Omniscient Gospel Authors?

[RedEye]

There are numerous passages in the gospels where the author displays knowledge of things which they couldn't possibly know. One example:

• Matthew 17
  1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
  4 Peter said to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters"one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.

How could the author know that who the three disciples saw was Moses and Elijah? There were no photos of them to compare with. There were no police artist sketches. It could have been any random two people. Yet the author somehow knows that it was Moses and Elijah. How? And why would spirits need shelters? That makes absolutely no sense.

Remember also that Moses and Elijah could not have been in heaven:

• John 3
  13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven"the Son of Man.

So where did "Moses" and "Elijah" come from? Were they temporarily raised from their long-forgotten graves by Jesus for a bit of show and tell? (Yes, I know that Elijah was supposedly taken up by a whirlwind into heaven but that is in direct contradiction to John 3. It was probably just a tragic death in a storm).

Another example:

• Matthew 27
  19 Just then, as Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him this message: Leave that innocent man alone. I suffered through a terrible nightmare about him last night.

How could the author of Matthew possibly know what was in a private communication between Pilate and his wife and what she dreamed the night before? The author must have been omniscient!

Isn't this all more confirmation that the gospels are just made-up stories? It's not history. It's pure fiction masquerading as a biography.

[RedEye]

What reason would they have for such belief though?

My guess would be that the disciples eventually shared their experience on the mountain and the writers had confidence in the integrity of their source, so they included the account in their narrative.

Putting aside the silly notion that the gospel writer had access to the three disciples in question, you have missed the point. Even if the account came from eyewitnesses, what reason did those eyewitnesses have to assign names to the figures that Jesus was talking to? It strongly suggests that there was omniscience involved.

[RedEye]

Remember also that Moses and Elijah could not have been in heaven:

• John 3
  13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven"the Son of Man.

So where did "Moses" and "Elijah" come from?

It is clearly stated in the account that what the disciples saw was a vision. In other words the two individuals (Moses and Elijah) in question were not actually, literally there but they (the disciples) saw some kind of optical projection that made it seem as if Moses and Elijah were in front of them with Jesus.

Only three problems. The text does not say that it was a vision. You are inventing your own scripture. Then you are claiming that Jesus was having a conversation with empty air. How bright does that make Jesus? Lastly, and most significantly, Peter offered to build shelters for these "visions".

[JehovahsWitness]

The text does not say that it was a vision. You are inventing your own scripture.

MATTHEW 17:9

Jesus commanded them: Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.

JW

[RedEye]

The possible sources could be :

• - a member of Pilates entourage (the account says she communicated the information through a messager, possibly by word of mouth or in an unsealed note)

No it doesn't. It just says that Pilate's wife sent him a message. She could have done that herself for all we know.

Don't be ridiculous!

Matthew's account says Pilates "wife had sent a message" if she took the message herself the account would logically said she gave him a message (or simply she told him). Since the word sent is in the narrative the verb logically doesn't apply to herself.

It isn't ridiculous. My wife sends me messages all the time, sometimes with just a look. The word "send" here just means "to convey". A message can be conveyed many different ways without necessarily requiring a third party. However granting you that Pilate's wife conveyed her message to him via a messenger (probably orally) it doesn't change the fact that the author of Matthew could not possibly be privy to the contents of that message. The whole episode with Pilate is pure fiction anyway as he is portrayed as a weak and indecisive ruler which is completely inconsistent with the secular record. It's all fabrication from start to finish.

[RedEye]

The text does not say that it was a vision. You are inventing your own scripture.

MATTHEW 17:9
Jesus commanded them: Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.

Since you keep snipping out my complete argument, I don't feel much inclined to respond any further after this. The Greek word in question is horama which means "that which is seen". Some Bible versions translate it as vision or spectacle (which doesn't mean it wasn't real). The NIV translates it as:

Matthew 17:9
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

The possible sources could be :
- a member of Pilates entourage (the account says she communicated the information through a messager, possibly by word of mouth or in an unsealed note)

- The resurrected Jesus (who, according to the narrative, met with all his disciples, one of whom was Matthew, who it is believed to be the writer of the book that bears his name)

- Almighty God (if there is a God and the bible writer was indeed inspired by that One, then He (God) would logically be in a a position to know who said what to whom).

The problem with selecting Almighty God as the solution to this dilemma is that you can't actually prove it. And if you do select it as the solution to this dilemma, in what other dilemmas can you not use it?
Think of yourself as a police detective. An ordinary detective would not allow for what is essentially magic when constructing his models of what probably happened at the scene of a crime. But if he allows for Almighty God...what is outside that being's ability? How can he rule out the possibility that a suspect literally walked through the bank vault door while invisible thanks to Almighty God, who does it for whatever reason?

So when it comes to stories from the Bible where the author could not (in ordinary terms at least) possibility have known, and your response is that Almighty God told the author...how can you actually prove that? For example, Gospel Matthew 28:11

Code: Select all

While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep. 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble. 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

How can you prove that the author was told this had happened by God? In the real world, the author couldn't possibly have known the soldiers and chief priests hatched a conspiracy - he wasn't present among them.

[JehovahsWitness]

The problem with selecting Almighty God as the solution to this dilemma is that you can't actually prove it.

I didn't say which option I selected and I made no claim which, if any could be proven; I simply offered possible suppositions. The OP asked how certain events could have come about which I took as an invitation for speculation. I answered the OP and offered no information as to which if any I favour. I certainly made no claim to be able to prove anything in my post.

Kind Regards,


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

... Some Bible versions translate it as vision or spectacle (which doesn't mean it wasn't real)."

So when you said the text does not say it was a vision, you meant to convey is that the text DOES in fact say that a vision but that when you said vision you had a different meaning for the word than "vision"?


Does that about sum up what you are saying?




JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]



DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT MOSES AND ELIJAH WERE PHYSICALLY PRESENT DURING THE TRANSFIGURATION?



ANSWER No. The text explicitly states that they saw a "vision". The Greek word used is "horama" and is explicitly related to what one sees, not what is necessarily there. The NAS lexicon defines the word as follows:



Notice that the word is closely associated with a divinely granted or given "sight" often when the person is in an altered state. There is nothing in the word that implies that what is being seen must necessarily be physically or literally present.

The bible is full of such "horama". The Prophet Daniel is spoken of as seeing a series of terrifying beasts as did the Apostle John, on the Island of Patomos. On one such occassion John is reported as saying he saw a seven headed Dragon and an angel with a rainbow head and stars in his hand. All these visons (horama) seemed absolutely real to the individuals (which might explain Peter's offer to set up tents during the transfiguration), and they were a real experience but what they experieence is a divine vision rather than a a physical encounter. They were in fact seeing a "spectacle"* a optical illusion, a "show" .

While human "spectales" do often involve physical actors, this is not the way the word is used in scripture, indeed there is nothing in the word itself which imposes such a constraint.

*SPECTACLE

a visually striking performance or display.

CONCLUSION While what we see can of course be what is there, the Greek used by the bible writers implies a divinely inspired spectacle(a vision) rather than a miraculous physical manifestation.

RELATED POSTS

What are we to make of the transfiguration promises?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 111#832111

What is the significance of the transfiguration?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 204#921204

FURTHER READING How are we to understand John 3:13?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006447

[rikuoamero]

The problem with selecting Almighty God as the solution to this dilemma is that you can't actually prove it.

I didn't say which option I selected and I made no claim which, if any could be proven; I simply offered possible suppositions. The OP asked how certain events could have come about which I took as an invitation for speculation. I answered the OP and offered no information as to which if any I favour. I certainly made no claim to be able to prove anything in my post.

Kind Regards,


JW

I was speaking "you" in the general sense. I recognise that you (as in the handle JehovahsWitness) had not actually chosen it, but offering a critique for those who might choose it.
Apologies if I implied that I was saying JW had chosen it.