THE TRANSFIGURATION – BALONEY!

by Dansk 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    The following passages are all taken from the New World Translation.

    Matthew 17:1

    – "Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John his brother along and brought them up into a lofty mountain by themselves."

    Mark 9:2

    – "Accordingly six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John along , and brought them up into a lofty mountain to themselves alone. And he was transfigured before them."

    Luke 9:28, 29

    – In actual fact, about eight days after these words, he took Peter and John and James along and climbed up into the mountain to pray. And as he was praying the appearance of his face became different and his apparel became glitteringly white."

    Now we’re probably all familiar with these accounts of how Jesus was said to be transfigured alongside Moses and Elijah before the apostles mentioned above. But please note that of the four Gospel writers only John was present before this monumental event – the only event of its kind that has ever occurred – and yet John writes absolutely NOTHING about it. The three Gospel writers Matthew, Mark and Luke, who AREN’T there, DO write about it!!

    Don’t you think it strange that after witnessing a major faith-strengthening event John shouldn’t even mention it?

    Ah, but Peter was there, one might counter.

    Well, actually, the only "reference" by Peter, is in 2 Peter 1:16-18 wherein it states: " ……it was by having become eyewitnesses of his magnificence. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when words such as these were borne to him by the magnificent glory: "This is my son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved." Yes, these words we heard borne from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain."

    So, only Peter actually provides a "genuine eye-witness" account ---------- or does he?

    2 Peter is commonly held to be pseudepigraphal in nature. Pseudonymity is the practice of writing under someone else’s name; this is not simply a "pen name," as we have today, but it is the deliberate taking of a real person’s name for the purpose of influence in publication. However, there is no proof that the book wasn’t penned by Peter – but previous to 170 CE nothing was heard of the book and it wasn’t generally known until the 3 rd Century (Westcott, Canon, 242 (222)). Therefore, it is an extremely questionable document.

    It is also worth bearing in mind that the books of the Christian Greek scriptures or New Testament which have NO KNOWN AUTHORS are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and probably Revelation. As we can see, the Gospels weren’t even written by the men attributed to them!

    All things considered, I think we can safely say the transfiguration has no basis in fact.

    Dansk

  • SpannerintheWorks
    SpannerintheWorks

    It's easy, Dansk:

    Peter = Matthew

    James = Mark

    John = Luke.

    Logic, pure logic!

    Spanner

  • Dansk
    Dansk
    Logic, pure logic!

    Well, I'll go for the 'Protevangelion' otherwise known as the 'Gospel of James' (not the book of James) - which was around at least 25 years, and possibly 50 years, before the four gospels were! What a con!!

    Dansk

  • greven
    greven

    Good point Dansk!

    Also note this:

    Matthew 17:1 – "Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John his brother along and brought them up into a lofty mountain by themselves."

    Mark 9:2

    – "Accordingly six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John along , and brought them up into a lofty mountain to themselves alone. And he was transfigured before them."

    Luke 9:28, 29

    – In actual fact, about eight days after these words, he took Peter and John and James along and climbed up into the mountain to pray. And as he was praying the appearance of his face became different and his apparel became glitteringly white."

    Greven

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Wow Danks.... you seem to have gone from loyal dub to skeptic in record time! What's the next stop on the express? agnostic? atheist?

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Mark 9:2 – "Accordingly six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John along , and brought them up into a lofty mountain to themselves alone. And he was transfigured before them."

    Papias (Discipe of the Apostle John) recorded that Mark received his gospel from Peter.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Dansk said: 2 Peter is commonly held to be pseudepigraphal in nature. Pseudonymity is the practice of writing under someone else’s name; this is not simply a "pen name," as we have today, but it is the deliberate taking of a real person’s name for the purpose of influence in publication. However, there is no proof that the book wasn’t penned by Peter – but previous to 170 CE nothing was heard of the book and it wasn’t generally known until the 3 rd Century (Westcott, Canon, 242 (222)). Therefore, it is an extremely questionable document.
    Dansk said: It is also worth bearing in mind that the books of the Christian Greek scriptures or New Testament which have NO KNOWN AUTHORS are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and probably Revelation. As we can see, the Gospels weren’t even written by the men attributed to them!

    http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

    2.2 The Text of the New Testament 2.2.1 The Reliability of the New Testament Text
    [4 April,1998]
    2.2.2 The Gospels: Dates and Authorship
    [4 April,1998]
    2.2.3 The Gospels: as Ancient Biographies
    [4 April,1998]
    2.2.4 The Gospels: "Q," Literary Dependence, and so forth
    [4 April,1998]
    2.2.5 On the Pastorals
    [4 April,1998]
    2.2.6 On Q and Literary Dependence by Glenn Miller
    [Off Site]
    2.2.7 On Gospel Authorship by Glenn Miller
    [Off Site]
    2.2.8 On the Authenticity of 2 Peter by Glenn Miller
    [Off Site]

  • Hamas
    Hamas

    None of us really know truth.

    Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.

    We all need a hope; I know I certainly do. Whatever gets you through the day, man.

  • Gamaliel
    Gamaliel

    Dansk,

    Good points. Although this ground has already been covered all over this forum and the Web in general, I think one of the best books for beginners on this subject is Randel Helms' "Who Wrote the Gospels?" and "Gospel Fictions" by the same writer. Although he is more of a condenser of scholarship for us common folks rather than a Bible scholar in his own right, I like the level of detail he uses.

    After reading his book, you can see why most scholars believe the connection between Mark and Peter is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous would be why a supposed eye-witnesses like Matthew would have needed to copy so much of Mark, word-for-word. On the specific issue of the Transfiguration, Helms makes a good point about how the Gospel writers have sometimes confused the Transfiguration story with the Baptism, perhaps on purpose, depending on their beliefs about the importance of the movement of John the Baptist, or the "adoptionist" view (becoming Christ or Son of God only at Baptism, not before). A similar "confusion" may have happened with Stephen's "deathbed" view of a "Transfiguration" and the requoting of Jesus final words on the cross (Forgive them..etc). Not much evidence when taken one at a time on their own, but a book like Helms' lets you cover a lot of material quickly so that you can easily see the possible overall patterns and therefore see what has led to some of these theories by scholars.

    On 2 Peter: Eusebius, often considered one of the most respected "Church Fathers," and Christian historian, would not want it included in the NT canon even as late as the 300's CE. although it finally made the New Testament since the Council of Laodicea in 372 C.E. It's really just a revision of Jude, made more effective supposedly by putting it in the name/mouth of an apostle, but it gives itself away by speaking of Paul's letters already collected and published as a unit, people saying that too much time has passed since the "fathers" died so that they were ridiculing the delayed 2nd Advent, church envoys, etc.

    Helms is a good author, imo, he'll even converse by email if you have something to share.

    Gamaliel

  • Mary
    Mary
    Don’t you think it strange that after witnessing a major faith-strengthening event John shouldn’t even mention it?

    Not necessarily. After all, there is absolutely no mention in the New Testament about the Fall of Jerusalem in 70CE even though the writers would have obviously known all about it as they were living at that time and in the place it happened.

    Just my two cents worth.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit