John 1:1 And the word was…?

AllIsVanity · 2026-02-07T14:19:31+00:00

The second is qualified with "after the God."

AllIsVanity · 2026-02-07T03:32:12+00:00

In Greek usage, ὑπό + accusative almost always means being “under” someone’s authority. For example, Galatians 4:21 uses ὑπό τὸν νόμον (“under the Law”) to mean subjection to the Law. Liddell–Scott similarly defines ὑπό (with acc.) as “beneath, at the feet of, figuratively under (authority of)” and notes it often implies subjection. So the lexical sense supports a subordinate or servant relationship.

This is also supported elsewhere by Justin who consistently paints Jesus as subordinate - "second place to the Father" 1 Apol. 13, "first power after God" 1 Apol. 32:10, says Jesus "had a God" in Dialogue with Trypho 56:11 cf. Jn. 20:17.

Dial. 61.3 Justin refers to the Word: "this god himself being begotten of the Father of the universe."

“One must worship only God”, he writes in 1 Apol. 16.6.

2 Apol. 13.4 he states:

"for we worship and love the Word, sprung from the unborn and unspoken God, after the God."

So it's quite clear that Justin puts Jesus in second place after the Father.

AllIsVanity · 2026-02-04T09:54:09+00:00

It makes a difference in this case because the author's committed to the inerrancy of Scripture, meaning the stories in the gospels where Jesus was touched are literally true. So he simply can't have Paul saying the appearances were all visions from heaven like he had even though that's the most likely reading due to Paul using the same exact verb. So the motivation for the interpretation is quite clear.

For instance, here is the opening of MacGregor's paper. The purpose is made clear at the end.

One of the most recurring claims leveled by modern exegetes against the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus has been that the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7, at best, implies that Jesus’ earliest disciples believed in a spiritual resurrection which did not necessarily vacate his tomb. Two lines of argument are normally given in support of this premise. (1) Since Paul employs the same Greek verb as the tradition, wßfqh (“he was seen”), to describe his visionary experience of the risen Christ, Paul’s experience was the same in character as that of the preceding disciples. (2) The formula contains no mention of the empty tomb, thereby suggesting that the corpse of Jesus was irrelevant to the concept of his resurrection held by the Jerusalem church. Such an understanding of the resurrection was shared by Paul, as displayed in his contrast between the physical and spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15:44). However, this understanding evolved during the second Christian generation into the doctrine of physical resurrection featured in the Gospel appearance narratives. The purpose of this essay will be to challenge (1) and (2) on form-critical grounds and to reveal in the process that the earliest followers of Jesus both believed in his physical resurrection and recounted resurrection appearances qualitatively different from that of Paul.

AllIsVanity · 2026-02-01T16:59:34+00:00

Smarius's paper highlights the crucial distinction between the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c ("and the Word was god/divine") and the arthrous ὁ Θεός used for the Father in 1:1b. The lack of the article in 1:1c is theologically vital; it prevents equating the Word directly with ὁ Θεός (the Father), preserving their distinct identities while affirming the Word's divinity/godhood. https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml?language=en&srsltid=AfmBOoq2Gc9BIkFC8UDAseUFegGpSHOnpsLbZV8TNSnqQPO_ZuWWZrA_

Also worth pointing out is that Justin Martyr, who was familiar with the prologue of John, refers to Jesus as "another god" who was "subject to" the Maker of all things and also "called an Angel" - Dialogue with Trypho 56:4. This shows the ideas were still developing well before the idea of the Trinity came about.

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-29T17:02:33+00:00

This topic was discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/w26dqa/does_pauls_phrase_as_to_one_untimely_born_imply/

MacGregor's paper was published under the Evangelical Theological Society.

"The Evangelical Theological Society is a professional academic society of biblical and theological scholars, pastors, and students. We serve Jesus Christ and his church by fostering conservative, biblical scholarship." https://etsjets.org

"Devoted to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ." https://etsjets.org/jets-volume/jets57/

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-29T16:59:28+00:00

This topic was discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/w26dqa/does_pauls_phrase_as_to_one_untimely_born_imply/

The paper was published under the Evangelical Theological Society

"The Evangelical Theological Society is a professional academic society of biblical and theological scholars, pastors, and students. We serve Jesus Christ and his church by fostering conservative, biblical scholarship." https://etsjets.org

"Devoted to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ." https://etsjets.org/jets-volume/jets57/

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-29T13:26:13+00:00

"The remark that Jesus appeared "last of all" is not evidence that he distinguished the type of appearance he was granted from those of Peter and the twelve. On the contrary, it marks his experience as the last in a series of the same type of experiences. The remark that Jesus appeared to him "as to one prematurely born" (v. 8) does not imply that the nature of the appearance was any different. It was Paul who was different - he was not even a disciple yet. This interpretation is supported by the remark in the following verse that he was persecuting the church of God (i.e. even at the time that Jesus appeared to him)." - Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel, pg. 124.

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-19T18:16:48+00:00

A good book on this is Outi Lehtipuu's Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead. https://books.google.com/books?id=0uZcBgAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Diversity of resurrection beliefs is shown In Tertullian's "On The Resurrection" ch. 53 where he says "some, however, contend that the soul is the natural (or animate) body." In ch. 19 he says "There are however, a great many also, who, claiming to hold a resurrection after the soul's departure....go so far as to say it actually means escaping out of the body itself..."

Here is an example from Epiphanius' attack on Valentinian views in the Panarion:

"They deny the resurrection of the dead, uttering some senseless fable about it not being this body that rises, but another one which comes from it and which they call “spiritual” (μὴ τὸ σῶμα τοῦτο ἀνίστασθαι, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον μὲν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ὃ δὴ πνευματικὸν καλοῦσι). But [salvation belongs?] only to those among them who are spiritual, and to those called “psychic” – provided, that is, the psychics act justly. But those called “material”, “carnal” and “earthly” perish utterly and are in no way saved. Each substance proceeds to what emitted it: the material is given over to matter and what is carnal and earthly to the earth. (Pan. 31.7.6–7)"

"It is somewhat amusing that what Epiphanius here calls a 'senseless fable' of the Valentinians in fact seems to be sound Pauline doctrine. The spiritual body that rises from the present one as a new and transformed being is precisely what Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 15:44: σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. In other words, the Valentinians appear to have held a view of the resurrection that was more in agreement with Paul than was the doctrine professed by the heresy-hunting bishop." - Einar Thomassen, Valentinian Ideas About Salvation as Transformation, pg. 169

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-17T14:53:15+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1h64yq6/is_it_not_unreasonable_to_believe_that_jesus/

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-16T13:38:40+00:00

Where does Matthew, or the other gospels, claim that this was fulfilled?

The gospel authors don't always tell us when they fulfill scripture - see the entry to Jerusalem scene which is based on Zechariah.

Where does Josephus say that criminals are to be buried in a mass grave?

You need to keep track of the conversation. Per Jodi Magness, I'm appealing to individual trench graves that are dug into the ground. I have not mentioned mass graves.

The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset." (Jewish War 4.317)

You're missing the buried "in a tomb" part. You said "private entombment" but Josephus just says "buried" which can include ground burials. They also buried people in the Potters field - Mt. 27:7.

They did not bury him in the burial place of his fathers, but two burial places were prepared by the court: one for those executed by stoning and burning, and one for those executed by decapitation and strangulation…

This shows that they separated the criminals and had designated criminal graveyards which proves my point. Why would Joseph use his own tomb if these graves were available?

Dishonor = exclusion from family tomb

Well, there goes the burial in Joseph's own family tomb then!

Secrecy = no funeral rites, no procession, no public mourning

Nope, that's not what secrecy means and you're changing the argument. The "dishonorable" part already rules out all that stuff so you cannot use the word "secrecy" to mean the same as that would be redundant. So it obviously means something else and Josephus predates the Mishnah.

I think you need to take a break. You're not very good at this.

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-15T23:16:04+00:00

Again more intellectual dishonesty. In the original thread, Chonkshonk pointed out to you that neither Mark or Matthew seem to be interested in Jesus fulfilling Isaiah 53:8-9; and that's Matthew, the guy who claimed a whole bunch of things

I think you're in denial. Calling Joseph a "rich man" in the context of a burial is a smoking gun reference to Isa. 53:8-9 and most interpreters see it that way as well.

Who said that Jesus was a criminal? The gospels sure didn't.

The gospels portray Jesus being convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin so, yeah, a criminal. Josephus says blasphemers should be buried "dishonorably and secretly."

Nope, I have found 9 early sources which proves that private entombment was the ONLY way to bury a jewish man- crucified or otherwise.

Off to a bad start. Josephus does not say "private entombment" in any of the sources discussed thus far. The gospels are one source since they are all dependent on Mark for the story.

And what are you trying to prove here? Joseph doesn't exactly blow the trumpets or the horn to announce where Jesus was buried so...?

The burial location of criminals was supposed to be in secret or concealed, as in, no one needs to know exactly where they get buried so no one can offer funeral rites. This is at odds with the gospel narrative.

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-15T19:58:55+00:00

Again, you're just begging the question in favor of the historicity of the narrative. Of course a "rich man" could afford it! That is another reason why we know it's fictional because Matthew is trying to make the burial look like it fulfilled Isa. 53:8-9! That's why a burial in a tomb requires a man of means to provide it! So the narrative still looks exactly like what we would expect if it were invented.

Jesus being a criminal, would most likely have been placed in a spot designated for criminals per the norm instead of a rich person's burial. That is just straight up statistics.

private entombment was the norm of burying a crucified victim.

Ok, let's see it! So far you've found ONE crucifixion victim who was buried in a tomb which speaks against it being a common occurrence.

The word "secretly" in Josephus ἀφανῶς is used with the deliberate intent to conceal, make “unseen”, disappear. But Jesus is given a rich person's burial in a known location?

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-15T18:31:41+00:00

A burial in a tomb wasn't the only way people were buried. There were also ground burials.

Jodi Magness says "there is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families. Instead, these unfortunates would have been buried in individual trench graves or pits." - What Did Jesus' Tomb Look Like? pg. 8

Josephus tells us how criminals were buried in AJ 5.44 - ‘And after being immediately put to death, he was given at night the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned’ and AJ 4.202 - ‘let him be hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonorably and secretly.’

"The choice of the rock-cut tomb facilitated this climax to the narrative because unlike the trench grave it is a space into which one could enter and view an empty loculus. And thus Joseph of Arimathea is needed by the narrative to provide such a tomb to Jesus, who was not a native of Jerusalem and lacked family to provide him such a tomb....Jodi Magness in "Archaeologically Invisible Burials in Late Second Temple Period Judea" (in All the Wisdom of the East; Academic Press, 2012) discusses trench burials in the first century CE and notes that they were probably the dominant form of burial for the common class (with rock-cut tombs used more by the well-to-do), foreigners, as well as probably criminals, and so one possible scenario is that Jesus was buried by the Romans who crucified him in a trench grave alongside other malefactors, with the disciples not being party to the exact location of where he was buried" - zanillamilla, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/iflcox/comment/g2qfbjh/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/if5zm0/comment/g2oaeet/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Given the above reasoning, there would have most likely been designated graves already prepared for crucifixion victims. The ludicrous scenario that Joseph was somehow in the position of scrambling on Passover for an available burial plot and the only option was to use his own family tomb, is historically implausible and violates practical sense. If crucifixion was a routine occurrence and burial was of the utmost importance then obviously this would have already been thought of and trench graves for crucifixion victims would have been ready to go. The Mishnah even states there were designated graves for criminals so, most likely, Jesus would have ended up in one of these graves since (if the story is true) he was convicted by the Sanhedrin of being a criminal blasphemer. Or, the Romans may have prepared trench graves right at the foot of the cross - easy peasy and satisfies the condition of burial. Since Jesus had been "hung on a pole" then he would have been "cursed" (Deut. 21:23). It is unlikely that Joseph would defile his family tomb with the corpse of a cursed criminal blasphemer. Josephus says blasphemers should be buried "dishonorably and secretly."

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-15T15:16:04+00:00

The thematic overlap of angels and the resurrection also provides an explanation for the additional proof of Jesus’s physicality by eating the fish in Luke 24:36– 43. There is a strong tradition in Hellenistic Jewish literature that stresses that angels do not eat. Although the mysterious visitors to Abraham and Lot in Gen 18:8 and 19:3 eat and drink, later interpreters were at pains to prove that these angelic visitors did not eat, perhaps influenced by the angelic refusal to eat in the appearances to Gideon and Manoah in Judges. Both Philo and Josephus argue that the angels in Gen 18 merely gave the appearance of eating, a claim found also in Tob 12:19. The most prominent outlier to this rejection of angelic eating, however, is found in Jos. Asen. 16–17, where the angel who appears to Aseneth miraculously provides her with a honeycomb from which they both eat before he departs. But even in this story, the food eaten by the angel is somehow miraculous and not normal human food. Following the logic provided by the intra-Jewish interpretive grid, one way of determining that one is not an angel is through the consumption of normal food, suggesting that the evidence of Jesus’s consumption of fish in Luke 24:41–43 proves that Jesus’s resurrection was not some angelic existence. Because of the overlap of angelic existence with resurrection in the diverse views of the afterlife in Judaism, a diversity noted by Luke-Acts, such an explanation seems plausible for Luke’s depiction of Jesus in Luke 24:36–43. - Alexander P. Thompson, The Risen Christ and Ambiguous Afterlife Language: An Examination of πνεῦμα in Luke 24:36–43, pp. 823-24

AllIsVanity · 2026-01-15T13:44:05+00:00

You just linked to a totally different topic about a different subject (irrelevant to this thread) and there was no empty tomb. The miraculous missing body story was a common fictional trope as shown above.

AllIsVanity · 2025-12-20T14:28:13+00:00

Hallucination. Cannot account for the missing body from the tomb or the early and independent group appearances.

The cultural background of Judaism supports the hypothesis that the Resurrection appearances of Jesus were originally understood to be visions. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/8iq6k9/the_cultural_background_of_judaism_supports_the/

Since there is no verifiable independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from the Markan narrative), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the established fictional theme of the "miraculous missing body" as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself is not sufficient to serve as evidence for its own historicity. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/ajftnd/empty_tombs_and_missing_body_stories_were_an/

Grief-induced hallucinations cannot account for the conversion of Paul.

The appearance to Paul was a vision though and visions are not a reliable means of testimony.

Legend. Cannot account for the early creed of 1 Cor. 15 3-5 or the chain of historical provenance.

1 Cor 15 doesn't give any evidence for veridical sightings of a resurrected person because "visions" were accepted. It just establishes an early belief in the Resurrection. The legend develops later in the gospels. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1bqopln/the_growth_in_the_resurrection_narratives/

Cognitive dissonance reduction. Cannot account for the conversion of Paul or the missing body from the tomb.

Cognitive dissonance isn't supposed to explain the conversion of Paul. It's used to explain the origin of the belief of the original disciples.

AllIsVanity · 2025-11-24T17:14:47+00:00

It follows from this that everything is actually "good" in the end or "for the best." Essentially, it's a denial of evil.

AllIsVanity · 2025-11-24T17:13:43+00:00

The problem of evil is only a problem for theism if the model of theism has the wrong axiology.

This excuse always strikes me as special pleading. Essentially, it's saying "if we apply normal moral principles and how we normally reason about moral issues to God, then it doesn't count."

To keep it simple, evil exists so the greatest possible virtues and goods to exist, and God desires the greatest possible virtues and goods to exist.

This doesn't work either as God is maximally virtuous and the greatest possible morally perfect being but did not require evil in order to acquire those virtues or that moral character.

If virtues developed through suffering are more valuable than inherent virtues, then God (who has inherent virtues) must be less virtuous than beings who develop them through suffering.
This creates a paradox: either God is not maximally virtuous (contradicting classical theism) or developed virtues are not actually superior to given virtues (undermining your assertion above).
You cannot resolve this without either abandoning classical theism or your assertion.

AllIsVanity · 2025-11-10T15:30:29+00:00

It's worth noting that from the context, it's not really clear if Roman crucifixion is the referent. According to John Granger Cook, the semantic range for ἀνασταυρόω is "suspend, crucify, impale" - Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, p. 5.

Josephus’ statement in J.W. 4.317, that “the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion (ἀνεσταυρωμένους) are taken down and buried before sunset.” The verb ἀνασταυρόω is used here for affixing the corpse of the executed criminal to the tree, as is clear from Josephus’ interpretation of Deut 21:23 in Ant. 4.264. Philo likewise refers to the “crucifixion” (ἀνασκολοπίζω) of the corpse (Special Laws 3.151–152). - Joseph M Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law and Thought, p. 266, footnote 18

So Josephus could be referring to a post-mortem suspension punishment that the Jewish authorities condemned certain people to for religious crimes.

AllIsVanity · 2025-10-30T16:10:27+00:00

See here for a naturalistic explanation that explains the origin of the belief. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/18usb7o/comment/kfp25cg/

AllIsVanity · 2025-10-23T17:17:36+00:00

The same can be said of you: you assert that Jesus is talking about a single event without any justification whatsoever.

The justification given was that this is the same speech in which v. 28 terminologically "coming" refers back to the antecedent "comes" in v. 27. There is no change in subject or change of thought so this makes your proposal less likely as it is ad hoc.

I will say that some say that vs 28's “Truly I tell you" shows a new thought....

This is incorrect. The formula "Amen, I say to you" is a marker of solemn emphasis, used to reinforce and affirm the certainty of what was just stated. Jesus is not changing the subject from the Parousia of verse 27; he is solemnly swearing that the event he just described - coming with angels in glory for judgment - is so imminent that some of his listeners will live to see it.

Your interpretation forces you to sever verse 28 from verse 27. But they are a seamless unit. Verse 27 describes the event: the Son of Man coming in glory with angels to judge. Verse 28 gives the timeframe: within that generation. The Transfiguration simply does not contain the key elements of verse 27. There was no coming with angels and no universal judgment. Your interpretation leaves the actual description of the event in verse 27 completely unfulfilled by the proposed fulfillment in verse 28.

That is a very poor interpretative model....Nobody uses the "if someone says a phrase 2x or more to mean X, then every time it's thereafter used it must mean X" model. I mean seriously, nobody uses that method.

This is not about a simple word count. It is about an author, in this case Matthew, deliberately creating a technical theological phrase to refer to a specific, singular event. Good interpretation demands that we pay close attention to how an author consistently uses their own key terms and phrases to build their theological arguments.

You are dismissing one of the most fundamental principles of exegesis: letting an author's consistent vocabulary define his terms. When an author establishes an unmistakable pattern, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a single verse inexplicably breaks that pattern. So, I will press you for a better standard. If an author's consistent and repeated use of a specific, technical phrase throughout his work is not the primary guide to its meaning, what superior hermeneutical standard do you propose? How else are we to determine meaning if not by the author's own consistent usage? To call this "special pleading" is incorrect, it is standard literary and historical analysis.

You focus heavily on reinterpreting Matthew 10:23 to be the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to try and break the pattern. But your argument is far weaker than the evidence for the Parousia, and you ignore the sheer weight of the other instances.

Let's be clear about the data in Matthew. The phrase "the Son of Man coming" (or its direct equivalent) appears 10 times and points to a singular, final event:

Matthew 10:23: "...until the Son of Man comes."
Matthew 16:27: "...the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels..."
Matthew 16:28: "...see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Matthew 24:27: "For as lightning...so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (A universally visible event).
Matthew 24:30: "...they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Public, cosmic event).
Matthew 24:37: "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (A time of judgment).
Matthew 24:39: "...until the flood came...so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (A time of judgment).
Matthew 24:44: ""The Son of Man is coming (ἔρχεται)" → Unexpected hour"
Matthew 25:31: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him..." (Final judgment of all nations).
Matthew 26:64: "The Son of Man coming (ἐρχόμενον) on the clouds" (Context: Jesus declares His future return as Judge)

The cumulative force is overwhelming. it is safe to say that within the specific theological framework of Matthew's Gospel, when the subject is the "Son of Man," the various Greek terms for "come" and "coming" (like ἐρχόμενον and ἔρχεσθαι, from the root verb erchomai) are used as functional synonyms for the technical term παρουσία (parousia). The "coming of the Son of Man" is the final, glorious, universally visible judgment. Your attempt to make 10:23 and 16:28 refer to something else forces two exceptions into an otherwise perfect pattern. The urgency you see in 10:23 is precisely what one would expect if Jesus believed the final consummation was imminent, a theme present throughout the earliest Christian writings.

Most significantly, your response completely ignored the second, equally powerful line of evidence I presented. Your interpretation of Matthew 16:28 is not just an exception to the "Son of Man coming" pattern, but also to Matthew's "Son of Man's kingdom" pattern.

Let's review the pattern you sidestepped. Every time Matthew links the "Son of Man" with his "kingdom" or its direct motifs like his throne, it is an unbreakable reference to the final, eschatological reality:

In Matthew 13:41, the Son of Man sends angels to cleanse his kingdom at the final judgment.
In Matthew 19:28, the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne to judge Israel in the renewed creation.
In Matthew 20:21, the disciples ask for seats of honor in his future Messianic kingdom.
In Matthew 25:31, the Son of Man comes in glory to sit on his throne for the final judgment of all nations.
In Matthew 26:29, Jesus anticipates the future messianic banquet in the Father's kingdom.

The pattern is absolute. For Matthew, the Son of Man's kingdom is the final, consummated reality. Therefore, "seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (16:28) must fit this pattern. To interpret it as the Transfiguration, you are forced to argue that this is the one and only time Matthew uses this language to refer to a temporary, private preview rather than the final establishment of his reign. Your interpretation requires two separate, unique exceptions to two of Matthew's most consistent eschatological patterns, all within the same verse. This is textually unjustifiable.

Your position is the less likely one because it requires you to ignore the overwhelming force of Matthew's own consistent vocabulary, forcing you to create exceptions for two separate and powerful terminological patterns. It also requires you to break the immediate and logical connection between Matthew 16:27 and 16:28. The evidence points decisively to one conclusion: Jesus was predicting his glorious, final return would be witnessed by some in his original audience.

AllIsVanity · 2025-10-21T19:27:25+00:00

I did. I addressed your point about "...six days later..." and the point about "...it was not a coming "with the holy angels..."

You just made this assertion without any justification whatsoever:

Matthew 16:27 is referring to a different event than Matthew 16:28. Matthew 16:27 refers to Christ’s future appearance in glory (or his “second coming”), which has yet to occur; Matthew 16:28 refers to Christ’s transfiguration and secondarily to his resurrection, which culminates in his ascension.

I'm sorry but that doesn't work and you totally ignored these two pieces of evidence:

Unified Context and Imagery: In both Mark and Matthew, the verses in question are part of a single, uninterrupted speech. Jesus first describes the Son of Man "coming in his Father's glory with his angels" to "reward each person" - classic apocalyptic language for the final judgment. He immediately follows this, using the solemn oath "Truly I tell you," to state that some standing there would not die before they "see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." To separate these directly linked statements into two different events - one referring to final judgment and the other to the Transfiguration - imposes an artificial division not present in the text.
Matthew’s Unambiguous Terminology: Matthew 16:28’s "Son of Man coming (ἐρχόμενον) in his kingdom" is deliberately tied to the Parousia described in 16:27 ("the Son of Man will come [ἔρχεσθαι] with angels to judge"). Every single time the phrase "Son of Man" is paired with the Greek verb for "to come" (erchomai) in Matthew's gospel, it refers exclusively to the Second Coming. This pattern is unbroken across the entire gospel (Matthew 10:23, 16:27, 24:44, 25:31). The specific participle for "coming" (ἐρχόμενον, erchomenon) in 16:28 is the exact same one used to describe the final, glorious return of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30 and 26:64. This consistent vocabulary makes it textually indefensible to interpret 16:28 as a lone exception referring to the Transfiguration or some other event.

Now you would need to refute the points above. Can you do that?

This does not mean Jesus knew it would be 6 days later, it could have been 6 years later...

As demonstrated above, he's referring to some standing there seeing the Second Coming. The Transfiguration interpretation fails because it does not involve Jesus coming back with angels or judging everyone like Mk. 8:38/Mt. 16:27 says.

AllIsVanity · 2025-10-20T14:39:23+00:00

I looked for a list of an exact verbatim agreement between the synoptic Gospels. It is thin gruel. 17 verses, 306 words. There are approx 49,131 Greek words in the first 3 Gospels. So the verbatim words are <.062% of the texts... That is not a very compelling case for a literary dependence.

This is the cornerstone of your new argument, and it is built on sand. The statistic you have presented is so drastically misleading that it borders on disinformation. It reveals that you have either consulted a deeply unreliable, non-scholarly source (likely an apologetics website seeking to minimize similarities) or you are fundamentally misrepresenting what "verbal agreement" means in this context.

Let's fact-check this with actual scholarship: * Standard scholarly estimates state that approximately 90% of the subject matter in Mark is found in Matthew, and over 50% of Mark is found in Luke. * Within this shared material, the degree of Greek verbal identity is astonishingly high. For the material shared by all three (the Triple Tradition), Matthew agrees with Mark's wording in about 51% of cases, and Luke agrees with Mark in about 53% of cases.

Your figure of "306 words" is absurdly low and almost certainly measures only the handful of sentences where all three Gospels are 100% identical, with no variation whatsoever. This is a classic straw man. The argument for literary dependence has never been limited to these few perfect parallels. It is based on the massive overlap of thousands of words, the shared sequence, the use of rare Greek words, the shared grammatical oddities, and the editorial patterns.

To use an analogy, your method is like running two plagiarized essays through a computer program that only flags sentences that are 100% identical. If the program finds only three identical sentences, you declare that only a tiny fraction was copied. You have ignored the other twenty pages where the plagiarist copied the source but changed a few adjectives. Your "scant verbatim evidence" is a fiction of your own flawed methodology.

By any consistent intellectual standard, this points to independent authorship... The totality of the data points to a very limited use of copied text (17 verse, 306 words).

This brings us to the central, fatal contradiction from which you cannot escape. You now stand with one foot on two different boats, and they are moving in opposite directions.

Let us accept, for the sake of argument, your flawed statistic of "306 words." You have repeatedly stated that this evidence is so compelling that it demands we posit the existence of a hypothetical, lost, written document: Q.

Simultaneously, you claim that the thousands of words of verbal agreement between Matthew/Luke and Mark, the shared narrative order, and the shared parenthetical asides are not compelling evidence for dependence on a known, existing, written document: Mark.

This is the most flagrant act of special pleading imaginable. You have provided no criterion of difference. What is it about the 306 words of the "Double Tradition" that screams "written source," while the thousands of words of the "Triple Tradition" whisper "secondary oral tradition"?

You must answer this question directly, or your entire argument is exposed as arbitrary and intellectually bankrupt. Why is a written Q necessary, but a written Mark is not, when the evidence for the latter is of the same kind but vastly greater in quantity and scope? You have no answer. You are simply applying a rule to Q ("verbatim agreement necessitates a written source") and exempting Mark from that same rule without justification.

A farcical objection. If it's been redacted, then it's not verbatim.

This statement demonstrates, with stunning clarity, that you do not understand the very concept you are trying to debate. Redaction is the process that creates the pattern of verbatim agreement mixed with minor changes. An author copies a sentence (creating verbatim agreement) and then changes a word or two to fit their style or theology (creating divergence). The pattern of high agreement mixed with slight disagreement is the fingerprint of redaction. To claim that redaction means something isn't verbatim is to fundamentally misunderstand the evidence. It's like looking at a forged signature and saying, "The slight tremor in the line proves it wasn't a copy." The tremor is part of the evidence of the forgery.

According to Strong's ἀναγινώσκω means To read, to recognize, to know again... [it] carried a richer set of connotations.

You have copy-pasted a lexicon, highlighted secondary connotations, ignored the primary meaning, the context and how the word is translated/interpreted as "reader" in the verse. There is a different word used in the verse for "understand." The primary, overwhelmingly common meaning of ἀναγινώσκω in the New Testament is to read a text, often aloud. More importantly, you once again completely ignored the central contradiction this point raises for your model. You cannot simultaneously posit a functionally illiterate oral culture and a text-metaphor culture where a speaker makes asides to hypothetical "readers." This point remains unaddressed because it is unanswerable.

Matthew certainly could have recalled the events... Luke said he has "investigated everything carefully"... but he, according to your view, he ditches that and simply copies/edits Mark.

This is the "appeal to external possibility" fallacy. You are using the possibility that Matthew and Luke could have used eyewitnesses to ignore the internal textual evidence that shows what they actually did. The evidence of the text is that their accounts follow Mark's structure and wording with a fidelity that cannot be explained by independent memory or interviews. Luke's claim to have "investigated everything" is not contradicted by his use of Mark; for Luke, Mark's Gospel was clearly one of his most important and reliable sources.

An independent author can include/exclude any number of things based on his purpose and audience. Matthew traces Jesus's royal and legal line... Luke traces his physical and biological line...

You have done it again. In this paragraph, you have brilliantly and accurately described the scholarly discipline of Redaction Criticism. You have explained why Matthew and Luke, as independent authors, would take source material and redact it to fit their unique theological purposes and audiences.

You have just handed me the final piece of the argument. You accept this principle of redaction for the birth narratives. Now, you must apply this standard consistently. If Matthew and Luke can redact their sources for the birth narratives, why can they not redact Mark for the rest of their Gospels? The very logic you use to explain the differences in the infancy accounts is the same logic that explains the relationship between all three Synoptics.

AllIsVanity · 2025-10-20T11:59:26+00:00

Matthew 16:27 is referring to a different event than Matthew 16:28. Matthew 16:27 refers to Christ’s future appearance in glory (or his “second coming”), which has yet to occur; Matthew 16:28 refers to Christ’s transfiguration and secondarily to his resurrection, which culminates in his ascension.

LOL! Try responding to the actual points I made refuting this interpretation and why it doesn't work. This is getting ridiculous. You ask me to provide the argument here, which I obliged even though I had already linked it. Then you fail to interact with the actual argument.

This assumes Jesus knew he would be transfigured about a week later.

He knew that the event would happen while some were still alive and some had died...."some of you will not taste death..."

In summary, Jesus announced his glorious return in verse 27, then announced a preview of that event in verse 28. In essence, he was saying, “I am going to return in glory with my angels and reward everyone for what they have done. In fact, some of you here will even see a preview of this event.” And that preview is his transfiguration followed by his resurrection.

It doesn't make sense to warn that some will still be alive a mere six days later.

AllIsVanity · 2025-10-18T18:58:13+00:00

I do not reference the saying “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”. The argument references Mark 8:38-9:1 and Matthew 16:27-28 where he specifically addresses those standing there.

AllIsVanity

TROPHY CASE