Sentences with phrase «reading ot»

I have a bit of reading ot do before I really jump in the market in the future.

Part of that learning came from reading the OT.

If it wasn't his own doctrine he had to learn it and part of that learning came from reading the OT.

- Try reading the OT.

Suz, do you stay with reading the OT or have you read the NT.

We may learn much about ourselves by reading the OT, but not so much about God.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul of Tarsus (and Jesus, whoever he really was) and the rest of the first century evangelists read the OT Bible, as did the later church officials who decided which works to include in the compilation of the Bible.

simply read the OT.

«We learn how to read the Gospels by reading forwards from the OT» — and here is Hays's contribution — «we learn to read the OT by reading backwards from the Gospels.»

Hays also seems narrow when he encourages readers to read the OT principally as narrative and not as a «source of oracles, prooftexts, or halakhic regulations,» apparently disqualifying many early Christian authors who cited Scripture in this way.

This is also how to read the OT texts.

So if you read the OT you know that the world deserved what it got during the flood.

JWT, and Frayed, if you would read the OT, you would get it.

I read the OT and try to visualize who the original audience was for it and for, in my opinion, its purpose as a prelude.

If you don't believe me, read the OT and NT.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul (and whoever wrote under those names) READ the OT (so did Jesus).

@ ME II: read the OT.

Not exact matches

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul (or whoever wrote under their names) read and studied the OT and could have simply tailored their stories to match.

People - Why do you read just the OT?

Dawn, when you read Matt 15 you find that Jesus is not saying to stone the children, he's reminding the Pharisees that they are inconsistent in their own attempts to follow the letter of the OT laws while criticizing others of for their inconsistency.

If you read just the OT, you will come to the conclusion like you just did.

Correction: Not that OT people we have some very valuable lessons to learn, should instead read as, Not that we do not learn some very valuable lessons from the people of OT.

yes much has to be discerned in the book of remembrance, so called OT, for the priest did all go astray from the ways of YHWH, but one must read, pray, and do the righteous ways of YHWH to get His anointment to understand, and call 1-773-874-0325, YHWH Our Righteousness, the Movement, and arm, and Branch of YHWH, prophesied in Jeremiah 23 vs. 1 - 8, and Jeremiah 33 vs. 14 - 21, also as described in Isaiah 59, and Malachi 3 vs.1 - 4, to get any answers to any questions about this book.

Remember the Jewish leaders did not recognize Him because of what they were expecting from their reading of the OT!

That is, can we read portions of the OT in light of the later revelation in Jesus?

This mysterious Gospel reading is punctuated by references which, taken together and with the OT as background, point to the presence of God.

So, since you read it, you came up with the conclusion that it is it OT law meant for everyone, and not the Levite priests?

Having come back to this, I'm amazed at the logic used by people to continue extremely hateful rhetoric and action — which I must argue signifies that they worship the OT depiction of God (read that carefully because I am making an accusation here) rather than God

I thought the same thing, and upon reading the whole thing, i learned that this was a book about the OT law, and also priests, as well as the account of the festival calenders and the main heritage story of prophetic foreshadowing of the New Covenant, a better covenant.

By reading backwards from the Gospels to the OT, Hays affirms a high Christology consistent with Nicea and Chalcedon.

Paul especially speak much of the laws of the OT... thus you probably did nt do much reading of it

Well, just as you think I am not reading certain OT texts at face value, I think you are ignoring much of what these NT texts are saying, and not just these passages, but the whole tenor and focus of the ministry of Jesus.

ahh, I see, the reading Jesus» innocence back into the OT makes the sense I needed.

For example, my morning readings included this from the OT: «Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!

I do agree that the innocence of God is not expressed all over the place in the OT, but since I am trying to understand God in light of Jesus Christ, and since the innocence of Jesus Christ is expressed all over the place, then this is why I try to read this innocence back onto God as well.

Please read genesis where there is no where it is mentioned that there was another partner with the Lord God... don't you think if what you are saying is correct than it will be mentioned in the OT... or OT and NT are contradicting each other... i could show more from the bible itself... i think most of the follower of it does not pay attention what to follow... they just follow blindly as Catholic church does not allow to have a copy of bible with the worshipper while they are at the church... they just have to be listening to the preacher....

So when I read something in the OT that doesn't look like Jesus, that doesn't tell me that the Bible is wrong, but that God is saying something I don't understand.

Although I in no position to speak authoritatively for God, my own belief [based on my reading of the OT Prophets] is that God is probably a lot more concerned with what goes on in America's [and the rest of the First World's] boardrooms than S / He is with what takes place by non-coercive assent in our Nations» bedrooms.

I read recently where someone supposedly researched the Koran violence and OT violence.

I would also like to read further blog posts related to how you are able to see both God revealed in Christ in the NT similar to how God is revealed in the OT.

especially the OT), cite or link your sources, and I'll be happy to read them!

Genesis to Revelations twice, study course that paired readings from OT and NT to get through the whole book in a year once.

Do you even read this book of remembrance, the so call Ot, in Malachi 3v16, before you make a comment, or have you just learned from that Nt not true book, how to just «believe» anything, and not «know» its truth?

I read Peter Enn's book «The Bible tells me so» which helped me sort out some OT issues but his NT examples seemed more «spin» than un-biased reading.

C'm on, the OT is a good read.

David, as I read through the Bible, OT and NT, we see God portrade in many ways, but the most beautiful way He is characterized is as «Father.»

It now appears clear, however, that the distance that separates Childs from his historical - critical forebears is not so great as that which separates him from more recent readings of the OT, whether literary, neomidrashic, formalist, artifactual, New Critical or deconstructionist.

Jesus's time on earth was still in the OT times and to read the Gospels as if they were in the NT times leads to misunderstanding them.

I read an article stating that the word often translated «righteousness» of God in the King James OT would be more contextually correct if it were translated «justice» of God.

Read carefully, and think harder about this awful, vindictive, vicious god that your book of nasty clearly describes, in both OT and NT: