Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[Bible_Highlighter]

Not at all. I uphold the upright character and unstained goodness of Jesus Christ, Who is God incarnate... and believe at face value the words of Scripture that say He was tempted as we are.

Jesus said the Jews, ”Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34).
Surely Jesus is not claiming to the Jews that they have deity or that they are all powerful whereby they created the universe or something. Obviously this is a reference to how he was saying they were kings.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The KJV is weak in this verse. A much better translation is "calamity" or "disaster".

I see it merely as an archaic word and not as any error on their part. You have to consider that many of the KJB translators knew the original languages. They could speak and write them. No group of scholars compares to them. But yet, you say you know better than them when you don’t even have even close to their credentials. But in either case, we can agree to disagree of course.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I don't believe the premise is 'Wrong lusts" on the inside.

I believe the premise is right motivation and the tools/plan/gifts the Father and the Holy Spirit gave Jesus on the inside.(the same we get the moment we are saved.) He is our example.

I don't believe He ever struggled with sin or ever thought," Welllllllll maybe...." He was always in the sphere of the fathers will and filled with the Spirit and utilized the plan/tools/gifts He had to be able not to sin.

He prayed to the Father to take the cup from Him knowing what the Fathers will was.

If one is internally tempted it implies that they are being drawn by wrongful lusts or desires. Yes, one can resist this internal lust or desire, but it does not erase the problem of one saying that Jesus was internally tempted. One is saying that he was confiding in doing evil but yet He simply did not act on those wrong desires. This is why this belief is deeply troubling. People just read a verse a certain way and they don’t even think about the moral implications or problems in it.

 

[Kroogz]

Then you don’t believe He was internally tempted in Hebrews 4:15? That’s good.

Yes, he was internally tempted. You seem to be suggesting that being tempted internally is automatically sinning?

Even us puny(with a sin nature) humans can be tempted internally, and not sin.

 

[Dino246]

Jesus said the Jews, ”Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34).
Surely Jesus is not claiming to the Jews that they have deity or that they are all powerful whereby they created the universe or something. Obviously this is a reference to how he was saying they were kings.

Nor is it that. It's a quotation from Psalm 82:6, the context of which is God speaking to divine beings (spiritual entities that are not God). It cannot mean mere men, because God warns them later in that verse that they will die "like men". Jesus' point is that calling an entity (other than God the Father) "god" is not the problem the Jews think it is.

All this aside, I see no relevance of this verse to our discussion about the temptation of Jesus.

 

[Kroogz]

If one is internally tempted it implies that they are being drawn by wrongful lusts or desires. Yes, one can resist this internal lust or desire, but it does not erase the problem of one saying that Jesus was internally tempted. One is saying that he was confiding in doing evil but yet He simply did not act on those wrong desires. This is why this belief is deeply troubling. People just read a verse a certain way and they don’t even think about the moral implications or problems in it.

In contrast, it makes me stand in awe of Him even more. God, I mean GOD came down to earth, took on human form to the extent of having the ability to sin, to show us how it's done! MIND BLOWING. We don't have the capacity to understand it.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You're playing semantic games. The words plainly mean "in similar manner".

Okay. You need to really think about the mechanics of this. If Jesus was tempted internally, then this means there had to be some kind of wrong desire or lust that He was battling with whereby He overcame such a battle within Himself. If there was no wrong desire in Jesus, then He could not be tempted internally.

I have warned you of your heresy. I will not entertain it further.

I have changed on 21 things theologically over the years. Some of these changes were by the help of other believers pointing out Scripture. I am open to change if there are good verses that truly make the case for Jesus having a human mind and or a human soul.
By my examination, I just don’t see it. The references to Jesus’ soul or spirit can simply be a reference to His unique being as the second person of the Trinity or Godhead. We would need a verse or passage that clearly makes it unmistakable that the soul or spirit being discussed is purely human and not divine. Or we would need a verse or passage where Jesus indicates that he switches from a divine nature and then to a human nature at another point in time. Meaning, we need a verse that alludes to the fact that He is making His switch to divine to human while on Earth. But I honestly do not think there are any good verses to prove this. It’s more of a man made theology that folks have latched on to. There are no verses that support this construct.

By what other believers say, they say Jesus spoke from a divine side, and human side.
This is the impression I get of that:

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Randall_O'Brien_(Earth-148611)

Is this how you see it?
Granted it is a crude example.

I used the word, "asinine", not the word, "ass" and I meant it as a derivative of donkey, not of a person's behind. It was never a cuss word. Get over it, already. I note that you still have not owned your wrongdoing of your insulting assumption.

Again, you wouldn’t create a Children’s book with a donkey named this.
The word can be viewed as a cuss word and thus it send conservative Christian parents into a frenzy if they seen such a book.
Besides, Christians are to avoid having any appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22) (KJV).
I know. You don’t agree with the Bible that existed for hundreds of years long before Westcott and Hort showed up.
So you will obviously read 1 Thessalonians 5:22 differently.

 

[Dino246]

I see it merely as an archaic word and not as any error on their part. You have to consider that many of the KJB translators knew the original languages. They could speak and write them. No group of scholars compares to them. But yet, you say you know better than them when you don’t even have even close to their credentials. But in either case, we can agree to disagree of course.

You don't know what my credentials are, and it's best not to make negative assumptions about people. Or, if you do, keep them to yourself.

If you understand it to be an archaic word, then you understand that it's not the best translation and that a different word captures the sense better.

 

[Dino246]

Okay. You need to really think about the mechanics of this. If Jesus was tempted internally, then this means there had to be some kind of wrong desire or lust that He was battling with whereby He overcame such a battle within Himself. If there was no wrong desire in Jesus, then He could not be tempted internally.

Is hunger internal or external?

Again, you wouldn’t create a Children’s book with a donkey named this.
The word can be viewed as a cuss word and thus it send conservative Christian parents into a frenzy if they seen such a book.
Besides, Christians are to avoid having any appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22) (KJV).
I know. You don’t agree with the Bible that existed for hundreds of years long before Westcott and Hort showed up.
So you will obviously read 1 Thessalonians 5:22 differently.

One would not name a donkey, "Asinine" any more than one would name a horse, "Equine". "Asinine" has never been a cuss word. It simply means "relating to a donkey".

Get over it, already. You're being a stubborn jackdonkey about this.

 

[Kroogz]

Hey guys, is there a link or a tutor section I can reference to break my responses down to smaller quotes? I have tried copy and paste on the "

" at the beginning and ending of quotes, but it is not working. Comes out a MESS.

 

[Kroogz]

See!!!!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Is hunger internal or external?

Hunger was only only a temporary test for our Lord.
We need to look at other sins that we battle with because Hebrews 4:15 says He was tempted in all points like us.
So there are sins like adultery, theft, murder, and coveting, etcetera. If he was tempted in all points like us on these things, then this would suggest that He briefly considered in doing these things but He suppressed the urge or doing them. If Jesus did not have any desire to sin then there would be no internal temptation.

An example of internal temptation is a drunk who sees a bottle of alcohol that he likes but he knows it will destroy him. But his strong desire and or lusts inside him battle to resist it. This would be an example of internal temptation.

The drunk would struggle both physically and spiritually in not to drink.

This is what you are saying about our Lord Jesus Christ when you deny that his temptation in Hebrews 4:15 is not external only. Jesus would have to have some kind of wrong lust or desire in order for it to be internal temptation.

One would not name a donkey, "Asinine" any more than one would name a horse, "Equine". "Asinine" has never been a cuss word. It simply means "relating to a donkey".

Get over it, already. You're being a stubborn jackdonkey about this.

Well, I looked it up. Your right. Well, UrbanDictionary has some usages that relate to a butt, but the common usage is as you say.
I still see the use of this word as an inappropriate word or insult that is hurtful. Jesus warns about calling the brethren certain words in Matthew 5:22. We will be held accountable at the Judgment for every idol word. This is why as Christians we need to be more loving with our words.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You don't know what my credentials are, and it's best not to make negative assumptions about people. Or, if you do, keep them to yourself.

If you understand it to be an archaic word, then you understand that it's not the best translation and that a different word captures the sense better.

Ninety some percent of even scholars do not know how to speak, write, and read Modern Greek fluently without the using some kind of tool or aid. So the chances are not in your favor that you know more than the KJB Translators combined in regards to knowing the original languages.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

In contrast, it makes me stand in awe of Him even more. God, I mean GOD came down to earth, took on human form to the extent of having the ability to sin, to show us how it's done! MIND BLOWING. We don't have the capacity to understand it.

I am not sure you see the contradiction in the claim. If you are saying Jesus was internally tempted to sin, that means that He considered in doing that sin, but He simply decided not to do that sin. Or that He had an impulse or lust to do a particular wrong thing but He simply said… ”No.” This would not make me in awe of Him if such was the case. It would show that He was not God because James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted with evil, and Hebrews 7:26 says He is undefiled and separate from sinners..

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Ninety some percent of even scholars do not know how to speak, write, and read Modern Greek fluently without the using some kind of tool or aid. So the chances are not in your favor that you know more than the KJB Translators combined in regards to knowing the original languages.

Note: Yes, I know Biblical Greek (Kione Greek) is a different kind of Greek, but the point here is that one needs to truly be an expert on such languages by knowing them intimately. I say this because a Greek Grammarian says 1 John 5:7 should be in our Bible, otherwise there is a grammar error. I trust him more because Greek is his native language and he lives in Greece.

Most scholars today do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek.

 

[Kroogz]

Hunger was only only a temporary test for our Lord.
We need to look at other sins that we battle with because Hebrews 4:15 says He was tempted in all points like us.
So there are sins like adultery, theft, murder, and coveting, etcetera. If he was tempted in all points like us on these things, then this would suggest that He briefly considered in doing these things but He suppressed the urge or doing them. If Jesus did not have any desire to sin then there would be no internal temptation.

An example of internal temptation is a drunk who sees a bottle of alcohol that he likes but he knows it will destroy him. But his strong desire and or lusts inside him battle to resist it. This would be an example of internal temptation.

The drunk would struggle both physically and spiritually in not to drink.

Well, I can get personal on this one. I am an alcoholic.

I am internally tempted to drink. But God gave me tools/plans/gifts and His Holy Spirit to choose not to.

I'm sinning even though I utilize His plan not to drink?

 

[Dino246]

Hunger was only only a temporary test for our Lord.

Yes, and every temptation we face is temporary too.

We've been over this. We differ. Let it go.

Well, I looked it up. Your right. Well, UrbanDictionary has some usages that relate to a butt, but the common usage is as you say.

I still see the use of this word as an inappropriate word or insult that is hurtful. Jesus warns about calling the brethren certain words in Matthew 5:22. We will be held accountable at the Judgment for every idol word. This is why as Christians we need to be more loving with our words.

You still haven't acknowledged your insult of me, but you have chafed at my non-insult until you are proven wrong... and still you gripe.

I didn't call you anything. I called your comment a name you didn't even understand (at the time). Comments and ideas are fair game for vigorous criticism. I have rarely encountered a person I would consider "stupid", but I have encountered many stupid ideas, and have no hesitation in calling them as they are.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Well, I can get personal on this one. I am an alcoholic.

I am internally tempted to drink. But God gave me tools/plans/gifts and His Holy Spirit to choose not to.

I'm sinning even though I utilize His plan not to drink?

There is a fine line here that I cannot define clearly. Only God knows that line. James 1:13-14 describes how a person is tempted or drawn away by lust and then this brings forth sin. Yet, on the other hand, we know that there are mind sins. If we look upon a woman in lust, we have committed adultery in our heart (Matthew 5:28-30). If we hate our brother, we know that this is equivalent to murder according to 1 John 3:15. But the idea here is that some wrong primal desire must exist (temptation) in order for it to be brought for as sin according to James 1:13-14. This wrong desire or lust is something that you must conclude the Lord Jesus has on the inside of Him in order to be internally tempted. This is wrong in my view to suggest that Jesus had lustful impulses because He is the spotless Lamb. One is bringing God down to their sinful level and it’s not right.

 

[Kroogz]

I am not sure you see the contradiction in the claim. If you are saying Jesus was internally tempted to sin, that means that He considered in doing that sin, but He simply decided not to do that sin. Or that He had an impulse or lust to do a particular wrong thing but He simply said… ”No.” This would not make me in awe of Him if such was the case. It would show that He was not God because James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted with evil, and Hebrews 7:26 says He is undefiled and separate from sinners..

We have 2 options. Sin or don't sin. I choose don't sin. Doesn't mean that I considered/struggled/lusted to sin to come to that conclusion.

Jesus had the options set before Him and He chose not to sin.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yes, and every temptation we face is temporary too.

We've been over this. We differ. Let it go.

But why? Is it because your belief disturbs you?
Again, if Jesus was tempted in all points like us, there had to be some kind of wrong desires in Him in order to be tempted internally.
Being tempted internally means one is considering in doing that evil or at least on a more basic or primal level.
Again, this would suggest that there was darkness in God if he struggled with internal temptation.

You still haven't acknowledged your insult of me, but you have chafed at my non-insult until you are proven wrong... and still you gripe.

Saying that you fail to understand something is not in the same ballpark as the word you used.

I didn't call you anything. I called your comment a name you didn't even understand (at the time). Comments and ideas are fair game for vigorous criticism. I have rarely encountered a person I would consider "stupid", but I have encountered many stupid ideas, and have no hesitation in calling them as they are.

Okay. I am glad you did not call me that. But the point here is that the word is not the type of communication that is full of grace seasoned with salt. It is an insulting word that genders strife and not peace.