Robert - Cutting To The Bottom Line....

by hillary_step 19 Replies latest jw friends

AlanF

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 But historical documents written in koine Greek that were discovered in the 19th century prove that your, and the Watchtower Society's, assumptions are incorrect.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.
AlanF
You Know

Hillary's Step:
The problem with your statement Robert is that it already pre-supposes that the rendering of the koine ‘parousia’ should be ‘invisible presence’ and not ‘coming’ as applied to a Royal figure. Merely transcribe the word ‘coming’ for ‘parousia’ in your analysis above, as do most versions of the NT, and your argument falls away.
Not true. My statement takes into consideration the rendering of parousia as coming. The problem with rendering parousia as "coming" is that it negates the connection of the parousia with the period of time designated as the last days. Jesus has been coming since his departure, but, as 2 Peter indicates, the last days are a special period of time that marks an imminent arrival, or coming if you prefer. In order to eliminate the confusion between the casual coming of Christ since his departure from the earth, and the pre-arrival period known as the last days, the word "presence" is particularly valuable to distinguish the difference. So, while the translation of parousia, whether rendered as presence or coming, is not absolutely critical, it does help the student differentiate between the two comings; the first meaning of "coming" being Christ's coming in a generic sense, spanning the nearly 20 centuries since his departure, and the second meaning of "coming" being the period immediately preceding his arrival designated as the last days.
You note that the disbelievers ridicule the evidence of the parousia but of course the Greek term translated by the WTS as ‘ridiculer’, actually has action attached to it. It is more accurate to render this word ‘scourging’ rather than the ‘scorning’ that you seem to be understanding it as. Peter was telling the early Christians that they would be physically persecuted by people saying, ‘Where is this coming that you keep telling us about?’
We aren't concerned here with what the Greek word for "ridiculer" is are we? Your question was concerning parousia. And the point is that Peter gave a prophecy regarding the last days that would be rejected by ridiculers. Christians have always been ridiculed and persecuted, but Peter was not talking about Christians being persecuted. His prophecy foretold that the message and the evidence presented of the last days would be ridiculed---not necessarily the messengers themselves. The "action" described in the prophecy that the scourgers take is that they say, "Where is this promised presence of his," means that they dismiss the sign of Christ's presence and last days---they actively ridicule it. That is evident from the fact that Peter goes on to relate the basis of the ridicule; namely that the ridiculers refuse to take note that a prior judgment from Jehovah occurred during the deluge.
The WTS even accepts that the translation of he word ‘parousia’ in Matt 24:3 is correctly to be understood as ‘coming’ in view of the disciples expectation of the ‘Kingdom Of God appearing instantly’.
The NWT consistently translates parousia as presence. Matthew 24:3 is no exception. It is not the job of the translators to assume what the disciples knew and what they did not. The translator merely translates what they said into another language. Apparently, your assumption is that because the disciples had no knowledge at the time of how Christ would return, that for that reason, they meant to say 'what will be the sign of thy coming?' --- since that question would have made more sense to them at the time. Your reasoning though is faulty. Here's why:
The question that the disciples posed to Jesus had far reaching implications and the answer Christ gave them was for the most part incomprehensible by his immediate disciples. The fact is that the apostles didn't know what they were asking. They had no conception at the time that Jesus was returning to heaven and that he would come back centuries later to judge the entire world---far beyond the borders of tiny Israel. The odds that the apostles would ask the right question, using just the right phraseology, concerning the sacred secrets of Christ's multi-faceted parousia, as well as the even more enigmatic conclusion of the system of things, is astronomical.
Since the sign of Christ presence had no actual relevance for the apostles who queried him on the subject, it is evident that the apostles were moved by the spirit to ask the right question, using the right words, for the benefit of those disciples who would be centuries removed from Christ, who would be living during the fulfillment of the prophecy of the last days, and coming to terms with deciphering Christ's oracular puzzle. Bottom line: God's holy spirit ensured that the ignorant disciples asked the right question so that Christ's answer would make sense to those living at a much later period.
It is my conjecture that in the final event the weight of evidence is against the concept of an ‘invisible presence’,
Invisibility has nothing to do with it. Christ will always be cloaked in invisibility regardless of whether one prefers presence or coming as the proper translation of parousia. His manner of coming upon the world is as a stealthy thief in the night. The reason the world is overtaken by his coming/presence is because he is invisible and the world rejects the evidence of his stealthy approach for the Judgment.
My research has convinced me that Matthew 25 is a picture of what happens when Jesus arrives in heavenly glory to judge the earth, this is his ‘parousia’ in Royal glory.
That's not correct. Matthew 25:31 depicts Christ's arrival for the Judgment. That event marks the conclusion of the parousia not the commencement of it.
Am I to understand that you are saying that Christ has been ‘coming’ since 1914 during his presence? If so what evidence can you cite for this?
Yes, The simple fact that Jesus has not arrived yet to judge the world is the evidence that there are two aspects to his coming. During the time of Jesus' presence, also denoted as the last days, as Peter's prophecy indicates, the world carries on in business as usual fashion, "taking no note" of the events around them as having any special significance as regards the coming of Christ. But, when Jesus arrives, the world goes into a terminal death spiral known as the tribulation. During that period is when Jesus will miraculously manifest himself so that the ridiculers will no longer be able to deny him. That's when it will become obvious that he has been present; when the scoffers are filled with a sickening dread when confronted with the manifestation of Jesus’ presence.
Admittedly, Jehovah is still playing this one close to the vest, so-to-speak, in that there are some extremely profound things still concealed in Scripture, and there are yet far-reaching "adjustments" that will be forth coming during the critical time when Christ finally arrives to gather his chosen ones. The revelation of the Son of man will be the most profound event in the history of the world when Jesus appears at the conclusion of his parousia. / You Know
hillary_step

Robert,
You are ignoring all the rules of NT Exegesis in your explanation of why you differentiate between the application of the terms 'parousia’ and ‘coming’.
What seems to be happening here Robert is that you are playing a WTS game in attempting to bend scriptures and scriptural events to suit an already established conclusion.
I wrote : The problem with your statement Robert is that it already pre-supposes that the rendering of the koine ‘parousia’ should be ‘invisible presence’ and not ‘coming’ as applied to a Royal figure. Merely transcribe the word ‘coming’ for ‘parousia’ in your analysis above, as do most versions of the NT, and your argument falls away.
Not true. My statement takes into consideration the rendering of parousia as coming. The problem with rendering parousia as "coming" is that it negates the connection of the parousia with the period of time designated as the last days.
Of course it does not. The Last Days are the last days, at the end of that period the parousia ( coming ) occurs.
Jesus has been coming since his departure.
Uhh!
but, as 2 Peter indicates, the last days are a special period of time that marks an imminent arrival, or coming if you prefer.
Agreed, and I do prefer this, as it is exactly what Alan and I have been trying to show you.
In order to eliminate the confusion between the casual coming of Christ since his departure from the earth, and the pre-arrival period known as the last days, the word "presence" is particularly valuable to distinguish the difference.
Again Robert, you are falling into the pre-conclusion trap. You have yet to present evidence that Christ arrived at the beggining of the ‘pre-arrival’period. All you have to substantiate that is an Adventist theology, that has a vested interest in viewing things this way, but who’s views actually confound the facts of scripture. Dangerous territory.
So, while the translation of parousia, whether rendered as presence or coming, is not absolutely critical, it does help the student differentiate between the two comings; the first meaning of "coming" being Christ's coming in a generic sense, spanning the nearly 20 centuries since his departure, and the second meaning of "coming" being the period immediately preceding his arrival designated as the last days.
Robert I have highlighted the section of this statement for which you once again have presented no evidence.
I wrote : You note that the disbelievers ridicule the evidence of the parousia but of course the Greek term translated by the WTS as ‘ridiculer’, actually has action attached to it. It is more accurate to render this word ‘scourging’ rather than the ‘scorning’ that you seem to be understanding it as. Peter was telling the early Christians that they would be physically persecuted by people saying, ‘Where is this coming that you keep telling us about?’
We aren't concerned here with what the Greek word for "ridiculer" is are we? Your question was concerning parousia.
Only for the reason that in your preliminary statement you used the scripture in 2 Peter 3:3-4, and its aspect of ‘ridicule’, to try to prove that the ridiculers would scorn the ‘evidence of the Last Days’. My point is that these people would physically persecute Christians and challenge them with the ‘coming’ of Christ.
Does it make any sense that they would challenge them with these words, ‘where is this invisible presence that you keep telling us about?’. If it were invisible, they would be the last to see it! The term ‘ridicule’, with its context of physical persecution is of paramount importance to truly understanding this section of scripture. When Christ was dying, his opponents while torturing him, challenged him in a similar manner.
And the point is that Peter gave a prophecy regarding the last days that would be rejected by ridiculers.
You are again reading more in this scripture than exists. The scripture simply indicates that in the ‘last days’, Christians would be persecuted by people who challenge them by asking "Where is the promised PAROUSIA ( coming in Kingly Glory ) of his?" They are not even interested in the ‘last days’. Peter was the person that mentioned the term for the benefit of other Christians. The persecutors only challenge according to the scripture was in Christ’s seeming delay in his coming.
Christians have always been ridiculed and persecuted, but Peter was not talking about Christians being persecuted. His prophecy foretold that the message and the evidence presented of the last days would be ridiculed---not necessarily the messengersthemselves.
The part you got right here is right! What you have again omitted is the understanding that the Greek word for ridicule, as I have mentioned a number of times, is a physical word. How can a group of people physically persecute a prophecy or evidence?
I wrote : The WTS even accepts that the translation of he word ‘parousia’ in Matt 24:3 is correctly to be understood as ‘coming’ in view of the disciples expectation of the ‘Kingdom Of God appearing instantly’.
The NWT consistently translates parousia as presence. Matthew 24:3 is no exception. It is not the job of the translators to assume what the disciples knew and what they did not. The translator merely translates what they said into another language. Apparently, your assumption is that because the disciples had no knowledge at the time of how Christ would return, that for that reason, they meant to say 'what will be the sign of thy coming?' --- since that question would have made more sense to them at the time.
The WTS presume to know exactly how the disciples were thinking and exactly how they understood the term 'parousia'. They would know better than we do how this term was used in C1st life. I present evidence for my statement now, please note the term in parenthesis :
w96 8/15 10 Jesus' Coming or Jesus' Presence-Which? 5 In view of what Jesus said about the temple, the disciples likely were thinking of the Jewish arrangement when they asked for ‘a sign of his presence [or, "coming"] and the conclusion of the system of things [literally, "age"].’—Compare "world" at 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Galatians 1:4, KJ. 6 At this point the apostles had but a limited grasp of Jesus’ teachings. They had earlier imagined that "the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly." (Luke 19:11; Matthew 16:21-23; Mark 10:35-40) And even after the discussion on the Mount of Olives, but prior to being anointed with holy spirit, they asked if Jesus was restoring the Kingdom to Israel then.—Acts 1:6.[or, "coming"] and the conclusion of the system of things [literally, "age"].’—Compare "world" at 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Galatians 1:4, KJ.
It is quite clear that the WTS accept that the disciples understood the word ‘parousia’ to mean the coming of a Royal figure, they of course hints that as they had not been anointed as yet, they were yet to understand what ‘parousia’ really meant. Even after Jesus resurrection, they knew he had not as yet returned in his Royal ‘parousia’ because they asked him if he was going to restore his Kingdom at that time. The important thing, is that they still understood the term to mean ‘coming’. No evidence exists in the NT that they ever changed this understanding.
You note :
The question that the disciples posed to Jesus had far reaching implications and the answer Christ gave them was for the most part incomprehensible by his immediate disciples. The fact is that the apostles didn't know what they were asking. They had no conception at the time that Jesus was returning to heaven and that he would come back centuries later to judge the entire world---far beyond the borders of tiny Israel.
Agreed.
Since the sign of Christ presence had no actual relevance for the apostles who queried him on the subject, it is evident that the apostles were moved by the spirit to ask the right question, using the right words, for the benefit of those disciples who would be centuries removed from Christ, who would be living during the fulfillment of the prophecy of the last days, and coming to terms with deciphering Christ's oracular puzzle. Bottom line: God's holy spirit ensured that the ignorant disciples asked the right question so that Christ's answer would make sense to those living at a much later period.
This statement, is I believe not presented with a serious notion, and I will not even comment on it.
I wrote : It is my conjecture that in the final event the weight of evidence is against the concept of an ‘invisible presence’,
Invisibility has nothing to do with it.
Invisibility has everything to do with it, for it is upon this doctrine, that of an ‘invisible presence’ being established in 1914, as I mentioned in my opening statement that the WTS demands its authority.
I wrote : My research has convinced me that Matthew 25 is a picture of what happens when Jesus arrives in heavenly glory to judge the earth, this is his ‘parousia’ in Royal glory.
That's not correct. Matthew 25:31 depicts Christ's arrival for the Judgment. That event marks the conclusion of the parousia not the commencement of it.
Evidence based on Scripture please.
Now we come to an important point Robert. It is the point that I believe that you base most of your argument and all your spiritual confidence upon.
Admittedly, Jehovah is still playing this one close to the vest, so-to-speak, in that there are some extremely profound things still concealed in Scripture, and there are yet far-reaching "adjustments" that will be forth coming during the critical time when Christ finally arrives to gather his chosen ones.
I will let the reader determine what you are implying here.
Best regards - HS
AlanF

This thread is a fine example of how You Know runs away when he's cornered and he knows it.
AlanF
You Know

The Last Days are the last days, at the end of that period the parousia ( coming ) occurs.
This is absolutely false. You have failed to grasp the very simple and evident truth that I originally set out: namely, that the last days and the parousia are one and the same period of time. The passage I originally cited mentioned that the ridiculers would appear during the last days. They would ridicule and refuse to take note of the evidence of Christ's parousia. There have always been ridiculers who scorn the truth of God and Jesus, so that means that those who are deemed ridiculers during the last days ridicule the evidence of the last days and not just the idea that Jesus is going to return some day---as in a future coming.
The fact that there is evidence at hand that is scoffed at proves that the parousia is ongoing during the time that the ridiculers claim there is no evidence of his presence. If the parousia was something future from the time when the ridiculers asked "where is this promised presence of his" it would not make sense. Instead,the ridiculers claim that all things as normal, indicating that they refuse to see what the true Christians see; namely, that Christ parousia is here. So, the parousia does not occur at the end of the last days, otherwise there would be nothing for the ridiculer to ridicule. Christ is coming in a very special sense during the time that the ridiculers exist. The parousia is then concurrent with the last days, and that truth is what is ridiculed, just as you are in fact ridiculing it. / You Know
You Know

Does it make any sense that they would challenge them with these words, ‘where is this invisible presence that you keep telling us about?’. If it were invisible, they would be the last to see it!
Your reasoning is total nonsense. Of course Christ's presence is invisible. His coming and arrival is invisible too. Jesus is invisible. So the ridiculers ridicule the evidence of Christ's parousia. That's what 2 Peter says, as I have already pointed out.
Interestingly, in the context of the ridiculers during the last days, Peter refers to the flood of Noah's day. Jesus also compared his parousia to the period BEFORE the deluge. After describing the business-as-usual lifestyle of those living in the pre-flood world, Jesus said "So the presence of the Son of man will be."
You are saying that the parousia occurs at the end of the last days, but according to Jesus, and he should know, his parousia occurs during a time when people are eating and drinking and taking no note of important developments around them, just as they were during the last days before the flood. The last days of the pre-flood world was, then, an extended period of time spanning many decades. During that period of time the people refused to take note of Jehovah's activities and the deteriorating moral climate. That is exactly what takes place during the period of the last days of this system, which is also the interval of Jesus' invisible presence. / You Know
You Know

This thread is a fine example of how You Know runs away when he's cornered and he knows it.
Huh? / You Know
hillary_step

Robert,
Thank you for your comments. I will return with my own comments later this evening as I am pressed for time presently.
I would draw your atention, once again to the question at hand. That is; does the Greek word 'parousia' indicate that an invisible presence of a newly enthroned King, Christ Jesus, took place in the heavens in 1914, or does the word simply indicate the 'coming' or 'arrival' of a Royal figure.
All you arguments, every one of them, pre-supposes that you are correct in the assumption that the word indicates an 'invisible presence'. Without this assumption your arguments fall away, as you have not presented evidence that the NT usage of this word is not as accepted by all the experts in the matter, as opposed to Adventist theologians with their own agendas.
I will try to simpliy this for you:
QUESTION : Does the Greek 'koine' expression 'parousia', indicate in its NT application a 'coming' or 'arrival' of a Royal presence as a single event, or does it indicate that it in fact indicate an 'invisible presence' over a long period of time.
ANSWER : The Greek 'koine' expression 'parousia', indicates in its NT application that an 'invisible presence' of Christ took place in heaven in 1914. I present evidence for its usage in such a manner with.................................
HS
NeonMadman

Of course Christ's presence is invisible. His coming and arrival is invisible too. Jesus is invisible. So the ridiculers ridicule the evidence of Christ's parousia.
This statement demonstrates that you are basing your understanding of matters upon Watchtower dogma rather than the scriptures. The Bible is clear in many places that Christ's return will be a visible event.
Mark 14:61,62: Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Mark 13:24-27: But in those days, following that distress, "`the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
Matthew 26:63,64: But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Matthew 24:29-31: "Immediately after the distress of those days "`the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Acts 1:9-11: After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
Revelation 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
I am aware of all the sophistry used by the Watchtower in its attempt to demonstrate that the Bible does not mean what it says (as is so often the case with the Watchtower). However, the Bible is the Word of God, and I believe that it does mean what it says. Jesus' return will be a visible event.
Tom
"The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
hillary_step

Robert,
Thank you for your comments. I am rather disturbed that you seem unable to grasp the very simple points at issue here.
You quoted 2 Peter 3:3-4 and said that from this scripture you would prove that the ‘parousia’ did not relate to a single event, namely the coming of the Christ in his Kingly Glory, but indicated that this was a long term invisible presence from 1914CE onward. I take it that you believe this date to be the beginning of the ‘invisible presence’ as taught by the WTS?
I wrote: The Last Days are the last days, at the end of that period the parousia ( coming ) occurs.
This is absolutely false. You have failed to grasp the very simple and evident truththat I originally set out: namely, that the last days and the parousia are one and the same period of time.
Robert, I believed this view for a couple of decades, until I researched it at greater depth. Before you were a JW, I could have been the person teaching you this nonsense. Before you were, I grasped it!
The passage I originally cited mentioned that the ridiculers would appear during the last days. They would ridicule and refuse to take note of the evidence of Christ's parousia.
Apart from a pre-supposition that this ‘parousia’ is actually ‘the same period as the last days’ and not the single event as evidenced by the ‘koine’ Greek usage in ancient documents suggest, what evidence do you present to validate your assertion?
There have always been ridiculers who scorn the truth of God and Jesus, so that means that those who are deemed ridiculers during the last days ridicule the evidence of the last days and not just the idea that Jesus is going to return some day---as in a future coming.
Deal strictly with 2 Peter 3:3-4 Robert, this is your choice of scripture that you quoted to prove your point. Let us remind ourselves what V3 scripture actually says, not what you think, or hopes is 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 does it state? It states that in a period that Peter identifies as the ‘last days’, people would physically persecute Christians and challenge them with this statement - ‘Where is this promised coming (‘parousia’) of his. Twist this scripture Robert and it imperils your own argument.
The fact that there is evidence at hand that is scoffed at proves that the parousia is ongoing during the time that the ridiculers claim there is no evidence of his presence.
Only if you pre-suppose that this word is speaking of a long period of time. If it is describing a ‘one-off’ event, your argument is without meaning. It is over this issue that evidence has not been presented.
If the parousia was something future from the time when the ridiculers asked "where is this promised presence of his" it would not make sense.
Only if you pre-suppose that this word is speaking of a long period of time. If it is describing a ‘one-off’ event, your argument is without meaning. It is over this issue that evidence has not been presented.
Instead,the ridiculers claim that all things as normal, indicating that they refuse to see what the true Christians see; namely, that Christ parousia is here.
Only if you pre-suppose that this word is speaking of a long period of time. If it is describing a ‘one-off’ event, your argument is without meaning. It is over this issue that evidence has not been presented.
So, the parousia does not occur at the end of the last days, otherwise there would be nothing for the ridiculer to ridicule.
Only if you pre-suppose that this word is speaking of a long period of time. If it is describing a ‘one-off’ event, your argument is without meaning. It is over this issue that evidence has not been presented.
The parousia is then concurrent with the last days, and that truth is what is ridiculed, just as you are in fact ridiculing it.
Only if you pre-suppose that this word is speaking of a long period of time. If it is describing a ‘one-off’ event, your argument is without meaning. It is over this issue that evidence has not been presented.
I wrote : Does it make any sense that they would challenge them with these words, ‘where is this invisible presence that you keep telling us about?’. If it were invisible, they would be the last to see it!
Your reasoning is total nonsense. Of course Christ's presence is invisible. His coming and arrival is invisible too. Jesus is invisible. So the ridiculers ridicule the evidence of Christ's parousia. That's what 2 Peter says, as I have already pointed out.
It is your skills of perception that are flawed Robert, think about what you just wrote. Inherent in your remark is the fact that the ‘ridiculers’ were expecting to see the manifestation of Christ in a literal arriving, this is what they had understood the Christians preaching to have foretold. I have already presented evidence of this flawed reasoning above. Your pre-suppositions are not allowing you to see the truth of this scenario.
Interestingly, in the context of the ridiculers during the last days, Peter refers to the flood of Noah's day. Jesus also compared his parousia to the period BEFORE the deluge. After describing the business-as-usual lifestyle of those living in the pre-flood world, Jesus said "So the presence of the Son of man will be."
Exactly Robert. The flood came as a single arrival, a coming, its presence was not felt over the 120 years that Noah preached.
You are saying that the parousia occurs at the end of the last days, but according to Jesus, and he should know, his parousia occurs during a time when people are eating and drinking and taking no note of important developments around them,
Only if you pre-suppose that this word is speaking of a long period of time. If it is describing a ‘one-off’ event, your argument is without meaning. It is over this issue that evidence has not been presented.
just as they were during the last days before the flood. The last days of the pre-flood world was, then, an extended period of time spanning many decades.
The last days and the parousia are not the same event. Prove that they are.
During that period of time the people refused to take note of Jehovah's activities and the deteriorating moral climate. That is exactly what takes place during the period of the last days of this system, which is also the interval of Jesus' invisible presence.
Only if you pre-suppose that this word is speaking of a long period of time. If it is describing a ‘one-off’ event, your argument is without meaning. It is over this issue that evidence has not been presented. [quote]
Best regards -- HS

Robert - Cutting To The Bottom Line....

Share this