Sentences with phrase «what other scriptures»

Not exact matches

Of course the problem with this «answer», like so many others, is that it is an appeal to some evidence completely OUTSIDE of and CONTRARY to what scripture itself CLEARLY states.

Now, as you talk of UV light and water and oxygen (and yes, this is not my field of science), but I do care to read other hypothesis given forth to explain things, before jumping to believe what a religious scripture or actually its Church wants me to believe.

In other words, the scriptures mostly confirm what who I know, and nourishes this knowledge.

We can point to scriptures that should help others realize that their actions are contrary to what Jesus taught.

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.

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 thing).

The remaining ecumenical contribution is what we ought to call «Lutheran culture,» one filled with blessed pieties, a love of Jesus Christ and Sacred Scripture, a sense of being a company of saints that is often lost in Roman Catholic parishes, and other collateral graces stemming from the passions of the Reformation.

«First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as a rule of faith and religion, without mixing it with any other things which might be devised by the opinion of men apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same Word without addition to diminution, according to the command of our Lord.»

As a group, they might want to also go out and put into practice what they have learned in Scripture to meet the physical, emotional, and psychological needs of others in the community.

It is popular among the elite Bible scholars and academy - trained theologians to sneer at the uneducated lay person who seeks to teach Scripture and theology to others as being «untrained» and therefore, unable to accurately teach others what God is like, what He says in Scripture, and how to live life in light of what we learn.

What I have learned, is that even though it is difficult for the laymen / students to get ahold of enough knowledge to have a fair perspective, that there is wide and serious divide between the Bible and other scriptures.

What are some other troubling / strange / forgotten passages of Scripture that rarely make it to our desk calendars or sermon outlines?

This is what a comprehensive contextual reading of Scripture leads to, instead of having to balance apparently contradictory texts against each other when they are plucked out as «proof texts.»

A quick about Abba Pambo — a contemporary of Origen: «If we asked [him] for a word from scripture or some other thing, he would not give us an answer right away but would say, «I haven't figured out the meaning of this word yet»... It normally happened that he spent two or three whole days, or a whole week without giving us an answer saying «if I do not know what sort of fruit this will bear, whether it is a fruit of death or life, I will not speak.»»

And what you did in your post is something that I've seen many other Christians do, you take a little piece of the scripture here, and a little bit there and you sew them together so that the word of God supports what YOU want it to say.

On the other hand, there were other men who disagreed: Tertullian, who believed that the soul would live on forever, that the wicked would suffer misery in proportion to the righteous» reward; St. Augustine, who came up with the doctrines of Original Sin and Predestination (some would be saved, the rest would be damned); and Jerome, who would end up retranslating the Latin Bible into what would become the Latin Vulgate and would twist various scriptures that talked about eonian chastening into teaching eternal torment.

Some Christians might believe this, but it is not explicitly taught in Scripture, and there are many other views on how the «atonement» worked and what the death of Jesus accomplished.

«When you take Scripture and twist it to «reinterpet» what it means, and then teach others, you are literally playing with fire... eternal fire,» Smith continued.

If you truly believe that your view of Scriptures is what is most orthodox, then instead of trying to conk each other over the heads, as brothers and sisters, we should be submitting our orthodoxy to the mercy seat.

I am repeating some of what others have already said in this blog but also including scripture which I think is always important when we voice an opinion based on God's word.

On the other hand, in our questioning of Scripture we must never fix in advance what Scripture will say.

I am not saying that the bible doesn't contain many examples of telling the faithful to dig deeper, to study more & grow closer to God through the study of the scriptures, but it NEVER says «Go ahead and study what other religions have to offer because it will only give you stronger faith in the bible».

Principles of interpretation (Hermeneutics) 1) Literal Principle — Scripture is to be understood in its natural, normal sense, read literally 2) Grammar Principle — Deal with what it says in the way it says it, be it using metaphor, simile, narrative, etc. 3) Historical Principle — Read the Bible in its historical context 4) Synthesis Principle — No one part of the Bible contradicts any other part (Scripture interprets Scripture) 5) Practical Principle — It contains a practical application 6) Illumination of the Holy Spirit — It is the job of the Holy Spirit to enlighten the child of God to the meaning of Scripture, without Him, one is without the ability to interpret Scripture

And what about other scriptures from other faiths?

Some turn to nature to see what God is like, and others turn to Scripture.

At that time I said rather just what I had always tried to say, namely, that beside God we can have no other gods, that the Holy Spirit of the Scriptures is enough to guide the church in all truth, and that the grace of Jesus Christ is all - sufficient for the forgiveness of our sins and the ordering of our lives.

Lately I have been encouraged to read the scriptures without infusing my own thoughts, or what I've heard others say, or teach about the bible.

Any time you reason the answer to scripture from your opinion and once you say this is what the scripture means then you can find other scripture to back up what you say because you just up and changed the meaning of the original text.

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.

We must stay as close as possible to the text and reason it out guided by other text of scripture according to what is written and not according to some random explanation of men.

I don't have many who share the same thoughts, though my father and I have been challenging each other regularly as to what scripture says.

Here is the verse, and I am open and willing to see what is written here and understand so show me how this scripture that speaks so emphatically and forthrightly can mean something other than a certain sin can not and will not be forgiven, namely the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

What makes the Bible any different than any other ancient collection of morality tales, or any other religion's scriptures?

Even the Apostle Paul stated, that if any man teach any other teaching or doctrine other than what the apostles have taught and left in the scriptures, let him be accursed.

This inquiry has to be linked with the question of what Scripture has to say on our problem, for it is of course only to be expected that the one question will involve the other.

They are learning what it means to follow Jesus into the world, to experience true community with other believers, to read Scripture in a new light, and to serve others out of love rather than compulsion.

Other places in Scripture tell us what these other thingsOther places in Scripture tell us what these other thingsother things are.

When they quote such a verse at us, we think that since it is Scripture, it must mean what the world says it means, and so we refrain from judging others, without ever looking up the passage to see what it really says.

It is possible that what is recorded in Scripture is an accurate and true account of what Joshua and the other leaders of Israel thought God was telling them to do, when in fact, He was not.

But what the other implications of Scripture's «God - breathedness» are, and how its divine origin correlates with its human dimension, are nowhere delineated.

Here, and in other egalitarian literature, principle is given priority over application; admonition is given preference over description.34 What is dangerous in such a procedure, though it admittedly works in many cases, is the implied epistemological claim that objective, impersonal statements are of a somehow higher order of trustworthiness than the more personal and relational aspects of Scripture.

I accept no creeds or confessions other than what Scripture makes clear, even though I may have no disagreement with any of them.

I have a hunch that one explanation accounts for the silence of evangelical biblical scholars more than any other: the basic fear that their findings, as they deal with the text of Scripture, will conflict with the popular understanding of what inerrancy entails.

But then on the other hand how on earth can one expect to find an essential consciousness of sin (and after all that is what Christianity wants) in a life which is so retarded by triviality, by a chattering imitation of «the others,» that one hardly can call it sin, that it is too spiritless to be so called, and fit only, as the Scripture says, to be «spewed out»?

For our ethical considerations on peace, peace - ministry, conflict resolution, Christians may profit from reading the Old Testament, our Holy Scripture, as a witness to the experience of a people in war and peace with other nations and as a reflection on what peace requires of the community.

But whoever wants, on the other hand, really to behold and receive all truth, and would have the truth - world overhang him as an empyrean of stars, complex, multitudinous, striving antagonistically, yet comprehended, height above height, and deep under deep, in a boundless score of harmony; what man soever, content with no small rote of logic and catechism, reaches with true hunger after this, and will offer himself to the many - sided forms of the scripture with a perfectly ingenuous and receptive spirit; he shall find his nature flooded with senses, vastnesses, and powers of truth, such as it is even greatness to feel.

What this means is that when Paul talks about blindness and the veil in 2 Corinthians 2 — 3, he is not talking primarily about how a person receives eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ, but about all the other truths of the gospel which are contained in the rest of Scripture, and which are centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Jeremy i agree with what you have written many of the traditions in the church have come from pagan beliefs.I thought some of the comments were judgemental of others especially towards those who are pagan.There response was respectful we can learn alot about having a good attitude towards others and responding to others kindly.I think using scripture in a legalistic way is no different than what the pharisees did to Jesus in his day and he disarmed them by rebuking them saying you without sin cast the first stone.regards brentnz

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.

I might be ecelectic, but what makes me consistent is my belief is something that combines the belief of Scripture with that of Englightenment philosophy: nurturing life is goodness, simply, and helping others to see a model that thinking for ourselves can help heal the world of all past injustices - so that we all learn to WANT to be good... within reason and by our own choice...: you have a society like that, you'll have less injustices, less violence, less money - grubbing by people who hold themselves as representatives of «authority» -(which side are you on, by the way, if you see the world as so divided in such a bipolar reality...?)