by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I am wondering, is there any scholar who said anything about parousia post 1960? There has to be somebody, right? I have no plans to do any research on this myself, but I'm sure somebody on this board already has the answer.
I am not asking this of Thirdwitness, I am asking the whole board this question. Please address me when you reply, so I don't accidently miss it.
Alan Feuerbacher
This guy is great. I just noticed AlanF and then realized that could be him. Very interesting articles. Thought provoking. Until reading the articles by the AF, I never even considered that point of view. I am not saying that I agree with his conclusions, but his work is worthwhile reading. Great worthwhile stuff.
I am not suggesting the jw read any works that are in violation of what they are told to do. I mean that I enjoyed reading and thinking about his articles. Again, great stuff.Sometheing to think about.
Hi Jayhawk,
I found this link to a book entitled "The Parousia", written in 1878 by James Stuart Russell:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1878_russell_parousia/russell_parousia_pref.html
I hope that helps
Thanks for the help, but it does not answer my question. Is there any scholars in the last 40 years who have said anything about parousia?
I am troubled by quotes from people in the 1800's, so much has been learned since then.
I would like to say something about this long debate about the definition or meaning of parousia..
I think that the wts meaning is possible. I dont know Bible Greek. But I have read everything that the wts wrote on it and rebuttals and I have skimed though this ongoing discussion.
I dont not think that the wts definition can be eliminated I also don't think that sholars can agree or pin down that ist doesn't mean what the wts teaches.
Here is the catch all: What did God mean when he inspired that thought Parousia?
(BY this statement I am not trying to argue that God inspired it, all that I am saying is that it is not possible to conclusively eliminate the wts definition because no one kows for sure what God meant)
HEre is a thought regarding the belief that Jesus was enthroned after his ascencion immediately: If that is true why does the book of Rev teach that Jesus had not yet come again.. "things that must shortly take place.." "I am comming quickly.." all of this is FUTURE. Jesus having been glorified some 60 years previously.
Jayhawk1: am wondering, is there any scholar who said anything about parousia post 1960? There has to be somebody, right? I have no plans to do any research on this myself, but I'm sure somebody on this board already has the answer.
Yep, the greatest shkoola of all time, Mr Nathan H. Knorr wrote about it. You can read his works here: www.watchtower.org
Hope this helps.
steve [Now where's that 'tongue in cheek' smiley]
Fisherman: Here is the catch all: What did God mean when he inspired that thought Parousia?
You've hit the nail on the head here. It's all in the context. This is what everyone has been trying to explain. Context vs Dogma.
steve
(BY this statement I am not trying to argue that God inspired it, all that I am saying is that it is not possible to conclusively eliminate the wts definition because no one kows for sure what God meant)
Yes, indeed a mystery. What could God, who may or may not have inspired that passage, have meant? I am leaning toward your thoughts after seeing the evidence presented thus far. I see nothing that completely rules out the Watchtower's rendering on the word parousia. I disagree with their teaching that Jesus returned invisably in 1914, but without many modern references from scholars with credentials, I see no reason to split hairs on this one.
Perhaps there is a reliable modern reference out there to convince me otherwise.
Steve thanks for your response.
Evidently you know a thing or 2 about the Bible. THe Bible is ambiguously written. Using to the context rule does not always provide the answer. Case in point: Suffering servant of Isaiah.Context is the Nation of Israel, interpreted meaning, the Messiah, Christain interpretation Jesus.
While context can be used in some cases, there are exeptios to the rule.
Anyway, as you agree I hit the nail.
I hit post 539.
Fisherman
I dont not think that the wts definition can be eliminated I also don't think that sholars can agree or pin down that ist doesn't mean what the wts teaches.
Here is the catch all: What did God mean when he inspired that thought Parousia?
Personally I don't have a problem with the translation "presence" but it is the interpretation of what 'presence' means that is the problem. Does the word convey a 'two stage' coming: invisible 'presence' followed by a dramatic (catastrophic) 'arrival' many years later? Or is the word 'presence' equivalent to 'arrival'? Are there many 'arrivals'? And should we view 'presence' as invisible at all?
To me, if somebody is 'present,' they have already 'arrived' or 'come.' As a poster called Chuck Tripp on B-greek once said, "the difference between PAROUSIA in Matthew 24 and other such passages meaning 'coming' and 'presence' is about two seconds."
HEre is a thought regarding the belief that Jesus was enthroned after his ascencion immediately: If that is true why does the book of Rev teach that Jesus had not yet come again.. "things that must shortly take place.." "I am comming quickly.." all of this is FUTURE. Jesus having been glorified some 60 years previously.Fair question, and there are a few different views on the timing of Jesus' Return and whether Revelation is futuristic or preterist or something else in outlook. But if Jesus WASN'T enthroned straight after his ascension, how could he instruct John to write to the first century Laodicean congregation (Rev. 3:21) telling them he had already sat on his Father's throne? (cp. Eph. 1:21 and Phil. 2:9)
