The Transfiguration

[Checkpoint]

The Transfiguration of Jesus is described in each of the three synoptic Gospels.

These passages are Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-9; and Luke 9:28-36.

Peter writes about it in 2 Peter 1:16-18.

Scriptures that raise a number of questions for debate, such as:

1) Did Jesus tell anyone in advance this would happen?

2) Why did it happen?

3) Were Moses and Elijah literally there?

4) Why did Moses and Elijah appear and then disappear?

5) Does what God said have any particular significance?

6) Why did Jesus say to tell no one about it until after his resurrection?

From HELPS Word-studies:

3339 metamorph (from 3326 /met, "change after being with" and 3445 /morph, "changing form in keeping with inner reality") " properly, transformed after being with; transfigured.

[3339 (metamorph) is the root of the English terms "metamorphosis" and "metamorphize."]

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

Checkpoint wrote:

1) Did Jesus tell anyone in advance this would happen?


Yes

What verses, if any, do you consider confirm your answer?

MATTHEW 16:28

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

I explain my understanding of the verse earlier, here us the link
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 172#752172

Thanks.

It is also confirmed by Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27.

Further, I believe that Matthew 10:23 actually refers to his coming transfiguration.

[polonius]

JW posted regarding the Transfiguration.

I believe it really happened that the four really saw a real vision.

In other words I believe the account of the disciples seeing a vision really happened and that they literally heard the voice of God on that occasion.

RESPONSE:

Definition of Vision: an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present, often under the influence of a divine or other agency:

Lets examine the evidence:

1. In these accounts, Jesus and three of his apostles, Peter, James, John, go to a mountain (the Mount of Transfiguration) to pray.

2. Then the prophets Moses and Elijah appear next to Jesus and he speaks with them. Jesus is then called "Son" by a voice in the sky, assumed to be God the Father, as in the Baptism of Jesus.

3. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1"8, Mark 9:2"8, Luke 9:28"36) describe it,

4. Previously, a chariot of fire evidently appeared and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11) to return at the Transfiguration.

ANALYSIS:

1. This event would have had to happened during Jesus life, i.e., not later than 34 AD.

2. The first record was written in 70 AD by Mark, a Syrian, who was not a witness. Matthew and Luke wrote in 80 AD, and were also not witnesses Their gospels copied widely from Marks story.

Johns gospel, the only claimed witness, doesnt mention the Transfiguration at all. Nor did Paul.

3. Elijah was traveling around somewhere in his chariot of fire, but Moses was already dead and therefore had to be resurrected. Thus, Moses must be still alive, (Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.)


4. Like Matthews report of all those dead rising at the time of Jesus crucifixion and appearing to many in Jerusalem, (who evidently are still alive), we should be able to separate historical facts from just stories and visions.

But then I dont believe the many Elvis sighting either although there are many more first person witnesses and written reports then the Transfiguration.

[DPMartin]

[Replying to post 1 by Checkpoint]

the transfiguration is simply an affirmation to Peter John and James that the same that was revealed to Moses and Elijah was being revealed to them in the flesh, meaning Jesus Christ, and anything God says is important.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 12 by polonius.
advice]

we should be able to separate historical facts from just stories and visions.

Sometimes you have to be there.

Peter was there as a participant.

Who better to relate the historical facts.

2 Peter 1:

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.

18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 12 by polonius.
advice]

we should be able to separate historical facts from just stories and visions.

Sometimes you have to be there.

Peter was there as a participant.

Who better to relate the historical facts.

2 Peter 1:

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.

18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

RESPONSE:

The writer of what has been called II Peter wasn't a witness to what most probably did no occur. John was supposed to have been but doesn't mention anything about it .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3][4] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[5]

The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c. AD 65"67. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture""the only time a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way"implying that it postdates them by some time.[6]

Chester & Martin say scholars consider the epistle to be written between c. AD 100"150[7] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris.[8] For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between AD 80"90 as most probable.[9] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[10] Zahn,[11] Spitta,[12] Bigg,[13] and Green.[14]Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60"130 CE, with some reason to favour 80"90 CE."[15]

Using a "witness" who wrote many years after the death of Peter about a "vision" Peter was supposed to have witnessed is hardly believable evidence. We're clearly dealing with fiction here.

[bluethread]

4. Like Matthews report of all those dead rising at the time of Jesus crucifixion and appearing to many in Jerusalem, (who evidently are still alive), we should be able to separate historical facts from just stories and visions.

Speaking to the OP, the point of the event was to affirm that Yeshua was acting in accordance with HaTorah and the Prophets, as Adonai intended.


To this specific point, the problem is that, as with scientific determinism, that all things in history are equally verifiable and are written entirely for the purpose of empirical accuracy. This is not only untrue with regard to anceint history, but is also untrue with regard to modern history. History is the relating of events from a particular perspective for a particular purpose. One can not be absolutely accurate, or write a history that will fit all perspectives and purposes. If one has multiple accounts, one can compare them and possibly get greater assurance of what occured from one's preferred perspective and purpose. However, even that does not remove the need to take the perspective and purpose of the writer into account.

[polonius]

4. Like Matthews report of all those dead rising at the time of Jesus crucifixion and appearing to many in Jerusalem, (who evidently are still alive), we should be able to separate historical facts from just stories and visions.

Speaking to the OP, the point of the event was to affirm that Yeshua was acting in accordance with HaTorah and the Prophets, as Adonai intended.


To this specific point, the problem is that, as with scientific determinism, that all things in history are equally verifiable and are written entirely for the purpose of empirical accuracy. This is not only untrue with regard to anceint history, but is also untrue with regard to modern history. History is the relating of events from a particular perspective for a particular purpose. One can not be absolutely accurate, or write a history that will fit all perspectives and purposes. If one has multiple accounts, one can compare them and possibly get greater assurance of what occured from one's preferred perspective and purpose. However, even that does not remove the need to take the perspective and purpose of the writer into account.

RESPONSE: To the specific point, the story is fictional.

[bluethread]

RESPONSE: To the specific point, the story is fictional.

Well, there are two important things about that. You are considering it to be fictional from your particular perspective for your particular purpose. There is scientific fact, rational fact, philosophical fact, etc. Then, when one defines what kind of fact one is referring to, whether a particular account is fact or fiction is only important to the extent that it being fact or fiction fits the purpose of the account and/or the reader of the account.

[polonius]

RESPONSE: To the specific point, the story is fictional.

Well, there are two important things about that. You are considering it to be fictional from your particular perspective for your particular purpose. There is scientific fact, rational fact, philosophical fact, etc. Then, when one defines what kind of fact one is referring to, whether a particular account is fact or fiction is only important to the extent that it being fact or fiction fits the purpose of the account and/or the reader of the account.

RESPONSE: No. I'm considering it to be fictional because the overwhelming evidence is that it didn't happen as described. It's fiction, not history. That should be the basic question.

Matthew, Mark and Luke were not there and wrote their stories at least 50 years after the supposed fact. John is listed as being there, but wrote no such story.

[bluethread]

RESPONSE: No. I'm considering it to be fictional because the overwhelming evidence is that it didn't happen as described. It's fiction, not history. That should be the basic question.

Matthew, Mark and Luke were not there and wrote their stories at least 50 years after the supposed fact. John is listed as being there, but wrote no such story.

So, are you saying that Carl Sandberg's AbrahamLincoln is fiction? He never knew Abraham Lincoln and didn't start writing, what is considered a definitive work, until 58 years after Lincoln's death.