Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

Are you saying the verse I quoted in John 20:23 says something else? Why haven't you clarified what it says? It sounds like you're just making poor excuses not to address it.

Pharisees were apostates as well, but Jesus still told everyone to obey them in Mathew 23:3. You jumped to conclusions, and you failed to differentiate between physical and spiritual authority.

okay i gotta red X so please expound on 14 total tribes = 12 and the relation to the apostles =]


.. or, i hope not, pretend it never happened..

I don't see how that does anything to take away from Peter being the chief apostle. The x was for your completely uncalled-for comment about me worshipping Peter, which I've made clear that I don't.

No. Peter had no "authority" over the apostles. Indeed James was more influential in Jerusalem. And Peter certainly had no authority over Paul, since Paul had to rebuke him at one time. But they had great respect and love for each other, and Peter clearly identified ALL of Paul's epistles as Scripture. Paul also said that he was behind no apostle.

When Christ told Peter that he would be given the "keys" to the Kingdom, it meant that Peter was the one who would preach the Gospel FIRST to both Jews (in Jerusalem) and Gentiles (in the house of Cornelius). It is the Gospel that gives sinners an entrance into the Kingdom of God, and Peter said that the Gospel is what eventually leads to the New Birth.

Pope Paul, the first Pope of the Protestant church!

James 1:13 says "...God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone." but don't ignore that James goes on to say, "But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed." Jesus was never lured away or enticed by evil, even though evil attempted to entice Him.
And not giving in to evil, letting it rule over you, is the farthest thing from being weak. He did not bow to sin as you did.

You have the contradiction in positing that Jesus was tempted in every way as we are yet cannot be tempted in anyway as we are.

That is not how one should be looking at this. Yes we know that the temptations were real, but what should be stressed is that they had absolutely no impact on Christ. As I pointed out to another poster, if he had absolutely no interest in chocolate cake, it would not matter how many times someone tried to tempt him with it. And since Christ hates iniquity, the same principle applied.

I am saying that Hebrews 4:15 is saying that Jesus was tempted in all points like us in regards to the fact that other people externally tempted Jesus to do various sins (Even though He had no interest in the temptation given). This was all external temptation and not internal temptation. It is not a contradiction to read it this way. But it would be a contradiction to read Hebrews 4:15 as referring to Jesus having internal temptation like us because it would violate Hebrews 7:26 and James 1:13.

As for your statement regarding James 1:13:

Well, we must know that the part that talks about how God cannot be tempted with evil is true. This is the part of the verse that you cannot cut out and ignore. Jesus is God and James 1:13 applies to Him.

Ok, going back and look through James in the strong to see that 'cannot be tempted' applies as an adjective while 'does not tempt' applies as an active verb, we can derive an understanding of the meaning of Hebrews' application as a passive verb.

So you know how to speak, write, and read Modern Greek, and Kione Greek? I don’t think a person is qualified to dabble in these languages without having totally immersed yourself in that culture and language. I say this because one of the top Greek Grammarians says 1 John 5:7 should be in our Bible or there is a grammar error. He is a fluent in Greek and is from Greece. But scholars would argue against him even though they do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek. This is why when folks try to toy with a language, it really does not make a whole lot of sense. They are not qualified. The Bible was already translated into English from 47 of the top scholars in the world with the King James Bible.

Many of them actually knew the languages intimately.

I should dismiss Strong's testimony, you think? and go on yours mebbe?

Paul declared himself the chief of sinners. I wonder who the chief of saints is?

Influence is not the same thing as authority. A prime minister is usually more involved in politics than a monarch, but the monarch has higher authority (not saying Peter was a monarch, just making an example of authority vs influence).

Paul rebuking Peter just shows that he wasn't infallible, and he didn't have absolute authority like modern papists claim they have. It doesn't disprove that he didn't have authority over disciples. In John 21:17 Jesus gave Peter the responsibility to feed his sheep, effectively making Peter a shepherd. Only a shepherd can feed sheep, not other sheep. Also, you can't be held responsible for something you have no authority over. When reading Mathew 16:19 in light of Isiah 22 there is a clear type/antitype of a king (Jesus) giving a key to the kingdom (heaven) to his steward (Peter) with power to open and shut (bind and loose), and the authority shall be passed down to his successors (bishops).

2 Corinthians 11:5 uses the word (hysterēkenai) which means to be inferior or to fall short. Paul said he didn't fall short of the others in terms of his performance as an apostle, not his authority.

I am not against looking at the Greek word to see if there is another word in English, but to play around with acting like we know the Grammar is a bit much. The scholars who put out the recent dictionaries are a part of Modern scholarship and they cannot be fully trusted. I trust the King James Bible as my main source, and the original languages is only a last resort at best. Many of the KJV translators knew the Hebrew and Greek intimately. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

I make no habit of blindly trusting anyone, but thanks for the suggestion.

i see now that i had mis-edited my post.
i had meant to remove "worship" and put focus, but left both.

my apologies for that

Yes, and I agree.

Psst... double jeopardy is being tried for the same crime twice. It's not permitted under most Western judicial systems.

I'm not sure that "gaslighting" is the appropriate term here either, as it refers to attempting to have someone believe an alternate, false account of a statement, action, or event, that obscures incriminating details if not completely reconfiguring the situation.

An assertion without evidence is indistinguishable from an opinion.