Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

Your explanation is inadequate. "Yet without sin" (which you quoted) actually means APART FROM SIN (sin apart), which means that Christ was "separate from sinners": For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Heb 7:26).

Had there been the slightest possibility of Christ committing sin, He could not be called "undefiled", since Christ Himself said that what defiles a man is sinful thoughts. In order to be tempted and NOT sin, the sinful thought must be rejected. But it is still a sinful thought. This means that Christ did not MERELY "choose to not fall for satan's temptation". Jesus of Nazareth (1) could not sin, (2) would not sin, and (3) had no sin (since the sin nature was absent from the God-Man). How could He pay for the sins of the whole world otherwise?

You literally just admitted that Jesus made Peter the shepherd. Only shepherds can feed sheep, not other sheep, and shepherds have authority over the sheep. You cannot be held responsible for something you have no authority over.

The priority of his mission doesn't limit his authority.

Wrong. A clear type/antitype is between Mathew 16:19 and Isiah 22. A king (Jesus) has given a key to the kingdom (heaven) to his steward (Peter) with the power to open and shut (bind and loose) and his posterity (bishops/disciples) shall inherit it.

And yet you failed to come up with a counterargument for the vast majority of them, all you've basically said was "I'm right and you're wrong". That is not a valid argument.

Luke 22:32 - "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." It is Peter whom Jesus told to strengthen his brethren after his faith was strengthened by Jesus.

Mary Magdalene was not one of the apostles, Peter was.

"the disciples and Peter" - now why wouldn't it just say disciples? Why does it say "disciples AND Peter"? it's clear just from that sentence that Peter was either separate from others or he was their leader.

Dr.Launcelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, presided over the Westminster company. Fuller says of him: "The world wanted learning to know how learned this man was, so skilled in all (especially Oriental) languages, that some conceive he might, if then living, almost have served as an interpreter-general at the confusion of tongues." He became successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. Born 1555, died 1626.
Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, and thus at the head of the Cambridge company, was eminent for his knowledge of Oriental languages, especially of Hebrew. He died in 1605, having been Professor of Hebrew for twenty-five years. His death was a great loss to the work which he had helped to begin, but not to complete.
Dr. John Overall was made Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1596, and in 1604 was Dean of St. Paul's, London. He was considered by some the most scholarly divine in England. In 1614 he was made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. He was transferred to the See of Norwich in 1618. Born 1559, died 1619.
Dr. Adrian de Saravia is said to have been the only foreigner employed on the work. He was born in Artois, France; his Father was a Spaniard, and his mother a Belgian. In 1582 he was Professor of Divinity at Leyden; in 1587 he came to England. He became Prebend of Canterbury, and afterward Canon of Westminster. He was noted for his knowledge of Hebrew. Born 1531, died 1612.
William Bedwell, or Beadwell, was one of the greatest Arabic scholars of his day. At his death he left unfinished MSS. of an Arabic Lexicon, and also of a Persian Dictionary.
Dr. Laurence Chadderton was for thirty-eight years Master of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and well versed in Rabbinical learning. He was one of the few Puritan divines among the translators. Born 1537; died 1640, at the advanced age of one hundred and three.
Dr. John Reynolds, who first suggested the work, was a man of great attainments in Hebrew and Greek. He died before the revision was completed, but worked at it during his last sickness as long as his strength permitted. Born 1549, died 1607.
Dr. Richard Kilbye, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, was reckoned among the first Hebraists of his day. Died 1620.
Dr. Miles Smith was a student of classic authors from his youth, was well acquainted with the Rabbinical learning, and well versed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. He was often called a "walking library." Born about 1568, died 1624.
John Boyse, or Bois, at six years of age could write Hebrew elegantly. He was for twelve years chief lecturer in Greek at St. John's College, Cambridge. Bishop Andrewes, of Ely, made him a prebend in his church in 1615. He was one of the most laborious of all the revisers. Born 1560, died 1643.
Sir Henry Saville was warden of Merton College, Oxford, for thirty-six years. He devoted his fortune to the encouragement of learning, and was himself a fine Greek scholar. Born 1549, died 1622.
Dr. Thomas Holland was Regius Professor of Divinity in Exeter College, Oxford, and also Master of his college. He was considered a prodigy in all branches of literature. Born 1539, died 1612.
https://thekingsbible.com/Library/KJVTranslators

https://www.septuagint-lxx.com/copy-of-kjv

However, even an imperfect translation like the Septuagint can surely be called the Word of God since it was approved and used by the apostles themselves
https://sharperiron.org/article/embarrassing-preface-to-king-james-version

Smith uses the LXX as an example of a translation to justify the KJV being translated, but in context questions the validity of the stories behind the LXX and also Jerome:

"Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, IF THAT BE TRUE which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days; [Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12.] neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like S. Jerome, IF THAT BE TRUE which himself reporteth....
https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Septuagint#King_James_Translators

first among equals

no t keeping up

I love this message in the genealogy from Adam to Noah in Gen. 5: Names with name meanings. 1400 or so years before Christ was born.
1. Adam = Man
2. Seth = Appointed
3. Enosh = Mortal
4. Cainan = Sorrow
5. Mahalalel = The Blessed God
6. Jared = Shall come down
7. Enoch = Teaching
8. Methuselah = His death shall bring
9. Lamech = The despairing
10. Noah = Rest
Man Appointed Mortal Sorrow,
The Blessed God Shall come down Teaching,
His death shall bring The despairing, Rest

I'll never understand why some Christians are so close minded. Of course there are hidden messages in the Bible. It's written by God! Yes, contrary to popular belief he's the God of science, math, history, etc. Anything that doesn't align with the Bible is either wrong (aka evolution) or there is a misunderstanding of the Bible (aka the 4 corners being a flat earth theory).

Every number in the Bible means something and I think God even has a favorite. Why? I have no idea. Seems superstitious Lord! 🤣

The Lord even talks in parables (which you could consider code or secret) for certain people, like the children of God. God also uses metaphors a lot which...newsflash we also dream in metaphors. Coincidence? Doubtful. Symbolism is also used a lot, for the simple fact that you can't describe a computer to a cave man. If we don't have that experience you have to find a symbolic equal. People who love technology and codes will undoubtedly find codes in the Bible. Our own DNA has code in it.

How can one be tempted if the ability to act upon that temptation is not possible? Say Adam(Christ is a type of Adam) was created without a mouth, how could Eve tempt him to eat the fruit? He doesn't have the ability to eat the fruit.

From my perspective 'undefiled" and "separate from sinners" is the fact he had no sin nature and He did not sin. And I see Heb 7:26 as post resurrection.

How can He sympathize with our weakness? How can He be tempted as we are if He didn't have the ability to succumb, but we do?
Heb 4:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been dtempted as we are, yet without sin.

Here is how to view that. Let's say that you like all kinds of cakes, and are generally tempted to eat more than you should. But you hate chocolate cake. No matter how many times someone puts chocolate cake in front of you, you will not even look at it. That is not a temptation for you.

The Bible says that God HATES sin and Christ HATES iniquity (Heb 1:8,9). Therefore the ability to act sinfully was never there. So no matter how many times Satan would have placed opportunities to sin before Christ, He would have simply ignored them.

But the Lord went a step further. He rebuked Satan with Scripture. Did Satan imagine it was possible for Christ to sin? Yes. He thought that if Jesus of Nazareth is a man who has fasted for 40 days, He would succumb to his temptations (being weak and hungry). But Satan is not all-knowing. He is merely an evil angel, and now he has been thoroughly defeated.

That is rather unlikely but claimed by many.

When the Hebrew is translated into Greek, many times the translations by different people will be the same. That does not mean that they copied each other or had any connection. But a corrupted Greek OT (which includes the Apocrypha) cannot be regarded as the Word of God, and the apostles were being led and taught by the Holy Spirit, and spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. They did not live outside Palestine, and even Luke would have been a Hellenistic Jews probably from Syria, just as Paul was from Tarsus in what is now Turkey.

It isn't actually true.

Adam means "ruddy" but we can use man.



No, it means substituted.

H8352
???
she^th
shayth
From H7896; put, that is, substituted; Sheth, third son of Adam: - Seth, Sheth.


Eh, Strong's says "a mortal" but close enough

No it means "fixed"

H7018
????
qe^yna^n
kay-nawn'
From the same as H7064; fixed; Kenan, an antediluvian: - Cainan, Kenan.


No, it's "praise of God"

H4111
??????
maha?lal'e^l
mah-hal-al-ale'
From H4110 and H410; praise of God; Mahalalel, the name of an antediluvian patriarch and of an Israelite: - Mahalaleel.


Pretty close, a descent.

No, initiated.


H2585
????
cha?no^k
khan-oke'
From H2596; initiated; Chanok, an antediluvian patriarch: - Enoch.


No, man of a dart (a spear)

H4968
????????
methu^shelach
meth-oo-sheh'-lakh
From H4962 and H7973; man of a dart; Methushelach, an antediluvian patriarch: - Methuselah.


No, powerful.

H3929
Lamech = “powerful”
1) the 5th lineal descendant from Cain, husband of Adah and Zillah, father of sons, Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain, and daughter, Naamah
2) father of Noah


Yes.

It does not say, "Man Appointed Mortal Sorrow,
The Blessed God Shall come down Teaching,
His death shall bring The despairing, Rest"

Those are not fully accurate translations.


Based on the Strong's definitions: "man substituted a mortal fixed praise of God a descent initiated man of a spear powerful rest."

The Scripture was not written from the devil’s perspective. The Scripture says Jesus was tempted. It doesn’t say that the devil only thought Jesus was tempted.

The person who hates chocolate cake is still capable of eating it, so your analogy fails.

You seem to be claiming, without saying so, that the disciples were unable to speak or read Greek. If so, on what grounds do you claim that?

A shepherd, not the shepherd. Peter was not given authority over the other disciples... not here and not ever.

Authority is given to complete the mission, not to "lord it over" other believers, which is exactly what the RCC does.

I reject your claim. I don't accept that there is a necessary connection. Nothing whatsoever in Scripture indicates that Peter's "posterity" would inherit either the keys or the power.

In order to demolish your position, all I need to do is demonstrate that your arguments are invalid. I am under no obligation to propose a counterargument. I don't need to prove that the earth is a sphere in order to demolish the idea that it is flat; I only need to demonstrate the the 'flat' arguments don't work.

Yes, Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brethren. Jesus did not tell Peter that Peter's faith would strengthen his brethren, which is what you claimed.

Jesus' first appearance to Mary completely undermines the idea that appearing to Peter before any of the other apostles demonstrated anything special.

Separate from, because of his denial. Definitely not their leader because of that... not that he ever was, before or after.

Out of your beginning set of words, this is the only part that is actually biblical. Your next part of your words are your own thoughts, and not the words of the Bible.

Nowhere is this statement found in the Bible. These are your own thoughts speaking and not the Bible.

Because Jesus is God on the inside and He was not like Superman who lost His superpowers.

See, this is a logical fallacy. You are concluding that just because Jesus was led by the Spirit that He could not use His own divine power at others times.

For example: You stated before that the Father works in Jesus based on John 14. I agree with this. But you also said at another point that Jesus also operated by the fruits of the Holy Spirit, too. So at one point in time, Jesus operates doing certain works by the Father. Then at another point in time, Jesus operates by doing works of the Holy Spirit. So this means Jesus can operate at another point in time by His own power. There is no conflict. You are simply ignoring the latter half of John 5:19, and John 5:21.

Lets read them again.

John 5:19
”… The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

Notice. The verse does not say the Son can do nothing Himself and the statement ends there. The statement continues. It also says but what He sees the Father does, He (the Son) does likewise. So the Son does nothing of Himself without seeing the Father do that thing. That is what it means. It means the Son does what He only sees the Father do and the Son does likewise or the same thing He sees the Father doing.

John 5:21
“For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.”

So here we see the Father raises up the dead and makes alive, and the Son also quickens (or makes alive) whom He wills or desires. Meaning, Jesus is taking ownership of the power or ability to raise up the dead just as the Father can. There is no other way to read these verses. That is what they plainly say here. In your view the Son does not choose to quicken whom He wills or desires like the Father can do. In your worldview, the latter half of this verse is either a lie or non-existent. This is why your belief is bankrupt. You have not explained or offered any kind of commentary on the latter half of these verses. You just ran over to John 14 and said that the Father does the works. Sorry. It does not undo what these verses say. You have to be able deal with what these verses actually say.

For example: If Rick said to Bob that whatever you can do in relation to fixing a bike, I can also do likewise. This means that Bob can also fix a bike in the same way or manner as Rick (If we are to believe Rick). This is what you are ignoring in the latter half of John 5:19, and John 5:21.

See, you gotta stop that. Are you Charismatic?
Quote only Scripture to build your case.
Also, please explain the wording that refutes your actual beliefs.
So far, you have simply ignored the part of the words that I have shown in Scripture in John 5.
You also have not explained what faith is according to Hebrews 11:1, and how Jesus said no man has seen the Father but He (the Son) has declared Him. Jesus also said He came down from Heaven. You have not dealt with these verses or points. You have side-stepped them.

Jesus was quoting Scripture from the Psalm of David when he referred to God forsaking Him. If you know the meaning of the Psalm, it was not that David really was saying God had forsaken him. God the Father forsaking the Son? Not possible because they are one God. So are you saying there was a fracture in the Trinity while on the cross? Some Christians actually believe such nonsense.

Do you not understand what I am saying? The idea here is that the Father operates His good works at one point in time or during a certain event, and then at another point in time during Christ’s ministry, the Holy Spirit will work in Jesus. So if that is the case, the two other persons of the Godhead or Trinity work individually at certain times, then there is no conflict that Jesus can operate by His own power at another point in time during His earthly ministry.

And I am not denying that Jesus operated by the Holy Spirit. We have already been over this. The point we disagree on is that Jesus operated by His own power at a time that he was not operating by the Spirit. Do you believe that there were unique times that Jesus just operate primarily by the Father, and then at another time He was operating primarily by the Spirit? That is what I am talking about.

That’s not what He said. You have to quote the Scriptures an actual set of verses that say that. You are trying to connect John 14 and John 5 together. They are chapters apart from each other. The word “nothing” only appears once in John 14 and it is in relation to how the prince of this world has nothing (or no part) in Jesus.

I am not in disagreement that the Father did works or miracles through Jesus. Just as I am not in denial of any works or fruit of the Holy Spirit that operated through Jesus at other times. What you are denying is the latter half of John 5:19, and John 5:21 in that Jesus also has power and or can do likewise like the Father. This is something you have rejected the Scriptures and you are not able to see that you have rejected such words.

One thing that I don't understand is when people claim that Peter was supposedly given authority over the disciples/church, in say, Matt 16... why then did the sons of Zebedee ask to be seated in the places of power... over Peter. And why did the disciples argue later on about who was the greatest among them?
If Peter had actually been given that authority, none of this would make sense because the answer would have already been given.

So, in short, the Scriptures show that the disciples didn't think Peter was anything special, why should we?

Thanks for your insight brother.

If I hate cake, It is not a temptation for me. So I wasn't tempted. I wasn't tested.

If(and He does) Jesus hates sin and has no ability to sin. It's not a temptation, as in your analogy above.

Satan tempted Jesus to turn the stone into bread. Do you think Christ had the ability to turn stones into bread?

But Jesus did not lay aside His divine privileges. That is a lie in Modern Bibles. The NLT and ESV say that in Philippians 2:7.

1. Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise (or in the same manner) (John 5:19).
2. As the Father raises up the dead and quickens others, the Son can also quicken (make alive) whom he will (John 5:21).
3. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
4. Jesus had power to take on our sins & Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
5. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
6. Jesus can make His home or abode inside of us if we keep His commandments (John 14:15).
7. “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” (John 2:11). This was a direct statement. Meaning, Christ’s miracle at the wedding of Cana manifested His glory.
8. ”And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:13-14). This was said by Jesus before the cross, and answering prayers is definitely a divine act of God. Please pay close attention to what Jesus said. He said, “I will do it“ in reference to answering prayer. So if a person prays for a healing in His name, he will do it. He will be the One who will heal them and do it.

Right, Superman is still Superman even without his super powers? That makes no sense.