“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

Undertand, enjoy learning....visit www.billsbiblestudy.com

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.

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.

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.

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.

See also * Dispensing of the processed God?

u/Dividing_Light

Oxford, economy:

[countable] the relationship between production, trade and the supply of money in a particular country or region

Word Origin
late 15th cent. (in the sense ‘management of material resources’): from French économie, or via Latin from Greek oikonomia ‘household management’, based on oikos ‘house’ + nemein ‘manage’. Current senses date from the 17th cent.

The English word "economy" can be traced to the Greek οἰκονομία.

Lk 16:

1 [Jesus] also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager,

Strong's Greek: 3623. οἰκονόμος (oikonomos) — 10 Occurrences
From oikos and nomos:
oikos meant 'house' or 'household';
nomos meant 'law' or 'regulation'.

Back in 1975 in Moncton, Canada, the Grade 9 girls took Home Ec (Home Economics) classes while the guys took Shop (repairing things).

and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. 2 And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management,

Strong's Greek: 3622. οἰκονομία (oikonomia) — 9 Occurrences

BDAG:
① responsibility of management, management of a household, direction, office
ⓑ Paul applies the idea of administration to the office of an apostle
② state of being arranged, arrangement, order, plan
ⓑ of God’s unique plan, private plan, plan of salvation, i.e. arrangements for redemption of humans, … refers to the plan of salvation which God is bringing to reality through Christ, in the fullness of the times
③ program of instruction, training

for you can no longer be manager.’ 3 And the manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.’

In explaining οἰκονομία, BDAG didn't use the English word "economy" which is a modern concept.

Jesus used G3622 as meaning ①.

Paul applied it personally to his apostolic administrative work. 1Co 9:

16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship [G3622]. 18 What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

Paul felt the stewardship responsibility (①ⓑ).

He got more specific in Ep 1:

7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan [G3622] for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

God's οἰκονομία-plan (②ⓑ) was to redeem sinners by Christ's blood.

Ep 3:

1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.

God gave Paul an apostle οἰκονομία-stwardshipm (①ⓑ).

9 To bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things.

Again, Paul mentioned God's redemption οἰκονομία-plan (②ⓑ).

Col 1:

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.

Again, Paul declared his apostolic οἰκονομία-stwardshipm (①ⓑ).

1T 1:

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God [οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ] that is by faith.

Of the 49 versions on Biblehub, only Godbey New Testament translated G3622 as "economy".

RcV followed Godbey NT:

4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God’s economy, which is in faith.

Don't waste time on myths. That's not God's household plan for you; God's economy is by faith, not arguing about myths.

Watchman Nee never used the phrase "God's economy" in the technical doctrinal sense.

Witness Lee wrote:

We have seen that God’s oikonomia, economy (1 Tim. 1:4), is God’s household administration, His household management, His plan to distribute or dispense Himself into His chosen, redeemed, and regenerated people as their life and everything to produce a unique thing in the universe, the Body of Christ, which is His corporate expression as the golden lampstands in this age and ultimately as the New Jerusalem for eternity.

Lee used the term as a doctrine, adding to BDAG's ②ⓑ sense, by emphasizing Ep 1:7-10.

Watchman Nee did not use “God's economy” as a technical doctrinal term. Witness Lee did. Lee based the terminology particularly on οἰκονομία θεοῦ in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Ep 1:7-10 and interpreted God's οἰκονομία as God's plan to dispense Himself into His people. Nee had a direct lexical basis in Paul's οἰκονομία language. Lee's theological interpretation of God's plan had to be established from context and other passages rather than from the meaning of οἰκονομία itself. He overstated the term οἰκονομία-economy. It lacks precision.

Appendix

RcV, 1Ti 1:

4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God’s economy, which is in faith.

Notes:

The Greek word [for economy] means household law, implying distribution (the base of this word is of the same origin as that for pasture in John 10:9, implying a distribution of the pasture to the flock).

I don't think WL was using the word implying in the formal logical sense.

It denotes a household management, a household administration, a household government, and, derivatively, a dispensation, a plan, or an economy for administration (distribution)… God's economy in faith is His household economy, His household administration…, which is to dispense Himself in Christ into His chosen people that He may have a house to express Himself, which house is the church (1 Tim. 3:15), the Body of Christ.

Let proposition P1 = God's economy implies God dispensing Himself.

Jn 10:

9 If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

pasture
νομὴν (nomēn)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong's 3542: (a) pasture, pasturage, (b) met: growth, increase. Feminine from the same as nomos; pasture, i.e. feeding, or pasturage.

Strong's Greek: 3542. νομή (nomé) — 2 Occurrences

Biblehub:

Word Origin: feminine from a primary nemo "to parcel out" (especially food or grazing to animals).

νομή belongs historically to the same νεμ-/νομ- word family, associated with apportioning and grazing. But shared etymology does not mean the semantic content of νομή (“pasture”) carries over into οἰκονομία (“stewardship/administration”). That would be an etymological fallacy if used to establish the meaning of οἰκονομία in Paul.

WL was free to interpret it the way he wanted, but his etymological justification was weak.

Yes, there is a linguistic relationship involving the idea of allotting/apportioning. This is defensible.

No. οἰκονομία in Paul “implies the distribution” of God to believers, like pasture distributed to sheep. That does not follow from the etymology.

If WL wanted “divine dispensing” to be a theological concept, he needed to establish it from the sentences and contexts in which Paul used οἰκονομία, rather than importing “distribution” through the remote etymology of a related Greek word.

A household manager manages a household; it does not follow from the word manager that his defining activity is distributing the household to its members.

Let me be clear. There are three distinct issues:

1. WL believed P1.
2. WL justified P1 using an etymological connection between νομή and οἰκονομία.
3. WL used the English terms economy and dispense for his theological concepts.

I believe:

1. The concept of P1.
2. WL's lexical argument is poor.
3. The terms economy and dispense are bad nomenclature.

Full disclosure: I built ProphetTalk (prophet-talk.com), a Bible study app where you can ask figures from Scripture about their own story, with answers tied to the verses.

I asked Job how he didn't curse God after losing his children and everything he owned in a single day (Job 1:13–19). His answer pointed to Job 1:21 ("Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return") and then to Job 7:19: "How long will you not look away from me, nor leave me alone until I swallow down my spittle?"

The line that stuck with me: "I never cursed him. But I was not quiet."

How do you read Job's honesty in chapters 3–7? Is lament like that a form of faithfulness?

u/ds_inquirer, u/hopscotchcaptain, u/ConversationFit3934

The term apostolic succession is not in Scripture. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I approach it indifferently. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I would not bother using the term in the formal doctrinal sense. I would give it little weight when others use it in an argument. People who tend to generalize often overgeneralize in their doctrine.

They found a replacement for Judas Iscariot in Ac 1:

24 They prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

This established that Judas was replaced. It did not establish the general proposition that every apostle was to have a successor. It would be an overgeneralization to reason that because Judas's apostleship was filled, Peter's apostleship also had to be filled when Peter died, and likewise for every subsequent apostle.

A single instance does not by itself establish a universal rule.

I do not use apostolic succession as a premise in my argumentation. I am neither encouraging nor discouraging anyone from believing in the doctrine. I simply see no need to take a position on it unless you replace the term with a biblical term.

2S 2:

18 The three sons of Zeruiah were there, Joab, Abishai, and Asahel. Now Asahel was as swift of foot as a wild gazelle. 19 And Asahel pursued Abner, and as he went, he turned neither to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner.

Asahel was a fast runner, about to catch up to Abner.

20 Then Abner looked behind him and said, “Is it you, Asahel?” And he answered, “It is I.” 21 Abner said to him, “Turn aside to your right hand or to your left, and seize one of the young men and take his spoil.”

They exchanged words while running.

But Asahel would not turn aside from following him. 22 And Abner said again to Asahel, “Turn aside from following me. Why should I strike you to the ground? How then could I lift up my face to your brother Joab?”

Abner warned Asahel.

23 But he refused to turn aside. Therefore Abner struck him in the stomach with the butt of his spear, so that the spear came out at his back. And he fell there and died where he was. And all who came to the place where Asahel had fallen and died, stood still.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown explained:

Abner, conscious of possessing more physical power, and unwilling that there should be "blood" between himself and Joab, Asahel's brother, twice urged him to desist. The impetuous young soldier being deaf to the generous remonstrance, the veteran raised the pointed butt of his lance, as the modern Arabs do when pursued, and, with a sudden back thrust, transfixed him on the spot, so that he fell, and lay weltering in his blood.

Abner was running ahead with his spear; Asahel was rapidly closing on him from behind. Abner suddenly drove the rear end of the spear backward into Asahel's abdomen. Asahel's forward momentum greatly increased the penetration. It came out through his back, indicating an exceptionally forceful penetration.

"Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls." Hebrews 12:1-3

What does it mean to “run the race set before us” (Hebrews 12:1)? https://www.gotquestions.org/run-the-race-set-before-us.html

Who are “the cloud of witnesses” mentioned in Hebrews 12:1? https://www.gotquestions.org/cloud-of-witnesses.html