Are there two Christs in the Bible?

Jaywill writes: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.

It is much more reasonable to me that if you want to know what someone said, or how soemthign is, you'd go to the source and find out directly...but instead, they find all these obsure people who are giving their own opinion on said subject and take it as truth.

Perdition writes:But what do we do when we don't have the source? What we have is a multiply translated book that is attributed to a writer. In antiquity, it was often the practice of attributing something by a lesser known writer to a more famous one, so taking the "byline" at face value is a bit naive.

Perdition writes:Also, to really understand what a person means, you have to do more than just look at what they wrote down. You have to learn the idiom of the time, you have to try and figure out allusions that may have been obvious to people of that time but which mean nothing to us today, and you have to try and figure out if they were speaking sincerely, satirically, or with a hidden motive.

who the writers were is a trivial matter because the 'author' was God. The writers obviously saw it that way too seeing many of them did not draw attention to themselves directly. And whilst we do have many translations that are inaccurate, we still have the means to compare them with very ancient manuscripts.

I find it strange that people go to sources other then the bible, to learn about the bible.It is much more reasonable to me that if you want to know what someone said, or how soemthign is, you'd go to the source and find out directly...but instead, they find all these obsure people who are giving their own opinion on said subject and take it as truth.

When you can find proof that the Bible was written by god outside the Bible saying it was written by god, you might be able to convince me of that. Until then, you're taking the word of a Book that tells you to trust it because it always tells the truth, but the only reason you know it tells the truth is because it tells you it does and you should trust it because it always tells the truth...ad infinitum.

If you can't or won't listen to the words of Jesus, maybe you have hardened your heart to the God of the Bible, and the truth of John 6:44 is your condition.

jaywill writes: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.

You are still trying to use the Bible to prove itself. Give us some real evidence.

You are still trying to use the Bible to prove itself. Give us some real evidence.

The 3rd-century Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus, in a section of his work surviving in quotation by George Syncellus, stated that the chronicler Thallus had called the darkness during the crucifixion a solar eclipse.[10] Africanus objected based on the fact that a solar eclipse could not occur during Passover; the earth was between the sun and the moon during that holiday. It is unclear whether Thallus himself made any reference to the crucifixion.[11]The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (264 — 340), in his Chronicle, cited a statement of the 2nd-century chronicler Phlegon of Tralles that during the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32/33) "a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea".[12] In the same passage, Eusebius cited another unnamed Greek source also recording earthquakes in the same locations and an eclipse. Eusebius argued the two records had documented events that were simultaneous with the crucifixion of Jesus.

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.

Some writers contend that the account in the synoptic gospels is mythical and does not correspond to any historical event. During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.[23] His arguments stemmed from Gibbon’s comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[24]The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[25] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:"It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".

Perdition writes:When you can find proof that the Bible was written by god outside the Bible saying it was written by god, you might be able to convince me of that. Until then, you're taking the word of a Book that tells you to trust it because it always tells the truth, but the only reason you know it tells the truth is because it tells you it does and you should trust it because it always tells the truth...ad infinitum

Peg writes: I became convinced of the bibles truth when I studied the prophecies of the bible.