Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

Exactly. None of the apostles were given authority over the others. So all they could do was use their influence.

I am putting you on ignore. I do not find you to be sincere in the desire to actually discuss and review scripture. Your intentions seem to be to continually argue against the actual record in scripture and that is a useless pastime.

I will no longer be able, nor do I wish, to read your insipid responses to myself and others here.

Peter was a central disciple no doubt, but he certainly did not begin a line of popes as per your doctrine.

Done with the discussion (it really was not one) as far as you are concerned.

Peter was given authority when he was given the keys and when Jesus made him the shepherd.

Well I think it was considering the fact he kept responding to what I said by trying to make it seem he had said it. Trying to make someone believe they did not say what they said (mind you he is a rank amateur) and something else transpired is gaslighting. There are variations on that theme. Gaslighting at its simplest form is manipulation.

you can of course interpret it to your own satisfaction

thank you

The Bible actually states He was tempted as we are. What you state above does not appear to be what the Bible states. Either He was tempted and did not give in, or He had lunch while the devil tried hard to make Him sin.

You cannot state there was no impact on Jesus and then read He was tempted as we are. He overcame and we are also to be overcomers.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15

seems like legit temptation ^^^^^^^

Of course it does. But you omitted a CRITICAL caveat -- "yet without sin". And I already explained this, so kindly go back and review my posts regarding the temptations of Christ.

Do you seriously believe that the GOD-MAN Christ could even be tempted in the least? "As we are" simply means that (1) the lust of the flesh (bread), (2) the lust of they eyes (all the kingdoms), and (3) the pride of life (falling a long ways and not being hurt) were all presented and were all rejected. Christ could challenge all his enemies and ask them to prove that He had sinned in any way. What they called His sins were no sins.

Nobody is claiming that Jesus committed any sin... so kindly stop making that a core element of your argument.

Do you seriously believe that the Scriptures that state clearly that Jesus was tempted are not actually Scripture?

Really? Where is that in Scripture?

I seriously believe scripture and that includes the fact Jesus is without sin

Don't fall off that high horse in your attempt to make it seem I said things I did not say

no essay on your thoughts was necessary. let's just stick to the biblical narrative which would include the verse I posted

Hurray! We agree on some things!
Praise the Lord.

Now, keep in mind I do use BlueLetterBible, and look at the Strong’s Numbers (Which is a website that has turned the Strong’s Concordance into a Lexicon). I generally do this to compare to see if there is another different English word for the same Greek word (But it is not with the goal to explain away the English in the KJV). I mostly use BlueLetterBible to do keyword searches.

Anyway, while I do not agree with KJB believing Pastor Wagner in that we should not use a Strong’s Concordance, he does have a small chart listed in his PDF write up showing some changes in the Strong’s Concordance when you compare it to the King James Bible. These changes align with the Modern Bibles. It makes sense because James Strong was on the committee of the ASV (A Modern Bible).

You can see that chart of the changes or differences on pages 3-4, of this PDF here:

https://pastorwagner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Throw-Away-Your-Strongs-Concordance.pdf

One of the changes I disagree with strongly is that the word “Godhead” means divinity. No. It means “Trinity.”

This article here goes into criticizing James Strong and his credentials.

https://faithbibleministriesblog.co...em-with-using-strongs-concordance-dictionary/

I use the Strong’s at BlueLetterBibe, but only for limited purposes. It is by no means an authority for me. The King James Bible is my ultimate authority. But there are good reasons to be cautious of the Strong’s Concordance. See my post #1870.

Well, I just reread Psalms 82 several times and looked at what others had to say on it. I can read Psalms 82 with the Nephilim interpretation. It sort of works. But the problem we run into is when Jesus quotes “Ye are gods” (John 10:34) to the Jews. It sounds like he is saying they are gods as a defense of Him saying He is God as a human. How does the Nephilim relate to Jesus’ point involving the Jews? The Nephilim are the offspring of humans and angels and Jesus did not take on the nature of angels, but he took on a human body. The Nephilim view on Psalms 82 with “Ye are gods” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when we look at the New Testament (John 10:34). That’s the major hiccup in this kind of interpretation. Granted, I do see what you are saying in Psalms 82. It can be read that way, it just conflicts with John 10:30-39 is all. Care to explain how this works in John 10:30-39?

Perhaps you're thinking that 'nephilim' is the only possibility. Think "spiritual entities that are not God". Like "sons of God" as in Job 38.

Okay. So these were angels and it talks about their fall here? I can see that interpretation just reading Psalms 82 alone. But again, how does that interpretation fit or work in John 10:30-39? Jesus did not take on the nature of angels according to Scripture (Hebrews 2:16). Granted, I do believe Jesus had to take on some kind of outward covering of some kind to hide His glory in His many pre-incarnate appearances in the Old Testament. He was called the Angel of the Lord (even though He obviously was NOT a created angel in the way we understand because Jesus is eternally the second person of the Godhead or Trinity).

I carefully didn't say "angels".

What in the world are they then? Does the Bible talk about them elsewhere that gives us an indication of what they are like? How are they not angels? Are they believers in Heaven? Do you believe in the pre-existence of the soul?

Please do tell.

Job 38:7; Isaiah 6:2; Deuteronomy 32:8, and a few others suggest beings that are not human, not God, and not angels. The Hebrew "bene elohim" (sons of God) appears in a few places in Scripture. By the way, the KJV of Deut. 32:8 based on manuscripts that are anachronistic, as the sons of Israel did not exist at the time God "set the bounds of the people" (which took place in Genesis 11). Generally, the KJV obscures the nature of these beings.

God did not translate the Bible into english.

HELPS Word-studies
3985 peirázō (from 3984 /peíra, "test, trial") – "originally to test, to try which was its usual meaning in the ancient Greek and in the LXX" (WP, 1, 30). "The word means either test or tempt" (WP, 1, 348). Context alone determines which sense is intended, or if both apply simultaneously.
3985 (peirazō) means "tempt" ("negative sense") in: Mt 16:1, 19:3, 22:18,35; Mk 8:11, 10:2, 12:15; Lk 11:16, 20:33; Jn 8:6; Js 1:13,14.
3985 (peirazō) however is used of positive tests in: Mt 4:11; Lk 22:28; 1 Cor 10:13; Js 1:12.
https://biblehub.com/greek/3985.htm

The devil tested Jesus as such he can relate to us.

Definition:
to test, tempt; to try to trap; to examine (oneself). The difference between a test and a temptation is found in the tester's motivations and expectations; the devil tempts that the believer might fail God's standards of faith and so sin; God tests that he might determine and sharpen true character, with no focus on making the believer fail.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/peirazo