Sentences with phrase «understanding of our existence»

And, although we today no longer use these speculative categories, the selfhood of Jesus is equally available to us — apparently both via historical research and via the kerygma — as a possible understanding of our existence.

Hence the purpose of a new quest of the historical Jesus would be to test the validity of the kerygma's identification of its understanding of existence with Jesus» existence.

His action, the intention latent in it, the understanding of existence it implies, and thus his selfhood, can be encountered historically.

But it can test whether this kerygmatic understanding of Jesus» existence corresponds to the understanding of existence implicit in Jesus» history, is encountered through modern historiography.

The Good News is dynamic, not static; is life, not death, not after death; is growth, not stunted development; is moving forward and moving beyond my current existence and is moving forward and moving beyond my current understanding of my existence and of God.

For Bultmann this preunderstanding is brought to all the New Testament texts, and they are all to yield the Christian understanding of existence.

The preacher's task is to confront us with the distinctively Christian understanding of existence as that is found in the New Testament.

For Bultmann an understanding of existence is something we bring with us to the text as well as something we find expressed there.

We are trying to grasp the meaning of love in the Christian faith in responsible relationship to the scripture, to the classical tradition, and to a contemporary scientific and rational understanding of our existence.46

And what he seems concerned to emphasize in this recent article is that (assuming the truth of the Christian understanding of existence) the Christian revelation embodies a view of life that objectively represents the meaning of human existence, so that if a person is indeed to grasp in a reflective way what the meaning of life in fact is he or she must understand it precisely in the way represented by the Christian witness.

It is something like an «understanding of existence,» except that it has implications for the nature of the holy reality and the world in themselves, not simply human existence.

For we have, for example, in the parables, in the beatitudes and woes, and in the sayings on the kingdom, exorcism, John the Baptist and the law, sufficient insight into Jesus» intention to encounter his historical action, and enough insight into the understanding of existence presupposed in his intention to encounter his selfhood.

Selfhood results from implicit or explicit commitment to a kind of existence, and is to be understood only in terms of that commitment, i.e by laying hold of the understanding of existence in terms of which the self is constituted.

For the kervgmatic interest of the primitive Church would leave unaltered precisely those sayings and scenes in which Jesus made his intention and understanding of existence most apparent to them.

I want to make a substantive case to the effect that Whitehead has a more fluid understanding of existence than his interpreters sometimes realize.

Thus when a philosopher like Heidegger or Kamlah «sets forth in purely philosophical grounds a «secularized» Christian understanding of existence,» one should not assume that they are doing so independently of the Christian myth.

Rather, its entire meaning is existential or metaphysical, in the sense of expressing some understanding of our existence in its constant structure and in relation to its ultimate ground and end.

The real question is whether this understanding of existence is true.

He has certainly succeeded in rebutting Thielicke's charge that by starting with the Christian understanding of existence he betrays a subjectivism akin to that of Schleiermacher.

Hence the importance of the New Testament mythology lies not in its imagery but in the understanding of existence which it enshrines.

Scientific anthropology's always take for granted a definite understanding of existence, which is invariably the consequence of a deliberate decision of the scientist, whether he makes it consciously or not.

But to my mind it is quite a different question whether an existentialist analysis can be achieved in complete detachment from the understanding of existence which is presupposed, accepted and applied.

Further discussion would seem to be needed on whether the Christian understanding of existence can be detached from the person and figure of Jesus.

Thus it would appear that the new understanding of existence is rendered possible only by an act which stands in the background — i.e. Christ.

Assuming the inadequacy of philosophy's understanding of existence, Bonhoeffer declares that existence can be understood only in the church, because the church gives an explanation «outside» of man.

Although this classification may be justified and of no great import when limited to the level of the history of ideas, it becomes the crucial issue of the person of Jesus when one recognizes, as does Bultmann in the preface to his Jesus and the Word, that it is in the Paessage that one encounters existentially the intention, the understanding of existence constituting the self, and thus the person.

But I immediately went on to add that it is the only self - understanding explicitly authorized by Jesus whom Christians assert to be the Christ, the point of their assertion being that it is also the very self - understanding implicitly authorized as the authentic understanding of our existence by the mysterious whole of ultimate reality that they call by the name «God.»

The New Quest - some of whose original practitioners are among the members of the Jesus Seminar - sought to recover from Jesus» sayings and parables his «understanding of existence,» detached from any particular claims about his life and actions.

To this Bultmann replies: «Understanding of self and understanding of existence do not imply timelessness.

Given it is the answer and not the question which sets the limits on knowledge of what is natural vs. supernatural you have intentionally limited your understanding of our existence.

Rather, it reflected a less individualized understanding of existence, in which what persisted were impersonal processes that gained particularized expression in human experience.

The «right» philosophy is simply one which has worked out an appropriate terminology for the understanding of existence, an understanding involved in human existence itself.

It is precisely on this consideration that K. F. Schumann bases his acute criticism that the existentialist analysis implies a decision in favor of a particular understanding of existence.

If then the activity of God is not visible or open to proof like worldly entities, if the event of redemption is not an ascertainable process, if, we may add, the Spirit granted to the believer is not a phenomenon susceptible to worldly apprehension, if we can not speak of these things without speaking of our own existence, it follows that faith is a new understanding of existence, and that the activity of God vouchsafes to us a new understanding of self, as Luther said: «et ita Deus per suum exire nos facit ad nos ipsos introire, et per sui cognitionem infert nobis et nostri cognitionem».

But this is only to say what I have myself repeatedly emphasized, viz., that existentialist analysis is simply the systematization of the self - understanding of existence involved in existence itself.

Schumann is right enough when he says that it is impossible «to have a formal analysis of human existence which can be detached from every «existentialist» attitude, from every actual disposition to one's own existence», and that «no existential analysis can be achieved in complete detachment from the understanding of existence which is presupposed, accepted, and applied».

It is my definition of faith as an understanding of existence which has evoked the most opposition.

Indeed, its work consists in systematizing the understanding of existence involved in existence itself.

... it is the implicitness of the kerygma in Jesus» understanding of existence that is required by the kerygma, if that reference is in fact a fitting one.»

So, for example, the existentialist analysis of the nature of human existence, with its emphasis upon «self - understanding», or «understanding of existence», establishes a point of contact between the figure from the past and the man in the present.

One may certainly accept sayings which reflect the same «understanding of existence» as that found in indubitably genuine sayings, but to go beyond that is to run the risk, again, of doing in terms of the new existentialism what was done in terms of the old liberalism.

For Robinson, the particular function of the «new quest» is to investigate, not the self - consciousness of Jesus, for which we have no sources, «but the understanding of existence which emerged in history from his words and deeds», (Ibid., p. 200.)

In addition to the three things related to Kähler's work, there is one further element in Bultmann's thinking that needs to be considered at this point: the significance of the historical Jesus for an individual's self - understanding, or understanding of existence.

The actual word in German is Existenzverständnis, and James M. Robinson has properly urged that the English «understanding of existence» should be used to express it.

Unless we exercise all possible care, it is just as easy for «Jesus» understanding of existence» to become «my understanding of existence» as it was for «Jesus» moral principles» to become the liberal scholar's ideals.

True, it tends to ask rather different questions, such as those concerning the understanding of existence implicit in Jesus» teaching, but its work is still based on exactly the same kind of historical - critical methodology as that used by Bultmann or Jeremias.

A similar study, with similar consequences in terms of a possible challenge to our understanding of existence, could be carried out in connection with any figure from the past for whom we had sources: Socrates the philosopher, or even Attila the Hun, as well as Jesus the Christ.

«Also, the magnetic field of the Earth is generated by flow in the liquid core, so the findings of Rowley and co-authors are likely to have implications for our understanding of the existence, character and amplitude of the Earth's magnetic field and its evolution through geological time,» Braun added.

In my life (a long one) we say we are confused because we do not have the basic (lowest level) understanding of our existence.

Not exact matches

Despite the existence of some brilliant books teaching us how to be a successful leader, not many of the ambitious businessmen understand the true value of management.