The transfiguration as an explanation for failed prophesy.

[DBT]

It appears that some Christians use the transfiguration as a fulfillment of the promise "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.''

'' Luke 9:27 says, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." See also Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 for the parallel quotes. In each of the synoptic Gospels, the next event immediately after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration. Rather than interpreting Jesus' promise as referring to His coming to establish His kingdom on earth, the context indicates that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration. The Greek word translated "kingdom" can also be translated "royal splendor," meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is—the King of heaven—which occurred in the transfiguration'' https://www.gotquestions.org/not-taste-death.html

I don't see how this works as an explanation given the wording and description of the ''coming in power'' does not match the transfiguration and the promise appears to be related to the former rather than the latter;

“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)

Thoughts?

 

[funinspace]

Not that I'm arguing that the Gospels don't have contradictions or issue...but I'm quite sure what/which contradiction you are asking about. But making a few assumptions...The transfiguration, as a label upon verses like Luke 9:27 et.al. is generally said to be about the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus. And Mark 13:26-30 is generally said to be about the second coming of Jesus-Christ.

 

[DBT]

And Mark 13:26-30 is generally said to be about the second coming of Jesus-Christ.

The second coming within the generation standing there? That is the issue that Christians seek to explain - the failure of the second coming within that generation - by using the transfiguration as a fulfillment of this promise.

 

[James Brown]

Yes, the fact that the Transfiguration was introduced immediately after the prophesy (in the Gospel of Mark) was the explanation given me during my evangelical instruction. "THAT'S what Jesus was talking about, not that the end of the world was imminent or anything."

Made sense to me. After all, what does it really mean to "see" the "kingdom" of "God"? So many potential interpretations in there, so naturally it gets interpreted many ways.

 

[DBT]

Yes, the fact that the Transfiguration was introduced immediately after the prophesy (in the Gospel of Mark) was the explanation given me during my evangelical instruction. "THAT'S what Jesus was talking about, not that the end of the world was imminent or anything."

Made sense to me. After all, what does it really mean to "see" the "kingdom" of "God"? So many potential interpretations in there, so naturally it gets interpreted many ways.

The problem I see with that explanation is that the description of the transfiguration does not match the promised return in Power, in the clouds, with the host of heaven, to gather the elect from the 'four corners of the world' and to judge mankind. None of which happens in the transfiguration.

The two descriptions don't appear to be compatible, yet the transfiguration is still being used to explain the failure of promise to ''return in power, etc. within that generation.

Two different events.

 

[James Brown]

Yes, the fact that the Transfiguration was introduced immediately after the prophesy (in the Gospel of Mark) was the explanation given me during my evangelical instruction. "THAT'S what Jesus was talking about, not that the end of the world was imminent or anything."

Made sense to me. After all, what does it really mean to "see" the "kingdom" of "God"? So many potential interpretations in there, so naturally it gets interpreted many ways.

The problem I see with that explanation is that the description of the transfiguration does not match the promised return in Power, in the clouds, with the host of heaven, to gather the elect from the 'four corners of the world' and to judge mankind. None of which happens in the transfiguration.

The two descriptions don't appear to be compatible, yet the transfiguration is still being used to explain the failure of promise to ''return in power, etc. within that generation.

Two different events.

Agreed. But the alternative would be to admit that Jesus was a failed prophet, and we can't have that, can we?

Another possibility that people have come up with is the  Wandering_Jew, the notion that the one person who Jesus was talking about is still alive somewhere, roaming about in abject misery.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not unless the Wandering Jew is Kirk Douglas.
The OP addresses a trope I've seen a lot in Christian blogs (i.e., Jesus meant the Transfiguration in that quote) but never in a printed apologetic. If you read only the passage in Luke, you might squeak past with the Transfig explanation. But in that case, you run into a fairly ridiculous circumstance. Jesus says in 9:27 that 'some who are standing here will not taste death' before they see the kingdom of God come in power. The very next verse, leading into the Transfig, says that 8 days have passed. So that's like your local preacher saying, 'I have a prophecy here and some of you will be still be alive, let's see, Monday after next, when it happens.' Da fuck??? Why would that be expressed in such portentous words? It doesn't fit at all.
If you read the version in Mark, it's about the end times, and the Transfig can't fit the bill. Mk 13 goes into the rise of false prophets, persecution from the government, arrests and trials, parents killing their own children,unspecified calamities that are so bad that pregnant women will despair of delivering children, finally the Son of Man arriving in the clouds and summoning his elect from the four winds (go figure.) Clearly all this didn't happen in the next 8 days -- Fox and CNN would've gone crazy -- and it didn't happen in the life span of his followers.
In any case, the NT is filled with end times hysteria -- a key theme is that JC is returning SOON, we are in the last days, so you're better off not even marrying. Just prepare for whatever customized rapture you've dreamed up. It was a doomsday cult of 2000 years ago, and it was a delusion.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Not unless the Wandering Jew is Kirk Douglas.
The OP addresses a trope I've seen a lot in Christian blogs (i.e., Jesus meant the Transfiguration in that quote) but never in a printed apologetic. If you read only the passage in Luke, you might squeak past with the Transfig explanation. But in that case, you run into a fairly ridiculous circumstance. Jesus says in 9:27 that 'some who are standing here will not taste death' before they see the kingdom of God come in power. The very next verse, leading into the Transfig, says that 8 days have passed. So that's like your local preacher saying, 'I have a prophecy here and some of you will be still be alive, let's see, Monday after next, when it happens.' Da fuck??? Why would that be expressed in such portentous words? It doesn't fit at all.
If you read the version in Mark, it's about the end times, and the Transfig can't fit the bill. Mk 13 goes into the rise of false prophets, persecution from the government, arrests and trials, parents killing their own children,unspecified calamities that are so bad that pregnant women will despair of delivering children, finally the Son of Man arriving in the clouds and summoning his elect from the four winds (go figure.) Clearly all this didn't happen in the next 8 days -- Fox and CNN would've gone crazy -- and it didn't happen in the life span of his followers.
In any case, the NT is filled with end times hysteria -- a key theme is that JC is returning SOON, we are in the last days, so you're better off not even marrying. Just prepare for whatever customized rapture you've dreamed up. It was a doomsday cult of 2000 years ago, and it was a delusion.

But isn't it amazing though - even in this day we still get "he is coming soon" bit and people keep lapping it up? People are desperate - life is harsh and unforgiving and it is very, very tempting to think one can run away to magic lands in the sky or the magic land is coming down to us. So many Madoffs have taken advantage of this greed - the easy living the easy way even though life teaches us that nothing good is going to come easy. We teach that to our kids - never take anything for free, work hard and earn what you want. But when it comes to religion all those morals go out the window

 

[DBT]

It does appear that the early Christians believed that they were living in the time of the second coming, that they would live to see the ''coming of the Lord in the clouds, in power, with the host of Heaven, etc''


“Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.” (1 Corinthians 10:11)

“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Hebrews 10:24-25)

“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)

“Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31)

“The end of all things is near…” (1 Peter 4:7)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that Jesus did return. It's just that he forgot that, unlike Heaven, Earth has gravity. He appeared up in the sky and immediately plummeted to the ground and died.

God felt that the kid really embarrassed the family with that screw up and grounded him for a couple thousand years. He should be allowed out of his room and come back any day now.

 

[ideologyhunter]

There are at least 2 alternate theories on that -- One: as he descended, he caught fire, became one gigantic hell of a fireball, and inspired all the subsequent pagan religions that derived from the awesome sight; Two: he chose the day to come down that Mary was ascending bodily upwards, and the powerful, mutual, holy, holy, holy magnetism they emitted was sufficient to bring them into an irresistible -- oh, it is too painful to describe, people.

 

[Kharakov]

It appears that some Christians use the transfiguration as a fulfillment of the promise "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.''

'' Luke 9:27 says, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." See also Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 for the parallel quotes. In each of the synoptic Gospels, the next event immediately after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration. Rather than interpreting Jesus' promise as referring to His coming to establish His kingdom on earth, the context indicates that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration. The Greek word translated "kingdom" can also be translated "royal splendor," meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is—the King of heaven—which occurred in the transfiguration'' https://www.gotquestions.org/not-taste-death.html

I don't see how this works as an explanation given the wording and description of the ''coming in power'' does not match the transfiguration and the promise appears to be related to the former rather than the latter;

“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)

Thoughts?

That describes how the God of your brain transforms what you look at into the kingdom of God when you're really high. Of course the God of your brain is not the real God, rather they are simply another imaginary being (like you) that exists in your brain, although they have more control over certain systems, while your control is primarily over externally focused things.

 

[DBT]

Sounds about right. Could even work in practice.

 

[DBT]

Another collection of explanations seeking to reconcile the apparent failure in prophesy, some apologists trying to redefine the terms and references.

Conclusion

''Genea hautey can mean “this offspring," “this generation I just mentioned,” "this generation I am talking to," or “this contemporaneous generation,” depending on the context. It is not other contexts, but the context of Matthew 24:34 that should be the determining factor as to what Jesus meant by the word genea. The context of the Olivet Discourse leads us to believe that Jesus was speaking either of the offspring of Jacob (the Jews), the generation of God's children, or of a future generation among us he had just addressed. Alternatively, genetai may be translated "begin to happen" in Matthew 24 34.

Therefore, we are not forced into difficult aspects of the Partial Preterist view, which allegorize and spiritualize important portions of the Olivet Discourse. Nor must we resort, as Full Preterists do, to asserting that the Second Coming and the Resurrection must have happened invisibly in 70 AD, when it is plain to everyone that church history records none of these events, and the bodies of all men who have died, except that of our Lord Jesus (and possibly those mentioned in Mt 27:53), remain within the earth. Nor need we despair at finding a solution, as CS Lewis did. Despite his remarkable intellect and his usual able defenses of the Christian faith, he was quite wrong in thinking that the facts force us to admit Jesus made an embarrassing error.

Instead, we find not just one, but four reasonable, scriptural, and orthodox alternatives to the assertion of critics of the Christian faith that Jesus was referring to the contemporaneous generation in Matthew 24:34. All four permit us to confidently accept the full import of the other words of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse!

“TRULY, I say to you,” Jesus assured us, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” He promised that all of the events He had just foretold would happen before the genea He was speaking of passed away. The enemies of our faith, emboldened by unclear translations and incorrect assumptions, have directed a flood of criticism at this promise. They have rained torrents of words and brashly thundered hasty accusations. Like CS Lewis, some of us had our view blocked by these dark clouds. But these low hanging storm clouds, like an intense but brief summer thunder storm, merely obscured the words of our Lord. Now that the mists have cleared, what do we see?

A strong and secure foundation of solid rock that cannot be washed away.

As Jesus said, "Whoever comes to Me and hears My words, and does them, I will show you to whom he is like. He is like a man who built a house and dug deep and laid the foundation on a rock; and a flood occurring, the stream burst against that house and could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock. But he who hears and does not perform, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, on which the stream burst, and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great."

Have you built your home on this rock? Do you trust in the words of Christ, and live your life based upon that trust?

And so the words of our Lord again prove true, solid, faithful and trustworthy. Why has the faith of many in our contemporary generation been so small concerning this particular matter? Why have they so quickly caved in to the brash assertions of the enemies of God, without even taking the time to cross-examine those claims?

Has Jesus not always demonstrated himself to be true and faithful? Have not the arguments of past critics of Jesus all eventually been discredited, time and time again?

One lesson we can learn from this is, when someone asserts a challenge to God's word, we should not unquestionably accept it without waiting to hear the other side of the story. In a trial, the first to present his case usually sounds right, until the cross examination begins.

The words of Jesus have indeed stood the test of time, earning our trust countless times over. And did He not confidently assure us with the following words, which ring just as true now as they ever did?''

 

[ideologyhunter]

'Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man.'
-Robert G. Ingersoll

 

[steve_bank]

After years of discussion on this forum plus reading I developed a view.

There probably was an historical figure, or figures on which the gospels were based. The gospels were intended to be promotional literature. From one source, the gospels fit the style of an action adventure of the times. A docu-drama loosely based on an historical figure with embellishment and a lot of filling in the blanks.

The Acts serve as the sequel.

A deity for a father, a human mother, and a demigod offspring with some of the deity’s power but not all. The demigod dies in the act of saving the clan and goes to the dwelling place of the gods. Pure Greek and Roman mythology.

The writers had to create a supernatural foundation. Without the Resurrection and a promise of eternal existence Christianity goes nowhere.

The transfiguration is part of the fabrication. The early followers post mortum were Jews. Paul’s urbanization of the movement required sensationalism, just like religion today.

 

[DBT]

Agreed. I think that's a reasonably summary.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Good summary, but I'd add that the most consistent Biblical theme, Genesis thru Revelation, is blood sacrifice.

 

[steve_bank]

Good summary, but I'd add that the most consistent Biblical theme, Genesis thru Revelation, is blood sacrifice.

If I remember Leviticus right, the initiation into the priest class involved being sprinkled with blood.

I've listened to TV and radio evangelists. 'The Blood' is a common theme usually uttered with a great deal of drama, loudness, and gravitas. Believers seem to swoon when they hear it.