Sentences with phrase «ordinary words which»

The reader meets strange phrases made up of ordinary words which are combined to read almost like a secret code — phrases like... the Son of Man (what son of what man, and why all the capitals?)

Not exact matches

In December, the company, which chooses the year's top words based on out - of - the - ordinary spikes in interest, announced that «austerity» clinched the top spot in 2010.

Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.

The authorization comes from «the competent ecclesiastical authority,» which usually means the local bishop (in canon law often called «the ordinary»), although the wording of the law does allow the bishops» conference to suggest another competent authority.

Not the haburah fellowship meal celebrated by a group of Pharisees; no such meal existed (J. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus [1965], pp. 30 f.) Not the Qumran communal meal anticipating the «messianic banquet», for all that this may have influenced the Christian practice, because that is simply a special meaning given to the regular communal meal at Qumran, whereas our evidence indicates that the Christian practice was something out of the ordinary which the early Christians did and which helped to give them a special identity.

To say that there is a process in the world which operates to increase the structure of value, and to that degree is the embodiment of this structure, does not necessarily imply that the process is teleological in the ordinary human sense of the word.

The word which the apostolic community used and offered to us is the word «resurrection,» hardly a term derived from or consonant with our usual conceptuality or our ordinary human experience, however rich and varied.

In the words of the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, the «divine deposit» includes «all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God as founding Scripture or Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.»

Or more subtly, they speak of the mass pathology as something passive, portraying ordinary people as (in Jim Garrison's words) «victims of a compelling nightmare, hypnotized and magnetized» in a dreamlike state like that of children following the Pied Piper (Darkness of God, p. 3) Interestingly, this view reverses Caldicott's formulation, in which the people were seen as adults and the leaders were the children.

'' [The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reas semble to partake of food — but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.»

It is a shattered universe, like the word itself, which brings about the breaking up of ordinary speech and refers to (or announces) what is not a visual image: the Kingdom of God.

These diverse traits are susceptible to an analogical generalization which contributes to establishing the meaning of the words «witness» and «testimony» in ordinary language.

And though in the Fourth Gospel the notes of agonizing struggle, or even of ordinary human weakness and suffering, are muted, if not hushed, and the death is, as Vincent Taylor says, «no longer a (Greek word) but a shining stairway by which the Son of God ascends to his Father,» (The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, p. 215.

These interpreters hold that Jesus used the phrase only in its ordinary sense of «man,» and that some community in which the Gospel tradition was being formed, itself thinking of Jesus as the apocalyptic Son of Man, read that meaning back into Jesus» words.

With the sole exception of a single allusion to Jesus» last supper with his companions, nothing which could in the ordinary sense be called an act of Jesus or an incident in his career is so much as referred to, and in only a few highly dubious passages are his words quoted.

There's a sense in which figurative speech drives an author's meaning home in ways that words taken in the ordinary way could never do.

Faith is here taken first in the direct and ordinary sense [belief], as the relationship of the mind to the historical; but secondly also in the eminent sense, the sense in which the word can be used only once, i.e., many times, but only in one relationship.

Indeed, the word Elohim, the ordinary Hebrew name for God, belonging as it does to a large family of Semitic words which spring from the same stem, is thought by some to have denoted originally a sky god.

But in the ordinary church services Luther had continued to follow the pattern he set in the twenties, providing German words and music which were simple to sing and hear.

Because the ordinary Spaniards of that period of time were mostly illiterate and came from the medieval world which was so rich in imagery and the native world of the Americas communicated mainly through an image - language, it was much more at the level of the image - word than of the alphabetic spoken word that the new synthesis of Iberian Catholicism and the native religions took place and continues to take place today.

Firstly, he has to come up with an initiative which will be seen as fair to the ordinary person trying to get on in life or the «striver» (a word that I object to — when was the last time you heard someone in the pub use it?).

In other words, I am not interested in examples of someone being elected as «President for Life» which has happened numerous times, or examples of parent - child pairs of democratic politicians who manage to be elected in an ordinary democratic election system to a term of office for a fixed term of years.

The sweet spot that Common Core tries to get at are «Tier - two» words like analysis, evaluate, and negligent that are common to sophisticated adult speech and writing, but which we perceive as ordinary, not specialized language.

It's not clear if OP means «simple» as the ordinary English word for uncomplicated and here presumably traditional IRA, or SIMPLE which is an acronym for Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees of Small Employers, a specific employer - sponsored type of IRA (as linked in the other answer) with a higher limit as @Joe says but must come from payroll and employer directly.

The artist — a Chicago native who today divides his time between New York City and Marfa, Texas — is perhaps best known for his paintings of large stenciled letters, which he uses to form words or phrases, often abbreviated or arranged in run - on configurations that disrupt ordinary patterns of perception and speech.

As to official capacity, ie where the councillor «conducts the business of the office to which s / he has been elected or appointed» these were «ordinary descriptive English words».

In Kazakewich v. Kazakewich, [1936] A.J. No. 10 (C.A.), the Alberta Court of Appeal summed up the ratios in Lambe, Severn and Edwards in this way at paragraph 86: I take it then that in approaching the interpretation of the pertinent sections of The B.N.A. Act with respect to the administration of justice, a Court should keep in mind that these sections are embodied in an Imperial statute to which the ordinary rules for the interpretation of statutes apply, that therefore the intention of the framers of this Imperial statute must be ascertained as at the date of the enactment by having regard to the words employed without extraneous aids to interpretation where the language is unambiguous, and that having regard however to the nature of the statute, a great constitutional charter, the widest and most liberal construction of the words used should be adopted with a view to giving effect to the whole scheme of Canadian union [Emphasis Added].

[13] When read in the context that Professor St. Lewis had agreed to undertake a review of the SAC report which alleged systemic racism in the academic fraud process and that she was providing her evaluation of that report as a lawyer, law professor and expert in the field of Human Rights and Research, the words in their natural and ordinary meaning would more than likely be considered defamatory by the ordinary fair - minded individual.

If we break down this approach into its constituent parts, we see there are five things the Supreme Court has said that courts must consider when interpreting a statute: 1) the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words, 2) the textual context in which the words appear, 3) the scheme of the Act, 4) the object of the Act, and 5) the intention of Parliament or the provincial legislature.

It only briefly alludes to the personal circumstances of the original plaintiff in the case, pointing out that she was «not an «impoverished» person in the ordinary sense of the word» (which made her ineligible for an exemption from the fees at issue).

The court stated that it has been long established that there is but one principle or approach to statutory interpretation which is that the words of the statute are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of the enacting legislative body.

In ordinary human discourse, words may be spoken which may be abusive, untrue or insulting.