Sentences with phrase «say about this interpretation»

What are we to say about this interpretation of Jesus» ethical teaching?

Not exact matches

(CNN) «Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri» has become one of Oscar season's most divisive films, producing fierce blowback based on what feels like a not - entirely - fair interpretation about what it says, or doesn't, about people's ability to achieve redemption.

Said Staver: «The nice thing about what President Trump has done, different from other Republican presidents, is that he is appointing, he's nominating, so far, judges who are what I would call constitutionalists, originalists, dedicated to the original understanding and interpretation of the Constitution and the statutes.

Kevin Sandhu, chief executive of Grouplend, said he's had an ongoing dialogue with regulators since getting into the business about a year ago, and he can't see how Lending Loop can pool money from regular, non-accredited investors yet comply with the regulatory interpretation of the business.

«In the meetings I attended, OMB asked questions about process, alternatives considered, and the cost / benefit analysis,» said Sweeney, referring to her past rulemaking experiences as senior benefit law specialist for the Office of Regulations and Interpretations at the DOL.

Rationalizations, compromising, wrong interpretations, not taking the Bible literally, and outright lying about what it says is what they tempt the pipers to do.

It is a shame the chaplain needed to add the unnecessary religious interpretation and spin, saying that people who talk about family are talking about a god.

Jesus says other things about the Kingdom that make your interpretation invalid.

All of which is to say that Christians have been thinking about these matters for some time, and there are sound reasons for their insisting on a «spiritual» interpretation.

There is something very powerful about pulling up a seat to the table across from someone who has a different interpretation, a different lifestyle, a different belief all together, and just saying, «My aim here is not to be heard and to be right, my aim is to listen to you and try to understand you.»

In her review, Keller says, «You began your project by ignoring (actually, by pretending you did not know about) the most basic rules of hermeneutics and biblical interpretation that have been agreed upon for centuries.»

And even when there is substantial objective evidence to go with the subjective observations and interpretations of myself and others, I refrain from talking about it unless there is a * need * for me to say something specific.

I have yet to meet anyone who claims to have been convinced that what the Bible says is true, or who claims to have been convinced about the correctness of a particular interpretation of any Biblical passage by someone who wanted to argue those points.

They want to «stack the deck» in such a way that if you accept what they say about the accuracy, authority, and credibility of Scripture, then you will most likely also accept their interpretation and understanding of Scripture (what the witness says), if you do this, then you will also buy into the rest of their theological system that they were trying to prove in the first place.

After the interpretation of this parable, Mark and Luke have the saying used by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount about putting a lamp under a bushel or a bed (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 8:16), followed by the statement, «For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light» (Mk 4:22; Lk 8:17).

It defies easy and confident interpretations, and despite all that I shall have to say about it, it continues to baffle me.

What then is to be said about the «mentalist» interpretation of physical space offered by Whitehead and Hartshorne?

What may be said, in conclusion, about Mays's interpretation?

As far as I can see, all the difficulties (so called) with predestination come about through a mistaken interpretation of a few Bible passages which are then used as the benchmark for all other verses despite the fact that these verses may be saying completely different.

If one lets the no - inherent - free - will interpretation of the less than 0.5 % of the Scriptures set the precedence on what the word of God says about man's free will, then a person is forced to do some absurd reasoning / interpretation of the majority of scriptures that imply that man has the inherent ability to accept / believe or reject God's call / drawing, commands, instructions, promises and gifts.

One guy Ken Ham who is about as literal as you can get — although does say that there is some interpretation.

If I understand what you're saying, no amount of scholarly learning can «prove» any interpretation about the events discussed in the NT.

Martin Luther presented the theology of Sola scriptura that the bible is the sole source to live and understand what Christianity is all about... but the bible itself does not come with a table of contents to prove that it is correct which is why the bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth... remember that the church existed before even the bible was even put together... To understand the bible you cant just rely on your own interpretation like the protestants often say... The truth is always absolute and hence the teachings of the bible HAS to be absolute which is why the church is said to be ONE in nature (in every sense of the word), HOLY, CATHOLIC (Universal in teaching in every corner of the world) and APOSTOLIC (roots dating back to Jesus himself)... Now figure out what is that one church... The church put together the bible and the holy spirit always protected the church against false teachings and 1600 years later came about the teaching of Sola Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this teaching.

This kind of interpretation obviously does not require anything to be said about a «resurrection body» of any kind.

To say that a happening functions paradigmatically is to say that it provides the determinative clue for man's interpretation of what reality is all about.

Sorry for not being more succinct (head cold is fogging my abilities)... basically, the point is translation / interpretation is difficult enough, without the contingency of Christians that go on about the Bible, but haven't read it or have mangled versions of what it says.

@jf well your information about the New Testament is about as accurate as your Old Testament knowledge, The prophecies of the Old testament concerning Christ could not have been written after the fact because we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls, with an almost complete Old Testament dated 100 - 200 years before the birth of Christ, Your interpretation of God at His worst shows a complete lack of understanding as to what was being communicated.We don't know what the original texts of the New Testament were written in as to date there are no original copies available.Greek was the common language of the day.Most of the gospels were reported written somewhere in the 30 year after Christs resurrection time frame, not the unspecified «long after «you reference and three of the authors knew Jesus personally in His earthly ministry, the other Knew Jesus as his savior and was in the company of many who also knew Jesus.You keep referencing changes, «gazillion «was the word used but you never referenced one change, so it is assumed we are to take your word for it.What may we ask are your credentials?Try reading Job your own self, particularly the section were Job says «My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes»

The world offers a lot of different definitions and interpretations, but for one interested in what God has to say about it, a biblical study of the word makes a few things very clear — and for starters, makes clear what it's not.

Now we are also asking: What does our experience of human sexuality say about our perceptions of faith — our experience of God, our interpretations of Scripture and tradition, our ways of living out the gospel?

When I read about Calvin and others ideas on what Gods Word says, the Arminian, Lytheran, Wesleyan, Unitarian and various Church denominations and their interpretations, particularly when they hang their whole idea on one part of the Bible to prove how right they are, it affirms what I have always thought since before I was saved by God as well as after that amazing act of grace on His part, that man values and honors the mind far above the heart.

In his interpretation of the liturgy, the Mystagogia, Maximus has little to say about clerical orders, noting only that his master, Dionysius, had already treated this subject.

There are repeated attempts here at «revisionist» interpretations of scripture... where you are led to believe that the Bible says nothing about the prohibition of GLBTQ relationships and the prospects for marriage.

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.

For instance I have asked you about Jesus saying he would return within his current generations lifetime and you then give that your own interpretation so that it will mesh with your beliefs.

It's only because some of silly interpretations of that crusty old book of sayings called the bible that people seem to have a hangup about it.

Before exploring your way of interpreting what the Bible says about homosexuality, let's first consider what knowledge you bring to your interpretation.

Oh... forgot you Proving... I wasn't referring to what he said... on the surface, it's fine to have a point of view... whether I agree with it or not... but when you are A) in a position of influence and B) spending money to fight the opposing view... and it's to stop two people who love each other from wedding in the eyes of their Lord, then it is hate... if your ignorance allows you to think my comments are stupid... so be it... and one last point about slavery... whether it was Democrats or Republicans who supported, or fought against slavery... many justified slavery because of their perverted interpretation of the bible... most people can't tell a simple story from one person to the next... but so many foolish Christians think they know exactly what the bible is saying w / o any doubt... forget the fact that it's been translated and passed for 1000s of years... yup you must be right that God is against two people loving each other... He must have made a mistake with those folks huh?

In recent years a growing consensus has maintained that what Jesus is saying about resurrection is distinctively different from either the feminist or the celibate interpretations.

So, with so much hatred coming from so many, each with their own interpretation of the Bible, what does that say about the Bible for the purposes of judging someone's sexuality and sexual behavior?

Whitehead would meet this contention through having a hierarchy from sense objects to perceptual objects, to physical objects, to scientific objects, with more and more abstraction and interpretation, at each stage and he can only get away with what he says about pure sense objects if he makes them far more primitive than one normally thinks sense objects are.

Those who maintain that interpretation, of course, have to live by it themselves, so they must always be very careful about what they say, and think, all the time.

It's about love as you said so yourself, before you went off the deep end with your slavish interpretation.

As for the reports of the «witnesses» during Jesus» lifetime, the stories told about him, the reports of his teaching, his sayings, parables, interpretations of the Law, controversies with the scribes, and the application of Old Testament laws and prophecies — all this was undoubtedly orientated and controlled by the eschatological outlook of his teaching and ministry as a whole, but also undoubtedly it lacked the sharpness of focus which the Resurrection was later to give it.

Logically speaking the psychological interpretation of symbols says nothing about their revelatory status.

There are many studied theologians who can't agree on just what the Bible has to say about sx, and all sorts of interpretations regarding what is and is not sodomy, fornication, masturbation, etc..

It is possible to say that much of what the gospel says about Jesus» filial consciousness is interpretation built upon a few sayings of Jesus (e.g. Mt. 11:27, Lk.

Perhaps as a result of the unsettlement and chaos that accompanied the Jewish rebellion against Rome the evangelist left Palestine for Asia, where he later wrote the gospel, while John was still alive in Palestine, partly from recollections of what the apostle had said or written, but largely from his wider knowledge of traditions about Jesus and his teaching, and in the light of his own interpretation of the teaching and of the significance of the facts of Jesus» life.

This would come, in effect, to the same thing as the interpretation offered by Colpe; the reference would be to a future in which the message and ministry of Jesus is vindicated, without saying anything specific about the form of that future, or about the time element involved except that it is future.

I don't see anything wrong with the cartoon — to me it says something about Christian interpretation of the bible — in colors of greens and reds when it was using blues and whiites (metaphor).

As we saw above, the Christian tradition understood it as a reference to the parousia (Luke), or to the burial and resurrection of Jesus (Matthew), but these interpretations come from the world of ideas to be found in early Christianity and say nothing about ancient Judaism.