Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

i presume you are anti-flu-shot not because of your faith in God to keep you healthy,
but because you are convinced it is a government conspiracy to kill everyone?

i am wondering if ironically you are still intending to vote for the person who was president when the enormous government conspiracy to kill everyone with flu shots was enacted, organized and put into practice by that very same person's administration.

if you don't mind me asking.

i am just weirdly interested in completely irrational behavior.

Pietistic abhorrence, an emotional reaction without merit. Did you miss the part where I explained that your belief imputes actual (not merely potential) sin to God?

According to Scripture, Hebrews 4:14-15 "Jesus the Son of God, ... was in all points tempted like as we are". You can't ignore this verse just because it doesn't square with your premature conclusions on this matter.

Wrong... and rather asinine of you to make such an accusatory assumption.

Scripture doesn't say that Jesus was "tempted externally"; it says He was tempted "as we are". Scripture doesn't say "Jesus is separate from sinners because He could not sin"; it simply says He is "separate from sinners".

It doesn't mean that at all. Only if Jesus did sin would He have defilement in Him. That He is our spotless Lamb is based on the fact that He did not sin, just as the successful examination of a lamb at the temple under the Sinai covenant did not mean the lamb could not be defiled, but simply that it was not defiled.

"Internal" and "external" are your terms, not the Bible's terms, and Hebrews 4:15 states "in all points tempted as we are" without noting any such distinction. No matter how you carve up "temptation", Jesus was tempted as we are. The difference is that He did not sin.

exaggeration in and of itself is not a fallacy.
there is a direct causal link between J. having stated specifically that he refused to take a certain action on the grounds that God is his only source of health ((thereby affirming that the action in question was intended for health, not destruction of health)) and the questions i asked him which also concerned hypothetically refusing to participate in basic life-sustaining actions on the basis that God alone should be the source of one's health.

an 'exaggeration fallacy' would only be the case if there was no logical link at all between what J. stated and inferences i made from it -- for example if i had said "J. is so holy i bet he gets his hair cut in a tonsure" -- this has no link to J.'s statements.
but what i asked him -- note that they are questions, not statements; i made no presumption whatsoever -- were a series of questions directly following from the statement he himself made.



you are ((demonstrably)) not good at the definitions of local fallacies.
no debate to be had

Nowhere is Nehemiah6 claiming that Jesus did not come in a physical flesh and blood body. So this is just a false accusation because He pointed out something in Hebrews 7:26 that you did not like. Hebrews 7:26 says that He was made higher than the Heavens. Yes, He was made as a man who was in the lineage of Adam. But it also says that He was made higher than the Heavens. It also says that He was undefiled and separate from sinners and yet you did not really address these points.


Again, with the false accusations despite my explaining it to you. This is why this conversation is not going to continue for very long.
As I told you before, I believe Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. But this is not in conflict with Jesus operating at another point in time by the Father, and at another time by His own power.

So you believe in Modalism? Modalism is a false teaching that says that God the Father just puts on a mode or mask and pretends to be the other persons of the Trinity. In Modalism, there is no distinctions between the persons of the Godhead. They are all actually the Father. So in Modalism, Jesus (or the Son) did not really die on the cross for us. It was the Father. So who was Jesus talking to in prayer in the Garden? What about the three persons of the Trinity all being present at Christ’s baptism?

Sorry, you are not correct because you have ignored many points I brought up in Scripture.
So you are the one who needs to learn the truth on this matter. You have ignored the latter half of John 5:19, and John 5:21 because you think John 14:10 somehow undoes what these verses say. In order for you to be right, you have to explain John 5:19, and John 5:21 in light of John 14:10, but we both know you are simply not capable of doing that because you are in error on this matter.

This is again your own thoughts that are not in line with Scripture. Chapter and verse.

His BODY was made a little lower than the angels!!!!!!!! Jesus referred to His body as a temple and not as a human host or human mind that He joined with. Look.

Jesus said,
”For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. “ (John 6:38).

So you believe the Eternal Word was an entirely different being in the Incarnation?
Jesus refers to how He came down from Heaven and that His existence.
In your view, Jesus appears to be some kind of new creation in the Incarnation that did not exist prior.

In John 8, Jesus tells the Jews that He is the “I AM“ from Exodus 3. The Jews wanted to stone Him for saying that.
Jesus was claiming pre-existence. This means that Jesus was not a new creation in the Incarnation that did not exist before. You are basically the Eternal Word is totally different by the Incarnation.

But yes. I fully believe Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, but this is in reference to His temple or body, and not His eternal soul which is 100% God or the Eternal Word.

You mean 1 Corinthians 15:1-4? I accept that verse just fine. Do you not see this passage as the gospel?

Pietism has its origin in Lutheranism. I am not Lutheran. I just believe the Bible. One Lutheran I ran into on another forum did not hold to any kind of Pietism but he appeared to be more for Hyper Grace (i.e., an extreme for of a sin and still be saved type belief).

No emotional reaction involved. I was not upset by any means when I made that statement.
I am just telling you how things are.

Well, sometimes I do skim people’s posts if I see that they are rambling on about something that is entirely unbiblical. But a post # and an actual quote of your words would be great. I don’t hang on the words of others unless it is something that they are writing that is edifying and helpful to growing in the faith.

As I demonstrated in my previous post to you, the Bible clearly teaches that there is internal temptation and external temptation.
Seeing that there would be multiple contradictions in Scripture if Jesus was internally tempted to do evil (See: 1 John 1:5, Hebrews 7:26, James 1:13, John 1:29), we must conclude that Jesus was externally tempted.

Surely cussing is not needed in our adult conversation here.

The Bible says,
“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” (Ephesians 4:29).

Anyway, I said what I did because how exactly do you not see Jesus as not being defiled if He was capable of sinning? Scripture makes it clear that God is good, and He is holy, and there is no darkness in Him. Hebrews 7:26 also says that Jesus is separate from sinners. So this means He is not like us in the fact that He could ever sin. What you will not see Hebrew 2:18, and Hebrews 4:15 says is that Jesus could have potentially sinned but He simply did not do so. I say this because you can read Hebrews 2:18, and Hebrews 4:15 with external temptation in view.

And are we not externally tempted by sin? 1 Corinthians 10:13 says that we are.
Plus, as I said, you will have multiple contradictions in Scripture if Jesus was internally tempted to sin.
It would suggest there is darkness in God, and that there is some kind of defilement in Him.
But Jesus said He is the good shepherd. Jesus said He is the light of the world. Jesus says He is the way, the truth, and the life.
This is not possible for Jesus to say these things and yet also for Him to potentially sin. It would suggest Jesus was not God, as well.

The two concepts go together. If one is separate from sinners, that means one is not like sinners in any way to even sin. This is the case especially if Hebrews 7:26 says that Jesus was undefiled. Jesus potentially sinning means there would be some kind of defilement in Him to be able to do some kind of evil potentially. This is what you don’t understand. Jesus says a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, and Jesus clearly is a good tree. God is good.

Not at all.
One’s nature can be that of a child of wrath.
Ephesians 2:3 says, “…and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

2 Corinthians 7:1 says,
“….let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

Meaning, that defilement or filthiness can be a part of a believer’s flesh that needs to be cleansed.

Jesus was born of a virgin by the seed of a woman for a reason.
Sin is passed down by the male seed.
But like I said, any potential to do wrong means something is not good in that individual.
It means there are lusts or wrong desires that they are simply not acting upon or they are suppressing.
Jesus says there is none good but God. Jesus is good and He is God and so His capacity to sin is zero.
In other words, you need a verse that more clearly says that Jesus could have sinned and yet He didn’t.
Hebrews 2;18, and Hebrews 4:15 can be read as referring to external temptation only with no contradiction or problems.

I imagine that is what you like it to mean, but if one has the potential to do evil and that exists inside of them, then that is darkness of some kind. That is defilement of some kind. Even one does not act on one’s capacity to do evil, the fact that they could have potentially do evil shows there is something wrong in them that they need to remedy. Again, you are claiming God could have potentially sinned. The implications in this claim are problematic to begin with.

Well, I have demonstrated this fact clearly by showing you the verses on internal temptation vs external temptation. Please go back and check them out. If you do not see it, I would encourage you to ask God to send you the Spirit to illuminate your understanding of such verses as you reread them. For me, it is really plain.

It's three posts (between us) back. Click the "up" button.

That doesn't fly, firstly because Scripture doesn't "clearly" teach that (it's implicit but not explicit), and secondly, because Adam had no "internal" proclivity to sin prior to actually sinning. God said His creation was "very good".

Don't think for a second that your insulting comments ("You fail...") about me are in any way less corrupt than my comment.

But you must insert words or concepts into the verses as you read them... that's called eisegesis.

And I have demonstrated from Scripture why we disagree. I don't see that we are going to come to agreement on this.

I sincerely take your words to heart Brother. And I appreciate all your input.

If anyone pays attention to your posts and input, it is obvious to them that you love the Lord and have invested much time in His word.

Even if I found your post, I have no idea which words you are referring to in that post. So an actual quote of your own words of what you were talking about would be better. I don’t want to misunderstand you by looking at the wrong words.

This is very simple in Scripture and I am not sure why you don’t get it.

The devil is called the tempter in Matthew 4. The devil when he tempts is external temptation. It’s why he is called the tempter. So this is a clear example of outside or external temptation.

Yet, in James 1:13-14, it says:

James 1:13-14
13 ”Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.”

So okay. Verse 13 says God does not tempt any man. This would be external temptation. God is not externally tempting any man to do any kind of wrong.

Verse 14 describes why. It says every man is tempted he is drawn away by his own lust. Lusts are inside a person. When a person is tempted to do wrong, they have a wrong lust or internal desire to do that wrong thing (Which when they do that wrong thing, it is sin). But if they consider in doing that sin because of the lusts inside of them, they are being internally tempted to do that thing. Now, whether they resist or not is another matter.

But these are clear examples of internal and external temptation. How would you comment on the devil being called the tempter (external temptation)? How would you comment on James 1:13-14?

Eve looked at the fruit and she was enticed by her internal desires or lusts of seeing the fruit in that it was pleasant to her eyes, and it was good for food and she realized it was a tree to make her wise.

Genesis 3:6
”And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,”

As for the creation being very good:

It was, but it was not good in the sense that evil could not potentially exist in this universe.
God made free willed beings that had the capacity to either do good or evil.

But God is not capable of doing evil because there is no darkness in God (1 John 1:5).
James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. Meaning, God cannot internally consider in doing evil because it is against His good and holy nature and character.

God is not a man that He should repent like a man and so God is different than men.

If you used the cuss word you did during a job interview, there is a good chance you would not get the job unless they don’t mind cussing. “You fail…” is not a cuss word. Generally people who do cuss would not do so around their grandparents unless they are also into cussing.

I have been talking on various different Christian forums since 2010-2011. So I know what eisegesis means. I also know the opposite word of that, too. I have even used these terms before. But using fancy theological words does not prove one is correct. One has to make their case with the Bible to show that the truth is on their side.

Then we can agree to disagree.

May God bless you.

Yes it is.

Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies (thoughtco.com)

@Dino246

Also, if Jesus was tempted in all points like us, how do you understand this kind of temptation?
Are you saying that Jesus was internally tempted in the fact that He considered in doing sin and yet He simply did not act on such a decision to sin, and so everything was okay? In other words, if a person who struggles with alcohol sees a bottle vodka in front of them, they may struggle within with their own internal lust or desire for it, they are being tempted internally by their own desire for it. There wrong desire means there is darkness within them. Jesus simply did not have any evil or lustful desires to be tempted to do any kind of evil. Jesus never was tempted internally to do any kind of wrong. So when you say that he was tempted like us, I am saying it means external temptation. You don’t seem to agree with that. You want Jesus to actually be like that drunk who struggles internally by some kind of internal temptation to want to drink but then he just says, …. “No” and throws the bottle up against the wall. If this is not how you see temptation, then please explain how you understand Jesus being tempted.

Agreed, not for one second did Jesus consider the temptation because he has no sin nature passed down from Adam. He was not a blood relative of Adam. It was an impossibility for Jesus to sin, even though he was tempted by the devil. Jesus, being in the form of man and experiencing life as a man, now knows what it’s like to be tempted, which allows him to help us in our time of need.

Hebrews 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Agreed. Jesus is God. Jesus was born of the seed of the woman (Mary). Sin is passed down by the male seed. He truly was holy, undefiled, and separate from sinners as Hebrews 7:26 says. However, in Luke 3, in the genealogy of Jesus through Mary’s line, counting back, it goes all the way back to mentioning Adam. But what I’ve always found fascinating is that if we were to count from God to Jesus in this genealogy, Jesus is the 77th from GOD, which is just one of the many other number 7 patterns associated with our Lord Jesus.

May the Lord bless you.

Here are my words:

"Consider the implications of the second: Scripture is leading us to believe that there is a conceptual sleight-of-hand involved in the temptation, or in short, a lie. God is sidestepping with an awkward, "Well, Jesus couldn't actually sin, of course, and 'tempted' here means something other than what it means in every other usage." It is nonsensical to pretend that "tempt" meant something different for Jesus than it does for us. Believing so removes all meaning from Hebrews 4:13. Let not our pietistic abhorrence at the idea of Jesus potentially committing sin inadvertently impute actual wrongdoing to God."

It's not a matter of "not getting it"; I understand completely what you are asserting. I understand the distinction between internal and external temptation. What I reject is the idea that Scripture "clearly" teaches this distinction. It "clearly" teaches that Jesus died on the cross. It "clearly" teaches that Noah built the ark. It "clearly" teaches that David committed adultery. What you are asserting is that something requiring study and thought is a "clear teaching" of Scripture. Further, I don't accept that the distinction makes any difference in this discussion. In other words, it requires the redefinition of "tempted as we are" in order to be valid. We are not only tempted "externally", but "internally" as well. Jesus was hungry; that's an internal motivation consistent with the temptation to turn stones into bread.

Eve is not Adam. Her "internal" temptation, while illustrative, is otherwise irrelevant, as she was deceived. Adam sinned, and there is no Scripture detailing "internal temptation" on his part.

You find my choice of verbiage offensive. So? I find your choice of verbiage offensive. "You fail" is not the problem, but your assumption that I reject Scripture is. If you want me to say your comment was "asinine" in a less offensive way, I can do so, but that doesn't change at all what I mean by it. By the way, I have never encountered anyone before who thought "asinine" was a "cuss word".

Again, obviously, and I have done so.

And you as well.

I'm responding to two different people in this post because both responses are relevant to both posts.

Your extreme example misses the point. Jesus was hungry after fasting for 40 days. He had an internal physical need for sustenance and nourishment. He had the power to change stones into bread, and the capability to eat that bread. Which of these is an external temptation?

If Jesus were incapable of succumbing to the temptation, He was not "tempted as we are". Again, one is never tempted to do something that is simply impossible. Don't immediately jump to the conclusion that it was simply impossible for Jesus to sin, and that closes the matter, because you have not dealt with "tempted as we are" in that case.

To you both:

The clause, "tempted as we are" is the core Scripture for this issue. Your assertion that Jesus could not sin completely negates this clause. It means that aside from the unpleasant physical deprivation, He suffered nothing, demonstrated nothing, overcame nothing, and accomplished nothing.

Consider at length those four words until you at least understand my position, even if you eventually reject it.

But It would have been sinful for Jesus to break His fast. Are you saying Jesus struggled with an internal desire to break His fast (i.e., internal temptation)? So when you say that Jesus was tempted like we are, then this would mean that He is also struggling to suppress internal wrong lusts or desires (Which implies something is wrong on the inside of Him)? If so, that would disqualify Him as being God because God cannot be tempted with evil as I pointed out to you from James 1:13. See, what you are doing is you are sacrificing James 1:13, and Hebrews 7:26 in order to believe a wrong interpretation on Hebrews 2:18, and Hebrews 4:15. You have to find a way to harmonize all these verses but you are not really doing that. You are disbelieving certain verses in order to hold to a wrong interpretation on others.

Being tempted like as we are does not necessarily mean he could have given into the temptation, but chose not to. Could it not mean that the temptations that Jesus faced were similar to the temptations that we face today? Even though he had no possibility to give into those temptations? He did not have man's nature. Jesus did not have a sin nature to give into.

I would say that claiming that Jesus struggled with internal temptation is a more serious wrong implication. I believe it is clearly an attack upon the deity of Jesus Christ. Again, if Jesus is God, and He is, then He cannot be tempted with evil as James 1:13 says. In addition, He is undefiled, and separate from sinners as Hebrews 7:26 says. But you are saying He is not separate from sinners in the fact that He suppressed wrong desires or lusts within Him. These wrong desires He had to suppress would have been defilement or evil within Him to suppress. For if He is being internally tempted, He would have been struggling of fighting to suppress evil desires. This is what James 1:13-14 describes.

Not at all because we know that the devil is called the tempter. Meaning, he externally tempts others.

No. Again, I have already demonstrated examples of external temptation. The devil externally tempted Jesus with certain external tests.

I think you are only seeing one way to read these verses and it is just not possible for you to see it any other way.

Scripture does clearly show a distinction between internal temptation and external temptation.

1 Peter 2:11
"Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;”

So one’s fleshy lusts war against a person’s own soul. These fleshy lusts or desires are from within.

James 1:13-14
13 “.…God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

So God is obviously does not internally tempt man. How would He do that? Most people would think that certain situations in life are temptations from God. But James says in verse 13 that God does not tempt any man.
Verse 14 is the explanation as to why God does not really tempt any man. It is the INTERNAL lusts of a person that entice them to sin.
They are drawn away by their own lusts. This is an internal temptation or battle from within. A war within one’s soul. A person can battle and fight not to drink alcohol. It can be an internal struggle. So if a believer who struggles with alcohol runs into a place where everyone is drinking and it is hard for him, he should know that God is not ultimately tempting him by this situation of people drinking, but he is ultimately being drawn and enticed by his own lustful desires to drink. His own internal temptation is the battle.

But do not be fooled that somebody also can be externally tempted. A woman can try to tempt a man to have sex with them wrongfully. We see this with Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:7-9). She was externally tempting him. But he did not have any interest in the temptation given because he seen it as sin against God.

It would be that way if Jesus was not separate from sinners because we are weak and human. God has no such weakness or wrong lustful desires in Him to even consider it because He is 100% God on the inside. Nowhere does Scripture say that Jesus joined with a human host, or human mind or that He would be an entirely new and different being in the Incarnation. Jesus said He came down from Heaven in John 6. Jesus said to the Jews in John 8 that He was the “I AM” from Exodus 3 when they mocked in how Jesus knew Abraham. Jesus was declaring pre-existence. But if Jesus took on a sinful nature this implies he took on a human mind or soul and Jesus was a newly created being by the Incarnation. So His claims to pre-existence would not be true to your belief that the Eternal Word took on a new form of existence by being like sinful man (Which implies a newly created human mind that He would have joined with). But this is simply not the case. Jesus referred to his body as a temple and not as some kind of human host or mind that He joined with.

Nobody sins without some kind of internal desire or lust involved.

We are living in the last days and the culture is changing into becoming more dark than it used to be. It is derivative of another word that refers to a person’s bottom. Such a word is considered a swear word (See source here). I highly doubt a children’s book titled by the cuss word you would use would not go over too well. Imagine if you yelled this word in church.

Me neither, to be honest.




Here's what I pulled off the web just now:


"Asinine derives from the Latin asinus, which means "stupid," but also "like an ass or donkey.""




I hope we don't think a "cuss word" was used in Zech9:9 and Matt21:5, lol

Zec 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Mat 21:5
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.




I'd say that saying "like an ass or donkey" is not the same as saying "like a person's bottom" as the post above mine suggests. But that's just me.

As per our conversation the other day, the confusion comes from the hypostatic union. God being both humanity and deity in one person.

The Trinity helps me understand this. Three distinct individuals in one person forever. Each individual having a distinct role, yet being one God.

So the idea of the bifurcation of the Lord Jesus Christ is not foreign to believers. But the Lord Jesus Christ is unique compared to the Trinity. The finite can't co-mingle with the infinite. And the infinite can't co-mingle with the finite.(while he was on the earth)

A simple way of seeing this is the Cross. God was not on the Cross, God cannot die. The humanity of Jesus Christ was on the Cross. The infinite can't co-mingle with the finite.

As it is with the temptations of Jesus. Jesus operated strictly through His humanity(finite) to be able not to sin. God(infinite) cannot be tempted. James 1:13.

If it is in reference to a donkey or they are reading it from the Bible, that’s different. When the other word is used, it is in reference to a vulgar reference to a human’s butt. Again, you wouldn’t openly say this word in a conversation with your Pastor, or grandma or in a reading with a bunch of children present. It is also a curse word regardless. But the word you mentioned here is a swear word according to vocabulary.com. In fact, nobody would use this in a serious job interview or to obtain a Christian position at a church. This show why such words are vulgar and inappropriate. The fact that people don’t see it merely shows how dark things have gotten in these last days.