Sentences with phrase «other scriptures such»

There are a number of sinful behaviors that Christ didn't specifically address in scripture that are clearly addressed in other scriptures such as homosexuality.

Not exact matches

as a Christian that does not know every scripture up one wall and down the other... where does Jesus say such.

In such religious bondage, Scripture and theology are two of the primary tools used to enslave others.

In other words, IF they became convinced that somehow they had been overlooking something in Scripture (as they think I do) and, in fact, God and the devil are actually the same being such that God is evil, they would believe it because the Bible says it.

We do see God - inspired error in the Bible, such as in the book of Job, so is it possible there might be other such inspired and inerrant errors in Scripture?

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).

@Scot That you found other scripture that contradicts the passages I cited just goes to show that the Bible is such a gargantuan collection of contradictions and adsurdities that it can be used to bolster just about any argument.

I can be so judgmental about other people and such a know - it - all when it comes to Scripture.

And why did the Church hold to positions such as dyothelitism — the teaching that the person of Jesus had two wills, one human and the other divine, which seemed alien to the simple text of Scripture?

At the other extreme are those who advocate for saying the sinner's prayer, subscribing to a long list of beliefs / interpretations of Scripture, living certain ways and doing certain things (such as attending church so many times a week).

Paul, and whoever actually wrote 2 Timothy, must have been aware of, and even familiar with, other scriptures, such as Hindu and Chinese writings.

While the events of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures certainly have remarkable revelatory power, we can not deny such power to other events or to other writings.

When they quote such a verse at us, we think that since it is Scripture, it must mean what the world says it means, and so we refrain from judging others, without ever looking up the passage to see what it really says.

I think that the other apostles in Scripture would fall into this category, such as Barnabas and the two apostles in Rome.

Here, and in other egalitarian literature, principle is given priority over application; admonition is given preference over description.34 What is dangerous in such a procedure, though it admittedly works in many cases, is the implied epistemological claim that objective, impersonal statements are of a somehow higher order of trustworthiness than the more personal and relational aspects of Scripture.

We'll continue to use scripture to attack others and thus perpetuate violence against one another and justify such harm in God's name.

Will we affirm the sufficiency of Scripture — that the Bible is all we need for life and doctrine — or will we demand that God reveal himself to us in other ways, such as mystical raptures?»

At the other end of the evangelical spectrum from Lindsell and Schaeffer are those like Dewey Beegle and Stephen Davis who believe that one must admit there are errors in the text of Scripture, even in areas related to the author's intention.24 Such errors, however, do not involve any of the basics of the faith.

But whoever wants, on the other hand, really to behold and receive all truth, and would have the truth - world overhang him as an empyrean of stars, complex, multitudinous, striving antagonistically, yet comprehended, height above height, and deep under deep, in a boundless score of harmony; what man soever, content with no small rote of logic and catechism, reaches with true hunger after this, and will offer himself to the many - sided forms of the scripture with a perfectly ingenuous and receptive spirit; he shall find his nature flooded with senses, vastnesses, and powers of truth, such as it is even greatness to feel.

Many other Christians and Jews see such a scenario as a radical interpretation of scripture.

I might be ecelectic, but what makes me consistent is my belief is something that combines the belief of Scripture with that of Englightenment philosophy: nurturing life is goodness, simply, and helping others to see a model that thinking for ourselves can help heal the world of all past injustices - so that we all learn to WANT to be good... within reason and by our own choice...: you have a society like that, you'll have less injustices, less violence, less money - grubbing by people who hold themselves as representatives of «authority» -(which side are you on, by the way, if you see the world as so divided in such a bipolar reality...?)

Seems like such a struggling believer may actually benefit from seeking to «teach Scripture to others».

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.

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?»

When I do someone, many times the moderator, will reply back with such and such scripture with no other comment but the scripture.

I am not certain that this idea is exactly found in Scripture, but regardless of what the original founders thought about the pursuit of happiness, and whether or not it is actually taught in Scripture, the pursuit today is not so much happiness, but pleasure or personal fulfillment, even when such things come at the expense of others.

The Scripture does talk about happiness, but it is a happiness derived from obeying God and serving others, even when such things result in personal pain, suffering, and even death.

It's like they've never bothered to challenge their brains over the idea of «death to self» that is taught time and again in both scripture as well as other Christian traditions such as the catechism.

It's quite easy to reconcile embracing both Rand's philosophy and Christianity, and people do it all the time: complete and total ignorance, borne out of an inability to read with any sort of comprehension, or an outright refusal to read with an open mind, either Rand's books, or the scriptures and other Christian religious dogma such as the catechism, or both.

Its theology is sound and is backed up by numerous quotes, from Scripture first of all; then from the Magisterium (especially John Paul II and Trent), the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Church Fathers (Cyprian, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine), Doctors (Aquinas, Alphonsus), Mystics (St John of the Cross, St Teresa, St Faustina, Julian of Norwich) and others such as the Cure d'Ars, Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Scott Hahn.

He explains the Theological interpretation of Scripture better than the other books, provides some examples of how to do this with Scripture, and when he does not give an explanation of «how to» do it yourself, explains why such an explanation is impossible (p. 195).

As a result, we sometimes (I am speaking of me here) get so wrapped up in Scripture study, that we neglect the more important things in life, such as family, the poor and needy in our community, serving others in love, taking care of orphans and widows, and pretty much everything else that Jesus focused on in His ministry.

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.

We should do this, however, in such a way as to be open to the question of whether we can hear in these other traditions the voice we have been disciplined to hear by our own Scriptures.

He underscores to such an extent the inadequacy of expressions or formulations of the truth that it remains unclear how he prevents himself from sliding into the position that inadequacy of expression entails inexpressibility of truth, or prevents interpretations endlessly deferring to other interpretations, such that we never have a statement that is simply true — even in Sacred Scripture, and hence that there could be no such thing as revealed (determinate) truth, expressing itself in and through sentences.

Other men and women disagree based on different criteria, such as compliance with scripture or church tradition.

Others, such as Clark Pinnock, are suspicious of such two - way conversation, believing Scripture's authority to be compromised in the process.

Besides such biblical scholars with theological concerns there is of course a very large number of other theologians for whom the interpretation of scripture is central.

This perspective had been sharpened by a year's study at Berlin, but it is striking that his interests at that time were such that he did not attend any lectures in theology, even those of Harnack.5 Although he developed great appreciation for Harnack in later years, he worked out his own approach to Biblical scholarship by applying to the scriptures methods developed with other subject matters in view.

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).

Even the point about what is best for other creatures, which may seem very modern, is not without foundation in Hebrew Scriptures in such passages as the law against taking the hen - bird as well as the eggs from the nest (Deut 22:6), or this saying from Proverbs: «A righteous man has regard for the life of his beast» (12:10), where, be it noted, the quality that makes a man considerate of his working animals is not prudence or good business sense but «righteousness,» a point all the more significant when we remember that in the Hebrew Scriptures one of the marks of righteousness is not mere evenhandedness but active favor to the weak and deprived.

Their wisdom and expertise would guide the ECT process as it moved forward to take up such controverted issues as justification by faith, Scripture and Tradition, the communion of saints, and the role of Mary in the life of the church, among others.

Those who quote this verse usually overlook the fact that Scripture lists other sins which God also hates, such as pride, lying, and discord (Prov 6:16 - 19).

Lewis wrote, He's either a lunatic for making such outrageous claims, yet every other thing about his life was very sane.In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide proof that the words we see in Scripture today are the same words written in the Bible thousands of years ago.God spoke through His people to write the Bible and it's still changing lives every single day for those who meditate on it.

In the EH Relationships Course, everyone will learn 8 practical relationship skills to develop mature, loving relationships with others such as: Stop Mind Reading and Clarify ExpectationsIncarnational ListeningClimb the Ladder of IntegrityClean Fighting And since loving others and loving God can not be separated, each person will also grow in their personal, first - hand relationships with Jesus by incorporating stillness, silence, and Scripture as daily life rhythms.