Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[Sipsey]

It seems like you don't have any contrary evidence, otherwise you would have been able to summarize it in a short answer, instead of vague, vain objection.

I thought you liked succinct answers. I cannot be more clear; your foundation is suspect and anything you place on that wobbly base will come crashing down.

 

[NTNT58]

it was unrealistic for me to expect you to spend that amount of time studying. my apologies.

so.
let me briefly refute your ignorant comment from earlier:



No such thing as a pope in the sense of sole rule over a church until Gregory I around 600AD. at this time though the Roman bishopric was not at all representative of the church writ large, Rome wasn't even the capital of the Roman empire (and hadn't been for 300 years), so the 'papacy' didn't exist as 'the one true church' as much as it existed as a sect in rebellion against the unbroken line of co-equal bishoprics that remained in the actual Roman empire, whose capital was Constantinople, for another thousand years after the western sect began to openly reject its authority and devolve.

go look it up.

Polycarp was in Smyrna and Ignatius in Antioch. quite far from Rome, and wholly removed from any pretense of Roman authority superceding all other bishoprics. Eastern empire. modern day Turkey and Syria. think Eastern orthodox.

go look it up.

The catholic church infamously rewrites and lies about history. the church fathers refer to both Peter and Paul founding both the churches in Rome and Corinth. so the Corinthian church has every but as much primacy as Rome and Paul has every bit as much primacy as Peter.

go.
look it up.
Irenaus 'against heresies' book III.

Jesus gave the keys to heaven to Peter and nobody else, how do you explain the meaning of it? Do you reject the line of bishop succession from Peter all the way to Pope Francis?

 

[NTNT58]

• you said you weren't interested in learning the truth concerning whether your comment about the Bible being full of contradictions had any merit, and started carrying on about various other huge topics.

Now you're lying! That's not at all what I said. I said I'm not AS interested in learning about textual criticism as the much more important issues like the true church and commandments. And the reason I said that is because you didn't answer my question about it and deferred to only talking about textual criticism.

 

[NTNT58]

The word "catholic" means "general"

Wrong. The word catholic means universal or all encompassing, not general or non-specific church. It was meant to be referred to as one universal church, not one big "general" church that is one of many others.

 

[NTNT58]

I thought you liked succinct answers. I cannot be more clear; your foundation is suspect and anything you place on that wobbly base will come crashing down.

Yes succinct, but not useless, vague objections that provide no proof to anything.

 

[NTNT58]

papists get this idea from Tertullian, but what Tertullian actually said was that all Christians have these keys. (On Modesty, ch. 21)

In Matthew 16:19 Jesus said: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Do you really think all Christians have the power to bind and loose?

 

[Sipsey]

Properly exe

In Matthew 16:19 Jesus said: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Do you really think all Christians have the power to bind and loose?

Properly exegete the verse, and the answer is clear.

 

[NTNT58]

Properly exe

Properly exegete the verse, and the answer is clear.

Again with your vague opinions and no proof. Who are you to decide what the proper exegesis of this verse is? Hundreds of millions of Christians, including some highly experienced Bible scholars are split on this issue. So be specific and provide actual evidence.

 

[Sipsey]

Again with your vague opinions and no proof. Who are you to decide what the proper exegesis of this verse is? Hundreds of millions of Christians, including some highly experienced Bible scholars are split on this issue. So be specific and provide actual evidence.

Is English your first language?

 

[NTNT58]

Is English your first language?

I'm fluent in English for almost 20 years, but it's not my first language.

 

[Magenta]

Jesus gave the keys to heaven to Peter and nobody else, how do you explain the meaning
of it? Do you reject the line of bishop succession from Peter all the way to Pope Francis?

Peter was not a pope, but an equal among equals. Have you fallen victim to the lies of the RCC? Sure looks like it.

 

[NTNT58]

Peter was not a pope, but an equal among equals. Have you fallen victim to the lies of the RCC? Sure looks like it.

If you actually read what I've posted so far instead of scrolling and pressing "disagree" on a bunch of my posts, then you would have seen that I'm against RCC just like I'm against the pharasees.

It's true Peter was treated as an equal among the disciples, but in Matthew 16:19 Jesus gave the keys to heaven only to Peter because he was the one to acknowledge him as the Messiah when Jesus asked his disciples who do you think I am.

 

[Magenta]

If you actually read what I've posted

I read the posts I disagreed with. Your assumptions are not facts.

It's true Peter was treated as an equal among the disciples

Peter called himself that. You elevate him.

 

[NTNT58]

I read the posts I disagreed with. Your assumptions are not facts.

You're obviously not reading well enough, otherwise you would've seen me equating Papists with Pharasees and calling them both EVIL.

Peter called himself that. You elevate him.

What... are you even arguing about? I said I agree he was equal among disciples, but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus gave him the keys to Heaven. The other disciples had power to bind and loose, but only Peter was given the keys.

 

[FRB72]

i know after the launch of the Hubble Telescope, many big name Scientists and Atheist promoters sung a new Song when they claim to have seen the Origin of the Big Bang. and what convinced them it was GOD, was there was no EVIDENCE for anything in existence to create and cause the Bang, like written in 1960s. energy solidifying and heating and cooling and eventually annihilating which was the "Bang." only the astrophysicist from ASU actually still tried to connect the "String Theory," but no one bit.

and speaking of another leaky Theory, Many, question. the Soup Theory, the cause of Life.


but i definitely did enjoy the Read and Agree

Maybe a bit technical for this thread, but possibly the best (Biblically based) observations that make sense of the recent observations from the JWST.

 

[FRB72]

I'm not as concerned about textual criticism as I am about basic Christian principles, such as which church if any is the one true church, and which commandments we need to follow. So let's get that squared away before we talk about less important details.

I think the one “true church” is the congregation of born again believers from ALL denominations, whether in agreement with their denominational stance or perhaps even in contrast to it, have come to a saving faith in the finished work of Jesus to atone for their sins, and make them able to stand as blood-bought adopted sons of God.

 

[FRB72]

^ As far as the commandments go, Paul goes to great length to explain to believers that once someone is indwelt with the Holy Spirit and born again, the keeping of God’s standards will flow out from the regenerated spirit. The difference between the letter and the spirit of the Law is akin to painting by numbers compared to painting freehand out of artistic skill. As the verse in Philippians says,

12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

 

[posthuman]

Now you're lying! That's not at all what I said. I said I'm not AS interested in learning about textual criticism as the much more important issues like the true church and commandments. And the reason I said that is because you didn't answer my question about it and deferred to only talking about textual criticism.

i did in fact answer your questions about whether the RCC is the only true church and if Christians must physically keep sabbath quite concisely.
i said: nope, and nope.

seeing that the topic of your thread is "secret messages in the Bible" isn't it awfully important to your counting of words, that the Bible consist of the right words and the right number of them?

 

[posthuman]

seeing that the topic of your thread is "secret messages in the Bible" isn't it awfully important to your counting of words, that the Bible consist of the right words and the right number of them?

so it seems to me that whether the Bible is "full of contradictions" as @NTNT58 said is perhaps more germaine to the topic than whether Christ sent one apostle only or whether He appointed twelve.

 

[posthuman]

Wrong. The word catholic means universal or all encompassing

this is not materially different than "general" in terms of whether writings from the first millinea are speaking of only the Italian bishopric when they say 'catholic' or whether they are making reference to all of the church by using that term.

for example the nicene creed when it says, "one holy, catholic, apostolic church" is not speaking about the RCC.
it means there is one true church and it isn't confined to denomination, bishopric or location. in that sense the church is a general, rather than a specific term, with a universal scope, and it doesn't consist of all who call themselves the church ((the 'visible church')) but of all whom Christ is building up into His church ((the 'invisible church'))