Question on the Transfiguration

[daqq]

I understand your claim. Yet you did not say what the voice said.

Since you say I did not say what the voice said you do not understand my claim. Here is it again, (in plain terminology), the Voice said everything that is recorded in the multiple accounts.

 

[Wick Stick]

Textual critics think that this quote was changed by theologians in later manuscripts, to combat a particular heresy (Adoptionism).

The current version quotes Isa 42. However, Isaiah has God addressing "my servant," whereas the gospels all have it down as "my Son."

Moreover, a number of early Christian writers (2nd-3rd century) have the quote differently in their commentaries. They have God quoting Psalms 2:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The books of Acts (13:13) and Hebrews (1:5, 5:5) also record God addressing Psalms 2 to Jesus. Yet the quote does not appear in the gospels. :think:

 

[daqq]

Textual critics think that this quote was changed by theologians in later manuscripts, to combat a particular heresy (Adoptionism).

The current version quotes Isa 42. However, Isaiah has God addressing "my servant," whereas the gospels all have it down as "my Son."

Moreover, a number of early Christian writers (2nd-3rd century) have the quote differently in their commentaries. They have God quoting Psalms 2:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The books of Acts (13:13) and Hebrews (1:5, 5:5) also record God addressing Psalms 2 to Jesus. Yet the quote does not appear in the gospels. :think:

Isaiah 42:1 LXX (Brenton translation)
1 Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles.

Moreover, "Israel is My prototokos-firstborn", (Exo 4:22 LXX).
So perhaps also one of his names is Yisrael, (the elect-chosen, Isa 42:1). :chuckle:

But if you agree with that then why not with what I said about the parable of the prodigal son?

 

[Wick Stick]

Isaiah 42:1 LXX (Brenton translation)
1 Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles.

Moreover, "Israel is My prototokos-firstborn", (Exo 4:22 LXX).
So perhaps also one of his names is Yisrael, (the elect-chosen, Isa 42:1). :chuckle:

But if you agree with that then why not with what I said about the parable of the prodigal son?

I don't have a problem with Isaiah 42 being applied to Jesus. And Jesus is the "firstfruits" of the resurrection of the (once-dead) Israel.

However, Psalm 2 holds far more significance than Isa 42 when placed it in the context of Jesus' baptism.

This Day I have begotten you.

At His baptism.

Not at His birth.

That turns a whole bunch of established doctrines on their ear.

Which is why later theologians had to "fix" that messy theology that the apostles left behind. :dizzy:

 

[daqq]

I don't have a problem with Isaiah 42 being applied to Jesus. And Jesus is the "firstfruits" of the resurrection of the (once-dead) Israel.

However, Psalm 2 holds far more significance than Isa 42 when placed it in the context of Jesus' baptism.

This Day I have begotten you.

At His baptism.

Not at His birth.

That turns a whole bunch of established doctrines on their ear.

Which is why later theologians had to "fix" that messy theology that the apostles left behind. :dizzy:

Yeah, we been over dat, (which is why I tanked your post).

 

[Wick Stick]

Oh, in a different thread? I didn't see it in here. Maybe I skimmed past something.

 

[2003cobra]

Since you say I did not say what the voice said you do not understand my claim. Here is it again, (in plain terminology), the Voice said everything that is recorded in the multiple accounts.

So they all got the Words of God wrong.

If you really wanted to answer, then you would simply add a “ then write what was said, then add an ending “

If you actually did that, at least you would have really answered.

 

[daqq]

Oh, in a different thread? I didn't see it in here. Maybe I skimmed past something.

This day have I begotten you.

 

[daqq]

So they all got the Words of God wrong.

If you really wanted to answer, then you would simply add a “ then write what was said, then add an ending “

If you actually did that, at least you would have really answered.

I did answer, and now again: put them all together as one statement.
It isn't rocket science unless you are only searching for errors so as to point your finger.

 

[daqq]

Originally Posted by 2003cobra
So they all got the Words of God wrong.

If you really wanted to answer, then you would simply add a “ then write what was said, then add an ending “

If you actually did that, at least you would have really answered.

I did answer, and now again: put them all together as one statement.
It isn't rocket science unless you are only searching for errors so as to point your finger.

Isaiah 42:1 LXX (Brenton translation)
1 Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles.

This was way down in another thread and wasn’t getting answered, so I thought it might need a fresh start.

What did the Father actually say from the cloud?

Matthew 17:5 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/17-5.html
5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!"

Luke 9:35 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/9-35.html
35 Then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!"

Mark 9:7 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/9-7.html
7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!"

There are differences, especially with Luke saying “my chosen” rather than “the beloved.”

"This is My Son, the Beloved, My Chosen, (My Elect), in/with whom I am well-pleased, (My soul has accepted him), Hear him!"

 

[daqq]

So they all got the Words of God wrong.

If you really wanted to answer, then you would simply add a “ then write what was said, then add an ending “

If you actually did that, at least you would have really answered.

I did answer, and now again: put them all together as one statement.
It isn't rocket science unless you are only searching for errors so as to point your finger.

"This is My Son, the Beloved, My Chosen, (My Elect), in/with whom I am well-pleased, (My soul has accepted him), Hear him!"

Moreover I already gave you an example from the scripture of what I was talking about. You paid no mind to what I said even though you have now reread the thread again.

This response was to you:

Example of seeing the Testimony as one:

Matthew 16:5-7 HNV
5 The talmidim came to the other side and had forgotten to take bread.
6 Yeshua said to them, "Take heed and beware of the yeast of the Perushim and Tzedukim."
7 They reasoned among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread."

Mark 8:14-16 HNV
14 They forgot to take bread; and they didn't have more than one loaf in the boat with them.
15 He charged them, saying, "Take heed: beware of the yeast of the Perushim and the yeast of Herod."
16 They reasoned with one another, saying, "It's because we have no bread."

Therefore beware of the leaven of Herod, and of the leaven of the Perushim, and of the leaven of the Tzaddukim:

 

[2003cobra]

"This is My Son, the Beloved, My Chosen, (My Elect), in/with whom I am well-pleased, (My soul has accepted him), Hear him!"

Thanks for your post.

Once again, you say every version is wrong.

What about 2 Peter? Why did you leave that one out of the discussion?


2 Peter 1:17 NRSA

17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."


Are you going to add “my Beloved” to your compilation?

You approach reminds me of Mary Shelley, gathering pieces from various places and sewing them together.

 

[daqq]

Thanks for your post.

Once again, you say every version is wrong.

What about 2 Peter? Why did you leave that one out of the discussion?


2 Peter 1:17 NRSA

17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."


Are you going to add “my Beloved” to your compilation?

You approach reminds me of Mary Shelley, gathering pieces from various places and sewing them together.

It is already there, "My Beloved" and "the Beloved" are essentially the same thing, because of what other things are said in the overall context. If "My soul has accepted him", and he is, "With whom My soul is well pleased", or even, "In him I am well pleased", then he is both "the Beloved" and "My Beloved", "the chosen" and "My chosen", you are just playing a shell game with little words trying to find anything that in your own private opinion supposedly proves an error, contradiction, or disagreement. The scripture is not proven true or false just because of minute differences between two little words like "my" and "the", or "all" and "some", or "he" and "they", or any such other ridiculous microscopic comparisons for the purposes of claiming errors and discrepancies. The letter is killing you.

 

[2003cobra]

It is already there, "My Beloved" and "the Beloved" are essentially the same thing, because of what other things are said in the overall context. If "My soul has accepted him", and he is, "With whom My soul is well pleased", or even, "In him I am well pleased", then he is both "the Beloved" and "My Beloved", "the chosen" and "My chosen", you are just playing a shell game with little words trying to find anything that in your own private opinion supposedly proves an error, contradiction, or disagreement. The scripture is not proven true or false just because of minute differences between two little words like "my" and "the", or "all" and "some", or "he" and "they", or any such other ridiculous microscopic comparisons for the purposes of claiming errors and discrepancies. The letter is killing you.

Essentially the same thing?

So the Words of God were not preserved perfectly?

And “close enough” is good enough in horseshoes and hand grenades and in the very Words of God?

Perhaps you have never noticed, but people who claim “God wrote the Bible” and people who claim “the Bible is inerrant” and people who claim “the Word of God was breathed into the scriptures by God Himself” and people who claim “the scriptures have been perfectly preserved” should have great problems with what you call “essentially the same thing” and “minute differences.”

So, are you going to revise what you believe was actually said or are you going to leave uncertainty around the difference between “my beloved” and “the beloved?”

I will give you credit, though, as you seem to be the only person who had the courage to try and reconcile the texts, even if you did fit together sundry parts into a Frankenstein-like quote which is totally unbelievable. (It even has a / in it! I wonder what / is in Aramaic.)

Thanks. No one else would try.

This exercise has not discredited the scriptures, which are reliable and authoritative. It has discredited the man-made doctrine of inerrancy, a false doctrine found nowhere in scripture.

By the way, funny that you should mention the word “all” as not significant.

Thanks again, daqq.

The next time you focus on one or two words in a text and try to use them for making a definitive point, remember how you have declared that the very Words of God spoken from the cloud in the presence of Jesus, 3 Apostles, Moses, and Elijah aren’t important to get right.

We aren’t called to have faith in a perfect book. We are called to follow Jesus.

 

[daqq]

Essentially the same thing?

So the Words of God were not preserved perfectly?

And “close enough” is good enough in horseshoes and hand grenades and in the very Words of God?

Perhaps you have never noticed, but people who claim “God wrote the Bible” and people who claim “the Bible is inerrant” and people who claim “the Word of God was breathed into the scriptures by God Himself” and people who claim “the scriptures have been perfectly preserved” should have great problems with what you call “essentially the same thing” and “minute differences.”

So, are you going to revise what you believe was actually said or are you going to leave uncertainty around the difference between “my beloved” and “the beloved?”

I will give you credit, though, as you seem to be the only person who had the courage to try and reconcile the texts, even if you did fit together sundry parts into a Frankenstein-like quote which is totally unbelievable. (It even has a / in it! I wonder what / is in Aramaic.)

Thanks. No one else would try.

This exercise has not discredited the scriptures, which are reliable and authoritative. It has discredited the man-made doctrine of inerrancy, a false doctrine found nowhere in scripture.

By the way, funny that you should mention the word “all” as not significant.

Thanks again, daqq.

The next time you focus on one or two words in a text and try to use them for making a definitive point, remember how you have declared that the very Words of God spoken from the cloud in the presence of Jesus, 3 Apostles, Moses, and Elijah aren’t important to get right.

We aren’t called to have faith in a perfect book. We are called to follow Jesus.

Once again, (as in the other thread), this is either an issue of translation or manuscript choice:

2 Peter 1:17 T/R
17 λαβων γαρ παρα θεου πατρος τιμην και δοξαν φωνης ενεχθεισης αυτω τοιασδε υπο της μεγαλοπρεπους δοξης ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εις ον εγω ευδοκησα

ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος ~ "My Son, the Beloved"

2 Peter 1:17 W/H
17 λαβων γαρ παρα θεου πατρος τιμην και δοξαν φωνης ενεχθεισης αυτω τοιασδε υπο της μεγαλοπρεπους δοξης ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος μου ουτος εστιν εις ον εγω ευδοκησα

ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος μου ~ "My Son, My Beloved" ("My Beloved Son")

2 Peter 1:17 YLT
17 for having received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being borne to him by the excellent glory: 'This is My Son--the beloved, in whom I was well pleased;'

2 Peter 1:17 ASV
17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased:

Moreover we have the truth: it simply is not all in a single manuscript or codex.
Get real . . .

 

[daqq]

Moreover, @2003cobra, you can read the Byzantine Text all the way through:

Matthew 17:5 RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, ἰδού, νεφέλη φωτεινὴ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς· καὶ ἰδού, φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης, λέγουσα, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε.
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/17-5.htm

Mark 9:7 RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ ἐγένετο νεφέλη ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἦλθεν φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε.
http://biblehub.com/text/mark/9-7.htm

Luke 9:35 RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης, λέγουσα, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε.
http://biblehub.com/text/luke/9-35.htm

2 Peter 1:17 RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν, φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα·
http://biblehub.com/text/2_peter/1-17.htm

And they all say the same, (Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός), dear cherry picker.
And the same is true of the Greek Orthodox as well as the Textus Receptus.

I have no problem adding "My chosen" or "the chosen [one]" into the statement, (Luke 9:35 variant), but that does not mean I absolutely must do so either. However the variant appears to cause a problem for you: so don't read it then, if you simply cannot cannot handle it. :chuckle:

Same goes for the 2 Peter 1:17 passage. :dizzy:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

That may sound good on the surface but in the overall picture it only serves to distort the reality. There was indeed collusion: however, that is not a bad thing but a good thing. That is why each one tells his own version of events and why there are differences; for they are intentional, and by the same reasoning I said earlier that the Gospel accounts are like different rooms of the same house or different levels of a multi-story house, while it is altogether one and the same, one house. Moreover the author of Acts openly admits as much in Acts 6:2-4, (collusion). The day of Pentecost had come, and the Spirit of Truth was bringing into their remembrance all things which the Master had said to them: only an unwise, foolish, and unprofitable servant would not write those things down. What else do you suppose they were doing that was more important than waiting on tables? They were pouring over the scriptures and writings and laying out the table of the Master, (the Word).

You're a coward and Gorydaze cheering you shows her ignorance for thanking you because the Gospel writers did not collude and that verse has nothing to do with collusion over what they wrote or did not write about what they witnessed. I on the other hand am not a coward like you because I can answer your questions. You all follow each other more than you follow Jesus.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?128164-How-long-was-Jesus-ministry&p=5174691#post5174691

 

[glorydaz]

You're a coward and Gorydaze cheering you shows her ignorance for thanking you because the Gospel writers did not collude and that verse has nothing to do with collusion over what they wrote or did not write about what they witnessed. I on the other hand am not a coward like you because I can answer your questions here or any where. You all follow each other more than you follow Jesus.

Boo Hoo, this little baby boy isn't getting enough thanks. :baby:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Boo Hoo, this little baby boy isn't getting enough thanks. :baby:

You're ignorant of my age. You have before assumed I am a 'youngster'. Are you old?

As well as your ageism I also notice a sexist tone to this and other posts where you label men as 'boys' in a derogatory manner . Not mature at all.

This on your about me says it all:
'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'

A quote by the philosopher Edmund Burke. A statement that is actually anti-Christian. Our enemy is the Satan, not each other!

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

And how do we fight those evil spiritual forces in the heavenly realms? By hacking away at each other with our words? NO by prayer and supplication!

As I say you all follow each other more than you follow Jesus.

 

[daqq]

You're a coward and Gorydaze cheering you shows her ignorance for thanking you because the Gospel writers did not collude and that verse has nothing to do with collusion over what they wrote or did not write about what they witnessed. I on the other hand am not a coward like you because I can answer your questions. You all follow each other more than you follow Jesus.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?128164-How-long-was-Jesus-ministry&p=5174691#post5174691

Lol, this one has already been answered too:

All of the above because for one reason:

Isaiah 42:1-3 KJV
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Matthew 12:17-20 KJV
17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

And for another reason:

Genesis 22:2 KJV
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son (H3173 יחיד) Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Genesis 22:2 LXX (Brenton Translation)
2 And he said, Take thy son, the beloved one, (G27 αγαπητος) whom thou hast loved - Isaac, and go into the high land, and offer him there for a whole-burnt-offering on one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Greek "agapetos", ("beloved") = Hebrew "yachid", ("one and only", (beloved implied).
Moreover, concerning Isaac, yachid also implies chosen because he was not an only son.

What has been since then is just icing on the cake. As for your thread link, (yet again), I answered you already in the other thread, here and here, and for that you posted a turkey and called me a chicken, (lol, and when that was not enough you actually went and got a video of a chicken clucking). Moreover, as I said and you know it's true, every time I enter one of your threads you end up either getting me banned from it or asking me to leave. Who therefore is the coward? I keep showing you truth and you keep wanting to get rid of me for it. :chuckle: