Sentences with phrase «with biblical ways»

Along with biblical ways of thinking it affirms a special significance of humankind within the context of creation, recognizing, as Conrad Bonifazi puts it in the context of explicating Teilhard de Chardin, that «in human beings evolution has revealed its profoundest energy and significance» (TNE 311).

Not exact matches

By the way, «Micro» Evolution or small changes that favor adaptability are not inconsistent with Biblical Beliefs at all.

You hit the nail squarely on the head for indeed so, biblical truths are «written on our heart» by way of the Presence of Christ's Indwelt Spirit Who is ever faithful to «guide you into all truth» and «show (us) things to come» (John 16:13) but the problem is (as is woefully evident with this Article \ s Author), too many people (believers) choose to eschew or disregard «sound doctrine» (2 Timothy 4:3) promulgating John 14:17 ignorance of the Doctrine of The Holy Spirit whose inevitable product is a darkened understanding (such as is evidenced by the Article's Author --RRB-.

One has only to compare these lines with the statements of St. Paul regarding the destiny of the Jews to see that the biblical thought has been drastically reduced in a way that is decidedly prejudicial.

I'm looking to eventually teach theology, but in between my personal studies, an obsessive reading habit, and spending far too much money on coffee, I started a blog called New Ways Forward as an outlet for some of my random thoughts and a way to interact with others who share a passion for theology, Biblical studies, and social justice.

All three of the biblical passages that instruct wives to submit to their husbands are either directly preceded or followed by instructions for slaves to obey their masters, with phrases like «likewise» and «in the same way» connecting them.

After 3 months of searching the internet and you tube to decide if I wanted to come back to religion, I finally found someone who preaches from the heart, the way my Mama and Papa used to hear when they went to church, DR John Collins with the Church of Biblical Christians tells it the way it should be plus he does not accept donations, He preaches against todays prosperity preachers, My Papa said hes the only guy he has heard of lately not affraid to tell you what he thinks and use scripture to back him up.

Any study of ancient hsitory and linking it in with all the Old Testament biblical journeys into Egypty, including JC's family pilgrimige, plus coming out of and being exiled back to Mesopotaia, with a little Persian, Greek, Roman, etc. influences along the way should make that clear.

Let's take a quick look at three ways Israel's encounter with Canaan in the Old Testament — the paradigm for biblical holy war — is radically different from our modern conflicts today.

One need not be surprised if in the conflict between the apparent implications of Biblical concepts, understood to be analogical, with metaphysical concepts, understood to be univocal, it is the implications of the Biblical concepts that give way.

Smith reminds readers of the idea of divine accommodation, which suggests that «in the process of divine inspiration, God did not correct every incomplete or mistaken viewpoint of the biblical authors in order to communicate through them with their readers... The point of the inspired scripture was to communicate its central point, not to straighten out every kink and dent in the views of all the people involved in biblical inscripturation and reception along the way.»

Together with the opening line of the Letter to the Hebrews («In ancient times God spoke to man through prophets and in varied ways, but now he speaks through Christ, His Son...»), as well as many other biblical texts, this passage reveals to us a startling truth.

The longest biblical passage on male - male sex is Romans 1:26 - 27: «Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.»

I believe it is the responsibility of all those who disagree with Richard Dawkins» rather superficial and juvenile conclusions about the biblical text, to create space for a deeper discussion around the way in which we work with it and, as a consequence, who we understand God to be.

I have honestly tried never to picture an ancient way of conceiving facts as though it were identical with modern thinking, but always to portray the Biblical writers as using their own mental forms of thought in their own way, however diverse from ours those forms may be.

Instinctively we know that our best preaching comes about when we have discovered the ways in which the biblical writers sought to change minds, hearts, and lives and then have taken those «available means of persuasion» with us into the pulpit.

Such a proposal in no way invalidates the search for doctrinal forms that are consistent with the substance of the biblical revelation; it merely means that their discovery will constitute but a halfway house rather than the journey's destination itself These doctrinal forms will then have to be adapted to and translated in terms of the assumptions and norms of the American situation in such a way that the Word of God is preserved in its integrity but affirmed in its contemporaneity.

The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility is a collection of essays that explore «the ways in which the persuasive (and related literary) procedures of the biblical writers cut across or reinforce their concern with truthBiblical Persuasion and Credibility is a collection of essays that explore «the ways in which the persuasive (and related literary) procedures of the biblical writers cut across or reinforce their concern with truthbiblical writers cut across or reinforce their concern with truth.»

On the way to the shelter, the pastor could lay the biblical groundwork for why we take care of orphans and widows, and provide some special tips for dealing with battered women.

Frei believed that those who develop theology that way, beginning with existential questions arising out of the human situation, will start reading the biblical stories as either historical raw material or timeless truths and moral lessons.

In the biblical language, the word elohim was combined with the proper name of the God of Israel, and later the word theos was used in the same way.

Thus there are at least three questions to ask those who would use psychological models to interpret the biblical text: What is wrong with the old ways?

There are at least three questions to ask those who would use psychological models to interpret the biblical text: What is wrong with the old ways?

But there may be another way in which that value is preserved; and in this book we have sought to present the possibility which fits in with general biblical thinking and which is also sufficiently in accordance with the conceptuality we have accepted.

Yet he refuses to collapse biblical theology into the history of the religion of Israel, distinguishing the two this way: ««History of religion» is concerned with all the forms and aspects of all human religions, while theology tends to be concerned with the truth - claims of one religion and especially with its authoritative texts and traditions and their interpretations.»

In short doubt is biblical as is going with our own desires (the way of the world).

Thus, rather than place the insights of contemporary society in dialogue with Scripture and tradition in a way that maintains Biblical authority, she has compromised the sole authority of Scripture by qualifying it from feminist perspectives.

Hellfire and brimstone is a bit Biblical, but only when presented with the hope of Heaven and the Way, Truth, and Life to get you there.

John Buckeridge explores ways you and your church can get onboard the US film «Evan Almighty» - soon to be released here - crammed with biblical themes... More

In essence for many years as a result of all the complex biblical teaching I have been immersed with and confused by, I find Jeremy that the clear way you put it helps a great deal.

It seems to me that the ease and carelessness with which many Christians employ the word «biblical» is one of the biggest barriers in the way of learning to love the Bible for what is, not what we want it to be.

Is it just me, or is there more than a little bit of tension in the way we deal with biblical and ecclesial images of sheep and shepherds, pastors and flocks?

But if you have the Story firmly in your head, with a good grasp of various biblical ways of telling it, what you teach by opportunity will, over time, exhibit a visible coherence that it wouldn't otherwise have.

The reason is that without a belief in Yahweh, acceptance that Jesus Christ is the only «way» to a relationship with the Creator, and measuring results in terms of Biblical truths, there would be little universal help to Christians, Jews, Moslems, atheists, and others at all.

While I know that my proposal wreaks havoc on many traditional ways of reading some biblical passages, please know that just as with Romans 8:34, I am aware of these texts and simply understand them in a different light — in the light of the love and beauty of the crucified Christ.

It is possible that Arimathea (like the later Emmaus) is actually an imagined site, for it is not known from any other source.9 It is just possible that the name «Joseph» may have been used to personalize the unknown Jew, presumed to have been responsible for the ritual burial, because of the biblical tradition which told of the care with which Joseph, the patriarch, transported the body of his father all the way back to Machpelah for burial.10

Once we take into account the capacity of the ancient Jewish mind to create a story as a way of expounding and showing the relevance of a Biblical text (this practice will be described in Chapter 9), it is not at all difficult to see how the story of Joseph of Arimathea could have been partly shaped by Isaiah 53:9, «And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death,» found in the famous chapter on the suffering servant, which was certainly interpreted by the early Christians as a prophecy of the death of Jesus.

There are a variety of ways in which this is so, but, at the same time, it's clear that certain aspects of pagan familial virtue are not exactly incompatible with the Biblical sacred order that can check or overcome their excesses and pathologies — just as the Biblical order imposes powerful interdicts, not to be confused with taboos, against the kind of violent desires that, to the morbid fascination of the ancient Greeks, deconstructed and destroyed the identities of family - bound individuals.

My third prediction is that the word «evangelical» will go the way of «fundamentalism» as its adherents become increasingly homogonous and as the word becomes associated with dogmatism regarding politics, science, women's roles, homosexuality, salvation, and biblical literalism.

But perhaps its democratization, in conjunction with the persistence of Biblical faith among many of those who retain the ideal, actually points the way toward its further ennoblement.

Many of those during conventions even told me privately that they don't really believe anymore, and that it was about furthering political agendas, «to get many folks to think the way we think» so that we may establish a true Christian Nation with BIBLICAL LAWS.

F. D. Dillistone, former Bishop of Liverpool, once suggested that artists dealing with biblical subject matter have two ways to go.

God endowed biblical women with unique gifts for handling what came their way as they built God's Realm.

«Now with that out of the picture, and people getting the impression that they have a right to perfect certitude and perfect clarity and perfect order every step of the way, you've basically — I'm gonna say it strongly — you've basically destroyed the biblical idea of faith to begin with.»

A few years ago, in a moment of lonely desperation, I googled something having to do with «Christians against biblical inerrancy» (for some reason you were on the first or second page of search results...) because I was trying to find out if there was anyone else who was thinking about the Scriptures in a different way from what I had encountered.

Second, their commitment to Luther's theological concept of the priesthood of all believers (or its equivalent) led them to view catechetical instruction as a way of equipping the laity to take up the ministries that were properly theirs, providing them with the biblical and theological knowledge necessary to this task.

«As an argument against this way of thinking, this kind of idolatry, I turn to the work of Walter Brueggemann, who, in an interview last year with Krista Tippett for On Being, explained the reason for the abundance of metaphors we find for God in the scriptures this way: «The Biblical defense against idolatry is plural metaphors.

I am not sure I have ever connected discipleship with the biblical covenants in this way.

There were other issues too: The way the accounts of Israel's monarchy contradicted one another, the way Jesus and Paul quoted Hebrew Scripture in ways that seemed to stretch the original meaning, the fact that women were considered property in Levitical Law, the way both science and archeology challenged the historicity of so many biblical texts, and the fact that it was nearly impossible for me to write a creative retelling of Resurrection Day because each of the gospel writers tell the story so differently, sometimes with contradictory details.

With biblical «conservatives» he shares reverence for the sense of the given text, the «last» text.8 He is not concerned to draw inferences from the text to its underlying history, to the circumstances of writing, to the spiritual state of the authors, or even to the existential encounter between Jesus and his followers.9 Indeed, Ricoeur, in his own way, takes the New Testament for what it claims to be: «testimony «10 to the transforming power of the Resurrection.