Sentences with phrase «words in the new testament»

There are more versions of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.

Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly.

One interesting use of the word in the New Testament, however, is in relation to Jesus Christ.

The word in the New Testament we translate «soul» is used to mean life, mind, or a complete person.

(If any one is in doubt as to the lack of clarity for modern readers in the King James translation let him read L. A. Weigle, The English New Testament (Abingdon - Cokesbury, N.Y., 1946, pp. 149 - 153) where the author lists nearly two hundred words in the New Testament alone that have changed meaning.)

Then, as the word makes its way across the Old Testament and if we make the correct match with the corresponding Greek word in the New Testament, an amazing pattern emerges.

Not exact matches

We encounter it in the Gospels and in other places in the New Testament, especially in the words of Saint Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians and in Romans.

The word «Antichrist» itself is so compelling that were there only one verse in the New Testament that used it, the commentators across the centuries would still have written enormous commentaries on that verse.

It is used 303 times in the Old Testament of the New International Version, but it is always used in association with the word «LORD» and is the equivalent of the King James Version's «LORD God.»

In other words, the Church's determination to read the Old and New Testaments together, to consider them a sequential set of texts with theological integrity, led to, or at least made itself deeply at home with, a widespread use of a single codex for the unified Christian Bible.

In response to a great question from Chuck McKnight on my post Why God Never Punishes Sin, I decided I had better write a short post about the Greek words kolazo and kolasis, specifically in reference to some of the New Testament uses of the word «punishment.&raquIn response to a great question from Chuck McKnight on my post Why God Never Punishes Sin, I decided I had better write a short post about the Greek words kolazo and kolasis, specifically in reference to some of the New Testament uses of the word «punishment.&raquin reference to some of the New Testament uses of the word «punishment.»

On one end is the noncompromising «sin perspective» summarized in these words from an article in a conservative periodical: «The New Testament blasts homosexual activity as the lowest, most degraded kind of immorality» (Alliance Witness, July i6, 1975).

Saying that Jesus came to save us * from * religion might make for Tweetable theology but it is not an accurate representation of what the word means (via the dictionary definition), how it was defined in both the ancient and modern worlds, and how the New Testament presents it.

In the 2006 journal article, I studied the New Testament usage of the word «gospel» and ended up concluding that

That is the whole New Testament in a few words.

In some cases it may mean «to test» in the positive sense, but it is made all the more intense in the way it is used in the New Testament where the words context is not positive, but clearly hostilIn some cases it may mean «to test» in the positive sense, but it is made all the more intense in the way it is used in the New Testament where the words context is not positive, but clearly hostilin the positive sense, but it is made all the more intense in the way it is used in the New Testament where the words context is not positive, but clearly hostilin the way it is used in the New Testament where the words context is not positive, but clearly hostilin the New Testament where the words context is not positive, but clearly hostile.

The Holy Bible especially the New Testament was passed down by Jesus Christ Himself to the Apostles who in turn passed it down by word of mouth and in writing.

As Holman states, when the word «type is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New.

These words doubtless point out a peculiar relation between Christ and believers; a relation which is often mentioned in the New Testament.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

In the New Testament two Greek words are used for «rest».

Doing a New Testament word study on the Greek word «praus» in order to better understand what Peter means when he instructs women to have a «gentle and quiet spirit» in 1 Peter 3:3 - 4 is biblical exegesis.

In that book he made the point that the teaching of Jesus — his words as reported to us in the New Testament — has its peculiar importance for us in that it shows «who Jesus was» in terms of «what Jesus said.&raquIn that book he made the point that the teaching of Jesus — his words as reported to us in the New Testament — has its peculiar importance for us in that it shows «who Jesus was» in terms of «what Jesus said.&raquin the New Testament — has its peculiar importance for us in that it shows «who Jesus was» in terms of «what Jesus said.&raquin that it shows «who Jesus was» in terms of «what Jesus said.&raquin terms of «what Jesus said.»

Ahmad Khan was also involved in a controversy with the Christian missionaries which led him to write a commentary on the Bible, in which he showed that many Muslim religious scholars, such as Bukhari, did not believe that the words of the Old Testament and the New Testament had suffered from interpolation at the hands of the Jews and the Christians.

This parallel has been obscured by the fact that the term «kerygma» can ambiguously refer both to fragments of primitive Christian preaching embedded in the New Testament text, and to the word of God I encounter from the pulpit or in my neighbour today.

If a Jew does not believe the New Testament to be the Word of God, he does not thereby alter any - thing in men's civil rights.»

«Thus Saith I, the Lionly Lamb of all the Gods and Goddesses of GOD and in the Aboveness of My Word are spoken the reverences of my Faith in the Lord and King of all the Gods and Goddesses, Christ Jesus, the redeemer of all the lost souls of lusts» concerns and even those of who did find in their smallness portions of eyeing benevolencies of varied understandings in the Gospels of the New Testaments being righteously divided for Fruitions» sakes.

Second, if the church is attentive to the New Testament, Justin Martyr and Hippolytus, the Eastern church, the Western catholic tradition, the Anglican tradition, the Lutheran tradition, the Calvinist intent (and practice, if not in Geneva then in places like John Robinson's Leiden), the Wesleyan intent and that of the early Methodists, then its worship on every festival of the resurrection — that is, on every Sunday — will include both Word and Supper, not one or the other.

In a word, the unity of the New Testament theology is a religious unity, derived from its fundamental and original motivation, not from the language or the ideas commonly used to set forth its convictions, inferences, and beliefs.

By this word, in the New Testament as in the Old, the noblest altitudes and attributes of the human spirit and the saving influences of the divine spirit were expressed.

While I still believe there is an element of relativity to the gospel because the gospel is about Jesus and everyone encounters Jesus a little differently, McKnight reminded me of just how important it is to acknowledge the fact that the writers of the New Testament had something specific in mind when they used the word «gospel.»

The Fourth Gospel attributes to Jesus the words, «Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God»; (John 3:5) the Epistle to Titus says the same thing in other language — «He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit»; (Titus 3:5) and in the Shepherd of Hermas, which in some of the earliest canons was included in the New Testament, the baptismal water is called «the seal of the Son of God» into which they descend «dead,» and out of which they come «alive.»

At this point in his year - long quest to obey the Bible literally, Jacobs has yet to deal with the New Testament, and it's too bad because I think it would take some pressure off if he could read Jesus» words that «he who is without sin can cast the first stone.»

Remarkably enough, these words have no clear analogue in the New Testament, but the radical Christian joins the greatest reformers of the Christian faith in discovering that the forgiveness of sin culminates in an abolition of the memory of sin.

We would not require an exhaustive knowledge of the New Testament to call to mind occasions in which we see Christ communicating the mystery through deeds and words in ways which remind us immediately of the sacraments.

The Greek word translated «age» (KJV «world») and the adjective derived from it (usually translated «eternal») are both used often in the New Testament in various connections.

Perhaps the Old Testament words most clearly preparing the way for the Christian proclamation of the forgiveness of sin are contained in a postexilic prophecy recorded in The Book of Jeremiah, a joyous prophecy embodying the initial promise of a new covenant:

W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says that the word «destruction» is used «metaphorically of men persistent in evil (Rom 9:22), where «fitted» is in the middle voice, indicating that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction» (Vine's Expository Dictionary, 2:165)

The word «sacrifice» is almost inexhaustible in its polysemy, particularly in the Old Testament, but the only sacrificial model explicitly invoked in the New Testament is that of the Atonement offering of Israel, which certainly belongs to no cosmic cycle of prudent expenditure and indemnity.

These are the New Testament Greek words; the Old Testament Hebrew terms are similar in meaning.

In it I noted that Jesus uses the word gehenna eleven times in the New Testament and that he is the only person in the New Testament who uses gehenna regarding that realitIn it I noted that Jesus uses the word gehenna eleven times in the New Testament and that he is the only person in the New Testament who uses gehenna regarding that realitin the New Testament and that he is the only person in the New Testament who uses gehenna regarding that realitin the New Testament who uses gehenna regarding that reality.

The New Testament does sometimes use another word for love than agape, the word philein, as in «Love one another earnestly from the heart» (I Peter 1: 22; I Thessalonians 4: 9).

Cf. Tames M. Robinson, Theology Today, XIX (1962), 439 - 444; William O. Walker, Jr., «Demythologizing and Christology,» Religion in Life, XXXV (1965 - 1966), 67 - 80; Robert W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God: The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 87 - 108; Daniel L. Deegan, Scottish Journal of Theology, (March 1964), 83 - 89; Harold H. Ditmanson, Dialogue, I (1962), 75 - 78; Rudolf Bultmann, Journal of Religion, XLII (1962), 225 - 227.

In the words of Henri de Lubac, the distinguished theologian and historian of early Christian exegesis: «The conversion of the Old Testament to the New or of the letter of scripture to its spirit can only be explained and justified, in its radicality, by the all - powerful and unprecedented intervention of Him who is himself at once the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last..In the words of Henri de Lubac, the distinguished theologian and historian of early Christian exegesis: «The conversion of the Old Testament to the New or of the letter of scripture to its spirit can only be explained and justified, in its radicality, by the all - powerful and unprecedented intervention of Him who is himself at once the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last..in its radicality, by the all - powerful and unprecedented intervention of Him who is himself at once the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last....

If you are Christian, you adhere to the words in the Bible (both Old and New Testament).

The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

Since no one else in the New Testament uses this Greek word for hell to talk about hell, I surveyed a dozen texts that mention two possible outcomes of final judgment, to see what words they do use to discuss the dreadful option.

After all, it is highly unlikely that God appeared in a vision and dictated every word of the New Testament.

That «sheol» or sprit world afterlife was in fact an Old Testament and even Torah - based belief and within that spiritual realm of sheol those spirits (all the spirits who were once living) were in either a state of happiness or in a state of limited ability to obtain happiness, or in other words a state of damnation or being in like a spiritual prison, which would later be further described in the New Testament (which the earliest figured written versions of the New Testament were written in Greek for newly gentile converts) as hell.

The word doctrine is therefore being used in a way that is flexible enough to accommodate the variety of biblical teaching on these and other subjects as well as the factor of development in some themes as we move from the Old Testament into the New Testament.