Sentences with phrase «what paul»

Look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:27» But i discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after i preach to others I myself should be disqualified.»

This is what Paul goes on to describe in the rest of Ephesians 4:14.

A mythical version of dualistic thinking may be found in what Paul Ricoeur calls the «myth of the exiled soul.

Indeed, as we might expect, it is the most confident believers who acknowledge most humbly their limited insight into what Paul called «the deep things of God,» (I Corinthians 2:10.)

What Paul is actually saying is that there are no instructions in Scripture or from the teachings of Jesus about certain aspects of marriage.

The combination of chauvinism, mechanism and pietism built into this approach seems to contradict essential elements of the liberal Protestant character, especially its commitments to free and open inquiry, ecumenical theological ventures, and the critical exposure of what Paul Tillich called «distortions» of all kinds, including those built into its own structures.

Then I might gain some practical understanding of what Paul was saying to the Corinthians: «God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.»

Will you get into what Paul said about the good that I know to do, I don't do and vice versa?

I'm not sure if that's what Paul meant, but perhaps he just felt the illustration useful in Romans 7 and it's us who've woven it into the story of redemption — who've made ourselves split and fractured instead of whole.

On the basis of what Paul Tillich called the Protestant Principle, we can predict that in politics we will always be somewhat wrong even when we are somewhat right.

Nevertheless, Professor Delasanta seems to be held captive by what Paul Ricoeur calls the first level of naiveté.

Now we can understand what Paul meant when he wrote, «It is no longer I but sin that works in me.»

But that is not what Paul preaches: He preaches Christ in us the Hope of glory, as Christ is to be formed in us here and now: It is by Grace through Faith that we are saved, a 2 part salvation: Only through the operation of Faith, do we have grace to be saved: In Adam all die EVEN SO in Christ is all made alive: A death to life cycle:

Those transformed begin to experience what Paul referred to as principalities of light and darkness.

This is what Paul calls himself in Romans 1 (a great book in the Bible, I suggest you read it!).

This is surely what Paul means by «making Israel jealous» for the faith that saves (Rom.

I think that what you have expressed here is what Paul taught about how we are to interact with our governments.

But is this really what Paul meant?

Craig's reply: Paul received his revelation from Jesus Christ so if you don't follow what Paul says then you are not a follower of Jesus Christ.

But if they can both sign up to what Paul says about love that it is not arrogant, rude or resentful then they already have a lot in common.

There are numerous cultural, historical, grammatical, and contextual issues that must be researched if we are going to understand what Paul is saying and why.

But even if you take away what Paul has to say and leave me with only what Jesus has to say I would still have to come to the conclusion that as a person of faith I would need to support government programs that help the needy, sick and poor... the orphans and the widows... those who are oppressed and marginalized by the majority and the rich.

If you do want to know Jesus» instructions to the church then look at what Paul says.

This reference is talking about h e t e r o s e x u a l people who gave up their natural orientation to have s e x with people of the same gender in what Paul calls, «Their search for pleasure.»

let the older women teach what Paul and our pastor's cant teach a woman.

The argument of what Paul or Timothy wrote is irrelevant.

Instead, there are consequences in this life (loss of relationships with others, loss of health, even loss of life), and consequences at the Judgment Seat of Christ where we experience shame and loss of eternal reward (this is what Paul is talking about in 2 Corinthians 5:10).

It is only because of what Paul has written that someone raises the objection that if what Paul is saying is true, why can't people sin all they want?

What Paul is saying here is, if a woman would not want the disgrace of having her hair cut off or her head shaved then she should have the same attitude towards God and cover her head.

It is the only really strong thing in the world, because it is what Paul said it is: never failing, able to endure all things and yet still be love.

However what Paul was addressing was a complex issue happening in Corinth at the time around women and how they were wearing their hair and how the should dress for assembly.

What do you do when a passage in a non-Pauline book seems to contradict what Paul has said?

I believe that's what Paul and Jesus did

It is true that Luke was not present when most of these were uttered, and probably had to fill out somewhat any outline or report which had come to him; but this only means that the sermon, if not exactly what Paul or Peter said, is what another early Christian preacher, Luke, would have said, and supposes Paul would have said, in those circumstances.

This is what Paul has in mind when he uses the expression in 1 Cor.

Christians care more about what Paul said than what Jesus said.

We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people.

To «dig your heals in» and say, «I will only follow what Paul says!»

Why do you people care so much what Paul said?

Who cares what Paul said?

And that is true not only for so - called new Christians, but for many of us in our own allegedly Christian society who do not understand what Paul would have required us as Christians to understand.

A woman being a pastor of that church could not illustrate what Paul shared in Ephesians 5.

This is what Paul Tillich once described as the «principle of mutuality,» a principle that is basic in all pastoral counseling.

This requires what Paul Tillich calls «deliteralization» — in other words, moving beyond the symbolic stories (such as the creation myth and Jonah) to discover the glowing, self - authenticating truths - for - living which are visible only when one escapes from wooden literalism.

What we witness, in fact, is what Paul also said, «The more they called themselves philosophers, the more stupid they grew.»

If you want to know church age doctrine and practice you always look to what Paul says first (which really isn't Paul because he received all of his revelation from the Lord Jesus).

Anthony's post on the 30th refers to what Jesus said in Matt 25:34 - 36, while Kenny's post on the 31st refers to what Paul said in Rom 10:8 - 10.

I 100 % believe what Paul is saying in Romans 10.

What Paul is doing is tying this homosexual behaviour that he's talking about with idolatry.

In other words, what Paul was faced with was an early form of aggiornamento, to use a modern Roman Catholic term which means, literally, to bring Christianity up to date.