Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?
- Thread starter NTNT58
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
this did not read like what you posted to me before. but this Post, of YOURS, is CORRECT, about SAME WORD DUAL MEANINGS!
While Jesus is usually "The Rock" being referred to, the rock in this instance is the revelation by the Father of Jesus as the Christ.
Jerome copied the Hebrew Gospel, so, it does in fact exist.
not sure where you think your information is coming from but your Source is incorrect!
Not only did Jerome (374-420 A.D.) claim to have seen the Hebrew gospel, he said he had translated it and on several occasions he quoted from it (On Famous Men 2 & 3). Jerome confirmed, “the gospel in Hebrew letters which the Nazarenes use” (Against Pelagius III, 2), or “the gospel according to the Hebrews.” A much earlier writer, Papias, who was a disciple of John the apostle, stated that Matthew recorded the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew and everyone translated them as best he could (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 16). It is quite possible that Papias’ “Matthew” is the same as Jerome’s Hebrew gospel.
“The gospel according to the Hebrews”
one can say this is not Matthew, fine, but the fact is, it is One of the Gospels, and it was written in Hebrew.
but the real kicker is, read, this Version that Jerome Translated. it perfectly matches the Gospel of Matthew better than Mark, Luke, or John.
the FACT is, this Hebrew GOSPEL, that reads almost Identical to the Gospel of Matthew, did factually exist and we have Church Father((s)) confirming it and one who translated and quoted it like the True Gospel of CHRIST!
the fact that Jerome: translated and quoted it like the True Gospel of CHRIST, is a better and more reliable Source than anything else existing.
for almost 50 years, Jerome's job, was to gather and examine EVERY KNOWN copy that existed relating to our Bible. from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and to his own Latin, that was his sole life's duty.
and if JEROME, not only thought it VALUABLE to not just mention this Hebrew Gospel, but took the time to view (it) multiples times, translate it, and then the [[[[[[[TESTIMONIAL]]]]]]] of them ALL, QUOTED from IT, as if it came from JESUS HIMSELF, is ""extremely alarming"" how people claiming to be Followers of God [[could ever]] try to DENY IT!
who do you think YOU ARE?
and if JEROME, not only thought it VALUABLE to not just mention this Hebrew Gospel, but took the time to view (it) multiples times, translate it, and then the [[[[[[[TESTIMONIAL]]]]]]] of them ALL, QUOTED from IT, as if it came from JESUS HIMSELF, is ""extremely alarming"" how people claiming to be Followers of God [[could ever]] try to DENY IT!
who do you think YOU ARE?
What makes you think those were the only churches at the time or that they were run by Peter or his successor? Pharisees were so apostate that Jesus CONDEMNED them, and yet he still told everyone to OBEY their authority.
What do the keys mean then? Isiah 22 has the same situation of a king giving special keys to his stewart; keys that are passed down to his successors.
Perhaps it is... that doesn't change the fact Jesus gave Peter the keys and nobody else.
These were the churches Paul started. As far as the Pharisees were concerned, the old covenant was still in place. And that covenant was made with a nation. So as long as the covenant was still active, God had to abide by its terms. Pharisaical authority was appropriate.
When the new covenant was put in place, God was no longer covenanting with a nation, but individual believers. As such, He is no longer obligated to be faithful to a nation or assembly, but only to the truly redeemed.
Peter was given authority to shepherd the early church. He wasn't given authority to assign a successor.
Great point! However, that still doesn't refute the physical (albeit not spiritual) authority of those who are in the seat of Peter. Pharisees ruled until the end of the old covenant, and now the new Pharisees (Papists) rule until the 2nd coming of Jesus.
Where does it say he wasn't allowed to name successors? Isiah 22 suggests otherwise.
The third fundamental rule of interpreting the Bible is this: the clear interprets the obscure, and never the other way around.
It is clear that God said His words would never pass away, yet in the name of an obscure verse, the popes through the centuries have tried to denigrate and diminish God’s word…
It is clear that God said His words would never pass away, yet in the name of an obscure verse, the popes through the centuries have tried to denigrate and diminish God’s word…
Pharisees weren't in the spiritual seat either, the priests were. The Bible also tells us to obey ALL authority, spiritual and physical.
Just wondering if you understand what the key represents. Do you think this key was a literal key?
Just like King Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven, in Isiah 22 a king gives his Stewart keys to the kingdom and his descendants or successors would inherit the keys. In both cases, the king still holds the ultimate authority, but the stewart is the carrier of that authority.