Sentences with phrase «with historical meaning»

Yet to those who participated in or benefited from the wrestling with historical meaning and the concept of God, there seems no reason to forget what was learned.

Not exact matches

The volatility of the business has prompted some casino operators to report their results on a hold - adjusted basis, meaning they also tell investors what revenue would have been had winnings been more in line with historical norms.

The rollercoaster ride in oil prices over the past three years may be old hat to investors familiar with the commodity's historical sensitivity to macro events (see chart below), but oil price volatility is by no means endemic and several factors are now lining up to suggest a calmer period for crude may lie ahead.

Fairly priced doesn't mean sell, it means you should expect returns consistent with historical returns, or something like 4 or 5 percentage points more than bonds.

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

In taking up this strain of his thought, his «Southernness,» I must make it clear at once that I myself am centrally concerned with «Southernness,» by which I do not mean a limited historical or geographical reduction to the local accidents of place.

This is NOT to say the resurrection did or did not happen, it is to say with Troeltsch, that the resurrection is not a «historical» fact in the sense that it is not possible for historians to consider it — just as a supernova would not be a biological or sociological «fact» because it is outside their scope, don't mean novae don't happen!

that minimizes the historical suffering of women and minority groups in this country, 2) an overwrought persecution complex that confuses sharing civil rights with others with being persecuted by them, and 3) a persistent fear of the perceived «other» — Muslims, LGBT people, immigrants, refugees, etc. — that results in culture wars meant to «take back» the public square.

The second and third meanings inapplicable to historical events in the past have to do with modes of presence in which something other than one's own subjectivity is present to that subjectivity.

But the person who maintains dialogue between the historical and the contemporary has relevance and perspective, and the meanings with which he meets life will be a product of the dialogue.

The theological issues in a Methodist seminary dealt with the Reformers, by whom one meant Luther and Calvin, and with their contemporary heirs, Barth, Tillich, Bultmann, and the new quest for the historical Jesus.

Wieseltier continues: «Both nationalism and religion are expressions of the certainty, historical and spiritual, that we have not created ourselves, that we have sources, and that those sources have something to do with the meaning of our lives.

Christian eschatology and Incarnation now are seen to mean a total affirmation of the world, a total identification of the sacred with historical reality.

Simply by noting the overwhelming power and the comprehensive expression of the modern Christian experience of the death of God, we can sense the effect of the ever fuller movement of the Word or Spirit into history, a movement whose full meaning only dawns with the collapse of Christendom, and in the wake of the historical realization of the death of God.

This means that through the internal creativity of the biblical perspective, joined with the modern historical consciousness which it helped to create, a new possibility has been opened up for reconceiving the meaning of God's being in relation to time and history.

Therefore we must recognize that to understand the Christian Word as an historical Word need not mean that it is identified with a history that is past.

Historical criticism causes us to miss the message the original author was trying to convey, what issues their audience was dealing with, and as a result, we completely miss the message and meaning of the text.

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 interpretHistorical 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 interprethistorical 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

«13 Gerhard von Rad recalls with approval the suggestion of the Jewish biblical scholar Franz Rosenzweig: we ought no longer to think of the symbol R as standing for Redactor but rather, for Rab benu, which means, in Hebrew, our master»; since for the final form in which we receive the work, we are indebted to him and to his interpretation.14 His was the same historical perspective which gave rise to this prayer:

Because of the limited perspective from which every historical interpretation is carried out, no single event can be seen to embody or express the ultimate meaning or direction of history in a way that the historical interpreter can know with finality.

Jesus of the Gospel accounts was compatible with the classic confession of the true humanity o There my point was that the book's emphasis on the concrete historical - political humanity of the f Christ (i.e., the core meaning of «incarnation»), whereas those who deny that humanity (or its normative exemplarity) in favor of «some more spiritual» message are implicitly Docetic.

The issue is whether we can have a plausible idea of how it could have been possible, and by plausible I mean self - consistent and consistent with whatever historical facts we have.

They saw themselves on a divinely appointed «errand into the wilderness» with profound personal, ecclesiastical, and world - historical meaning.

Peter Williamson, without perhaps meaning to do so, puts his finger on my central question, one that can not be solved for Catholic Christians solely by historical research: What does it mean for Messianic Jews, Jewish Christians, «to be faithful to the covenant that God made with their ancestors»?

Even though the «historical section» or humiliation seems even to disappear from some of these kerygmatic texts, their original intention was to emphasize the meaningfulness of Jesus» historicity or humiliation, and only with gnosticism was this original meaning lost.

He is concerned with the theologico - philosophical, epistemological, psychological, phenomenological and historical analysis of the nature and meaning of religion and with the forms of expression of religious experience and the dynamics of religious life.

The opposite of this kind of stepping back was the historical figure of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at the Munich conference with Adolf Hitler, declaring, after he had followed an appeasement line, that this meant peace in our time.

Whilst this approach was disturbing for many Christians at the time, it again meant that defenders of Christianity, instead of calling for a leap of faith, could start from historical events and argue from them to the divinity of Jesus Christ His divinity was seen as the perfection of his humanity and this fitted with the approach of Schleiermacher, who saw Jesus, whose consciousness was entirely taken up with awareness of God, as «the ideal representative of religion».

To be blunt, I see no way to avoid the strictly historical and hermeneutical conclusion that Christianity has understood, does and should understand itself as a meaning - system with a universalist claim.

One may need to look up words not used in ordinary conversation to understand what Berger means when he writes: «the problem of theodicy was solved in terms of eschatology» or «one should not confuse epistemology (i.e., knowledge) with historical gratitude.»

With its appeal to the so - called historical - critical method for gaining an insight into the meaning of the text, this approach is to be associated with the liberal theology stemming from the EnlightenmWith its appeal to the so - called historical - critical method for gaining an insight into the meaning of the text, this approach is to be associated with the liberal theology stemming from the Enlightenmwith the liberal theology stemming from the Enlightenment.

With a priori alienation (Verfremdung) from the text as the starting point, the intelligibility of mind, laboring in and through methodology, would transport the interpreter into the realm of another time and place and by the determination of meaning in relation to a specific historical context would illuminate the obscure text.

And when Christians forget what their faith means, they get duped by trendy terms such as the rapture that have little to do with historical Christianity, he says.

And as this historical consciousness began to emerge, the question of meaning in history arose along with it.

What Bultmann means is that the difference between the mythological language of the New Testament and ecclesiastical dogma on the one hand and his own interpretation on the other is that the former presents us with a «miraculous, supernatural event», whereas the right interpretation is one which suggests «an historical event wrought out in time and space».

For the society is facing not only a new age of information, but also a new technological era which brings with it a challenge to all of the historical religions, and which can lead either to humankind «s next integrative steps toward new religious insights and meaning, or to a collapse of religious development and the emergence of a period of anarchy and despair.

When the historical experience of the whole people is interpreted in such a way as to affirm the illimitable by virtue of an open frontier existing for a long period of their history, then it surely follows that that declaration of the eschatological character of all existence will not easily address them with quick and intelligible meaning.

Their use of Wesleyan sources (meaning material from John and Charles Wesley or the «Wesleyan» traditions after them) typically blends historical investigation with concern for contemporary relevance.

But as far as the historical Christ is concerned, it means no more than the readiness to be conformed with the death of Christ.

I've talked with Jews about this matter, and they said the stories in the Torah (Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc.) aren't meant to be taken as literal, historical facts, but as allegories and moral tales.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

Even if it is true, finally, that the text accomplishes its meaning only in personal appropriation, in the «historical» decision (and this I believe strongly with Bultmann against all the current philosophies of a discourse without the subject), this appropriation is only the final stage, the last threshold of an understanding which has first been uprooted and moved into another meaning.

The historian's detection of the kerygma at the centre of the Gospels found a formal analogy in the contemporary view of historiography as concerned with underlying meaning, and this correlation led to the view that the kind of quest of the historical Jesus envisaged by the nineteenth century not only can not succeed, but is hardly appropriate to the intention of the Gospels and the goal of modern historiography.

Since the twentieth century worked out its initial attitude toward the «historical Jesus» in terms of the only available reconstruction, that of the nineteenth century with all its glaring limitations, it is not surprising to find as a second consequence a tendency to disassociate the expression «the historical Jesus» from «Jesus of Nazareth as he actually was», and to reserve the expression for: «What can be known of Jesus of Nazareth by means of the scientific methods of the historian».

Hence for the nineteenth century the two meanings of «the historical Jesus» tended to coincide: «Jesus of Nazareth as he actually was» coincided with «the reconstruction of his biography by means of objective historical method».

Although one may concede that the kerygma is not concerned with a Jesus «according to the flesh», if by this one means a historically proven Lord,» it is equally apparent that the kerygma is centrally concerned with a Jesus «in the flesh», in the sense that the heavenly Lord was «born of a woman, born under the law», a historical person.

For how can the indispensable historicity of Jesus be affirmed, while at the same time maintaining the irrelevance of what a historical encounter with him would mean, once this has become a real possibility due to the rise of modern historiography?

It is not a sufficient condition for classification as an evolutionary cosmology that a philosophical system take some vague cognizance of, or prove itself compatible with the brute historical facts of evolutionary change and transformation (which are by no means always «upward» or «progressive»).

Older critical attempts to illustrate the relevance of the past by means of historical analogy require too much recasting of the narrative and simple speculation, and may presume too great a curiosity about these matters to begin with.

The term «Christ,» on the other hand, makes it clear that the problem that he is dealing with is the teachings of Christianity, especially with respect to what various groups have meant by «following Christ,» For the same reason, I think, he deals primarily with leading Christian theologians, rather than with denominations or historical movements.