Sentences with phrase «see scriptural»

Here again, looking in the Bible, I don't see any scriptural evidence that Jesus tithes.

It is hard for us to see scriptural language, full as it is of figure, metaphor, vision, and myth, as having to do with reality.

I can't see any scriptural reason to abandon them tbh.

She writes that «while many modernists saw scriptural discrepancies as evidence that the Bible was not «true,» postmodernists would attribute discrepancies to the pluralistic situatedness of interpretation,» making the Bible a more true - to - life and authentic account of human interaction with the divine.

Not exact matches

If you read the article a little closer you will see that the scriptural reference used comes from the Bible's New Testament, where Paul having a discussion regarding the resurrection, asks why would followers of Christ at his time perform baptisms for dead if there were to be no resurrection.

In general, members of the ILC see themselves as more traditional than the LWF in their understanding of Scriptural authority and confessional Lutheran theology.

With all due respect, I don't see much scriptural basis for your position.

See Crossan's complete list of scriptural references at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

Maybe you see this slightly differently from how Jeremy sees it but you certainly see it quite differently from how I do and you offer no scriptural evidence to defend your view.

The two notes of individuality defined in a social world and action or embodied belief, which we saw are characteristic of Scriptural stories, are also, according to Auerbach, the central qualities of the Western literary tradition.

You bring lots of Scriptural truth into the light for people to see and gain understanding.

Perhaps the use of scriptural examples will help us see the distinction.

Following the Lord's instruction in Matthew 6:6 — «When you pray, go into your room, close the door... Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you» — Clara reveals she has created her own private «war room» — a transformed closet, with prayers and scriptural references posted all over the walls — where she has spent many hours, invoking the name of Jesus and asking for His guidance and support.

The collect form, based on some scriptural prayers (see Acts 4:24 - 30), dates back to fifth - century Roman texts.

But the usual and normal Scriptural method, as seen in all of Christ's prayers and all of Peter's prayers and all of Paul's prayers — including this one here — is to pray to God the Father, through Jesus Christ (which is why many of us say, «In Jesus Name»), and in the Holy Spirit.

It is an affirmation and not, as many conservative evangelicals have reflexively assumed, a questioning of biblical authority when the language of liberation and empowerment prove fruitful in understanding further dimensions of what salvation always meant according to the scriptural witness, even though we had not previously been pushed to see it that clearly.

There are, however, two serious problems to such an approach: First, it is difficult to see how some of these passages could possibly be interpreted in a way that is in keeping with Jesus of Nazareth; and second, even if this could be done, the process would necessarily do damage to the original intent and to the established scriptural meaning of these passages.

Drawing from the abundance of scriptural images which are God's gift to us, perhaps we will more clearly see that

(6) The parabolic statement of the binding of the strong man in Mark 3:27 affords another opportunity to see Jesus Christ as the hidden and sometimes the explicit meaning of the scriptural text.

Incidentally, the view that there are levels of meaning to reality is quite scriptural, since New Testament writers saw deeper meaning to Old Testament history in the light of New Testament history.

Members of the latter sit back quietly, hoping not to look impious despite their skepticism, and confess misgivings or outright dismissal of scriptural material later, in the privacy of a paper that only the instructor sees.

If I could see in scripture the evidence for a hell of everlasting torment then so be it but not only do I not see it but I do see overwhelming scriptural evidence that the fate of the wicked is death.

But I do know that we can not ignore the evidence of our experience that interaction with the Jews has helped us to see with fresh clarity the scriptural teaching that Christians have a spiritual kinship with the Jewish people that is unlike our relation to anyone else.

One clear scriptural principle is that God does not teach us more until we have learned to obey what we already know, and if we do not put into practice what we know, even what we know will be taken from us (see Luke 8:17 - 18).

The entirely orthodox and scriptural truth that there are mysteries within Christianity and we can not know God in full in this life («For now, we see through a glass, darkly») becomes the half - truth that we can not understand God's will or nature in any meaningful way, and we don't really know how God wishes us to behave.

The existentialist view may seem to be supported by scriptural texts such as, «No one has ever seen God» (John 1:18) and «Now we are seeing a dim refection in a mirror; but then we shall be seeing face to face.

The linguistic and biblicist vetos have been seen to be both arbitrary and unwarranted — which makes it all the more pathetic that Dr Paul van Buren in The Secular Meaning of the Gospel still seems to accept them as valid and to rule out «God - statements» as «meaningless» while at the same time his excessive Barthian christocentrism and bibliocentrism turns the patent intention of scriptural statement into a parody of their proper meaning.

N. T. Wright puts what I'm trying to say succinctly when he argues that the entire burden of the Pauline letters is to teach new Christians to «think within the biblical narrative, to see themselves as actors within the ongoing scriptural drama: to allow their erstwhile pagan thought - forms to be transformed by a biblically based renewal of the mind» (emphasis added).

(This is true in spite of at least one solid scriptural counterexample of a fellow named Thomas who was not blessed in a way making him capable of believing without first seeing for himself.)

He has spoken helpfully about developing the philosophy of science and applying a hermeneutic of continuity to modern liturgy and to modern scriptural exegesis (see Fr Holden's article in this issue).

So according to what I see in Scripture, one should minister locally (whether you're paid because you live of the Gospel [which you and I know that it's scriptural] or unpaid [as one that exercises their spiritual gifts -LSB--RRB- and be held accountable?