Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

Mathew 16:19 in light of Isiah 22 proves the line of succession.

Again, that's an argument from authority. If you're such an expert in ancient Hebrew, then use your expertise to refute the argument I made.

No it doesn't. There is no new covenant seat.

You keep putting fingers in your ears and screaming lalala, but that's not helping your case. You still haven't addressed any of my points, and that further proves you are speaking out of ignorance. Your analogy of the king of Sweden is irrelevant because we are not in Sweden, but we are part of the body of the church. If providing a perfectly valid argument gets me banned, then by all means I would love to never see this forum again. If anyone should be banned it's people like you, who keep spamming with "I'm right and you're wrong" without showing any proof.

I don’t need to. I believe the promise in Psalms 12:6-7.

I don’t need to. I believe the promise in Psalms 12:6-7.

Where in the Bible does it say their candlestick was taken away? Nowhere! You are making it up. And I understand your rebellion,
I hate them too, but our feelings on this matter are irrelevant because their authority is sanctioned by God according to the Bible.

This was the case for other nations when the Word of God existed perfectly in the Hebrew. This was also true when the NT Scriptures were first formed. No other nations had it at the same time as Paul was writing. The world language during the NT time was Greek.

But the point is that God can have one chosen Word of God in a specific language (Which we see in history).

For example: Isaiah 34:16 says seek ye out the book of the Lord and read. The verses in this chapter are tied to verses in Revelation. The chapter is addressed to Gentiles. So it is talking about how we (Gentiles) would have an actual book of the LORD during the end times. Seeing we are nearing the end times, it makes sense we would have an actual book of the LORD (singular) we can all agree upon.

One thing I've noticed is that in many confusing verses where it's not clear whether a or b is being talked about, it's usually both. And in this case, ESV says it best - The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever, or in other words, God promised to keep his word about protecting his people. It does not say God will protect texts written by human hands.

Hilarious considering the Bible does not mention the Roman Catholic church by name.

That's not what Mathew 23:3 says. Jesus told everyone to be subject to their authority, but not their works. Governments are even more corrupt than the Pharasees, and yet Romans 13:1 still tells us to obey all authority, because all authority is ultimately sanctioned by God and anyone who rebells against authority rebells against God. Obviously we must obey them within the context of God's authority, and we must do everything they say as long as it doesn't go against the word of God.

That's irrelevant because the Bible doesn't mention words like trinity or rapture by name either, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't there.

That's irrelevant because the Bible doesn't mention words like trinity or rapture by name either, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't there. Also, in Mathew 16:18 Jesus said "And I tell you, you are a Peter (rock), and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." Regardless of what you believe the "rock" to be, whether it's Peter or his confession of Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus is here talking about building a church, not many separate churches, but one church. Jesus then officialy made Peter the chief apostle as evident in the following verses.

Peter was listed first among disciples (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13).
Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28).
On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17).
An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34).
He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven in Mathew 16:19 because he was the first one to acknowledge him as the Messiah.
After the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2).

The rock that the church is built on is the revelation by the Father of the truth concerning the Son.

The rock isn't Peter. The rock that the church is built on is the revelation by the Father of the truth concerning
the Son. This was the blessing Peter received...faith. And by grace through faith is exactly how the church grows.

Very good!

Funny how so many believe the catholic narrative that Peter is the first pope View attachment 258466

Choosing the Vatican corrupt ESV as your authority would at least be more consistent with your siding on the Catholic Church. It was only a matter of time before you abandoned the pure Word of God (the KJV).

Wrong; Greek was the language of commerce around the Mediterranean, but it was not "the world language".

But the point is that God can have one chosen Word of God in a specific language (Which we see in history).

Um... where and when, after 100 AD?

Whether God "can" is irrelevant, because He didn't promise to do so, and He "can" do all sorts of things that He has chosen not to do. Speculating on the matter is a frivolous.

You should read more carefully. This passage is talking about wild beasts inhabiting Edom.

Unless... unless... the authorities are in opposition to the Lord.

In the Book of Acts they instructed the Apostles to not preach in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Under the leading and anointing of the Holy Ghost... the Apostles refused to do what the authorities told them because it was in violation of God's Word.

So yes we should obey the laws of man for the Lord's sake (1 Peter 2:13)... but, if they are telling Christians to do things that are sinful... you really think Jesus is telling us to go ahead and do sin because the authorities tell us to do that?

That would be submitting to the devil and would be being tricked in to being deceived! View attachment 258464

In our modern day, there are laws being passed making it illegal to witness to the gay peoples telling them they must repent from their gayness otherwise they will not go to Heaven.

In our modern day, there are laws being passed making it illegal to tell young mothers who are thinking about murdering their baby that it is murder and a sin before God...

These laws are in direct violation of God's Word... so you really think Jesus is telling us to go ahead and do sin because the authorities tell us to do that??? View attachment 258463