Posted on 06/03/2011 7:29:16 PM PDT by Winstons Julia
While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, 6 then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”
6
7 When the disciples heard this, they fell prostrate and were very much afraid.
7
But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and do not be afraid.”
8
And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone.
9
8 As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, “Do not tell the vision 9 to anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
The vision you’re referring to is God the Father. Context is everything.
(sorry hit the post before finishing)
“Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents 5 here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
You don’t build tents for visions.
“Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents 5 here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
“You don’t build tents for visions.”
Jesus revealed the vision after Peter’s comments:
“But Jesus came and touched them and said, “Arise, and do not be afraid.”
“When they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.”
“Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.””
“The vision you’re referring to is God the Father. Context is everything.”
A vision created by God to reveal his Son as the Messiah, and to prepare for the crucifiction.
The Vision was God the Father.
I gave you the exact scripture verses in the exact order but you choose to disregard part.
That’s dishonest. Rationalize all you want but at least do it with intellectual honesty.
Seriously dude, this is the last I have to say about it. Believe in your holding cell to your hearts content. Moses, Elijah and YOUR ancestors are in heaven, whether you want believe you are right or not.
Bye!
“And as I passed over the waters and heard this song that she sang on a side street, it said to me that no matter where you lead or you are led, no matter how the waves may break upon you, and what sins you may unknowingly commit, it is true that by the Grace of God you can sometimes make amends.”
"Sometimes". But it's not that easy.
“The Vision was God the Father.”
So then what happened to Moses and Elijah ?
Answer:
“When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.”
Since they were part of the vision, they too disappeared.
“Both are prohibited by forum rules. “
It seemed to me like you were trying to slap my hand. I understand that people cannot go onto “caucus threads” ... but I posted in general.
I’ve seen people go at each other’s THROATS, so it seemed a little lame that you would make an allegation that I am doing something against the rules or have said anything against the rules.
Hey, I was staying light with you, too.
;)
Maybe you are reading me wrong. It seemed like it happened with a few people.
I think there are some folks here who probably frequent threads and have a history with each other. I think they can see that I *don’t* really have a history of stirring things up.
I’m trying to respond and also read, while being accused of “violating rules”.
I think there may be illustrations here of why we have problems in the *Christian* religion. People cannot speak openly and frankly without others getting hostile and thinking they are making trouble.
Again ... I begrudge NO ONE their particular denomination. I think the one true religion is Christianity.
Vision (#3705) from: horama from #3708; something gazed at, i.e. a spectacle (especially supernatural):--sight, vision.
horao (#3708) properly, to stare at (compare #3700), i.e. (by implication) to discern clearly (physically or mentally); by extension, to attend to; by Hebraism, to experience; passively, to appear:--behold, perceive, see, take heed.
optanomai (#3700) to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable; and thus differing from #991, which denotes simply voluntary observation; and from #1492, which expresses merely mechanical, passive or casual vision; while #2300, and still more emphatically its intensive #2334, signifies an earnest but more continued inspection; and #4648 a watching from a distance):--appear, look, see, shew self.
There are a mulititude of Greek words intimating sight, and that which is seen. Matthew - under the inspiration of the Spirit - used horama deliberately.
Nevertheless, whatever they seen was quite vivid to the apostles - apparently quite real - ergo offering to build the tabernacles. Q.E.D. However, it is not proof that what they seen was in fact reality. The first point being they recognized Moses and Elijah. Did these entitities have name tags? Both these individuals had been dead for a millenia.
I believe that the vision was a 'future-sight' of His future glorified form (He still being incarnate at the time), or the diety of Christ was permitted His divine nature to manifest itself to a far greater extent than previously allowed by the Father. This may even have been manifestation of Christ as theophany. There is the story of Moses desiring to see God's face, and God told Moses he couldn't physically bear it. However, he acquiesced to the idea and told Moses to hide himself in the cleft of a rock and God would reveal His backside (whatever that means) to him. Moses returned to the Israelites glowing. Clearly there's an issue regarding human frailty with respect to withstanding the full presence of the Godhead. It is only now - post resurrection - that Christ possesses His glorified body; marred as it is with the marks of the crucifixion. If it was indeed a manifestation of theophany - superimposed over Christ's incarnate physical body - its no less astonishing than any of the occurances recorded in the OT as Angel of the Lord in the OT.
Moreover, at that time, all of the OT saints still 'slept' in Abraham's Bosum, i.e., the 'paradise' of sheol. So neither of the prophets could've been in 'heaven' per se; Abraham's Bosom being liberated by Christ after His resurrection (Eph 4:8) which was yet to come at the time of this tranfiguration / vision. Furthermore, none of the OT saints will be re-united with their glorified bodies until after the 2nd resurrection; the prophets bodies couldn't have been real.
All that notwithstanding, the issue of Christ's transfiguration before his resurrection is entirely non-sequitor to the un-Biblical idea of purgatory; such having no foundation in Scripture with respect to the remission of sins (requiring the shedding of blood - which see Heb 9:22; Lev 17:11; Rev 1:5; Heb 9:14, i.e., his blood able to cleanse the vilest sinner); purgatory being a place of purging by fire (which see RCC 1031).
Sound Biblical exegesis of doctrine shows that there's no temporal punishment remaining for which a sinner must attone (I Jno 2:2); there's no need for a place where the soul supposedly becomes objectively beautiful to God. Rather, in Eph 1:1-14 it is declared that God no longer looks at the person as a defiled sinner, but sees him only in Christ "holy and blameless before Him."
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. - Psa 103:12Compare w/Isa 43:25 (He not even remembering our sins, the sinner is not merely acquited of the charges, but the charges against us are outright dropped due to a complete lack of evidence. This is a far better legal position than acquital which intimates inusfficient evidence for conviction - not a lack of guilt). What is being intimated is a state of absolute and utter blamelessness, righteousness and total exhoneration.
But second, IF there are rules, and IF there is a perceived infraction, is it better to rely on the RM or to object oneself?
getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL completely misread me. Couldn't have been more wrong. Then s/he criticized my leadership style: Wow. Your anger is immature and frankly, very weird. Way to lead people, pastor. Have a nice day.
I don't think that moved the argumentative ball and it was a personal attack based on a misunderstanding. In any event, I've always thought a cat can look at a king, and a scoundrel can make a good argument -- and if he does, then respect for reason and the courtesies of discussion suggest that one should respond to the argument, rather than attribute anger and talk about personal traits of character.
So I thought it was entirely right to object to the turning aside from the issue to discuss me, my vices and emotions. EVEN if I AM a SCOUNDREL, that's not what we're talking about. (Certainly not what I'M talking about. How boring!)
Dd I accuse you of violating rules? Where? Certainly not in the post you quoted.
I guess I owe you an apology, you did say that to Palm Beach.
I think I was just frustrated with a number of comments so when you talked about “violating rules”... I shut down.
See.... because what I observed earlier is true. I see people violating the crap out of “rules” when it comes to religion... or anything else.
As I said... I didn’t invade a “Caucus”...I understand those are sancrosanct...
I posted a thread that had a legit question.
And I’m still very confused about what some Catholics think about “grace alone.”
People seem to have gotten testy with me and then testy with each other.
This is my lesson. My journey is mine alone. I have many great spiritual guides in my personal life.
I shouldn’t seek clarification of things from people whom I don’t know.
No problem. Okay? I mean that. No problem.
It is a great embarrassment to me that one cannot come to FR and get a straight answer to a question like yours.
With respect to your question, I think Ephesians says it best. It is all by grace — we are relieved of the burden of boasting. (Think about it. Isn’t boasting mostly about insecurity?)
But,in grace God has prepared good works for us to walk in. They are, so to speak, on the way to him.
I like to ask, when you drive from DC to New York, do you take a car or the Jersey Turnpike?
Of course we take both. The car is the grace. It moves us forward. The Jersey Pike is the good works, through which we are moved by grace.
That’s my very best effort under 10,000 words. :-)
No problem. Okay? I mean that. No problem.
It is a great embarrassment to me that one cannot come to FR and get a straight answer to a question like yours.
With respect to your question, I think Ephesians says it best. It is all by grace — we are relieved of the burden of boasting. (Think about it. Isn’t boasting mostly about insecurity?)
But,in grace God has prepared good works for us to walk in. They are, so to speak, on the way to him.
I like to ask, when you drive from DC to New York, do you take a car or the Jersey Turnpike?
Of course we take both. The car is the grace. It moves us forward. The Jersey Pike is the good works, through which we are moved by grace.
That’s my very best effort under 10,000 words. :-)
I think that’s reasonable.
But gas prices are ridiculous!
;)
LOL.
You got me.
You use different terms, so what?
Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin)
If anyone tells you otherwise they are either mistaken or unable to correctly express this.
We do not believe we are saved by faith ALONE but by GRACE ALONE -- faith etc. are outpourings of grace and even the growth in holiness is a grace as we can have no merit in the eyes of the Lord
Jesus himself said that to be saved one must repent, believe, confess the name of the Lord, be baptised in the name of the FAther, Son and Holy Spirit and endure to the end
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.