Sorry, no definitions found.
Sorry, no etymologies found.
Some will wear it as a proud and I don't mean prideful badge, a faithful, even kerygmatic public statement.
The kerygmatic birth of Jesus into the world from the womb of the apostles 'faith cannot be a substantially different birth from the historical one that took place in Bethlehem, for there is only one Christ Jesus.
He is never mentioned in the first part, where Jesus Christ is presented, but later after passing over the doctrinal-kerygmatic moment, in the parenthetical context of the fourth and fifth sections.
It is theoretically possible for a liberal Christian to be a mythicist (Tom Harpur - then one would not have to deal with the historical Jesus at all but just believe in a Christ of faith), while a number of secular scholars (Maurice Casey, James Crossley, Bart Ehrmann, Gerd Lüdemann, etc.) have had at least some more confidence in the historicity of some of the Gospel traditions that Rudolf Bultmann for whom the kerygmatic Christ was central.
Something caught my attention in the final message of the Conference of Aparecida—please note that I am not referring to the magnificent Final Document of the Conference, but to the Final Message, a sort of draft of the Final Document written by the Ad Hoc Commission—In this Final Message, different from the later, final document, the Father ends up relegated to an implicit role in the whole opening part, the doctrinal-kerygmatic speaking of Jesus (10 times,) or Lord Jesus (1 time,) or Jesus Christ (4 times.)
The kerygmatic statements of the early Christian communities were not always in complete accord (the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Wordnik is becoming a not-for-profit! Read our announcement here.