Pre- mid- or post-?
Submitted by chadrory on Sat, 2007-12-22 23:11.
I've been discussing the tribulation issue with some friends of mine this evening... We are all over the place. Every one of us supports one of the other. Me, well, I am of the opinion that Jesus is coming back. Plain and simple. I would love to hear your opinion.
Chad.
Transfiguration:
What Jesus was then was a man like us. What he is now is a spirit creature, and the second-most powerful one, at that. What we might call the 'prefiguration' gave his closest disciples a preview of the anointed and appointed King of the kingdom.
That's how Peter understood it, and was careful to pass that along, years later, in a General Epistle to your "kingdom":
No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we acquainted YOU with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it was by having become eyewitnesses of his magnificence. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when words such as these were borne to him by the magnificent glory: "This is my son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved." Yes, these words we heard borne from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain. Consequently we have the prophetic word [made] more sure; . . . (2 Peter 1:16-19)
So he got encouragement from it, not mysticism. He goes on to apply the story to those who came too late to know Jesus personally or were too far away to have known the first disciples:
However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. . . (2 Peter 2:1)
Occam and I are satisfied with the not inconsiderable practical value of the transfiguration and Peter's passdown.
BTW if Peter's word choices were good, his understanding of the scene puts the kibosh on the Trinity. Oh, well, scriptural evidence never has stopped Trinitarians. :-)
Unless etc. all scriptures are NWT
Doug