Sentences with phrase «taken from scripture»

It boils down all the essential parts of Christian profession, taken from Scripture, so that new Christians can know the essentials.

~ Omni - benevolence is NOT an aspect of God as taken from scripture.

Moreover you will hear nothing taken from Scripture.

Every assertion we make, even taken from scripture, in my opinion, falls under that (including this one)!

My take from Scriptures is that there are options — to be like Paul (1 Cor 9:6, 12b), or to opt to be financially supported by the church (1 Cor 9:4, 7 - 14).

Images or pictures taken from the Scriptures and from good histories, however, I consider very useful yet indifferent and optional.

Not exact matches

But even the most orthodox of Jews will admit that GeHenna (named after the dump outside Jerusalem that existed in the Valley of Hinnom and whilch was considered the most unclean of places, where the «fires never went out» and the «worm never died»... a reference seen in Isaiah...) was an idea adapted from Babylonian theology (taken from Zoasterism), not an idea originally developed in the Tanach (thus you will find references to «the world to come» and «tikkun Olam» only in the Talmud, not in the Tanach... which for Jews is not a problem since our view of «scripture» is not the same as a Christians).

My aim is to take scriptures at their most obvious, and I am not bending or breaking a single thing from any passage in Genesis (most of this is based on Rabbinic interpretations).

So, by your reasoning, if «People put so much importance on words» (implying that they don't matter and we shouldn't take thought of how we use them) then I ought to be able to sing along with the lyrics from pac's «hit»em up» with my black friends, curse in a kindergarten class as well as a corporate meeting for my boss... what impression would a client have of my boss if I were cussing in a professional meeting or at a charity event... it doesn't add up, it's a cop - out rebuttal... trying to find loopholes or applying «human reasoning» like» ll take a swearing guy who's helpful» doesn't change Jesus or scripture it's just setting up a what - if scenario and trying to allow that to in some way justify your stance when again, that doesn't change The Holy Spirit or His heart in those who have been born again... the verses (inspired by His own Spirit) speak for themselves.

Don't take it from me; consider that working hard shows up in Scriptures several times, like in Ephesians 6 and throughout the book of Proverbs.

That is not to say we should not take the journey for ourselves; it simply means that there are maps drawn by those who have gone before — from the saints in Scripture to the Fathers of the Church.

The bible takes itself EXTREMELY seriously, it refers to itself as scripture, it refers to the authors as having received the words they are writing from God Himself.

Among his companions from the scriptures are the pseudochristoi who, Christ says, will come «in my name» and will «lead you astray» -» the lawless one» (2 Thessalonians 2:10) who, by the power of Satan, will impress the faithful with false signs and wonders, offering «a strong delusion» to tempt «those who are perishing»; «Gog and Magog» who, under Satan's command, will gather the nations for the final battle with Christ (Revelation 20:2 - 10); the «beasts» of Revelation (16, 17, 19) that harken back to the «beasts» of Daniel (7); «the sons of Belial» (Deuteronomy 13:13 and passim) who are «base» or «worthless,» who practice idolatry, drunkenness, disrespect, evil speech, who are «empty men» (2 Chronicles 13:7); and the conspiring nations and rulers who take counsel against the Lord (Psalms 2:1 - 3).

Here's the take from Romans 9, though you'll have to go up a scripture or two to find the part about god hating Esau before he was born or had done any wrong:

Those priests took advantage of that ignorance, would NOT read from the Scriptures to the illiterates.

there are many records that still exist that contain the truth that was taken out of the scriptures that we do still have, that have been withheld from public release, and many were destroyed, that contained truth.

So, if this commandment not to add or take away from Gods word means that the cannon of scripture is complete, then everything after Deuteronomy is false.

Like I said, I do not pretend to be an expert on how people became slaves but you can clearly see from these scriptures that the Bible did not take the subject lightly.

These things are in scripture to convict us (so we'll have some sorrow and repent that the gospel may take a hold of us) and to protect us from harming ourselve and others in society)

Take the next giant leap, put the Holy Spirit Word of God, Sacred Scripture, down, get up and ask to walk with the Lord from the get - go, that is the beginning and allow Him to make you His own as only He can...

2:101 ---- And [mention, O Muhammad], when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], «You must make it clear to the people and not conceal it.»

It never takes me away from the reality that is rooted in the scriptures and theology.

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 thiTake 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 thitake 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).

From the novelist as well as from the stories in Scripture the theologian should take courage to concentrate on the experience of coming to belief, not on the «beliefs» themselves (the sedimentation of experiences of coming to beliFrom the novelist as well as from the stories in Scripture the theologian should take courage to concentrate on the experience of coming to belief, not on the «beliefs» themselves (the sedimentation of experiences of coming to belifrom the stories in Scripture the theologian should take courage to concentrate on the experience of coming to belief, not on the «beliefs» themselves (the sedimentation of experiences of coming to belief).

«When we take the phrase «the authority of Scripture» out of its suitcase,» Wright says, «then, we recognize that it can have Christian meaning only if we are referring to scripture's authority in a delegated or mediated sense from that which God himself possesses and that which Jesus possesses as the risen Lord and Son of God, the ImmanueScripture» out of its suitcase,» Wright says, «then, we recognize that it can have Christian meaning only if we are referring to scripture's authority in a delegated or mediated sense from that which God himself possesses and that which Jesus possesses as the risen Lord and Son of God, the Immanuescripture's authority in a delegated or mediated sense from that which God himself possesses and that which Jesus possesses as the risen Lord and Son of God, the Immanuel.»

Taking a Moslem book from one of my shelves, I discovered about the same frequency of use of Moslem scripture.

«The assumptions often made are that Scripture should have no tensions and that any such tensions are not real but introduced from the outside, namely, by scholarship hostile to Christianity... It is a great irony that both the critical and evangelical options (as distinct from the Jewish model) take part in the same assumption: God's word and diversity at the level of factual content and theological messages are incompatible.»

Accordingly, on this night, after the usual period of questions and answers, Nathaniel took Jesus away from the others and asked: «Master, could you trust me to know the truth about the Scriptures?

(One woman told me that the only parts of Scripture she recognizes are those found in her hymnal, that she didn't know the difference between Psalms and Proverbs, and that she was shocked to learn that some of her favorite liturgy was taken directly from the Bible.)

So when I am talking with someone, I will often take a little gospel of John, I prefer the ones called Living Water since they have little notes that remind me what verses are key, and what the verses mean, and in just a minute or two, can show a person from Scripture that to get eternal life, all they have to do is believe in Jesus for it.

What makes common sense to me is that this is coming from the same volume of scripture that has within it revelations from the past present and future from the time in which the events that were written about took place.

Far from cherry - picking, this is how Scripture is SUPPOSED to be read: IN context, NOT taking the line «this generation shall not pass» OUT of the context in which He was speaking, which is what you are doing, and, as noted, is a common error.

He takes particular issue with doctrines ratified by popes down the centuries, such as the immaculate conception (the belief that Mary was born free from original sin) which, in his view, have no basis in scripture.

Jeremy thanks for taking the the time to go over your notes from seminary and reevaluate what you were taught as opposed to what scripture really has to say.

It does not take much interaction with lay readers to see how enormously different are the problems they see in Scripture from those theologians are taught to see.

It has taken me a number of years and an equal number of attempts to try and look beyond the behavior of the «Christians» in church, to realize that a church unreflective of God's word, cherry picking which scripture to apply and whom it applies to, is NOT what God desires from his children.

This means moreover that our reflection on and use of Scripture must also take their impetus and starting point from the forces that shape our consciousness.

Overall we are on the same page, but as we present a different understanding (though not a new understanding of scripture — just hidden in the presupositions built up over time), sometimes it takes a while to get through all those years of presupositions till we see what the other has been showing from scripture.

Gadamer, of how the inspired text, which we question in order to find its meaning and relevance, questions, criticizes, challenges and changes us in the process -» Some who today raise the proper question, whether there are not culturally relative elements in Paul's teaching about role relationships (an the material has to be thought through from this standpoint), seem to proceed improperly in doing so; for in effect they take current secular views about the sexes as fixed points, and work to bring Scripture into line with them - an agenda that at a stroke turns the study of sacred theology into a venture in secular ideology.

Please don't listen to these people on here they have so many different views and ideas of their own but don't listen to them they have closed their heart to God and are doing Satans work of misleading people away from the Almighty they look for men who like to have their ears tickled so don't take mine our anyone else's word for it look it up for your self history attests to the bible as true and The writings of Moses is far older than anything they have ever found thats right Moses wrote the first parts in the bible 3,500 years ago The scriptures weren't inspired by Pagan stories Pagan stories was inspired by actual events just like those in the bible because if you notice that a lot of the stories found in the bible have a lot to do about people worshipping false Gods.

For the temptation to treat God thus is not merely the temptation of those who practice a politics taken from Holy Scripture, or an ethics of the same type, against whom it is easy to be on guard.

He pretends to be practicing a politics taken from Holy Scripture.

It's interesting, but I got personal correspondence back on this commentary from atheists asking me what my take was on scripture being God's Word.

By way of illustration I take two key verses from Luke's beautiful narrative of the walk to Emmaus: «And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.»

We could even go before the time of Christ and go back, for example, to Nehemiah 8, and see that when Ezra wants to teach the people the Word of God, he gathers the people, and then he and several other Levites took turns reading from Scripture and explaining what it meant.

the actual written word was taken from multiple scriptures written by the Apostles during the period of their lives.

Pastors and elders need to take a cue from Jesus and from Scripture, that expository preaching is what we are going to do, because expository preaching is what Christians need for growth.

Terry, take it from one who has probably been around the block a few more times than you — Arguing Scripture and your understanding of them and insisting that only your understanding of them is correct will get you nowhere as fast as possible.

As a child, my parents took me to a Baptist worship service (my paternal grandparents were Baptists), and I didn't know it was any different at all until I asked a question about a scripture I knew from the Book of Mormon.

This idea runs counter to the regnant tradition of Western theology Philosophers of the medieval period, taking their hint from Plato (Republic, Bk 2), Aristotle (Physics, Bk 8 and Metaphysics, Bk 12), and a few passages of Scripture (Num.