However, John 20:9 notes, «they still did not
understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.»
However, John 20:9 notes, «they still did not
understand from scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.»
Not exact matches
The Qur «an never asks a Christian or Jew to accept it because their own
scripture has become corrupt, rather they are asked to accept the Qur «an because the Qur «an claims, 1 / to confirm the teaching of the Bible, 2 / that Muhammad is foretold in the Torah and Gospel, 3 / the Qur «anic teaching makes clear what the Jews and Christians could not
understand properly
from their own
scriptures.
As Evangelicals and Catholics fully committed to our respective heritages, we affirm together the coinherence of
Scripture and tradition: tradition is not a second source of revelation alongside the Bible but must ever be corrected and informed by it, and
Scripture itself is not
understood in a vacuum apart
from the historical existence and life of the community of faith.
Here are some
scriptures from the Book of Mormon to help show that you do nt
understand the church:
Good point, but now to fully
understand the topic approach it
from the other side, if God does exist then what value does
scripture hold.
Read the entire chapter 2 instead of quoting
from atheists websites (who know nothing of
scripture) and you'll
understand it.
I am a Mormon who has actually read the Book of Mormon, and I encourage anyone with doubts or questions to actually read it for themselves and study the churches teachings
from primary sources — the
scriptures, words of the prophets, the church itself — rather than trusting 3rd party interpretations or claims of
understanding Mormonism.
We are seeing several foundational truths
from Genesis 2 about how to
understand life, theology,
Scripture, society, religion, and culture.
If you want to see how today's foundational truth is applied to our
understanding of theology,
Scripture, and culture, I highly recommend you get my book on the Atonement
from Amazon.
Over the next several centuries, with what Wright considers the gradual loss of the «Israel - dimension» in the church's
understanding of itself and its
scriptures, «the notion of scriptural authority became detached
from its narrative context, and thereby isolated
from both the fit and the goal of the Kingdom,» according to Wright.
This is a guest post
from Randall Burgess on how to
understand Scripture in context.
«Male and female he created them» is not merely a statement
from Scripture but a reflection on the physical and spiritual reality of things, and in the modern era we are coming to
understand just how very interesting it is that we are male and female, how different and complementary we are, howsignificant this might be, and how much we need to study and reflect on it.
In it, I discuss the concept of adoption
from Scripture and how it helps us
understand Romans 9:4.
None of it was making any sense to them, John says, because no one who was there that morning
understood the
scripture, that Jesus must rise
from the dead.
The Reformers were opposed to many abuses within the church, and believed that most of these abuses stemmed
from the Catholic Church's reliance upon tradition for their beliefs, practices, and
understanding of
Scripture.
And
scripture's witnesses are properly
understood only in the context of the social, cultural and historical circumstances
from which they come.
Like the Calvinist, the non-Calvinist also believes that his or her
understanding of God is accurately derived
from Scripture and what God has revealed about Himself on its pages and through Jesus Christ.
The very arrangement of the biblical books in the Hebrew canon of
scripture presupposes this definition of prophetism.1 Between the first division of the Law and the third division of the Writings, the central category of the Prophets embraces not only the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve prophets
from Hosea to Malachi (all together termed «Latter Prophets») but also the historical writings of Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings («Former Prophets») In this way the Hebrew Bible formally and appropriately acknowledges that prophetism is more than the prophet and his work, that it is also a way of looking at,
understanding, and interpreting history.
It should be the work of Christian teachers in every generation, first, to
understand the
Scriptures, to distinguish what gives unity to the message of the Bible
from what is peculiar to this or that writer, what is central
from what is peripheral, what is essential
from what is accidental; and then, on the basis of such
understanding, to develop a doctrine of the act of God in Christ which will be intelligible, or at least not meaningless, to the contemporary mind.
This has a bit of merit
from Scripture (depending on how you
understand Abraham's bosom in Luke 16:19 - 31, and the statement in 1 Peter 3:19 about how Jesus preached to the spirits in prison), but again, this view is highly speculative.
It limits the divine nature of
Scripture to some non-existent manuscripts, and restricts the accurate
understanding of
Scripture to a few scholarly elites who study Greek and Hebrew while shut away
from the rest of the world, and then tell all of us who are out in the world, how wrong and ignorant we are about what the Bible really means.
Ed, you're speaking more
from a traditional
understanding of the
Scriptures than you are speaking
from the
Scriptures themselves.
To
understand the Gospels, one must read forward
from Israel's
Scriptures to their fulfillment in the life of Jesus.
This is recorded as the very words of Jesus and is a great example of how even those of you who believe you form your opinion on
scripture are still very much operating
from your own
understanding.
If this is true, then God helps us read and
understand Scripture, where we are reading Greek and Hebrew, or a translation
from the Greek and Hebrew.
That a congregation's defining practice of worship is a response «in Jesus» name» implies study of that to which it is a response: Just how is God
understood to be «present» is Jesus» ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection appearances; what
understanding of God follows
from this; who is Jesus; what are the sources and the warrants of these characterizations of Jesus and of God (
scripture, tradition, history of doctrine); what
understanding of these sources makes them not only sources but also authoritative for these
understandings of God and Jesus?
New light can arise
from science and help us in our
understanding, but nothing
from that quarter need make us forsake the
Scripture principle.
The violent portions of
Scripture are to be
understood as the times when God withdrew
from sinful humanity and a sinful world.
For much in
Scripture can not be
understood apart
from the active obedience to the voice that speaks there.
Read about Philip when he witnessed to the eunuch and asked him if he
understood the
scriptures, and Philip expounded those to him more perfectly
from Isaiah.
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.
It is proper to call him doctor of doctors, the agility of the spirit without which there would be no doctor who could give good instruction; through the treasury of his writings they have enriched all they have gained; and through his commentaries they have acquired the ability to interpret;
from him I have learned the habit of meditation of the divine word; his meditation became for me the guide towards
scripture; and he has elevated me towards the
understanding of the books of the spirit.
Scripture understands this — in fact, it is a profound theme of scripture from the beginning, when God dresses Adam and Eve in animal skins before they leave Eden, to the end, when we're all going to be wearing white robes in the new J
Scripture understands this — in fact, it is a profound theme of
scripture from the beginning, when God dresses Adam and Eve in animal skins before they leave Eden, to the end, when we're all going to be wearing white robes in the new J
scripture from the beginning, when God dresses Adam and Eve in animal skins before they leave Eden, to the end, when we're all going to be wearing white robes in the new Jerusalem.
I am not positive, but
from what I
understand, the doctrine of inspiration at its core is generally used to define the nature of
Scripture as God's Word.
It is, in particular, the second of evangelicalism's two tenets, i. e., Biblical authority, that sets evangelicals off
from their fellow Christians.8 Over against those wanting to make tradition co-normative with
Scripture; over against those wanting to update Christianity by conforming it to the current philosophical trends; over against those who view Biblical authority selectively and dissent
from what they find unreasonable; over against those who would
understand Biblical authority primarily in terms of its writers» religious sensitivity or their proximity to the primal originating events of the faith; over against those who would consider Biblical authority subjectively, stressing the effect on the reader, not the quality of the source — over against all these, evangelicals believe the Biblical text as written to be totally authoritative in all that it affirms.
O when one beholds a man who protests that he has entirely
understood how Christ went about in the form of a lowly servant, poor, despised, and, as the
Scripture says, spat upon — when I see the same man so careful to betake himself thither where in a worldly sense it is good to be, and accommodate himself there in the utmost security, when I see him apprehensive of every puff of wind
from right or left, as though his life depended upon it, and so blissful, so utterly blissful, so awfully glad — yes, to make the thing complete, so awfully glad that he is able to thank God for it — glad that he is held in honor by all men — then I have often said to myself and by myself, «Socrates, Socrates, Socrates, can it be possible that this man has
understood what he says he has
understood?»
The only way to
understand scripture, is to interpret it
from scripture.
We've already discussed Chapter 2 — «The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature» — in which Enns tackles the difficult question of how to
understand the Bible as special and revelatory when Genesis in particular looks so much like other literature
from the ancient Near Eastern world, and Chapter 3 --- «The Old Testament and Theological Diversity» — which addresses some of the tension, ambiguity, and diversity found within the pages of
Scripture.
Furthermore, if we consider the teachings of «original» Buddhism to be identical with the nucleus of the older sources of the Himayana
scriptures, then we must immediately admit that these teachings, as well as the whole «religion of Buddha,» underwent a marked change in their later development; and we can readily
understand how,
from the standpoint of the «classical ideal» this development might be viewed as nothing but deprivation and decline.
We all too easily forget that the
Scriptures derive
from and can only be
understood properly in the light of the Apostolic Faith.
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.
Here are some quotes
from Calvinists showing how they
understand and explain the «dead in sin» imagery in
Scripture.
The itinerant worker is often necessary to help a group of people
understand the
Scriptures a little better, or grant them freedom
from some of the traditions and baggage or the past, or provide some helpful guidance about grace, forgiveness, and love.
If the entire Bible is the word of God, which it most certainly is, then we can simply look to other
scriptures, like Paul in Romans (1:26 - 28) to
understand that homosexuality is a sin and and ought to be repented of, turned
from, along with other sins when turning to Jesus Christ for salvation.
I am not so concerned whether
scripture is completely factually true or if the authors included their own perspectives /
understandings (I can't imagine that they could do otherwise)-- I don't believe those things take away
from the truth I will find there.
I want so much to lead him to a correct
understanding of
scripture — not that God loves us all and overlooks our sin so we're all OK and don't need to worry about it, but rather that He loves us enough to lead us away
from our sin.
In the case of Christian thinkers, to be sure, these implications have usually been obscured by the presence in their thought of another quite different
understanding of reality which derives
from Holy
Scripture.
(This is the overall purpose of everything I write and teach, by the way, to rescue
Scripture, theology, and the church
from these twisted ways of thinking, and to show people that God looks just like Jesus, and
Scripture, when properly
understood, leads us to love.)
Perhaps a summary of the basics of Catholic teaching on each issue, arguments
from scripture, arguments
from natural law and empirical evidence
from modern society and scientific
understanding?