Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:50 pm
Is 2 Peter "surely" a historicist epistle? Note that you have high-lighted the only statement in the letter that could conceivably be a reference to a historical Jesus. The rest of the letter (though short) is little different in content or form to those epistles often argued to be 'mythicist' by some mythicists. There are few details to time and space. There is not even a specific reference to Jerusalem! Acting as the devil's advocate, you could even argue that the 'eye-witness' reference was to a vision of Jesus, rather than to an earthly Jesus. There is nothing else in the text that specifically points to an earthly Jesus.
Sincerely, I confess that the particular mention of Jesus (as someone with whom ''Peter'' is on the mountain, and not like someone who is seen by Peter on the mountain) points very surely to an earthly Jesus. Even if the episode is read as a post-resurrection episode, the Jesus who is meant seems very humble, a man among men. It seems that the extraordinary event ''Peter'' saw on the mountain was something seen also by Jesus, and was not Jesus himself. Precisely what is found also in the Gospels.

I think that the mention of a mountain is different from the mention of the gates of a city (I have Hebrews in mind): what is a ''mountain'' in a mythicist view? Whereas in Hebrews the ''city'' is interpreted rather easily by Carrier as the celestial Jerusalem.

Therefore this only fact seems sufficient, in my eyes, to consider historicist that epistle and answer your other questions.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Post by Giuseppe »

if the Transfiguration episode was originally a post-Resurrection episode, then I may imagine why that episode was placed before the Resurrection, and precisely after the famous verse 9:1 in Mark about what seems really the ipsissima verba of the historical Jesus (meant as a failed apocalypticist):
And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
Prof Price argued that it was the original writer who inserted the Transfiguration episode precisely '''6 days after'' that failed prophecy, in order to realize that prophecy (pace the Criterion of Embarrassment).

But if instead did the contrary happen?
Who introduced there the Transfiguration episode did so in order to remove the embarrassment for a so ''clear'' prophecy of Jesus that is surely a failed prophecy when read literally.

I am inclined to think in this latter way (pace Price), since there is also another apparently failed prophecy in Mark 14:62:
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
In that case the corrector was not as well scrupulous with the insertion of an Extraordinary Event that was able to justify literally that prophecy (otherwise failed).

Therefore if the prophecy of Mark 9:1 has some not-literalist meaning, then the verse 14:62 shares with 9:1 the same not-literalist meaning, too.

I think that the allegorical meaning of that ''failed'' prophecy alludes to what Jesus was already doing by his simple presence on the lower realm: to defeat the archons by being killed by them.

The only real witnesses of that coming of the ''Kingdom of God''/''the Son of Man'' ''with power'' were only the apostles and the demonic archons. No other people.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Post by iskander »

The Transfiguration is only one understanding of the life of Jesus in a historical frame : Jesus is presented as the continuation of the great figures of the history of his community. He is the reality now and what Jesus represents deserves the same commitment from the living as the great men of the past got from the people who were then alive .


A modern example of this literary genre from the early phase of The Great Patriotic War.

Alexander Nevski. and others.
alexander 1.PNG
alexander 1.PNG (150.71 KiB) Viewed 4123 times
Attachments
alexander 2.PNG
alexander 2.PNG (155.64 KiB) Viewed 4123 times
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Post by Giuseppe »

iskander wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:54 am The Transfiguration is only one understanding of the life of Jesus in a historical frame : Jesus is presented as the continuation of the great figures of the history of his community.
All this ossessive emphasis on the continuity with the past may be explained as well as the logical reaction against who -- among the same Christians -- denied that Jesus was the Christ predicted by the scriptures.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Post by iskander »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:40 am
iskander wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:54 am The Transfiguration is only one understanding of the life of Jesus in a historical frame : Jesus is presented as the continuation of the great figures of the history of his community.
All this ossessive emphasis on the continuity with the past may be explained as well as the logical reaction against who -- among the same Christians -- denied that Jesus was the Christ predicted by the scriptures.
Yes, eventually Christianity and Judaism became two different religions.

As much as Christianity and Judaism are two distinct faiths, Christianity is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible, albeit interpreted quite differently than it is by Judaism.

Three theological areas stand out to me in which Christian and Jewish thought have historically diverged: Trinitarian conceptions of God.The doctrine of the incarnation (seeing Jesus of Nazareth not simply as messiah but also as God in human form.)
A sacramental approach to creation, in which the material world is seen as a vehicle for conveying spiritual reality (a vague definition, but we’ll have to leave it at that.)
The Initiator of the Jewish Study Bible: A Modern Day Yitro
TABS Director, Rabbi David Steinberg, Interviews Donald Kraus, Executive Bible Editor at Oxford University Press
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Post by Giuseppe »

iskander wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:17 am
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:40 am
iskander wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:54 am The Transfiguration is only one understanding of the life of Jesus in a historical frame : Jesus is presented as the continuation of the great figures of the history of his community.
All this ossessive emphasis on the continuity with the past may be explained as well as the logical reaction against who -- among the same Christians -- denied that Jesus was the Christ predicted by the scriptures.
Yes, eventually Christianity and Judaism became two different religions.
Aehm, I was talking about Christians who denied that Jesus is Christ, not about Jews. :roll:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Post by iskander »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:05 am...

Aehm, I was talking about Christians who denied that Jesus is Christ, not about Jews. :roll:
Jesus for Christians is God-incarnate. Christ is the Greek translation of Messiah and this word has ceased to be of any importance for Christians not engaged in missionary work .
Jesus is the man and Jesus is also God. Christ is an archaic title that persist in the liturgy and sermons and as a proper name. It is like the Royal Title , Defensor of the Faith

https://www.britannica.com/topic/defender-of-the-faith
fid def.PNG
fid def.PNG (58.89 KiB) Viewed 4086 times
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Transfiguration without Moses and Elijiah

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:54 am The Transfiguration is only one understanding of the life of Jesus in a historical frame : Jesus is presented as the continuation of the great figures of the history of his community. He is the reality now and what Jesus represents deserves the same commitment from the living as the great men of the past got from the people who were then alive .


A modern example of this literary genre from the early phase of The Great Patriotic War.

Alexander Nevski. and others.

alexander 1.PNG
From :
The World at War HD (1080p) - Ep. 11 - Red Star: The Soviet Union (1941–1943)
At 34 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEhrnp5 ... bvmC0ZUDKG
Post Reply