Sentences with phrase «other parts of scripture»

They said that if I questioned a 6,000 - year - old earth, I would question whether other parts of Scripture should be read scientifically and historically.

moreover, the same «divine Christ» (as you said) that some (who disregard other parts of Scripture) might believe in also plainly & repeatedly speaks of the rest of Scripture in that same fashion.

It's a matter of choosing which parts of Scripture trump, interact with, and explain the other parts of Scripture.

You said my addition was improper because it wasn't supported by any other parts of scripture.

Always reflect on the scriptures that speak and show Christ's life when reading any other part of scripture.

But better, perhaps, it furnishes a vehicle for the expression of religious mysticism as no other part of scripture.

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.

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

I gradually began to see that Christianity is not about solitary seekers after truth who just get together once in a while for a chat: other people are very much part of the divine scheme of things — even scripture has come down to us through the agency of other people.

Yes you are part of the problem, not the solution when you encourage others to leave the Church Jesus died for in the Scriptures.

One part of Protestantism fragmented and hardened into a series of contradictory biblicistic positions; the other continued to meander beyond the limits of Scripture and tradition and, uncontrolled by any legitimately established teaching authority, to become a dogmatic and ethical free - for - all.

This is a belief found among Fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews, Moslems, Hindus of some schools, and others, with reference to their scriptures or at least certain parts of them.

Principles of interpretation (Hermeneutics) 1) Literal Principle — Scripture is to be understood in its natural, normal sense, read literally 2) Grammar Principle — Deal with what it says in the way it says it, be it using metaphor, simile, narrative, etc. 3) Historical Principle — Read the Bible in its historical context 4) Synthesis Principle — No one part of the Bible contradicts any other part (Scripture interprets Scripture) 5) Practical Principle — It contains a practical application 6) Illumination of the Holy Spirit — It is the job of the Holy Spirit to enlighten the child of God to the meaning of Scripture, without Him, one is without the ability to interpret Scripture

When, in the course of his remarks, he intimated that some parts of the Scripture were more truth - containing than others and admonished his hearers to feed their souls upon the best of the spiritual food, James interrupted the Master, asking: «Would you be good enough, Master, to suggest to us how we may choose the better passages from the Scriptures for our personal edification?»

Also I just have a few scriptures if you could explain the other part of the topic.

The claims of any other so called messiah are false and have been proven to be so over the past 2000 years as it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has spread to end parts of the earth which is also a fulfillment of scripture.

In this way, Scripture is being interpreted and judged according to other Scripture, in a way that undermines the authority and trustworthiness of all the Scriptures in their parts.

This is faintly reminiscent of Edward J. Carnell's The Case for Orthodox Theology, which argued that some parts of Scripture must take priority over other parts.

The close attention to such parish features as ritual process and the use of Scripture encouraged in my courses does indeed help forge links to other religions, but studying the congregation because it provides a rationale for courses in other faiths remains only a part of the reason for my interest.

The daily routine of the orthodox Hindu is probably much more determined by some part of his scriptures than that of the people of the West by the Bible, or for that matter than that of any other people by its scripture, save only the Moslems.

When the two despondent disciples on the road to Emmaus expressed to the stranger their bewilderment that such a powerful prophet as Jesus should have been condemned to death and be crucified, we are told that the risen Christ «began with Moses and all the prophets, and explained to them the passages which referred to himself in every part of the scriptures».6 The story implies that the Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to scriptures».6 The story implies that the Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to scriptures to us?»

They state under the category of the Holy Scriptures that, «The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.»

My reflections arose, as I have indicated, in part from formative books and teachers, but they also grew out of grappling with Scripture (one of the lightning bolts here was the simple but profound insight of realizing once again the ineradicable connection of form and content — for instance, what is said in a parable can not be said in any other way), and with the complex business, endemic to academic theologians, of, as Kierkegaard would put it, becoming a Christian (not in general or for someone else but in particular and for me).

Some speak in individual terms of the cultivation of the Christian life or the salvation of souls; others state their goal to be the building up of the corporate life of the Church or of some part of it; again the goal is defined as the «communication of the vital and redeeming doctrines of Scriptures,» or it is otherwise described by reference to the Bible as the ultimate source of all that is to be taught and preached.

To propose that the wholesale slaughter of other nations by the Israelites was a misunderstanding on their part and not indeed specific instruction from God is to bring wholesale scepticism on the reliability of Scripture as God's reveal word to His creation.

In other words, the teaching that the death of Christ was (a) for sin and (b) in accordance with the scriptures was derived by both Mark and Paul from the primitive church; the doctrine of the Atonement is not Paul's unique and distinctive contribution to Christian thought, for it is really pre-Pauline; further, it is not at all the central, cardinal doctrine in «Paulinism,» but a subsidiary one; (Indeed, it is a component one — it forms part of the doctrine of the new creation in Christ) finally, the conception of the way in which Christ's death becomes effective, as Paul conceived it, is peculiar to Paul and finds no trace in Mark or indeed elsewhere in the New Testament (Save in passages demonstrable dependent on Paul)-- Paul thinks of it as a conquest of the demonic powers in the very hour of their greatest aggression and apparent triumph.

The question is whether you think that, by drawing people in with part of the truth, these other scriptures lead them away from Jesus.

The Bible is inspired in that it reveals what God was whispering to people who wrote Scripture, and to people in other parts of the world who were also responding to the revelation which they had received from God (whether it be through creation or conscience).

Copies of the Torah such as Etz Hayim tend to have accompanying essays to help contextualize and compare parts of scripture to itself or contemporaries (such as W.G. Plaut's translation and commentary does with other Near Eastern literature).

Part of the purpose of the sacrificial system in the Hebrew Scriptures was to provide for the priests when they had no other means of providing for themselves.

If there was any other book claiming to be the authority on everything that you kept having to make excuses for like «Well, that part is ment as an allegory» or «God years are different than man years» or «Well, its says to not eat shelfish or pork in the hebrew scriptures, but apparently God changed his mind later, but that part about ga y's stays» I don't think anyone would have given it a second look had it not been at the point of a sword.

Mormons share a belief in the Bible as inspired Scripture, but add to it three other works that are considered part of the LDS canon: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

The speculation that it was in a «section on preaching to the «half breeds» / Samaritans» might be some handy way someone sections off that section of the book, but to assume every incident within a certain part of scripture is there like a Science book identifying the phylum and genus of an animal, that is, that everything mentioned under the Raccoon Family is in the Raccoon Family (the ring - tail cat, kinkajou, coatimundi... three other members of the raccoon family), is an assumption that does not seem to apply to the Bible and how it is written... it is more human, and living, and not sterile, everything in its tight little unmovable section, etc..