Are we immortal or not?

[Homer]

Paidion & Jeremiah,

It seems to me to that Matthew's account should be understood in light of Mark and Luke, and then in particular to what Peter wrote:

2 Peter 1:16-18, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16. For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18. and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

To me Peter is saying that they are basing what they teach about Jesus on eyewitness testimony concerning what they actually saw and heard (in this case a voice from heaven). Seems obvious to me that they were witnesses of something that actually occured. It is easy to see how they would all three see an event, but what would a vision seen simultaneously by all three be like?

It was important in Peter's mind to have two or three eyewitnesses to establish the truth. Would it bear as much weight to say "although this really didn't happen, we all simultaneously saw the same vision about it"?

Jeremiah wrote:

If matt 17, mk 9, and lk 9 are not describing a vision, then how did Peter, James, and John know who the other two men they saw were?

Wouldn't this question be the same whether it was a vision or actual event? It seems likely that they heard something in the conversations between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah that made it obvious who they were. Not much is revealed in the texts about what was discussed.

[jeremiah]

good morning Homer,

It seems to me to that Matthew's account should be understood in light of Mark and Luke, and then in particular to what Peter wrote: ...

Neither of the other synoptic accounts require us to conclude Moses and Elijah were physically present on the mount. Peter's reference to the event is centered on them hearing confirmation from God that Jesus was indeed his son and to be listened to. Understanding mk & lk 9 as depicting actual physical presence of others and then reading that into Matthew's account isn't harmonization, that's more like creating an artificial contradiction to my mind. Since the others read as they do, and Matthew has Jesus explicitly telling us it was a vision, then I choose to conclude it was a vision.

Why would it carry any less weight if a vision? Paul's experience on the way to Damascus was a vision, and it had no less profound effect than if Jesus had physically been there. Peter's vision on Simon's roof did what God wanted it to do in communicating to the church regarding gentiles. This too affected greatly, though it was "just" a vision. And what John received on Patmos, was a surer word of prophesy still, though it too was a vision. There is no less importance to the apostles' experiences of revelation in a vision given by God, so it should not be thought that recognizing what scripture actually gives witness to is in any way some kind of demotion from what we may have been taught taught (or first thought) they say.

I will grant however, your last paragraph. You're right, the question could be asked the same.
grace and peace to you brother.

[Homer]

Hi Jeremiah,

So you are saying Jesus was not actually transfigured?

[look2jesus]

Hello Jeremiah,

It does not follow that we can therefore conclude necromancers are able to truely do what they think they are doing. You're arguing from silence.

Here is what I argued at the time:

In the case of the comparison you made, we are specifically told by God's prophets that false Gods are not real, Molech etc. However, are we told in scripture that spiritists and necromancers cannot really do what they purport or attempt to do? In this case, I think we can "conclude" that it is, at the least, a possibility.

Are you disagreeing with this statement?

[jeremiah]

hello L2J,
There is a possibility that i misunderstood what you're meaning by that. I saw that you specified "in this case" and "at least" but your posts all together seemed to move beyond just a hypothetical possibility and instead was a major premise for your interpretation. If i mistook you, i'm sorry. But you said:

...The author let’s us know Samuel is dead; that Saul is in trouble and is desperate; that he's looking for someone who can communicate with the dead (because God isn't listening to him); and lo, and behold, just such a person is located in En Dor; the woman does what mediums do and calls up the dead man (and it can’t be ignored that a medium is typically engaged in calling up a spirit, not resurrecting people). The writer is clearly giving us the ‘impression’ that what he is describing is what we all think of when we think of a medium and what they do—whether it was a thing pleasing to God, or not...

Again, if I got you wrong, please let me know. But to be clear, yes, I don't think we can conclude a possiblility that mediums have the power to actually conjer up "spirits" of the deceased.

hello Homer,

So you are saying Jesus was not actually transfigured?

I don't think he was transfigured in the sense it seems you might insist, but you haven't actually stated what you think. Is there any reason why we can't just simply recognize scripture telling us this was a visionary experience, what is wrong with that?

grace and peace to you both...

[Paidion]

Exactly as I see it, Jeremiah. As you stated in another post, a visionary experience is just as real and just as much God's revelation as it would be if he had produced physical phenomena (you didn't put it quite that way, but I think that was the thought which you brought out).

Homer, why would Moses' burning bush experience including the words which God spoke to him, be any less real if the flame which he saw had been visionary as compared to it being a physical flame which God did not permit to burn up the bush?

[Homer]

Jeremiah wrote:

I don't think he was transfigured in the sense it seems you might insist, but you haven't actually stated what you think. Is there any reason why we can't just simply recognize scripture telling us this was a visionary experience, what is wrong with that?

Paidion wrote:

(regarding what Jeremiah said) As you stated in another post, a visionary experience is just as real and just as much God's revelation as it would be if he had produced physical phenomena (you didn't put it quite that way, but I think that was the thought which you brought out).

Homer, why would Moses' burning bush experience including the words which God spoke to him, be any less real if the flame which he saw had been visionary as compared to it being a physical flame which God did not permit to burn up the bush?

I think there is a difference in that having a vision is a real historical event while the content of the vision is not. For example, Peter's vision, Acts 10, occured while Peter was in a trance, as Peter himself says in Acts 11:5. I do not believe there was an historical event where a large sheet with various creatures appeared to Peter. And Peter used the Greek word horama to refer to his experience, which would lend support to your position. However, horama was also used regarding real historical events, as I believe was the case regarding the burning bush and transfiguration. For examples of the use of horama for historical events see the Septuagint, Deuteronomy 28:34 & 67.

In the account of the transfiguration, why would Peter suggest building three shelters if it was only a vision? In Luke 9:30 Moses and Elijah are referred to as aner (men). Aner appears some 212 times and in every case it refers to actual men except three times to angels and in this disputed case. There is not a hint in the account that the event was not historical, other than the way horama is understood, and it does not have to be understood that way. The account seems to be of a real event until you come across the word horama translated "vision" instead of "sight", either being legitimate. "Sight" appears to harmonize better with Mark, Luke, and Peter's accounts.

There isn't any harm in "just simply recognize scripture telling us this was a visionary experience" if it is true. But if it is not true it isn't good to use it to prove an unrelated point.

[jeremiah]

hello Homer,
Peter wanting to set up three tabernacles is hardly any indicator to whether this was a visionary experience our not. Why did Jacob set up a stone after the revelation he received in Genesis 28? That was"just" a dream and not a "real" historical event. My guess is they both considered them revelations of great importance.

The use of ανηρ doesn't really help much either, it's just the word for man. Visions aren't given every day, so why would the language used to describe any of it's details be any different than that of everyday sights. Are there other words you think would be more appropriate for a vision?

grace and peace

[Homer]

Hi Jeremiah,

You wrote:

Peter wanting to set up three tabernacles is hardly any indicator to whether this was a visionary experience our not. Why did Jacob set up a stone after the revelation he received in Genesis 28? That was"just" a dream and not a "real" historical event. My guess is they both considered them revelations of great importance.

Seems quite different to me. Jacob set up the stone the following morning after what was clearly a vision. Peter was trying to build shelters for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah during what you say was a vision. And if it was a vision Jesus' presence was irrelevant; they could have been on a rooftop by themselves as was Peter during his vision.

But I'm okey with it if you see it differently.

[jeremiah]

yeah man, that's cool.