice theory provides a valuable addition to the arsenal of analytic approaches to religion.»

This anthropological basis for cosmology «can not be explained through reductions to the physical, and forms the foundational mystery whose elucidation and interpretation can only be provided by theology of the Divine image» (p. 475).

Hence, we can believe only by listening and by interpreting a text which is itself already an interpretation.

One of the best editions of the Bhagavad Gita for the beginner is the translation by Swami Nikhilananda, for it is not only in good English but is provided with extensive notes, clarifying new concepts and giving a background for interpretation.

However by the Reformation in the 16th century, Martin Luther not only translated the Gospels, but he interpreted them in printed sermons as well, and when John Calvin, Roger Williams and others broadly disagreed in print with Luther on such matters as what the scriptures said about the role of government in society, the whole matter of scriptural interpretation was opened to thousands of individuals who for the first time could read (or have read to them) the published documents.

Believers, he argued, can prove the rationality or relevance of their religious tradition (or any tradition) only by skillfully using its internal grammar: «The reasonableness of a religion is largely a function of its assimilative powers, of its ability to provide an intelligible interpretation in its own terms of the varied situations and realities adherents encounter.»

That is to say, most interpretations are influenced not only by the characters of events in the very recent past but also by those that may predominate in the very near future (e.g., the spatio - temporal configurations of possibly life.

In this section, I have been concerned to show that the genetic approach is not only contradicted by all relevant external evidence, but also employs an extremely dangerous interpretative strategy: dangerous to the piecemeal investigation of Whiteheadian doctrines; dangerous to the mind - set with which new interpretations of Whitehead's philosophy should be received and evaluated and dangerous because of the inherent circularity of its reasoning, to the integrity and validity of any compositional analysis conducted under the umbrella of its assumptions.