Did Jesus lie ?

I agree that Matthew 16:28 and the relative verses in Mark and Luke do not support that Jesus lied.That said, I don't agree that your presentation shows Biblical support that the verse refers to the transfiguration. It's nice for a sermon, but not in understanding what the plain text is saying; which I think is what Brian and Legend are looking at and what I look at in Bible Study. (They'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

quote:

---

This answer appears very shallow on the surface, until we recognize the ”three witnesses’ (1John 5:8) of spirit (Elijah), blood (Christ) and water (Moses).

---

1 John 5:8 does not associate Elijah with spirit or Moses with water and neither does the transfiguration narrative.

quote:

---

Christ took Peter, John and James up to the Mount of Transfiguration to bear witness to the events of Revelation 21:1+ and New Jerusalem, except in the persons (Moses and Elijah) typifying that ”triune’ Kingdom becoming ”one.’

---

Again no scriptural support that Peter, John, and James saw anything more on the mount than what was described or that their purpose there was for anything more than to see what they saw.

quote:

---

Therefore, He who knew “no sin” (2Cor. 5:21) was simply prophesying (Matt. 16:28) about three of His disciples witnessing His ”Transfiguration’ to start the very next chapter of Matthew.

---

When one takes the time to look up the scriptures you provided, the transfiguration does not come up clearly as the event expected in Matthew 16:28.Matthew 16:28 and the corresponding verses in Mark and Luke by stating that some would not taste death implies that some standing there would taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Clearly none of the disciples did before the transfiguration.The verses in Matthew and Luke seem to have only his disciples listening, but Mark has Jesus talking to a crowd. (Mark 8:34) We have nothing to tell us if anyone in Mark's crowd died before the transfiguration.This commentary by John Gill via Crosswalk.com also does not agree that the transfiguration is what Jesus is referring to. So while I don't feel that the verses support that Jesus lied, I don't feel that they target the transfiguration either.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

In other words, you require an explanation from ”their’ understanding of Scripture and from ”their’ preconceived ideas on how these “Son of Man” teachings are to be interpreted.

---

No, I'm explaining to you that I look at the plain text and if you wish to make your point and show me (or others) that your preconceived ideas are more correct than the plain reading of the text, then you need to show that the plain text supports your premise.

quote:

---

Scripture is providing the spirit/water/blood ”pattern’ existing between all the principals of every three witness group testifying throughout His Word. You have a spirit, body (water) and soul (blood), just as a family has a father (spirit), mother (water) and seed (blood). A diagram showing some of these witnesses looks like this:

---

But where does the Bible support that Elijah is designated as spirit and Moses as water, etc. I can't get into the rest of the table, since it will drag this off topic. Please just address Moses and Elijah.

quote:

---

Neither does your stature in Christ today affect a single thing He has also given me to see.

---

Just as your stature in Christ doesn't affect what I have been given to see, but if you are going to participate in a debate on this board, you need to address the arguments presented; otherwise you are just sermonizing and that doesn't help the debate progress.

quote:

---

Again, my presentations are given for the ”unbiased’ third party readers seeking ”the truth’ on this topic and NOT for those with an agenda for something else.

---

Then you are not here to debate which is the purpose of this board.

quote:

---

We agree (Dawn and Terral = for Phat). If these things were ”clearly’ laid out in Scripture, we would not be having this conversation in the first place. Since Christ knew ”no sin’ (2Cor. 5:21), then He is obviously NOT LYING in Matthew 16:28.

---

So we agree that the transfiguration is not supported by scripture as the event being referred to in Matthew 16:28. Interesting way to determine Jesus wasn't lying, which I already agreed that I don't think he was; but it doesn't mean that he was referring to the transfiguration.

quote:

---

The remainder all died without seeing the vision (Matt. 17:9) of the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.

---

The text doesn't say they would see a vision. It said they would see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.Since Jesus told all his disciples about the End of the Age (Matthew 24), I feel that the verse in question was referring to that event.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I was afraid that was the direction you were going with those. Unfortunately, being drawn out of the water doesn't make Moses part of the three that testify. (1 John 5)

quote:

---

Elijah is the only Jew in the Old Testament NOT to see death, as he “went up by a whirlwind to heaven.” 2Kings 2:11. He is typical of the ”angels’ who never see death.

---

Again that doesn't make him related to what is said in 1 John 5 or show that Matthew 16:28 refers to the transfiguration.

quote:

---

Christ only disclosed that ”some’ of those hearing His words in Matt. 16:28 would ”see’ something. How that would be carried out is revealed in the following chapter.

---

They saw Jesus change and they heard God's approval of Jesus.But in Matthew it says they would see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom. The narrative of the transfiguration doesn't describe that the kingdome had come.

quote:

---

Why borrow context from events in Matt. 24 to explain Matt. 17, when Scripture establishes that for you in Matt. 16:28? My explanation requires the readers to simply read the end of Matthew 16 and then the first eight verses of Matthew 17 for the answer.

---

You already agreed in Message 70 that the scriptures do not clearly point to the transfiguration as the event expected in Matthew 16:28.Stating that some people would not die before seeing the kingdom, implies a longer period of time than six days. Jesus talks of the coming of the kingdom in the latter part of Matthew.The transfiguration doesn't speak of the arrival of the kingdom.In Act 1:6, the disciples asked "Lord are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?If what you say is true, then Peter, John, and James would have already known. Since they (the three) were allowed to tell about what happened on the mountain after the resurrection, they (the three) wouldn't have had the question and Jesus still said it is not for them (disciples) to know the times or dates.The behavior of the disciples doesn't show that any of them had seen the kingdom any sooner or that the kingdom had come any sooner or that only three had seen anything pertaining to the kingdom any earlier than the rest of the disciples.The transfiguration still doesn't seem to be the event spoken of in Matthew 16:28.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

In other words, God has no power or ability to teach Dawn anything through the types, shadows, copies and patterns of Scripture.

---

Actually it means you haven't clearly shown me that scripture supports your position and blaming God for your inability to show me how scripture supports your position does not further this discussion.

quote:

---

However, a stanch “Literalist” believes ”their’ current understanding is all that exists, which is like saying 6th grade Arithmetic is the only kind of math, because that is all a twelve year old can see.

---

By characterizing me as a literalist with closed eyes. (which I'm not) you are avoiding the issue.The originator seems to be looking at the "plain text" meaning of the verse. Plain text does not mean literal (as in not figurative or metaphorical). I use the Jewish definition for how I look at Bible scripture (not speaking for Legend or Brian). Hopefully this will help you understand my position. Plain text reading does not ignore figurative, symbolic and allegorical language, but we attempt to understand those tools within the timeframe of the author; not today's culture.Now getting back to your position on the topic.In Message 61 you stated: In Message 68 I already agreed that Matthew 16:28 and the relative verses in Mark and Luke do not support that Jesus lied, but I disagreed with your position that they refer to the transfiguration. What you have given me in response is Midrash or sermon. You seem to be taking two or more unrelated verses to create a third meaning, which is fine when you are writing a sermon or teaching today's take on the Bible.I even provided a standard Christian commentary that also didn't associate Matthew 16:28 with the transfiguration. In Message 70 you place the Christian commentator in with scoffers. Disagreement with you does not make one a scoffer, it just means we disagree with your position.In Message 70 you agreed with the statement I made in Message 68. I don't see the point in making the comment to the crowd if they aren't going to understand it or benefit. Your argument makes it a prophecy that only three were allowed to witness, but couldn't speak of until after the resurrection. It didn't seem to be important enough to comment on even after the resurrection.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Peter, John and James are seeing a ”vision’ (Matt. 17:9) that Christ told them, “Tell the vision to NO ONE until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.” We left the boundaries of a “plain text” explanation in the moment a ”vision’ with Elijah and Moses entered the picture.

---

No we haven't left the boundaries of a plain text reading. What Peter, John and James saw was Elijah and Moses talking with Jesus and they heard a voice from a cloud (presumably God) say that Jesus was his son and that he was well pleased.This vision follows not long after Jesus asked them who people say he is. The vision gave Peter, John and James confirmation that Jesus was the Son of God, not Elijah or John the Baptist or Moses or one of the prophets.The vision doesn't show or speak of the Son of Man coming into His Kingdom. How does what they saw speak of a kingdom?

quote:

---

Very good! Then please explain for the benefit of everyone here what figurative examples of Christ, Elijah and Moses symbolize on the Mountain of the vision. GL.

---

They represent themselves. Again their presence shows that Jesus is not Elijah or Moses, two of the most important figures in Judaism of the time.

quote:

---

Please show us how a ”plain text’ theologian makes a case for something else.

---

I gave my position in Message 78.

quote:

---

BTW, you received ”my’ explanations on how these Matthew 16:28-17:8 verses are to be interpreted apart from the giving of any sermon.

---

And I've shown you that I don't understand the connection you are making or that scripture you provide supports that the people that had actually heard the statement by Jesus expected to see a vision or that the three who did see the vision felt they had seen the coming of the kingdom.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Actually we can't even prove that Jesus made the statement, let alone who may or may not have understood it.It is considered that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a resouce.IMO, the book of Matthew is a satire and therefore Jesus cannot be held accountable for what the author states he said.The author of Luke supposedly did some investigating (Luke 1:3) before he wrote his version of Jesus' bio, but still pulled most of his info from Mark.So really the Book of Mark should be the one looked at. Now it wasn't written by Jesus and the author is unknown, but it was supposedly written about 65-80ce. In that timeframe it is still possible that the followers of "The Way" were still expecting the kingdom of God to manifest itself on Earth.Now in the Book of Mark before Jesus supposedly predicted his death and before the transfiguration, Jesus had asked his disciples "Who do people say I am?" (Mark 8:27). He is only talking with his disciples here. I'm sure you know the reply: Some say John the Baptist, Elijah or one of the prophets. This is when Peter answers, "You are the Christ." Then Jesus supposedly warned them not to tell anyone about him. So at this point since all his disciples were there when Peter spoke, they knew that Jesus was the Christ and none were allowed to tell anyone.Later in chapter 8 Jesus calls the crowd to him along with his disciples and says, and then the statement in question: Now given that the manuscript was not divided into chapters (abt 1214) and verses (abt 1551) at the time it was written, what we have in Mark 9:1 was a continuation of the previous episode.I'm sure the crowd did know what Jesus was talking about. He was talking about the coming of God's kingdom (not a vision), which is what Jesus was talking about just before he inhaled to start a new sentence.I don't feel that the audience would have understood that Jesus was speaking of a vision that was to happen within the next six days.The vision seen by Peter, James and John only confirmed what Peter had said previously about Jesus being the Christ. Which Archer explained much better than I did in Message 107.It did not depict the coming of God's kingdom.That's why I don't feel the verse refers to the transfiguration and I don't feel that Jesus lied.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

In the KJV you see that verse 9:2 starts off with the word "and". It is a clear continuation of the story, and an explanation to what is meant by seeing the kingdom of God with power.

---

That's where different translations cause problems. I use an NIV Study Bible the most and it starts: After six days....So I went to an NIV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear Bible and checked out the verse. The Greek word "kai" for "and" is there. Just reminds me that man does mess with the translations.Even rereading with the "and" there the transfiguration vision doesn't describe the coming of the kingdom of God. It is still centered around confirming who Jesus is to three of his disciples and confirms what was said earlier to the disciples in 8:27-30.Jesus says that if anyone is ashamed of him and his words in that generation, then the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father's glory; which is a physical event.When he tells them that some would taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power, I don't see that the vision of Jesus with Moses and Elijah fits the bill.I think I understand what you are saying. You are equating seeing the movie trailer with seeing the movie.I don't understand the transfiguration narrative itself to be speaking of the kingdom of God at all. I see it as confirmation of who Jesus is.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

My first impressions, and what I still stand by, are that "this generation" means the generation of the Holy Spirit.

---

Looking at Mark 13, I don't agree. Jesus is talking to some of his disciples and giving them instructions. He is very specifically telling them (Peter, James, John, and Andrew) what to watch for.Remember that only the Father knows the day and hour. I think this is what supports Legend's thoughts that Jesus was mistaken and not intentionally misleading his disciples. I would think that those who claim Jesus is a liar, need to show that the words were spoken with the purpose of deception. I haven't seen that yet. Lack of fruition doesn't necessarily constitute a lie.In 2 Peter 1, they did witness his majesty on the mountain. The vision and voice confirmed who Jesus was. But they didn't witness the coming of the kingdom. See 3 Peter. Then the author explains: The implication is that God has held off the coming of his kingdom because not everyone has repented.The Holy Spirit is a gift from God (Acts2:38-39). While you may want to view "this generation" to refer to the generation of the Holy Spirit; generation implies a 30-40 year period, not over 1000 years. The term "age" would have been the word to cover time longer than ones lifetime. (end of the age, age to come).So again, while I agree that the text does not support that Jesus lied; I don't agree that Mark 9:1 and mirror verses refer to the transfiguration. I also would not agree that "this generation" (Mark 13:29-30) refers to the Holy Spirit.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I would almost agree with you, except that He says "this generation" not "your generation". What is needed to be known is what He meant by the word "this".

---

Generation (genea) carries the meaning of a limited length of time, but generation also carries the meaning of a multitude of people living at the same time.If we look at the authors usage in Matthew we see that he is actually using the word generation to refer to the people of the time. But the author uses age (aion) when referring to a period of time that is probably longer than a generation or length unknown. I haven't looked into it, but I wonder how much the astrological age played a part in what they were describing as "end of the age." We are currently still in the astrological age that began before Jesus was born.There is no doubt in my mind that the author was referring to the people of the time when he used the word "generation" (genea). Notice in the lexicon if the word age is used as the translation: an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years. It is a limited time.He would have used the word for "age" (aion) if he were referring to an extremely long period of time and not the people.The author set the precedent for the usage.Generation refers to the people, not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is timeless. It has been around for many generations and many ages.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I think what Legend was saying that is making this interpretation unreasonable is why would Jesus say that only some of them would live (not taste death) when the transfiguration was only six days away.

---

Plus in Matthew, Jesus was only talking to his disciples and they had already learned earlier that he was the son of the living God. None of them died before the transfiguration so what was the point of mentioning death or for that matter only taking three disciples?I still don't think they go together.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Can we say that these are two different lies, or are they both covered by the same lie?

---

You keep saying lie and liar, but you haven't shown intent on the part of Jesus. Being wrong about something doesn't make someone a liar. It makes them wrong.In Message 158 Equinox pointed out to possibilities which I agree are the most probable. Have you found any evidence in the NT or outside writings of the time that thought Jesus was attempting to deceive his followers?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

it does if the person is god, and is therefor omniscient, and is therefor knows better.

---

God is not a human being and I don't contend that Jesus is God.Anymore in that direction would be another discussion.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Yes, I know they do. Fortunately it isn't my position to defend.I'm still waiting for Brian to show that Jesus intended to mislead. Message 165

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

You keep saying lie and liar, but you haven't shown intent on the part of Jesus.

​

It's an ongoing hypothesis

​

I'm keeping the concrete proof for the video deal.

---

In other words, you don't really have anything to support that Jesus spoke with intent to deceive.

quote:

---

Scientifically speaking, nothing is ever proven, so why claim that Jesus was a liar, or he was not?

​

I am only saying there is no proof that He was.

---

Exactly what we are trying to get Brian to come up with.Brian is the one who feels that Jesus lied, not Legend.Brian feels that the promised event did not happen and because it did not happen that Jesus lied.Legend (forgive me if I'm wrong) and I contend that lack of fruition does not constitute a lie.Brian has given his evidence as to why he feels the prediction did not happen, but he has not given evidence that shows intent to deceive, which is what constitutes a lie or liar.I agree that we have no proof that Jesus lied, whether one believes the event happened or not.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz