Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?
- Thread starter NTNT58
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I believe Scripture connects the dots that “sons of God” are “angels” according to Scripture.
For example: Nebuchadnezzar was referring to what he thought was an angel in the fire with Daniels’ three friends, when he said there is one like the “Son of God.” Jesus did not have wings, yet clearly here Nebuchadnezzar refers to him as an angel (not knowing it was really Jesus in the fire). Anyways, Daniel 3:25, and Daniel 3:28 makes this connection.
Daniel 3:25
'He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose,
walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt;
and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
Daniel 3:28 says,
Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said,
Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel,
and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word,
and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
Here is another.
Luke 20:36 says,
“Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
Mark 12:25
“For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.“
John 1:12 says,
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”
So we are given power to become the sons of God (i.e., the angels).
As for Deuteronomy 32:8:
Verse 9 is talking about Israel even in the Modern Bibles and so verse 8 is perfectly fine talking about Israel. Anyway, I don’t buy into the theories or attacks on the KJB by Textual Criticism because of the many deceptions and heresies involved in the origination of that movement. No offense of course. The origin of the movement is filled with Unitarians, liberals, among other problems. Check out WayofLife’s crazy super lengthy PDF on the subject here. They provide sources and lots of documentation. A 296 page PDF.
For example: Nebuchadnezzar was referring to what he thought was an angel in the fire with Daniels’ three friends, when he said there is one like the “Son of God.” Jesus did not have wings, yet clearly here Nebuchadnezzar refers to him as an angel (not knowing it was really Jesus in the fire). Anyways, Daniel 3:25, and Daniel 3:28 makes this connection.
Daniel 3:25
'He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose,
walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt;
and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
Daniel 3:28 says,
Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said,
Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel,
and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word,
and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
Here is another.
Luke 20:36 says,
“Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
Mark 12:25
“For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.“
John 1:12 says,
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”
So we are given power to become the sons of God (i.e., the angels).
As for Deuteronomy 32:8:
Verse 9 is talking about Israel even in the Modern Bibles and so verse 8 is perfectly fine talking about Israel. Anyway, I don’t buy into the theories or attacks on the KJB by Textual Criticism because of the many deceptions and heresies involved in the origination of that movement. No offense of course. The origin of the movement is filled with Unitarians, liberals, among other problems. Check out WayofLife’s crazy super lengthy PDF on the subject here. They provide sources and lots of documentation. A 296 page PDF.
-
1
- Show all
You seem to be over looking the fact that what I'm rejecting is mankind's attempts to play god as they reject the Lord Jesus and God's ways of being and doing right.
God Almighty provided us with air and food produced from the earth / animals for the nourishment of our bodies and to claim eating food, drinking water, and breathing clean air is not using what the Lord gave us is tome foolery and is as ridiculous as the fake OSAS gospel!
Luke was a physician and there's zero evidence that Jesus even once told anybody to go make an appointment with Dr Luke as opposed to believing God for health and healing.
So, roll the dice all you want and depend on the blind mind of mankind for "medical science" and enjoy uber high failure rates and their system of charging money for their health care failures. This is how so many end up like the lady that spent all she had on doctors and rather grew worse.. and broke! (Mark 5:26)
It's like having a discussion with a 3 year old that still believes in santa claws and the easter funny
So you caucus with the baby killers eh?
That's what happens to those that are carnal minded... they get the devil's reward as their eternal home
<---- baby killin pervert! It's sad that some reject the power of the Lord Jesus Christ and the understanding that He took our sickness and disease upon Himself so we would have a way to not have to have it in our body... which is the Temple of the Holy Ghost, well at least it is for some of us.
-
1
- Show all
That's why He never sinned... He rejected the temptation.
This does not mean He could have chosen to sin... Adam was perfect too and yet he choose to sin.
Jesus is called the last Adam, Who shows us what the first Adam should have done... CHOOSE to not sin by submitting yourself to the Father!
God did not put a sin nature in every baby born after Adam... that's false doctrine.
What happened was we were all born in to a world full of sin and darkness and we all eventually started sinning on our own.
God's Word teaches ALL have sinned and have falled short (Romans 3:23)... which is something we all did on our own. We were not all were created by God to be sinners. Sin came UPON all men (Romans 5:12)... and was NOT put in to all men and the false teachers claim which leads to the false belief that we just can't help but sin everyday in thought, word, and deed.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The Lord never accounted Adam's sin against us... no, we all sinned on our own
Like I said earlier... God put nourishment on the earth for fuel for our bodies... what you have quoted is a far cry from mankind today making chemicals to put in to our bodies intended to cure something but has numerous negative side effects that damage the body.
The very best medical science has to offer is experimentation... I have not been sick since the mid 1980s primarily thru believing and acting on God's promises in His Word concerning health and healing.
This includes rejecting mankind's tinkering with food so I eat healthy (high protein, low carb), get plenty of water, plenty of sleep, take a few supplements but above all... believe what God says in His Word:
Proverbs 4:20
My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.
Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.
For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.
Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.
God cannot be tempted.
Jesus was tested. assayed, if you will, Rock that He is.
English makes a distinction that the Greek word does not; context should inform whether translation into our pagan language should say test or tempt, and in the context of Christ, the correct term is always "tested" never tempted.
Jesus was tested. assayed, if you will, Rock that He is.
English makes a distinction that the Greek word does not; context should inform whether translation into our pagan language should say test or tempt, and in the context of Christ, the correct term is always "tested" never tempted.
-
1
- Show all
But the Greek word here can mean either tested or tempted in English.
my position is that "tempted" is innacurate when referencing Christ, because James explains that temptation consists of the sin in our own hearts being aroused - and that God cannot be tempted.
from my perspective the sinlessness and deity of Christ demand that the passage in Hebrews means He was tested in every way we are, yet found faultless, whereas we are found lacking. Jesus could not be "tempted" in the way the scripture describes temptation.
my position is that "tempted" is innacurate when referencing Christ, because James explains that temptation consists of the sin in our own hearts being aroused - and that God cannot be tempted.
from my perspective the sinlessness and deity of Christ demand that the passage in Hebrews means He was tested in every way we are, yet found faultless, whereas we are found lacking. Jesus could not be "tempted" in the way the scripture describes temptation.
i don't need my father's iniquity, got plenty of my own...
Romans 11:32
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all.
How can scripture say all have sinned and there are none righteous if God is ignorant of the future and no one has an inherent sin nature? -
1
- Show all
I agree that "tested" aligns better with the sinlessness and deity of Christ, and that the whole ordeal was a demonstration to the devil that Christ is sinless. I agree that God cannot be tempted. I agree with James' explanation of sin....
However, I don't accept it as exhaustive because it doesn't explain Adam's sin. It would require that Adam had sin in his heart before eating the fruit. There is no Scripture supporting that conclusion. God didn't ask Adam if he desired the forbidden fruit, but whether he ate it, and the consequences are declared upon his admission that he ate it.
Further, I struggle to accept that "tested" is the right translation when we consider the words "as we are, yet without sin". If it were directly in regard to any regular human, we would have no trouble interpreting it as "tempted". There seems to be some circular reasoning involved in selecting "tested". We aren't "tested"; we are tempted, so "as we are" strongly indicates significant similarity. Being "tempted" doesn't indicate the degree of likelihood of failure. In Jesus' case, we might quantify it as the smallest possible positive number, but still not 'zero'.
As I (think I) have said previously, this makes perfect sense if Jesus, in His humanity, was actually tempted and actually able to fail the "test". I believe that His "nature" was as that of Adam prior to eating the fruit: innocent of all sin but capable of choosing.
I also don't believe this is a salvific issue, though from some responses I suspect others do.
However, I don't accept it as exhaustive because it doesn't explain Adam's sin. It would require that Adam had sin in his heart before eating the fruit. There is no Scripture supporting that conclusion. God didn't ask Adam if he desired the forbidden fruit, but whether he ate it, and the consequences are declared upon his admission that he ate it.
Further, I struggle to accept that "tested" is the right translation when we consider the words "as we are, yet without sin". If it were directly in regard to any regular human, we would have no trouble interpreting it as "tempted". There seems to be some circular reasoning involved in selecting "tested". We aren't "tested"; we are tempted, so "as we are" strongly indicates significant similarity. Being "tempted" doesn't indicate the degree of likelihood of failure. In Jesus' case, we might quantify it as the smallest possible positive number, but still not 'zero'.
As I (think I) have said previously, this makes perfect sense if Jesus, in His humanity, was actually tempted and actually able to fail the "test". I believe that His "nature" was as that of Adam prior to eating the fruit: innocent of all sin but capable of choosing.
I also don't believe this is a salvific issue, though from some responses I suspect others do.
-
2
- Show all
I agree that "tested" aligns better with the sinlessness and deity of Christ, and that the whole ordeal was a demonstration to the devil that Christ is sinless. I agree that God cannot be tempted. I agree with James' explanation of sin....
However, I don't accept it as exhaustive because it doesn't explain Adam's sin. It would require that Adam had sin in his heart before eating the fruit. There is no Scripture supporting that conclusion. God didn't ask Adam if he desired the forbidden fruit, but whether he ate it, and the consequences are declared upon his admission that he ate it.
Further, I struggle to accept that "tested" is the right translation when we consider the words "as we are, yet without sin". If it were directly in regard to any regular human, we would have no trouble interpreting it as "tempted". There seems to be some circular reasoning involved in selecting "tested". We aren't "tested"; we are tempted, so "as we are" strongly indicates significant similarity. Being "tempted" doesn't indicate the degree of likelihood of failure. In Jesus' case, we might quantify it as the smallest possible positive number, but still not 'zero'.
As I (think I) have said previously, this makes perfect sense if Jesus, in His humanity, was actually tempted and actually able to fail the "test". I believe that His "nature" was as that of Adam prior to eating the fruit: innocent of all sin but capable of choosing.
I also don't believe this is a salvific issue, though from some responses I suspect others do.
However, I don't accept it as exhaustive because it doesn't explain Adam's sin. It would require that Adam had sin in his heart before eating the fruit. There is no Scripture supporting that conclusion. God didn't ask Adam if he desired the forbidden fruit, but whether he ate it, and the consequences are declared upon his admission that he ate it.
Further, I struggle to accept that "tested" is the right translation when we consider the words "as we are, yet without sin". If it were directly in regard to any regular human, we would have no trouble interpreting it as "tempted". There seems to be some circular reasoning involved in selecting "tested". We aren't "tested"; we are tempted, so "as we are" strongly indicates significant similarity. Being "tempted" doesn't indicate the degree of likelihood of failure. In Jesus' case, we might quantify it as the smallest possible positive number, but still not 'zero'.
As I (think I) have said previously, this makes perfect sense if Jesus, in His humanity, was actually tempted and actually able to fail the "test". I believe that His "nature" was as that of Adam prior to eating the fruit: innocent of all sin but capable of choosing.
I also don't believe this is a salvific issue, though from some responses I suspect others do.
Personally, I'm not settled on the issue. Just trying to get more insight.
