You Know said, in reply to Hillary Step, concerning the Greek word parousia:
:: Now, it is incumbent on yourself, given the repetitive insults you heap on many posters on this Board who disagree with the views of the WTS, that you prove, using your Bible only, that the WTS is indeed correct in its interpretation of this word.
: That's not too terribly difficult.
Indeed it is not. One has only to jettison the traditional lies told by the Watchtower Society and all is well.
: To establish whether the word parousia should better be translated as presence or coming we only have to determine what occurs during the parousia.
That works only if you can first establish, independent of the Society's interpretations, just what parousia means. Since your notion of it implies a duration, your statement of "what occurs during the parousia" also implies a duration. You have not shown that this notion of "duration" is correct. Indeed, all you've done is assume that it is correct. But historical documents written in koine Greek that were discovered in the 19th century prove that your, and the Watchtower Society's, assumptions are incorrect. The book Light from the East published around 1909 by Adolph Deissmann gives details about these documents and shows that Watchtower tradition is nothing more than the outmoded ideas of a few disappointed Second Adventists who were trying to show why their failed predictions for "the end" in 1874 had not really failed.
: 2 Peter 3:3-4 is useful in that respect in that it establishes the fact that the last days and the parousia are the same period of time. Verse 3 says, "For you know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires and saying: "Where is the promised PAROUSIA of his?""
What nonsense! All that this passage establishes is that at some time during "the last days" -- a completely unspecified notion -- certain persons would ridicule Christians by asking why the promised parousia had not yet come.
The Watchtower Society acknowledges that 2 Peter 3 had a fulfillment during the days before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. There was never an "extended presence" of Christ in the days before that destruction. Therefore it is a pulling at straws to claim that the very same Bible passages demand some sort of extended presence at a time far in the future from 70 C.E. In fact, there is no proof for this notion at all.
: The last days, by definition is an unknowable ongoing period of time
Really. But the Watchtower Society taught from its inception in 1884 until around 1930 that it began in 1799 and would end either in 1914 or sometime within a standard generation of 1914. So by your own admission the Society is a teacher of falsehoods, and therefore by its own standards, a false prophet.
: that precedes the arrival and unvieling of Christ. The prophecy cited above links the period of the last days with the parousia, for during the last days the disbelievers ridicule the evidence of the parousia and last days. We could say then that the last days and the parousia of Christ are one and the same interval.
Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. A mere "linking" of one thing to another does not show, or even indicate, that the two things are the same. Armageddon is "linked" to "the great tribulation" but you teach that these do not cover the same time periods.
: However, even if the word parousia is translated as "coming," it is largely just semantics, for the result is the same, because for all intent and purpose Jesus is coming during his parousia.
This is among the stupidest claims you've ever made. If parousia is translated as "coming", then the time periods described by the two terms are identical. Therefore it is completely nonsensical to say that "Jesus is coming during his parousia" because it is exactly the same as saying "Jesus is coming during his coming". Duh. Bobby is arriving during his arrival. Bobby will appear during his appearing. Nonsense!
: He is coming all during the period of his presence and at the conclusion of that presence he is spoken of as arriving.
More unscriptural nonsense. Jesus' "coming" is his parousia or, incorrectly translated, his "presence". Even Matthew 24 proves that this is the case. Matthew 24:44 states (NWT): "On this account you too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming. [Gr. erchetai]" Then we have Matthew 24:46 saying, "Happy is that slave if his master on arriving [Gr. elthon] finds him doing so." The Greek words erchetai and elthon are just variants of the same root word, and they mean "coming, arrival". So it is evident that even The New World Translation, like it or not, proves that Jesus' "coming" or "advent" or "arrival" is identical to his parousia. Indeed, as all competent scholars acknowledge, the terms are virtually interchangeable.
: The prophecy says that at some point even the ridiculers will see undeniable evidence of Jesus' "coming."
Actually the scripture says exactly the opposite: Ridiculers engage in ridicule precisely because they see no evidence at all.
: Matthew 24:30 says: "And they will see the the Son of man COMING on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
Exactly. This "coming" is identical to the parousia of the Son of man. It is the royal visit of a ruler.
: Here we have an interesting contrast. All the tribes of the earth are deeply grieved when they are forced to deal with the manifestation of the coming of the Son of man, but as regards the mere presence of the Son of man, the ridiculers are able to successfully ridicule and deny that any such presence is taking place.
All of this hinges on the claim that parousia means exclusively "presence", which has been shown to be false. Thus the rest of your argument is on shaky ground.
: But, the ridiculers are put to shame when the imminence of Jesus' arrival is expressed by the sign of the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. That proves that there is a difference between Christ's presence and his coming as those terms are used in the NWT.
Not at all. Not a thing you've said supports this conclusion. You've ignored a great deal of evidence, presented in many posts on this and other boards, that proves your claims false.
: Also, 1 Thessalonians the 4th chapter reveals that all the saints who die before and during the parousia
The form of this statement rests entirely on Watchtower claims. According to the Watchtower, the parousiais an extended period of time. According to the Bible, it is a relatively short time also described by the word "coming" or "arrival".
: are resurrected before those who are alive during the parousia.
That's self-evidently out to lunch, even by your own statements. It is self-evident that no one who is alive "during the parousia" needs to be resurrected "during the parousia", because they are not dead. You Know, statements like this prove that you're not just stupid, but massively stupid. That's not a statement about your native intelligence, but about your inability (really, unwillingness) to process any information whatsoever that contradicts what the Watchtower Society teaches.
: Reasoning on that fact, we come to the conclusion that the parousia is an ongoing period of time and not the rapid culmination of events associated with the arrival of the Son of man.
As they say in computer lingo, "Garbage in, garbage out." Your line of reasoning has been shown false, top to bottom. Thus it follows that your conclusions are false.