Are there two Christs in the Bible?

Two Christ's in the Bible is kind of self contradictory. The Anointed One is the Anointed One. The saviors, priests, kings, and other figures in the Old Testament must have been runners up, foreshdows, and types of the Anointed.I don't think Melchisedec was Christ. But he certainly was a foreshadow of Christ. Hebrews chapter seven signals a shift in the book of Hebrews. Perviously Christ is compared to Aaron. Starting in chapter seven Christ is compared to Melchisedec. I believe that Aaron was used to symbolize Christ's priestly ministry mostly from the earth. Melchisedec was used to signify Christ's priestly ministry from heaven after His ascension. But some exceptions to this as far as Aaron is concerned might be pointed out by the close examiner.It is interesting that Melchisedek is mentioned as meeting Abraham on his return after the slaughter of the kings. I use to think that this was somewhat presumptious and anti-climatic for Melchisedek to appear with bread and wine after Abraham has had such a fierce military campaign. Then it was pointed out to me that most likely Abraham had been energized to victory via the intercession of Melchisedek to God. Abraham's victory was probably not without Melchisedek's priestly prayers to the Most High God the Possessor of heaven and earth.The typology suggests that after His ascension Christ as the kingly High Priest is interceeding for God's people on the earth for their spiritual warfare. God is interested in recovering the earth from the forces of His enemies. After their spiritual battle and slaughter of the enemy Christ comes to minister the eternal divine life into His people signified in the bread and wine.God's people battle God's enemies by means of being empowered by the real High Priest of Salem Jesus Christ, the real Melchisedek. In our God's people's victory and slaughter over the opposers of God Melchisedek comes to enjoyably impart Himself as the bread and wine to feed and refresh His victorious fighters.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yea, yea, Lord of the Rings and Cowboy Movies ...

Please continue.

That is a matter that is expounded in the book of Hebrews.That is the question of how Christ the Son of God is a Great High Priest not arising from the tribe of Levi.This discussion starts in Hebrews 4:14 and goes through to 7:28. The general subject is that Christ is superior to Aaron the high priest in the Old Testament.You have wonderful reading ahead of you. You are to be envied.

Christ is descended from David.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Can't an evangelist have a lazy day ?Why do you say that the Bible says the Messiah must be of the bloodline of Solomon ?

So then when Matthew opens with the words "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ..." (Matt. 1:1), that is in your opinion, an error ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Concerning Christ supposedly being disqualified to be the Messianic son of David:This debate previously was had between myself and Ramoss on the Thread "Why NOT Christ Lineage through Joesph's boodline, Instead of Judah's." I think the major points that I made and still stand by were written mostly between messages #92 and #119.Brian has recycled basically Ramoss's side that Christ could not be the fulfillment of the promise of the Messiah, because of lineage problems.I don't think I will re-debate this with Brian right now. I stated some thoughts on this matter in the above thread which can still be accessed. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The question to you, I wish to have a Yes or a No."The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ..." (Matt. 1:1), that is in your opinion, an error ?Yes or No?

Perhaps you have doubt about the virgin birth of Christ.
I don't have any doubts concerning this. I only "wish" to follow what the Scriptures say.Christ the Son "given" is also to be called "Eternal Father" in the prophesy of Isaiah 9:6. This touches on the nature of the Triune God. To see Him is the see the Father (John 14:9) and He and the Father mutually co-inhere(John 14:10). The Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father.Not only is the born child equal to "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6. But the "son ... given" is the "Eternal Father" in the prophecy.These passages in Isaiah 9:6 and John 14 are about the incarnation of Christ as the God - Man. Before I go on to the matter of His human side I would say one other thing about His being God / Man.Christ Himself, in the book of Revelation, says that He is not only the Offspring of David but the Root of David as well. Because Jesus is God incarnated He is God in eternity past. Being God He is the source of David. The God of David incarnated to be the Offspring of David through His incarnation and virgin birth via the woman Mary who was a descendent of David.In His divinity Christ is the Root, the source, of David; in His humanity, Christ is the Offspring, the issue of David. Christ said He was the Root of David and Christ said that He was the Lord of David in His reference to Psalm 110:1 which He claimed prophetically as refering to Himself: First, I would emphasize the Christ as God, was the Lord of David, the source of David, the Root of David. Then I would point out that Christ the incarnated God is also the son of David. This fact you deny.I do not see you reference a denial of this by the contemporeries of Christ in His earthly ministry. I don't see you pointing out that these Pharisees disputed there that the Man who stood before them could not be a descendent of David.But on to this point of Jesus not being qualified to be as both Matthew and He Himself said - "the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matt. 1:1), "The Root and Offspring of David" (Rev.22:16)Should we trust Brian's way of figuring the "mistake" of the Bible or should we trust the Bible? I choose to trust the Bible.This is one reason why on this matter I trust the Bible over your denial of Matt. 1:1 and Rev. 22:16.God says to David: God here is commited to establish a descendent of David's on a throne forever and He it is who will build the house of God.I have no problem with Solomon being a partial fulfillment of this prophecy. But according to what Jesus said, Solomon can at best only be a type of Himself as a greater recipient of this promise in an ultimate sense. Right here Jesus teaches: Yes, Solomon is great. Yes, Solomon is a son of David who built the physical temple. Yes, Solomon had a throne established. But Christ comes saying that He is something more than Solomon. He is the greater Solomon. He, Jesus, is the greater One to whom Solomon points.Solomon, accumulated 600 wives and 300 some concubines. These wives led him into idolatry. Solomon commited apostasy and led Israel into apostasy. The question here is are God's hands tied? Can God keep his promises with a greedy and idolatrous king, who is, nonetheless, the heir of David ?God can partially fulfill His promise to David but not be tied down to have to make such a man as Solomon His messianic and eternal King. Christ comes to be the ultimate Solomon to whom the imperfect Solomon is a pointer, a symbolic and limited pre-curser.Something more than Solomon has come in Jesus Christ. Not only is Christ the greater Solomon, He is Himself greater than the Temple (Matt.12:6) - "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here."But now look at God's promise to David's son Solomon which is the real issue, ie. must the bloodline to the greater Solomon come through Solomon ? Are God's hands tied ? Can it only be through the bloodline of Solomon that God reach His desired messianic son of David? You will notice the conditional in this promise ... "IF". "IF" ... Solomon walks in Jehovah's statutes, executing Jehovah's ordinances, and keeping all of Jehovah;s commandments, "THEN" Jehovah will establish His word to David Solomon' father.But what happen if Solomon DOES NOT fulfill the conditional ? If Solomon DOES NOT act as the son of David that God wants, are God's hands tied to fulfill His word through Solomon's bloodline?The answer is no. God is too wise, to capable, and too powerful to allow Solomon to fail the condition FORCEING God to make his bloodline sit on the throne forever. In fact not only Solomon did not fulfill the conditional, leading Israel into idol worship and away from Jehovah, but some of his descendents God cut off from EVER being able to sit on that throne.Here is where we come to Solomon's blood descendent, Jeconiah.The prophet Jeremiah, speaking the word of God, stated that no descendent of Jeconiah would be on the throne of David. According to the prophecy in Jeremiah 22:28-30, NONE of Jeconiah's descendants would inherit the throne of David. If Jesus Christ HAD been a direct descendant of Jeconiah (in the bloodline of Solomon (Matt. 4:7-11), He would not have been entitled to the throne of David.Although Jeremiah 22:28-30 says that all the descendants of Jeconiah are excluded from the throne of David, Jeremiah 23:5 says that God would raise up a Shoot to David, a King who woiuld reign and prosper.God could keep His word to David yet not be bound to do it through Solomon - Jeconiah bloodline. The Shoot raised up to David to be King is Jesus. This prophecy confirms that Christ would be a descendant of David, although not a direct descendant of Jeconiah of Solomon's bloodline, and that this Shoot wuld inherit the throne of David. You must be careful assuming that God's prophecy ties His hands. If there is a conditional on His prophecy, He can change His mind without changing His will. If Solomon and then Jeconiah prove to be unworthy recipients, He is still wise enough to seek another avenue to make His word come true.Mary, was the virgin woman, a descendant of David, not through Solomon's bloodline, but through David's other son Nathan. . God traversed down another line coming from David. Therefore, Matthew's Gospel truthfully and not erroneously informs us that it is - Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

In other words perhaps Huntard prefers this: analysis and detective work may always be used to cast doubts on the veracity of Scripture but never to aid in the confirming of its veracity.Heli the father-in-law of Joseph, thus Mary's father - perhaps according to case of Numbers 27:1-8 and 36:1-12 in which a regulation was made by God that if any parents had only daughters as heirs, the inheritance would go to the daughters, who would then have to marry a man of their own tribe in order to keep their inheritance within that tribe.If one believes as many Christians do, that all Scripture is a record of the Bible's central focus, Jesus Christ, then it is easy to see that even this divinely recorded regulation was related to Christ's geneology. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Why do the inventors of "Two Christs" theory not also concoct a theory of "Two or More Yahwehs?"In the Old Testament the God of Isreal shows multiple aspects of His actions and personality.On just as valid grounds could they say that the Hebrew Bible must be speaking of more than one Yahweh?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It is true. But Many skeptics actually do not search the Scriptures for life. In fact they may not search the Scripture at all themselves. They consult books that pose supposed biblical problems. Repeating these criticisms do give an impression that they have searched the Scripture and stumbled upon some difficulty.

I don't object to consulting studies or theological books on the Bible. I do. But first, I believe, one has to master all the facts. First you have to have read the Bible and made yourself familiar with the facts.Then you may consult someone's opinion, check thier references and analyze the quality of their interpretations.I really think one should have first familiarized oneself with all the facts of Scripture by reading through it.If you don't have a firm grasp of the facts or at least a knowledge of where to go to review them, would be "teachers" can lead you into all kinds of foolishness.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Often when extrabiblcal confirmation to biblical events is presented, some skeptics say that the testimony is a forgery or was concocted conspiratorially by ancient Christians.The darkening of the sun at the time of Christ's crucifixion is an astronomical event confirmed by contemporaries of the time. It is certain that it was not a solar eclipse.An article portion on Wikapedia on the dark day of Christ's crucifixion: I have seen skeptics attempt to cast these extrabiblcal testimony as the invention of Christians.If extrabiblcal attestation to Bible events is presented, how do I know you won't simply dismiss it as unauthentic conspiracy, the concoction of ancient Christians ?I mean you can move the goal post forever, continually making an issue of some scholar's reasonable doubts.And at least one Christian philosopher I have heard say that any world view of any type consists of some amount of circular reasoning - John Frame. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.