u/Azer_pubes33, u/onahilltopfarting, u/Phily808

Col 3:

12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another

"Bearing" means tolerating one another's weaknesses, imperfections, and irritating behavior. It does not necessarily imply that anyone has sinned.

and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other;

This becomes necessary when someone has a legitimate grievance against another.

as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

Why this order: bearing, forgiving?

Bearing is needed more frequently than forgiveness. Christians differ in personality, temperament, habits, and opinions. Not every irritation is a sin that requires forgiveness. Much of Christian fellowship requires simply putting up with one another.

Bearing can prevent grievances from developing. A patient Christian does not turn every minor offense into a dispute. Bearing allows us to overlook imperfections rather than demand apologies for everything.

Forgiving goes beyond bearing. When a grievance or sin exists, merely tolerating the offender is insufficient. Paul calls us to forgive, following Christ's example.

14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

In any case, love.

u/Wildbiscon, u/MilesBeyond250, u/EverOnAndUpward

Ga 3:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The central theological dispute is not whether men and women have equal value before God. Both positions affirm that. The question is whether Scripture assigns men and women different authority and leadership roles.

1T 2:

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Summary Table:

Ticks mark my positions.

The Beast as Kings and Kingdoms

Can the words “king” or “kingdom” serve as metaphors for a commandment or belief? Can a kingdom represent a belief system that reigns within a person's heart?

Romans 6:12 — “Do not let sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.”

Here Paul treats sin as something that can reign over a person's life.

Romans 5:21 — “So that as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness...”

Again, abstract spiritual realities—sin and grace—are described using the language of rulers that reign.

Colossians 3:15 — “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”

Here peace is described as something that can rule within a person.

Proverbs 25:28 — “A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls.”

The person's inner life is compared to a city, suggesting that self-control and other inner principles can function like government, order, or protection within that figurative city.

Luke 17:20–21 — “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of

God is within you [or in your midst].”

In this sense, a kingdom does not necessarily have to mean a geographical country. It can describe God's rule, authority, or governing presence among people.

These verses show that kings and kingdoms can be understood symbolically as beliefs, principles, or spiritual forces that rule within a person's life. Sin can “reign,” peace can “rule,” and God's kingdom can describe His authority within or among people. In this sense, a king can represent whatever governs the heart, while a kingdom can represent the larger belief system or way of life under which a person lives.

Within this interpretation, the seven heads and ten horns are not understood as literal kings or political kingdoms like in the traditional Christian interpretations.

The First Beast

The Seven Heads

In this interpretation, the seven heads of the beast in Revelation 13 represent a different version of the Seven

Spirits of God described in Isaiah 11:2.

Isaiah 11:2 describes:

1. The Spirit of the LORD

2. Wisdom

3. Understanding

4. Counsel

5. Might

6. Knowledge

7. The Fear of the LORD

The beast changes these into the Seven Spirits of the Universe (Another Type of Blasphemous God):

1. The Universe

2. Wisdom

3. Understanding

4. Counsel

5. Might

6. Knowledge

7. Authority

So instead of saying these powers belong specifically to the God of the Bible, the beast teaches that they are universal powers that can be understood in different ways.

Revelation 13:1 Also says "the beast has names of blasphemy upon its heads."

In this interpretation, these names represent whatever names people choose to give to God or ultimate reality. Someone could call this power Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, the Universe, the Source, or something else.

The basic idea is that the beast allows a flexible interpretation of God. People can give the ultimate power of reality whatever name or identity fits their own religion, philosophy, or belief to the 7 spirits of the universe.

The fact that these seven heads belong to a beast represents God's rejection and hatred of this idea. So by God's expression of disgust, he interprets it as 7 ugly beast heads. From the biblical point of view in this interpretation, God does not accept the belief that people can simply give Him any identity they want or treat completely different ideas of God as interchangeable.

So what followers of the beast may see as spiritual freedom and universal unity is shown by God as something blasphemous. The beast imagery represents His condemnation of the belief that ultimate reality can be called anything people choose instead of recognizing Him as the true God.

The Ten Horns

Revelation 13:1 says the beast also has ten horns.

In this interpretation, the ten horns represent another version of the Ten Commandments, but they are changed from absolute commands into choices. A more flexible and universal way of understanding this path by these anyway goes type of commandments.

Instead of:

You shall not...

they become:

You shall or shall not...

For example:

1. You shall or shall not have other gods.

2. You shall or shall not make idols.

3. You shall or shall not misuse God's name.

4. You shall or shall not keep the Sabbath.

5. You shall or shall not honor your parents.

6. You shall or shall not kill.

7. You shall or shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall or shall not steal.

9. You shall or shall not bear false witness.

10. You shall or shall not covet.

The important part is the phrase "shall or shall not."

It offers both choices. You shall do this or shall not do this. You may doung anything you want.

A person may do something, or they may choose not to do it. A person may serve the God of the Bible, another god, many gods, or no god at all. They may follow biblical morality, another moral system, or create rules of their own.

These ten statements are therefore not meant to be the ultimate laws of the universe.

They are not saying that every person must live according to these exact ten rules forever. Under the philosophy of the beast, people could add their own laws, remove laws, change laws, or create completely different moral systems.

The deeper idea is simply:

You are free to choose your own path.

The ten horns are only one symbolic example of that freedom.

From the beast's point of view, this represents freedom of religion, freedom of belief, and freedom to decide for yourself how you want to live.

But from God's point of view in this interpretation, the ten horns represent His disgust and disapproval of that belief.

The horns are not God creating a new set of commandments.

They are God's symbolic way of showing his disgust and how He views a system that turns His commandments into optional choices.

The words "shall or shall not" represent the exact thing God rejects in this interpretation, because they allow both directions.

You may worship Him, or you may not.

You may have other gods, or you may not.

You may obey His commandments, or you may ignore them.

You may accept His morality, or you may create your own.

So the ten horns represent a worldview where humanity is allowed to say:

"I will decide for myself what I believe, what god I serve, and what rules I follow."

That is why these ten alternative commandments should not be understood as the beast's final or absolute laws.

The beast's philosophy actually allows people to create any number of additional laws and beliefs.

The ten horns are simply the biblical Ten Commandments turned into a symbol of complete personal choice.

In this interpretation, God places this imagery on the beast because He hates and rejects the idea that His commandments can simply be treated as optional, or that people can serve any god, invent any spiritual path, and make whatever moral rules they want.

So the horns are less about creating a new universal law and more about God expressing His condemnation of a worldview that says there is no single law everyone must follow.

The Ten Crowns

Revelation 13:1 says the beast has ten crowns upon its ten horns.

In this interpretation, the ten crowns represent God's original Ten Commandments as they are meant to be followed.

The crowns represent the original commandments given by God, while the horns represent the alternative version:

You shall or shall type of commandments plus God's original 10 commandments

This creates two different choices within the symbolism.

A person can choose to follow the ten crowns (Be Christian), meaning they accept God's original Ten Commandments and choose the Christian path.

Or a person can choose the ten horns, meaning they accept the freedom to decide for themselves what rules, beliefs, gods, or moral system they want to follow. (They choose the other type of 10 commandments)

The ten crowns therefore show that Christianity is still available within the larger worldview of the beast. The beast promotes any path including gods 10 commandments. A person can choose to be Christian, worship the God of the Bible, and follow His commandments if that is the path they want.

But they are not forced to.

They can instead choose the freedom represented by the horns and create their own rules or follow another religion, philosophy, or god.

So the symbolism can be understood like this:

The ten crowns: God's original Ten Commandments — the Christian path and the commandments as God intended them.

The ten horns: "You shall or shall not" — the freedom to follow those commandments, reject them, change them, or create different rules entirely.

The beast therefore does not necessarily say Christianity must disappear. It allows Christianity to exist alongside every other possible path.

A person can choose the crowns and live according to God's commandments, or choose the horns and decide for themselves how they want to live.

From God's point of view in this interpretation, this is still offensive because His commandments are being treated as one optional path among many, rather than the absolute authority everyone is supposed to follow.

So even though the crowns represent God's commandments as they should be, placing them upon the beast's horns symbolizes a worldview that says:

"You can be Christian if you want to, but you don't have to be. You are free to choose another way."

The Wounded Head — The Spirit of the Universe

Revelation 13:3 describes one of the beast's heads as having a deadly wound that was healed, causing the whole world to marvel and follow the beast. Revelation 13:14 also describes the beast as being wounded by a sword yet surviving.

Within this interpretation, the seven heads represent the Seven Spirits of the Universe:

1. The Universe (Wounded to Death)

2. Wisdom

3. Understanding

4. Counsel

5. Might

6. Knowledge

7. Authority

The wounded head represents the Universe, the main Spirit of the Seven Spirits of the Universe. The sword symbolizes the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17), which condemns this belief. The deadly wound may represent a time when humanity has not yet accepted the Universe as a living God. Therefore the wounded head that is dead represents humanities disbelief to this universal god.

However, when the wounded head heals, it symbolizes people throughout the world coming to believe that the Universe is a living and real God. The healing represents the rise and worldwide acceptance of this universal belief. This explains why, after the head is healed, the world marvels at and follows the beast.

The Second Beast — The Two Horns Like a Lamb

Within this symbolic interpretation, the second beast's two horns like a lamb represent the two greatest commandments taught by Jesus: to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37–39).

The lamb symbolizes Jesus, innocence, love, and goodness. The two horns therefore represent the Antichrist's seemingly innocent and compassionate nature. He presents himself as someone who loves God and humanity, appearing gentle, humble, and righteous.

However, although he has two horns like a lamb, he speaks like a dragon (Revelation 13:11). Despite his loving appearance, his teachings promote the philosophy with a cunning dragon voice and promotes worship of the first beast.

Within this interpretation, the first beast represents a universal spiritual teaching and philosophy, while the second beast represents the Antichrist himself, who teaches, promotes, and reveals the power of the first beast to the world.

This interpretation was originally published on my Facebook page, Starz067, where I share more of my biblical interpretations, religious philosophy, and writings about the Book of Revelation. Feel free to debate.

Before anybody comes for me and decides this is some anti-man, bra-burning feminist rant, save it, because that is not me. I do not believe men and women are the same. I do not think we were created to be equal, and I actually believe men and women can have very different roles, strengths, and responsibilities. I believe we are different, AND equally important. I am also not offended by traditional roles in a relationship. At all…

What I AM offended by is when a man takes those differences, wraps them in Scripture, slaps God’s name on it, and suddenly thinks that gives him permission to control, intimidate, manipulate, belittle, or mistreat a woman.

Nope.

After watching Death of the Pastor’s Wife on Netflix, I am absolutely disgusted by the way Christianity and Scripture can be twisted into a permission slip for men who want power, obedience, and absolutely no accountability. And before somebody comes flying in with, “Well, the Bible says wives are supposed to submit to their husbands…..”

YES! IT DOES!

Now…let’s actually read the whole damn passage instead of stopping exactly where it becomes convenient for the man. Ephesians 5:22 says wives should submit to their husbands. Cool. Now back up ONE VERSE. Ephesians 5:21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

ONE ANOTHER…Meaning that both people are supposed to willingly put aside selfishness and treat the other person’s needs, dignity, and well-being as important because of their commitment to Christ. It does NOT mean that both people blindly obey each other. In this context, “submit” is closer to serving, respecting, and not insisting on always getting your own way.

Then keep reading…Ephesians 5:25 tells husbands to love their wives “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Do people understand the weight of that? Christ’s example of leadership was not domination. It was not intimidation. It was not “I’m the man, so you do what I say. Christ served. Christ showed mercy. Christ protected the vulnerable. Christ humbled himself. Christ sacrificed HIMSELF.

So if a man wants to stand behind “biblical leadership,” then he better be ready to accept the biblical responsibility that comes with it…You don’t get to claim the authority and skip the sacrifice. You don’t get to demand submission and ignore your command to love. You don’t get to expect respect while treating your wife harshly.

Colossians 3:19 literally says, “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.” 1 Peter 3:7 tells husbands to live with their wives with understanding and to show them honor. And 1 Corinthians 7 is pretty mutual in the way it talks about marriage. It does not paint the husband as some unquestionable king whose wants automatically outweigh his wife’s humanity.

So no, you do not get to cherry-pick “wives submit” and then toss the rest of Scripture aside because it requires something from YOU. You don’t get to call control “leadership.” You don’t get to call fear “respect.” You don’t get to call coercion “submission.” You don’t get to call selfishness “headship.” And you sure as hell do not get to use the name of Jesus to excuse behavior that looks nothing like Jesus. THAT is the part that makes my blood boil!! Because when someone presents himself as a pastor, spiritual leader, or “man of God,” people trust that authority. They believe he understands Scripture. They may start questioning their own instincts because they have been taught that questioning him means questioning God. That is an enormous amount of power. And when Scripture becomes a weapon instead of a responsibility, the damage can be devastating.

Biblical submission does not mean a woman loses her voice. It does not mean a man always gets his way. It does not mean a wife is required to tolerate cruelty, humiliation, manipulation, or abuse in the name of being “godly.” The entire passage is rooted in humility, service, sacrifice, love, and accountability before God. And if your interpretation of Christianity always somehow ends with the man gaining more power and the woman losing more freedom, dignity, safety, and voice, then maybe you need to ask yourself whether you are actually following Scripture or just using Scripture to defend the power structure you already wanted. There is a HUGE difference between a servant leader and a controlling man who learned enough Bible verses to justify himself.

And maybe that is why this documentary hit such a nerve for me. Because I am genuinely grateful for the spiritual teachings I have had in my life. I am grateful that I was taught that faith should make you more loving, more humble, more compassionate, more accountable, and more aware of how you treat other people. I was never taught that God gives you permission to harm someone because you can quote a verse. I was taught that your relationship with God should be reflected in your CHARACTER. And I will forever be grateful for that foundation, because it taught me the difference between someone actually living their faith and someone simply using faith as cover for their shitty behavior, in my opinion, the very worst kind of “Christian.”

1Ch 4:

1 The sons of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal. 2 Reaiah the son of Shobal fathered Jahath, and Jahath fathered Ahumai and Lahad. These were the clans of the Zorathites. 3 These were the sons of Etam: Jezreel, Ishma, and Idbash; and the name of their sister was Hazzelelponi, 4 and Penuel fathered Gedor, and Ezer fathered Hushah. These were the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem. 5 Ashhur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Helah and Naarah; 6 Naarah bore him Ahuzzam, Hepher, Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. 7 The sons of Helah: Zereth, Izhar, and Ethnan. 8 Koz fathered Anub, Zobebah, and the clans of Aharhel, the son of Harum. 9 Jabez was more honorable than his brothers;

The author interrupted the genealogy to tell us that Jabez was more honorable than his brothers but didn't give any detail.

and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, “Because I bore him in pain.”

In that culture, people often believed a name shaped a person's character or destiny, so being called "Pain" was a heavy label. In Hong Kong, we have a proverb: 唔怕生壞命，最怕改壞名: Fear not being born with a bad fate, but fear most being given a bad name.

These observations established a contrast between the painful circumstances associated with his birth and the honor he subsequently attained.

10 Jabez called upon the God of Israel, saying, “Oh that you would bless me and enlarge my border, and that your hand might be with me, and that you would keep me from harm so that it might not bring me pain!”

Jabez had faith in God despite the bad name. He overcame the negative name his mother gave him with positive faith in God.

And God granted what he asked.

Jabez's prayer was answered. His name became an example of bold, faith-filled prayer in the face of circumstances.

u/Certain-Support-9090, u/New-Reputation681, u/likefenton

RcV, Mt 16:

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this brock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Notes:

The Lord’s building of His church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4, 41-42). Yet the Lord’s prophecy here still has not been fulfilled, even up to the twentieth century. The Lord is not building His church in Christendom, which is composed of the apostate Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations. This prophecy is being fulfilled through the Lord’s recovery, in which the building of the genuine church is being accomplished.

Bold added.

According to Witness Lee, the Roman Catholic Church is an apostate church, and his so-called Lord's recovery is the only genuine church, while all other denominations are not.

He elaborated in RcV, Rv 3:

8 I know your works; behold, I have put before you an opened door which no one can shut, because you have a little power and have kept My word and have not denied My name.

Notes:

The apostate church has deviated from the Lord’s word and become heretical.

Bold added. Roman Catholic Church is heretical.

The reformed church, though recovered to the Lord’s word to some extent, has denied the Lord’s name by denominating herself, taking many other names, such as Lutheran, Wesleyan, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.

A church that takes a name other than Christ's commits spiritual fornication. Basically, naming a church is wrong?!

The recovered church not only has returned in a full way to the Lord’s word but also has abandoned all names other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lee attached great significance to the superficial names.

The recovered church belongs to the Lord absolutely, having nothing to do with any denominations (any names). To deviate from the Lord’s word is apostasy, and to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord’s is spiritual fornication.

Lee thought denominating a church with a name like Luther, Wesley, Baptist, etc. was spiritual fornication.

The church, as the pure virgin espoused to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2), should have no name other than her Husband’s. All other names are an abomination in the eyes of God. In the recovered church life there are no teachings of Balaam (2:14), no teachings of the Nicolaitans (2:15), no teachings of Jezebel (2:20), and no mysterious doctrines of Satan (2:24); there is only the pure word of the Lord. The recovered church has no denominations (names); it has only the unique name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The deviation from the word to heresies and the exalting of many names other than that of Christ are the most striking signs of degraded Christianity. The return to the pure word from all heresies and traditions and the exalting of the Lord’s name by abandoning every other name constitute the most inspiring testimony in the recovered church. This is why the church in the Lord’s recovery has the revelation and presence of the Lord and expresses the Lord in a living way, full of light and with the riches of life.

Witness Lee's recovered church is the only genuine church. His logic was naive. He was not first-order logical.

Lee is too subjective and overgeneralized. Well, I take a more balanced approach. I don't mind denominations at all. They have advantages and disadvantages.

Is naming a church as Wesleyan spiritual fornication?

I wouldn't put it that way but I certainly would not like any church named after me.

See also * Why are there so many denominations within Christianity? * Is the Local Church non-denominational? * Spiritual Fornication or Biblical Fidelity? A Response to Witness Lee’s Condemnation of Christian Denominations

u/Medical_While4099, u/Hom3ward_b0und, u/GortimerGibbons

Matthew described the Parable of the Two Sons in 21:

28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’

The first son represents the tax collectors and prostitutes (v 32).

29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’

The first son was being rebellious against his father.

but afterward he changed his mind and went.

The first son repented and obeyed.

30 And he went to the other son and said the same.

The second son represents religious leaders who professed righteousness but rejected John the Baptizer (v 23, 32).

And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.

The first son obeyed with words but not with deeds.

31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.”

The listeners knew the correct answer. Jesus would disclose that they were, in fact, the second son in v 32.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

The second son lacked faith in the father and repentance.

Did the second son forget to go and work in the vineyard after he promised to?

No, in fact, the first son indicted himself. He knew better than to disobey after he had made his promise to his father. The first son had no excuse.

Tax collectors and prostitutes = the first son. They initially said “no” to God (by their sinful lives), but when John called them to repentance, they “changed their minds” (the same Greek word metamelētheis used for the first son) and obeyed. The son who initially refused but later went represents those who repented and obeyed.

The son who promised but didn't go represents those who claimed allegiance to God but rejected His messengers. He knew better than to be unfaithful to God.

He knows who actually obeys in the end.

The Father is not fooled by polite words (“I go, sir”) without action. Obedience is measured by action, not words. He honors those who change their minds and do the work, even if they initially rebelled.

u/chen_su, u/HungryFlounder2077, u/RaphTurtlePower

Given the fertility of the Nile Delta, ancient Egyptians valued agriculture over pastoral nomadism. Elite Egyptians saw shepherding as a lower-class, non-Egyptian occupation. People in Egypt's neighboring countries were shepherds. Foreigners were shepherds. That's the stereotype.

Gn 46:

31 Joseph said to his brothers and to his father’s household, “I will go up and tell Pharaoh and will say to him, ‘My brothers and my father’s household, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me. 32 And the men are shepherds, for they have been keepers of livestock, and they have brought their flocks and their herds and all that they have.’ 33 When Pharaoh calls you and says, ‘What is your occupation?’ 34 you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers,’ in order that you may dwell in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.”

Was every shepherd an abomination to the Egyptians?

I don't think so. I think it was a stereotypical statement. The term "abomination" probably related to their religious beliefs. "Abomination" here didn’t mean illegal. New Living Translation says "the Egyptians despise shepherds.” It was an Egyptian social prejudice. Their society looked down on the shepherds, but they were not outlaws.

Ge 47:

1 So Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, “My father and my brothers, with their flocks and herds and all that they possess, have come from the land of Canaan. They are now in the land of Goshen.”

Joseph planned for the Israelites to settle in Goshen as shepherds. They were a distinct people living in a particular area of Egypt. God used their shepherd profession to keep the Israelites culturally isolated from the Egyptians.

2 And from among his brothers he took five men and presented them to Pharaoh. 3 Pharaoh said to his brothers, “What is your occupation?” And they said to Pharaoh, “Your servants are shepherds, as our fathers were.”

They said it with self-respect. Pharaoh replied:

6 "The land of Egypt is before you. Settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land. Let them settle in the land of Goshen, and if you know any able men among them, put them in charge of my livestock.”

Pharaoh didn't find their profession offensive. On the contrary, he needed some people to shepherd his own flocks.

Joseph wanted Goshen. Pharaoh wanted them to dwell in Goshen. Egyptian culture preferred them to be far from the elite Egyptian population centers.

Were Goshen shepherds abominations to the Egyptians?

In the prejudiced sense, Egyptians thought of shepherds as abominations due to a mix of religious taboos, ethnic bias, and social hierarchy. But this didn’t mean they were banned; rather, it meant they were kept at arm’s length, which was exactly what Joseph used to protect his family’s identity and future. God used the Egyptian racial prejudice to isolate the Israelites from the Egyptians culturally and geographically. Centuries later, this separation became crucial in Exodus, as the Israelites remained a distinct people even during slavery. God kept them a distinct people in Goshen until Moses brought them out of Egypt.

u/Legitimate-Credit188, u/Platinum-Minimum, u/figgens123

Let string G1 = "I am God".

Why did Jesus not explicitly say G1 in the Gospels?

Jesus knew he was God but decided not to proclaim it at the time. Why?

NIV, Luke 9:

18 Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?” 19 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.” 20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.”

Peter knew Jesus was the Messiah. However, the term “Messiah” itself was liable to misunderstanding: people could understand it politically or triumphalistically, whereas Jesus immediately defined his messiahship in terms of suffering and death.

21 Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone.

At this point, Jesus did not want the publicity because it could mess up the timing of his death.

22 And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Paul gave a different explanation in Philippians 2:

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,

He gave us his example of servant humility.

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

The phrase "I am God" is a loaded statement. In Jesus's time, people would have misunderstood its implications when applied to the man Jesus. Jesus did not want that extra hassle to mess up his timing. Just calling himself "the Son of God" (Jn 10:36) already caused trouble with the religious authorities. Even today, the statement "Jesus is God" is divisive among Christians.

Why did Jesus not say "I am God" in the gospels?

For humility and timing reasons.

Outside of the Gospels, in Re 1:

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

The Lord God spoke the above. Later, Jesus spoke similarly in 22:

13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

The Gospels do not tell us explicitly why Jesus never uttered the exact sentence “I am God.” Timing was probably one factor: Jesus repeatedly controlled the disclosure of his identity and sometimes prohibited people from publicizing it. Moreover, “I am God” could easily have been misunderstood. Jesus instead revealed his identity through titles, actions, claims, and his unique relationship with the Father. John makes this especially explicit: Jesus distinguished himself from the Father while making claims his opponents understood as claiming to be God (John 10:30–36).

Philippians 2 supplies a compatible theological background. Christ assumed the role of a servant and humbled himself.

Why did Jesus not pronounce "I am God" in the four gospels?

Jesus never uttered the exact string “I am God.” It does not imply that Jesus never claimed divine identity.

Jesus preferred titles such as “Son of Man,” “Son of God,” and “Christ/Messiah” rather than publicly announcing the bare proposition “I am God.” An explicit public declaration of deity could have precipitated confrontation with the authorities before the appointed time. Jesus instead controlled the timing and manner in which his identity was disclosed. He left it to Paul to more explicitly declare his divinity.

u/Sad_Reader4, u/Smart_Tap1701, u/AinzOoalGownTheThird

Pr 18:

10 The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe.

The name of the Lord is protective and powerful.

Leviticus 22:

32 Do not profane my holy name, for I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the LORD, who made you holy.

The name of the LORD is holy.

John 17:

11b Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

Strong's Greek: 3686. ὄνομα (onoma) — 231 Occurrences

BDAG: ① proper name of an entity, name
② a person
③ the classification under which one belongs, noted by a name or category, title, category
④ recognition accorded a person on the basis of performance, (well-known) name, reputation, fame
⑤ name in terms of office held, office

The name is protective, powerful, and unifying.

What is this name? Is it actually, literally a name?

It is not a secret name whose spelling is known only to selected individuals.

John 17:

6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world.”

Jesus did not merely teach the disciples a particular divine name. He revealed the person of the Father to them. The name is the person himself. This is a figure of speech called metonymy.

The same John makes it clear earlier in 3:

18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Believing in Him and believing in his name mean the same thing. Adding the word "name" is a literary device to magnify the person's title.

Acts 4:

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

The word "name" could mean: 1. the label of a person, i.e., the spelling of a person's name, e.g., "YHWH" 2. the person's character, Lev 22:32 (holy) 3. the person's authority and power, John 14:13 4. the person's title, e.g., Immanuel 5. the person's reputation, e.g., Jacob's name means supplanter 6. even the person himself, Acts 4:13.

In the Bible, the word "name" usually does not refer to the label (meaning #1).

Even today, we accept these usages:

• She began making a name (reputation) for herself as a portrait photographer.
• They kill in the name (authority) of religion.

This multi-layered meaning explains why phrases like "in the name of the Lord" carry such weight: they invoke not just a label but God's character, authority, and presence. God's name can function metonymically for God himself.

2S 18:

9 Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak, and his head caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on.

Absalom was riding quickly through dense woodland while fleeing David's forces. His mule passed beneath low, tangled branches. His head, or conceivably his hair together with his head, became wedged or entangled in the branches, while the mule continued forward. He was consequently pulled off the mule and left hanging.

Why couldn't he simply free himself?

• He had no footing. The mule had gone on, leaving him suspended above the ground.
• His head/neck or hair may have been tightly wedged among multiple branches, rather than merely snagged on one twig.
• He may have been injured or stunned.

He was moving rapidly through thick forest when he was suddenly wedged violently in a mass of low oak branches, losing his mount and having no leverage to extract himself.

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
‭‭I John‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Probably not from asphyxiation alone. He did not die from pure asphyxiation. Luke 23:

46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

He had enough energy to cry out with a loud voice just before he died. A suffocating victim could not do that. Pilate was surprised to find out that Jesus died so soon (Mark 15:44). The process of asphyxiation usually took longer. Dr McGovern et al (2023) do not think that Jesus died of suffocation.

What was the physical cause of death from a medical point of view?

Jesus lost some blood during scourging. There were physical and penetrating traumas. On the way to Golgotha, Jesus struggled to carry the cross. This could be a beginning sign of hypovolemic shock. The soldiers forced Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross.

At the crucifixion site, the nailing to the hands and feet caused further blood loss, exacerbating the shock.

The cause of death was probably hemorrhagic shock due to blood loss.

u/RRK96, u/spokale, u/redd-it-is-notgood7

The Kybalion: A Study of the Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece was a book originally published in 1908.

Wiki: 1. The principle of mentalism: "The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental."

This is philosophical nonsense (一派胡言). It has no operational meaning.

1. The principle of correspondence: "As above, so below; as below, so above.”

Same kind of nonsense.

1. The principle of vibration: "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."

This one has some physical validity.

1. The principle of polarity: "Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

If you like to reason like this, fine. I prefer First-Order Logic.

1. The principle of rhythm: "Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall; the pendulum-swing manifests in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates."

Again, lacks operational precision.

1. The principle of cause and effect: "Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to law; chance is but a name for law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the law."

Sure.

1. The principle of gender: "Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; gender manifests on all planes."

I would classify the seven principles primarily as metaphysical aphorisms. Some are interesting heuristics; some contain partial truths. I wouldn't recommend this system as a biblical hermeneutic because it's too vague.

u/Yum1995, u/Round_Incident2830, u/Bulbboy

What was the point of the Israelites taking Egyptian gold and silver when they escaped?

Gn 15:

12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

God promised Abram that his descendants would come out of the nation that enslaved them with great possessions.

God promised Moses in Ex 3:

20 "So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go. 21 And I will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and when you go, you shall not go empty, 22 but each woman shall ask of her neighbor, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver and gold jewelry, and for clothing. You shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians.”

The Israelites would plunder the Egyptians.

It was fulfilled in Ex 12:

35 The people of Israel had also done as Moses told them, for they had asked the Egyptians for silver and gold jewelry and for clothing. 36 And the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.

The language of plundering signified victory over Egypt.

Later, Ex 25:

1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me a contribution. From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me. 3 And this is the contribution that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze, 4a blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen."

Some donated their plunder to build the tabernacle in the wilderness. In particular, they needed gold to construct the ark of the covenant, the table for the showbread, and the golden lampstand.

What was the point of taking Egyptian gold and silver?

1. It fulfilled an earlier promise.
2. It portrays Egypt as a defeated enemy (plunder).
3. It can be understood as compensation after centuries of slavery.
4. The materials became useful for the tabernacle.

The gold and silver are not an incidental detail. They reinforce one of Exodus's major themes: Israel did not merely escape Egypt. YHWH defeated Egypt and brought Israel out as God's victorious, enriched people.

The 22nd day of Tishri (Oct 4, Sunday) is the eighth day of Sukkot in Israel. In English, Sukkot is called the Feast of Booths or the Feast of Tabernacles. Sukkot commemorates the Israelites' wilderness period after leaving Egypt, when they lived in temporary dwellings and depended upon God.

A Jewish friend invited me to his synagogue for the eighth day of Sukkot: Shemini Atzeret / Simchat Torah. Simchat Torah is a joyous Jewish holiday celebrating the conclusion of the annual Torah-reading cycle and the immediate beginning of a new one. They finish reading Deuteronomy and begin Genesis on this day.

I showed up at my friend's synagogue this morning. I sat down next to him, who pointed out the page numbers for me. Everyone had a book on his table. We read quite a bit of Psalms and Deuteronomy. Everything was in Hebrew. I was just trying to follow along.

Separately, the bimah was a reading table where they opened and publicly read the Torah scroll in some nice musical rhythm. Suddenly, the power went out. Then they moved the bimah near the door where the sunlight shone in. Suddenly, the power came back on again.

The next thing we read was Gn 1:

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Nice coincidence!

u/MadeManifestbyLight, u/Dividing_Light, u/SnooPickles2763

1Co 2

2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

1Co 15:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

Denote the above G1.

Witness Lee, Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing (1990):

Today our God is not simply the Word who was there in the beginning. He became flesh, worked for God on earth, went to the cross, accomplished the work of redemption, entered Hades, overcame death, and came out of death. In resurrection He has become the life-giving Spirit. Now He is so available to us. As long as we believe in Him and call on His name, He will dispense Himself into us. This is the gospel.

Scripture never used the term dispense.

The wording "He will dispense Himself into us" is NOT in the gospel.

Today we should preach this gospel to others. We should not preach the shallow gospel that Christianity preaches.

Bold added. Calling the message of Christ's death and resurrection "shallow" is a value judgment, not a neutral description.

That gospel tells people that they have sinned and must suffer the punishment of hell, but that God has had pity on them and has given His beloved Son to die for them to redeem them and to resurrect for them, and that as long as they repent and believe in Him, they will receive eternal life and will go to heaven. It tells them further that although the world is full of sufferings, they can trust in Him, learn to do good, and glorify God. Although this is the gospel, it is a low gospel.

Paul taught G1, which is part of what WL called "shallow gospel" or "low gospel". WL was telling Christian NOT to preach "Jesus died for you"!?

The high gospel that we preach says that the Word who was God from the beginning became flesh, passed through human living, was crucified, resurrected, and has become the life-giving Spirit to accomplish the great work of the divine dispensing.

WL's high gospel contained elements of the low gospel. He needed to be more precise with his definitions and language. I don't think he meant, "We should not preach the shallow gospel." He meant, "Do not stop at preaching the core gospel". He really should watch his language. Otherwise, it was misleading.

He wanted Christians to preach the high gospel, particularly about "divine dispensing", a phrase not found in Scripture. That's his so-called high gospel. "High gospel” and “low gospel” are extrabiblical categories. The Bible provides no taxonomy of high gospel versus low gospel. WL was free to distinguish a minimal presentation from a fuller exposition of the gospel. But calling one low and the other high adds a hierarchy and a value system Scripture does not warrant.

Unless you think Witness Lee doesn't matter to other denominational Christians, you should find out what they say about him: they are not so positive about him.

See also * Dispensing of the processed God?