sschlichter

Divine endorsement of what? What did God's endorsement mean to a 1st century Jew? How did Moses and Elijah give him legitimacy? Why was this passage following the prediction?

Steve Schlichter

Decypher

Of Jesus. Of Jesus being a true prophet or whatever.

The same as it would mean today? If God endorses someone, then that person is a true prophet of God.

Putting him with Moses could be a way of trying to give him legitimacy, because of course Moses had legitimacy in that tradition. Moses was a true prophet of God.

Well if the prediction isn't talking about the Transfiguration, then it just happens to be the case that the Transfiguration comes next. That it comes next, isn't much of an argument from context that Matthew 16:28 has to be talking about it.

sschlichter

It is strange to me that you do not feel immediate textual context is relevant. I cannot imagine you read any other book in this fashion. It is not only an argument, but it is how you get the argument of the author.

It is also strange to me that your "or whatever" description is a lack of regard for cultural context as well. I am not sure removing the authors intentions and the condition of the audience is a good way to get any meaning out of a text. There is quite an extensive list of differences between a prophet and the "promised one" of the OT. The anointed one is a King and a King usually has a Kingdom. A Kingdom, as you know is also the subject of the verses prior to the transfiguration. I think you will find the "scary cloud" and other images in the story convey parallels to some of the other concepts you might have thought are peculiar to the Olivet Discourse.

No need to develop a new eschatology on the basis of impatience, your preterist friends just need to read the text.

~Steve

Decypher

The immediate context is often important in understanding the meaning of something. But in the case we are talking about, you do not have much of an argument from context. The fact that something comes next in the story, it does not follow that the previous verse has to be talking about it.

What I am saying here, it would apply to the Bible and also any other book. I am not reading the Bible differently to how I would read other books.

I did a comparison with the Olivet Discourse, and I was able to show a strong correspondence between them.

You did a comparison with the Transfiguration, and you completely failed to show a correspondence. All you could give is your own speculations that such and such means something about the kingdom, such and such means that it had "come with power". But you can't produce verses which clearly say so.

If a Christian can't accept preterism, or can't accept that Jesus is a false prophet, then they have to make up something for those verses. They have to pretend that the verses (or 28 at least) are talking about the Transfiguration, or Pentecost etc.

But the verses match up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse, so it is obvious enough what they are talking about.

sschlichter

Well, I did not have to look far to make something up, this powerful appearing of the Son of Man starts with the phrase 6 days later that transitions right from the end of Matt 16:28. (I am sure you realize that the chapter breaks are not in the original.

I would suggest that you did not attempt to understand the transfiguration because you think it has no historical attack points for you. However, it is not about a 'prophet or whatever'. It was a demonstration of God's presence and power that was obvious to the disciples that fell in fear when they witnessed it before they saw death. (as predicted in Matt 16:28).

~Steve