Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), [1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), [2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
Vincible ignorance is, in Catholic moral theology, ignorance that a person could remove by applying reasonable diligence in the given set of circumstances. It contrasts with invincible ignorance, which a person is either entirely incapable of removing, or could only do so by supererogatory efforts (i.e., efforts above and beyond normal duty). [1]
The prime example of this is the phrase it uses that the name of the Father is the Son, which is to be understood in the esoteric manner that the Son is the name, rather than as meaning that Son was a name for the Father. [9] Unlike the canonical gospels, this gospel does not contain an account of Jesus' life or teaching.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In Judaism, bible hermeneutics notably uses midrash, a Jewish method of interpreting the Hebrew Bible and the rules which structure the Jewish laws. [1] The early allegorizing trait in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible figures prominently in the massive oeuvre of a prominent Hellenized Jew of Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, whose allegorical reading of the Septuagint synthesized the ...
In the Bible, Paul the Apostle teaches that "pagans may not possess the Law [of God] but may nevertheless have the law engraved in their hearts, and that Jesus judges people according to what is in their hearts (Romans 2:12–16)".
The criterion of embarrassment is a long-standing [vague] tool of New Testament research. The phrase was used by John P. Meier in his 1991 book A Marginal Jew; he attributed it to Edward Schillebeeckx (1914–2009), who does not appear to have actually used the term in his written works.
In the Hebrew Bible, those who practice lying and deceit are seemingly rewarded for their actions, posing problems for an exegesis that upholds a categorical prohibition. [6] Examples include the Hebrew midwives who lie after Pharaoh commands them to kill all newborn boys ( Exodus 1 :17–21), and Rahab ( Joshua 2 :1–7; cf. Hebrews 11 :31 ...