It certainly will appeal more
than the former interpretation to anyone who identifies himself, traditionally or on his own decision, with any one religious value or a system of religious values.
Not exact matches
The reply given by the Johannine Jesus appears at first to confirm this by saying, «If a man has faith in me, even though he die, he shall come to life», but then proceeds to add quite a new
interpretation of the resurrection power of Christ in the words, «and no one who is alive and has faith shall ever die».13 C. H. Dodd concludes that «the «resurrection» of which Jesus has spoken is something which may take place before bodily death, and has for its result the possession of eternal life here and now... The evangelist agrees with popular Christianity that the believer will enter into eternal life at the general resurrection, but for him this is a truth of less importance
than the fact that the believer already enjoys eternal life and the
former is a consequence of the latter.»
1 A declaration that on a true and proper
interpretation of Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana, by agreeing to the transfer of Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al - Dhuby (both
former detainees of Gunatanamo Bay) to the Republic of Ghana, required the ratification by an Act of Parliament or a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more
than one - half of all the members of Parliament.
The two applicants prayed the Supreme Court for «a declaration that on a true and proper
interpretation of Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana, by agreeing to the transfer of Bin Atef and Al - Dhuby (both
former detainees of the Guantanamo Bay) to the Republic of Ghana, required ratification by an Act of Parliament or a resolution of Parliament, supported by the votes of more
than one - half of all members of Parliament.»
While not unmindful of the desirability of its adhering to
former decisions of constitutional questions, this Court is not constrained to follow a previous decision which, upon reexamination, is believed erroneous, particularly one which involves the application of a constitutional principle, rather
than an
interpretation of the Constitution to evolve the principle itself.