Transfiguration just a vision?

[thecone137]

I was having a conversation with one of my JW friends and the topic of praying to the dead came up. I showed him the transfiguration account to demonstrate the validity of it, but he told me Moses and Elijah were simply visions and not really themselves. I looked up the greek word Horama from Matthew 17:9 and it occurs 11 other times(see below). My question is, does anything he is saying make sense, based off the use of the greek word in other passages? Any language experts out there that can help?

Horama
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong’s Number: 3705
Original Word
Word Origin
o&rama
from (3708)
Transliterated Word
TDNT Entry
Horama
5:371,706
Phonetic Spelling
Parts of Speech
hor’-am-ah
Noun Neuter
Definition
that which is seen, spectacle
a sight divinely granted in an ecstasy or in a sleep, a vision
King James Word Usage - Total: 12
vision 11, sight 1

Matthew 17:9

(King James Version)
9And as they came downfrom the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying , Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Acts 7:31

31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,
Read Acts 7:31 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 9:10

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said , Behold , I am here, Lord.
Read Acts 9:10 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 9:12

12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in , and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight .
Read Acts 9:12 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 10:3

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
Read Acts 10:3 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 10:17

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean , behold , the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
Read Acts 10:17 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 10:19

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold , three men seek thee.
Read Acts 10:19 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 11:5

5 I was in the city of Joppa praying : and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend , as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
Read Acts 11:5 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 16:9-10

9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him , saying , Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
View in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 18:9

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid , but speak , and hold not thy peace :

 

[TimothyH]

So what if it was a vision? The whole Book of Revelation is a vision.

Its a specific technique the Jehovah’s Witness was taught and he is using it on you. Saying it is “Just” a vision is an attemp by the JW to diminish the importance of what happened on the Mount of Transfiguraiton or to say that it somehow wasn’t real, just a dream with no real meaning. They are highly trained at this. This is word of God, written by Human beings yes, but God himself is the primary author. Whether Jesus appeared with Elijiah and Moses to Peter, James and John physically, or in a vision, doesn’t really matter. It was real to them, God was telling them something, and it was important enough for God to put it in the Bible so that we could know it as well.

The whole Book of Revelation is “Just” a vision. Does that mean that it was not important? Does that mean that it is not real? Does that mean that it does not have great importance to us?

The fact is that Jesus DID appear with Elijiah and Moses, transfigured on the mountain. All three present saw it at the same time. Whether it was a vision or not is not relevant. And it happened on a mountain, where very important things happen in the Bible, like Moses receiving the law and Jesus preaching the Sermon on the Mount.

And no Jehovah’s Witness has any right to tell any Christian about anything in the Bible, either what the Bible says or what it means. They who change the words of God to suit their own cult practices and beliefs have no right to preach to anyone about the true meaning of the Bible.

My response to the JW is…

Get behind me, Satan; Never suggest vain thoughts to me.
The cup you offer is evil;
Drink the poison yourself!

…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

-Tim-

 

[jcrichton]

I was having a conversation with one of my JW friends and the topic of praying to the dead came up. I showed him the transfiguration account to demonstrate the validity of it, but he told me Moses and Elijah were simply visions and not really themselves. I looked up the greek word Horama from Matthew 17:9 and it occurs 11 other times(see below). My question is, does anything he is saying make sense, based off the use of the greek word in other passages? Any language experts out there that can help?

Horama
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong’s Number: 3705
Original Word
Word Origin
o&rama
from (3708)
Transliterated Word
TDNT Entry
Horama
5:371,706
Phonetic Spelling
Parts of Speech
hor’-am-ah
Noun Neuter
Definition
that which is seen, spectacle
a sight divinely granted in an ecstasy or in a sleep, a vision
King James Word Usage - Total: 12
vision 11, sight 1

Matthew 17:9

(King James Version)
9And as they came downfrom the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying , Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Acts 7:31

31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,
Read Acts 7:31 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 9:10

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said , Behold , I am here, Lord.
Read Acts 9:10 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 9:12

12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in , and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight .
Read Acts 9:12 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 10:3

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
Read Acts 10:3 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 10:17

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean , behold , the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
Read Acts 10:17 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 10:19

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold , three men seek thee.
Read Acts 10:19 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 11:5

5 I was in the city of Joppa praying : and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend , as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
Read Acts 11:5 in contextView in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 16:9-10

9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him , saying , Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
View in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations

Acts 18:9

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid , but speak , and hold not thy peace :

…thse are the same people who claim Jesus as a “god” or “angel” or some sort of subservient “lord;” I am not a linguist so I cannot enlighten you as to the root meanings of words… but I ask you to consider the fact that Biblical language is often different from its contemporary usage… so, does it say that it was a vision? …well, yes… but was the vision devoid of value? Was it as our dreams? hollowood’s creation? How is it that the witnesses recognized, in an instant, two people that had been dead for hundreds of years? There is no doubt that it was a vision… but it was a spiritual vision, one in which the Third Person of God opened the mind of these three Apostles so that they could witness Christ’s Glory: Christ is the Resurrection and the Life: God-Almighty!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[thecone137]

So what if it was a vision? The whole Book of Revelation is a vision.

Its a specific technique the Jehovah’s Witness was taught and he is using it on you. Saying it is “Just” a vision is an attemp by the JW to diminish the importance of what happened on the Mount of Transfiguraiton or to say that it somehow wasn’t real, just a dream with no real meaning. They are highly trained at this. This is word of God, written by Human beings yes, but God himself is the primary author. Whether Jesus appeared with Elijiah and Moses to Peter, James and John physically, or in a vision, doesn’t really matter. It was real to them, God was telling them something, and it was important enough for God to put it in the Bible so that we could know it as well.

The whole Book of Revelation is “Just” a vision. Does that mean that it was not important? Does that mean that it is not real? Does that mean that it does not have great importance to us?

The fact is that Jesus DID appear with Elijiah and Moses, transfigured on the mountain. All three present saw it at the same time. Whether it was a vision or not is not relevant. And it happened on a mountain, where very important things happen in the Bible, like Moses receiving the law and Jesus preaching the Sermon on the Mount.

And no Jehovah’s Witness has any right to tell any Christian about anything in the Bible, either what the Bible says or what it means. They who change the words of God to suit their own cult practices and beliefs have no right to preach to anyone about the true meaning of the Bible.

My response to the JW is…

Get behind me, Satan; Never suggest vain thoughts to me.
The cup you offer is evil;
Drink the poison yourself!

…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

-Tim-

I’d can’t exactly respond negatively like that, lol. The guy is my best friend. He admits that it is a very significant passage, but the point he was trying to make is that a revelation is something to happen in the future(unless I’m mistaken). I’m not sure if referring to future events of the entire book of Revelation will favor my arguement of something happening in the present.

 

[promethius95945]

I’d can’t exactly respond negatively like that, lol. The guy is my best friend. He admits that it is a very significant passage, but the point he was trying to make is that a revelation is something to happen in the future(unless I’m mistaken). I’m not sure if referring to future events of the entire book of Revelation will favor my arguement of something happening in the present.

Revelation doesn’t JUST refer to future events. It is also the lexicon of Catholic worship and deals VERY LARGELY with the present. I would suggest you read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper: Mass as Heaven on Earth” for a greater understanding of Revelation.

Second, if it was JUST a vision, what does it mean or signify? Heck, I even agree with him that Elijah and Moses weren’t there PHYSICALLY… but then again, they don’t have to be corporeal in order for this passage to indicate the eternal communion with the saints in heaven (another thing which Revelation backs up).

Jesus went to the mountain to CONVERSE with Moses and Elijah. He considered it important enough as a teaching moment for the church that He deliberately brought disciples with Him. The Holy Spirit and, through His action, the disciples who authored the gospels, thought this moment significant enough to record in the Bible. There is no clarification that the OBVIOUS MEANING (that we have communion with the Saints in heaven) is false.

So, if Jesus deliberately took the disciples to witness this and they recorded it in a way that is so deceptive to the billions of catholics throughout history, that means that either God is a willfull deceiver for such an action, or that God is incompetent when it comes to understanding the message He is broadcasting through His actions. Since we know that God is neither a willful deceiver nor incompetent, we must realize that the OBVIOUS MEANING is correct.

 

[T_More]

A key point about JW theology needs to be made here. Putting aside whether the Transfiguration was “just a vision” or not, the JW’s teach that everyone who was dead before Christ annointed the 144,000 at Penetcost (which is a whole other can of worms) are only sleeping and not conscious of anything. They have always taught the patriarchs of the OT would be resurrected to a “paradise earth” (a term that exists nowhere in the bible), and since they were not there at Pentecost, they would not have a heavenly hope. If a JW says that the Transfiguration is a future event, how could Moses and Elijah see and speak with Jesus, since he’ll be in heaven and they (Moses and Elijah) will be resurrected here on earth? Did not Christ say that Abraham rejoiced to see his day? The mental gymnastics floor routine they have to go through to get around these things is so very thin. It’s a tangled web they weave, for when one tells a lie when “interpreting” the bible on one hand, they then have to tell 10 other ones to cover it on the other. This is why the bible had to be “transliterated” by them in the 1950’s. There are just too many mine fields for them using any other version.

 

[thecone137]

Revelation doesn’t JUST refer to future events. It is also the lexicon of Catholic worship and deals VERY LARGELY with the present. I would suggest you read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper: Mass as Heaven on Earth” for a greater understanding of Revelation.

Second, if it was JUST a vision, what does it mean or signify? Heck, I even agree with him that Elijah and Moses weren’t there PHYSICALLY… but then again, they don’t have to be corporeal in order for this passage to indicate the eternal communion with the saints in heaven (another thing which Revelation backs up).

Jesus went to the mountain to CONVERSE with Moses and Elijah. He considered it important enough as a teaching moment for the church that He deliberately brought disciples with Him. The Holy Spirit and, through His action, the disciples who authored the gospels, thought this moment significant enough to record in the Bible. There is no clarification that the OBVIOUS MEANING (that we have communion with the Saints in heaven) is false.

So, if Jesus deliberately took the disciples to witness this and they recorded it in a way that is so deceptive to the billions of catholics throughout history, that means that either God is a willfull deceiver for such an action, or that God is incompetent when it comes to understanding the message He is broadcasting through His actions. Since we know that God is neither a willful deceiver nor incompetent, we must realize that the OBVIOUS MEANING is correct.

I grabbed this passage from a Catholic commentary on Matthew which seems to convey the author’s original intention(with imprematur):

*Jesus Is Transfigured and Instructs His Disciples Matthew

17:1-27 The transfiguration scene is narrated from the disciples’ point of view: Jesus was transfigured “before them,” Moses and Elijah “appeared to them,” the cloud “cast a shadow over them,” and the heavenly voice addressed them.158 Clearly, Christ displays his glory for the sake of Peter, James, and John in a way that serves to deepen their understanding of his identity and mission at this crucial juncture in his ministry. What these three disciples saw and heard on the mountain would have reminded them of what happened to Moses at Mount Sinai. In Exod 24 Moses led three of his close associates up that high mountain (Exod 24:9) that was then covered by God’s glory in the form of a cloud for six days (Exod 24:16). On the seventh day, the divine voice called out from the cloud and spoke to Moses (Exod 24:16). Moreover, during Israel’s stay at Sinai, Moses would enter the cloud atop the mountain to talk to God, and when he left his face would shine, reflecting God’s glory and leaving the people in awe (Exod 34:29-30). Similarly, Jesus singles out three of his apostles and leads them up a high mountain that is overshadowed by the cloud of God’s glory. As at Sinai, a heavenly voice calls out from the cloud on the seventh day (see Matt 17:1). As Moses’ face shone, so Jesus’ face shines brightly; as the people at Sinai were left in awe, so the apostles at the end of the scene are lying prostrate, greatly afraid. These parallels reinforce a theme Matthew has already developed: Jesus comes as a new Moses to deliver God’s people. But Matthew also emphasizes that, in Jesus, something greater than Moses is here. Whereas Moses received divine revelation at Sinai, Jesus himself is revealed by God to the disciples. The scene underscores that Jesus is no mere human mediator like Moses; he is the Son of God, who appears not with a reflected glory but a glory that is his own. The disciples soon will see their master betrayed, arrested, condemned, and crucified. Here Jesus gives three of them an opportunity to see his glory, in order to prepare them for this supreme trial of their faith (17:1-8). The scene reveals to them—and to the readers of Matthew—that the Son of God on the mountain of transfiguration is the same Son of Man who will suffer and be killed on a hill in Jerusalem (17:9-13). *
**Mitch, Curtis (2010). Gospel of Matthew, The (Kindle Locations 4421-4422). Baker Academic. Kindle Edition. **

Now granted, I’m not saying any other meaning cannot be pulled from it, but this seems to be the obvious one instead of demonstrating how Jesus permits us to communicate with saints.

 

[thecone137]

A key point about JW theology needs to be made here. Putting aside whether the Transfiguration was “just a vision” or not, the JW’s teach that everyone who was dead before Christ annointed the 144,000 at Penetcost (which is a whole other can of worms) are only sleeping and not conscious of anything. They have always taught the patriarchs of the OT would be resurrected to a “paradise earth” (a term that exists nowhere in the bible), and since they were not there at Pentecost, they would not have a heavenly hope. If a JW says that the Transfiguration is a future event, how could Moses and Elijah see and speak with Jesus, since he’ll be in heaven and they (Moses and Elijah) will be resurrected here on earth? Did not Christ say that Abraham rejoiced to see his day? The mental gymnastics floor routine they have to go through to get around these things is so very thin. It’s a tangled web they weave, for when one tells a lie when “interpreting” the bible on one hand, they then have to tell 10 other ones to cover it on the other. This is why the bible had to be “transliterated” by them in the 1950’s. There are just too many mine fields for them using any other version.

I am aware of their theology, history, bible, and preconcieved notions they bring to the table when interpreting this passage. I was just trying to find out how the greek word horama can mean Moses and Elijah were actually there in spirit and not a result of a revelation Christ revealed to the apostles while they were awake. I have Tim Staples defending your faith dvd, and he goes right to this passage when defending the communion of saints. I thought I was doing good by following his lead, but if you suggest I should be starting elsewhere in the Bible, please show me where.

 

[Mintaka]

A “miracle” (miraculum) is something that is seen and wondered at (mirare).

A “spectacle” is something that is seen and is worth seeing.

A “vision” is something seen. It can be something mystically present only, or something that is “really there” for everyone to see, a wonderful sight.

If you see Jesus Christ suddenly expose His Glory to you, that’s really there. It’s more really there than the Apostles. It’s a glimpse of the eternal reality. Nobody in Scriptures ever said that the shekinah-glory, the doxa, was something that was only in some lucky mystical Jewish guy’s head. Everybody saw the “pillar of smoke and pillar of fire”, the cloud in the Temple, the light and cloud on top of Mount Sinai, and even the perpetual sort of reflection of light glowing from Moses’ face. That’s something “real” seen with the bodily eyes, not just with the image centers in your brain. God is perfectly capable of intruding His eternal, spiritual Glory into the world of matter. Heck, that’s about half of the Old Testament right there!

Now, next to that, Moses and Elijah are kinda like nothing on the scale of miracles of divine power and revelation! But they really are there, because it fulfills prophecy. Elijah has to come back to Israel as the forerunner of the Messiah, and Moses legendarily was also supposed to come back. Sure, John the Baptist was a type of Elijah and took up his role (heh, his mantle). But you see that God fulfills His promises down to the smallest detail, by bringing Moses and Elijah (both assumed bodily into Heaven, in Jewish tradition) back to Israel, at least for a short time. If they had only been images, that pretty clearly would not have counted. (And of course, JWs have a vested interest in it not counting.)

So yeah, those three apostles saw a sight worth seeing, all right. But it was a material visit from the Prophets, not just an immaterial vision or a visit from ghosts. Peter clearly thought that he could pitch tents/make booths for these guys, and that these guys would actually get use out of such a thing. You don’t try to make separate housing options available for immaterial beings.

(And before anybody says, “What about making a tent for God?”, I repeat that God was apparently running around clearly present with the Israelites, both in Exodus and Temple days. He was making Himself felt in the material world, not just passing out mystical visions. He didn’t have to “take up space”, but He told them that as a favor and sign to them, He would. So yeah, He hung out on the Throne of the Mercy Seat, even though He was hardly restricted to matter. But anyway… human prophets aren’t God, it’s not going to be the same thing.)

 

[Mintaka]

Okay, more info.

“Horama” is apparently used in the Gospels and Acts because “horama” and “horamata” was used in the Septuagint to talk about parallel OT events. Which makes sense - that’s the usual procedure.

Apparently in Greek literature, a “horama” is usually some sort of extremely important message from the gods that comes to you, either as a god in your dreams/mystical experience, or in waking life as just a god come to visit and tell you stuff. It was an important direction given to a hero, and generally concerned things like founding a city.

So if the Jewish translators of the Septuagint chose to translate things like Abraham and the burning bush and Mt. Sinai with “horama”, they probably meant to point out that it was an important theophany moment.

“Horama” is apparently used in the OT to translate the Hebrew word “mareh”. Mareh means sight and vision also, but it also means “face”. In a horama, then, the Lord shows you something of His face.

 

[Mintaka]

It’s also used to translate “machazeh”, which really is a vision-vision; “mar’ah”, which seems to mean “image”, “mirror”, “vision”; “mow’rah”, which means fear or a terrifying thing…

Deuteronomy 28:34 is clear in context, that the Israelites will be driven mad by the historical misfortunes that they will see (mar’eh). Not a vision, alas for them.

 

[stevekehl]

Has God given a vision to three people anywhere else in the Bible. Jesus traveling the Emmaus was not a vision to the two disciples, Jesus appearance to the apostles was not a vision. This it s technique the JW use to fool people. If you start accepting that the Transfiguration wasn’t physically real, then it’s easier to accept that Jesus post resurection appearances were physically real. One question I do have, how did Peter, James, and John know what Moses and Elijah looked like? Did they ask their names? Did Jesus introduce them, did they shake hands? The Scriptures clearly state when prophets and apostles have visions Numbers 24:16, 1 Kings 22:17, Jeremiah 24:1, Ezekial 40:3, Acts 10:30, to name a few.
If you want to point out some verses against soul sleep to your friend try Rev. 6:9, Rev. 20:, 2 Corinthians 5:8

 

[Mintaka]

Ecclesiastes 6:9 is explicitly a matter of physical sight (“mar’eh”) being translated as “horama”. In fact, the quote is, “What the eyes see is better than the wandering of the spirit.”

It’s also used to translate massa’, which is literally “burden” but usually is a poetic way to say “prophecy”; chazuwth “glimpse, look, striking appearance, revelation, vision”; leylya’ chezev, “night vision”; millah (“word, command, discourse, subject matter, matter”); and chazown (“mental sight, dream, revelation, vision”). It’s added to clarify “chozeh chazah” (what the “seers see”).

 

[thecone137]

Has God given a vision to three people anywhere else in the Bible. Jesus traveling the Emmaus was not a vision to the two disciples, Jesus appearance to the apostles was not a vision. This it s technique the JW use to fool people. If you start accepting that the Transfiguration wasn’t physically real, then it’s easier to accept that Jesus post resurection appearances were physically real. One question I do have, how did Peter, James, and John know what Moses and Elijah looked like? Did they ask their names? Did Jesus introduce them, did they shake hands? The Scriptures clearly state when prophets and apostles have visions Numbers 24:16, 1 Kings 22:17, Jeremiah 24:1, Ezekial 40:3, Acts 10:30, to name a few.
If you want to point out some verses against soul sleep to your friend try Rev. 6:9, Rev. 20:, 2 Corinthians 5:8

I don’t know how they knew it was Moses and Elijah, which causes me to fall back on the commentary I quoted earlier regarding the OT MVP’s handing off the baton to Christ. I’m not sure what you mean by the Revelation passages and they have a work around for 2 Cor 5:8. I know I could just throw tradition at them, but I’m just trying to work with this particular transfiguration scripture…I was browsing through my E-sword and for some reason I left out this horama passage in acts:

Act 12:9 And he went out and followed him; he did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. (RSV)

This was an angel breaking Peter out of prison. My curiosity is the comparison between “real” and “vision”. What do you think?

 

[hazcompat]

Jeremiah 15:1 Yahweh said to me, 'Even if Moses and Samuel pleaded before me, I could not sympathise with this people! Drive them out of my sight; away with them!

peace

 

[thecone137]

Ecclesiastes 6:9 is explicitly a matter of physical sight (“mar’eh”) being translated as “horama”. In fact, the quote is, “What the eyes see is better than the wandering of the spirit.”

It’s also used to translate massa’, which is literally “burden” but usually is a poetic way to say “prophecy”; chazuwth “glimpse, look, striking appearance, revelation, vision”; leylya’ chezev, “night vision”; millah (“word, command, discourse, subject matter, matter”); and chazown (“mental sight, dream, revelation, vision”). It’s added to clarify “chozeh chazah” (what the “seers see”).

I read your other posts and thanks for the responses. Are you trying to say Horama replaced different words with multiple meanings?

 

[raymond_king]

I read your other posts and thanks for the responses. Are you trying to say Horama replaced different words with multiple meanings?

The Transufiguation: The Cloud embrased all. Old and New. Elijah, (john the baptist) who turned the fathers to the sons and sons tho the fathers to reunite the tribes. Moses who formed a people in the Image to bring about the savior. Now was his time to reunite all the world in the Image of God. His march from the hermonities through samaria unto judea giving peace to the Gentiles by the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. Ray

 

[T_More]

I am aware of their theology, history, bible, and preconcieved notions they bring to the table when interpreting this passage. I was just trying to find out how the greek word horama can mean Moses and Elijah were actually there in spirit and not a result of a revelation Christ revealed to the apostles while they were awake. I have Tim Staples defending your faith dvd, and he goes right to this passage when defending the communion of saints. I thought I was doing good by following his lead, but if you suggest I should be starting elsewhere in the Bible, please show me where.

Tim Staples would know Greek better than I, so I would defer to him. He knows what he’s doing in dealing with JW’s.

 

[TimothyH]

I’d can’t exactly respond negatively like that, lol. The guy is my best friend. He admits that it is a very significant passage, but the point he was trying to make is that a revelation is something to happen in the future(unless I’m mistaken). I’m not sure if referring to future events of the entire book of Revelation will favor my arguement of something happening in the present.

But realize that the Jehovah’s Witness cult is not the work of God. They deny the divinity of Christ. I’m sure your friend is a very nice person. I’m also positive that they are under the influence of a cult, which the Jehovah’s Witnesses are.

And realize that no matter how friendly you are with this person, there will always be an agenda to convert you. They will be very patient, and willing to even stop trying to convert you, to shake the dust off their feet until the time is right. But the agenda will always be there.

And in your friend’s eyes, no matter how close you seem, you are an outsider. You are not one of them.

-Tim-

 

[promethius]

I grabbed this passage from a Catholic commentary on Matthew which seems to convey the author’s original intention(with imprematur):

*Jesus Is Transfigured and Instructs His Disciples Matthew *

*17:1-27 The transfiguration scene is narrated from the disciples’ point of view: Jesus was transfigured “before them,” Moses and Elijah “appeared to them,” the cloud “cast a shadow over them,” and the heavenly voice addressed them.158 Clearly, Christ displays his glory for the sake of Peter, James, and John in a way that serves to deepen their understanding of his identity and mission at this crucial juncture in his ministry. What these three disciples saw and heard on the mountain would have reminded them of what happened to Moses at Mount Sinai. In Exod 24 Moses led three of his close associates up that high mountain (Exod 24:9) that was then covered by God’s glory in the form of a cloud for six days (Exod 24:16). On the seventh day, the divine voice called out from the cloud and spoke to Moses (Exod 24:16). Moreover, during Israel’s stay at Sinai, Moses would enter the cloud atop the mountain to talk to God, and when he left his face would shine, reflecting God’s glory and leaving the people in awe (Exod 34:29-30). Similarly, Jesus singles out three of his apostles and leads them up a high mountain that is overshadowed by the cloud of God’s glory. As at Sinai, a heavenly voice calls out from the cloud on the seventh day (see Matt 17:1). As Moses’ face shone, so Jesus’ face shines brightly; as the people at Sinai were left in awe, so the apostles at the end of the scene are lying prostrate, greatly afraid. These parallels reinforce a theme Matthew has already developed: Jesus comes as a new Moses to deliver God’s people. But Matthew also emphasizes that, in Jesus, something greater than Moses is here. Whereas Moses received divine revelation at Sinai, Jesus himself is revealed by God to the disciples. The scene underscores that Jesus is no mere human mediator like Moses; he is the Son of God, who appears not with a reflected glory but a glory that is his own. The disciples soon will see their master betrayed, arrested, condemned, and crucified. Here Jesus gives three of them an opportunity to see his glory, in order to prepare them for this supreme trial of their faith (17:1-8). The scene reveals to them—and to the readers of Matthew—that the Son of God on the mountain of transfiguration is the same Son of Man who will suffer and be killed on a hill in Jerusalem (17:9-13). *
**Mitch, Curtis (2010). Gospel of Matthew, The (Kindle Locations 4421-4422). Baker Academic. Kindle Edition. **

Now granted, I’m not saying any other meaning cannot be pulled from it, but this seems to be the obvious one instead of demonstrating how Jesus permits us to communicate with saints.

I agree with all of that, of course. Perhaps I should have been more clear: the simple meaning of the particular fact that Moses and Elijah are shown to the disciples. It was entirely possible to show the glory of God and Christ in His radience without those two needing to be seen. So why, specifically, would God CHOOSE to show Elijah and Moses to the disciples?