If parousia signifies an "invisible presence," what did Jesus mean when he promised he would be invisibly present with his disciples "all the days, even to the end of the system of things"? (Matthew 28:20) Is Christ even more "invisibly present" since 1914, or what?
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
saki2fifty
Hillary: Do you have anything of value to add here Saki?
I find this thread to very beneficial for myself, and every now and then I'll inject some stupid remark.
If my one small injection offended you... I'll refrain from such in the future.
My apologies.
-
smellsgood
quit picking on saki! geez, he isn't full of pride like thirdwitness. It doesn't seem at all like he's more interested in being right than honest. Put yourself back when you were a witness, what would your reaction be to learning all this new information where you've been in a vacuum sealed chamber of it before?
really, use a little discernment when it comes to different people and their motivations for being here, and treat those who; regardless if they have added something "relevant" to the discussion or not, with due respect if you please. Saki does not strike me as a rabid megalomaniac the way third witness does.
he's got an overwhelming amount of information to absorb. I for one am chuffed to bits that he's looking at things whatever, and don't wish to upset this process with unkindness, or haughtiness of any kind. Really, yes, you are informed about what the truth of the WT is, but don't treat those who haven't found out as of yet the way you might have treated a "worldly" person who didn't have a "knowledge of the truth." when you were a Witness.
patience.
smellsgood -
hillary_step
SmellsGood,
Nobody is 'picking' on Saki, and this is not Junior School, I am sure that he can take care of himself without your help. I merely asked if he had anything of value to add to the thread apart from once again criticizing AlanF for his posting techniques. He has insinuiated that he does not, so perhaps his repeated claims to be a neutral observer have been found wanting once again.
There are other ways of learning and taking in information from this board without peppering them with little insults design to try and rattle the cage of other posters. One of them is to read and learn and if there is something of value to add, to do that. It is not rocket science.
HS
-
thirdwitness
The bullies of the playground don't know what to do when faced with logical scriptural reasoning do they? Except, of couse, name call and try to bully you.
Apparently some including AlanF are not aware of the teachings of JWs. We teach that Jesus arrived in his invisible presence in kingly power in 1914 as Jehovah's appointed king and judge. He has been present since that time and subduing in the midst of his enemies. He has gathered and refined a large army of kingdom proclaimers who preach the good news of the kingdom. He has judged Babylon the great and thus the clear distinction is evident between the true Christian organization led by Christ and the false organization claiming to serve Christ but disowning him by their failure to provide spiritual food for the domestics and failure to preach the good news of the Kingdom and the truths that go along with that good news. His presence continues and will continue up until the destruction of false religion and the nations opposed to God's kingdom at Armageddon. That is when he comes to execute judgment upon those who do not know God and do not obey the good news. Do you think that Christ arrives, is present, then leaves and comes back again? That is not what JWs teach. Christ arrives, is present as God's King rendering judgments and refining his organization on earth. The culmination of his presence is Armageddon.
Matt 24: 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence (parousia) of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence (parousia) of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; 41 two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because YOU do not know on what day YOUR Lord is coming (Erchomai not parousia).
43 “But know one thing, that if the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming (Erchomai not parousia) , he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 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 (Erchomai not parousia).
Did you notice the difference in the Greek words? Translations that render parousia as coming confuse the text. There is a difference. Big difference. The presence of Christ is like the days of Noah. People were busy with their lives, eating, drinking, marrying etc. This was over a period of time. Then the flood came and destroyed them. Were they busy carrying on with their lives taking no note during the flood. I'm pretty sure they were taking note at that point. Will people being carrying on everyday life when Jesus is destroying them and their governments they have put faith in at Armageddon? Hardly! It is clear that Jesus arrives in kingdom power and is present subduing in the midst of his enemies, while people carry on with their lives taking no note that he is gathering his people into one organization that preaches the good news of the kingdom, before his coming at the final part of his presence to execute judgment.
Look at those teeth on the ground. Whose are they? They're not mine. I still have my teeth and just ripped a whole in AlanF's sad little attempt at discrediting JWs for translating parousia as presence. But all credit should go to Jehovah, not me, who has used JWs to show me and others the truths of the Bible, one of which is about the parousia of Christ.
-
Fisherman
Alan. I need time to think and study what you posted in response to my post about what the wts says, that for 70 years the land lay desolate and no jew ever put his foot on the until the return, a literal 70 year period. I need more info in this, but as I remmember that was a teaching years ago.I have been persuaded to believe though, that the 70 captivity of Babyl is a literal 70 year period of desolation.
I go your link. thanks. Put in in my fav. I have to read the info, see what I think about it.
About the HS: AS and Alan. The view that I have expressed in based solely on 3w's argumentation on the HS AS post. I did not know anything about it before visiting this site and reading COJ.
3w raised doubts in my mind about the HS by showing that the HS is not reliable. (I mean the H Stele not the H spirit) Part of the reason is that there are 2 copies of the work that possibly contradict each other and his other arguments.
AS: You say that the Society uses the HS to establish certain dates. I do not know if what you are saying is accurate or a fact, but it seems that if it is a fact that the wts uses the hs on one hand, it would not be fair to discard other parts of it. At least that is what it seems. Again, who am I to disagree with wts scholars? I am just expressing what seems to make sense.
-
thirdwitness
No modern scholar agrees with the WT, right?
How about this one. W.E. Vine, M.A., was known in his day (1873-1949) as a classical scholar, a skilled expositor, and an acute theologian. Recognized as one of the world's foremost Greek scholars, his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, first published in 1939, now available in Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, represents the fruit of his lifetime labors and is an unsurpassed classic in its field. W.E. Vine says: parousia does not signify merely a coming, it includes or suggests the presence which follows the arrival Of course, AlanF will probably say Vine is not a 'modern' scholar. Or simply call him a moron. And then there's Rolf Furuli. Do I need to bring up what he says about parousia. Or is he also not a 'modern' scholar and simply a moron?
-
AuldSoul
Fisherman: You say that the Society uses the HS to establish certain dates. I do not know if what you are saying is accurate or a fact, but it seems that if it is a fact that the wts uses the hs on one hand, it would not be fair to discard other parts of it. At least that is what it seems. Again, who am I to disagree with wts scholars? I am just expressing what seems to make sense.
I want to make it very clear that I am not saying that the WTS uses it directly, but they use the conclusions of secular scholars who used the Hillah Stele to arrive at their conclusions. The Watchtower Society has no scholars of their own. They have plenty of historical researchers/propagandists.
You are correct, however. It makes no sense to rely on secular scholarship in one case and accuse secular scholars of being a tool of Satan in another. That makes no sense at all. Yet, the Bible does not contain a single date coupled with an astronomical observation from which any chronology could be derived for the events it describes. For every date the Watchtower uses regarding ancient history they rely on secular historians, except where 607 BC is concerned.
In the case of the Hillah Stele, the Watchtower Society has never referenced it directly in any way. It utterly destroys their chronology, they know of the Hillah Stele, and the conclusions it supports. They have received many letters regarding its implications. They know that mention of a particular artifact will prompt research on it, and that this would destroy the confidence of many in their chronology. Therefore, they do not dare to mention it in print. That is why you had never heard of it.
The reason the Society knows when Nabonidus began to rule is the Hillah Stele. The reason they do not ever quibble about the secular markers for the commencement or duration of Nabonidus' reign is because the Hillah Stele is unassailably accurate.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
thirdwitness
Another example of parousia used in the scriptures about the man of lawlessness:
2 Thess 2: 9 But the lawless one’s parousia is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents
Question: Should this be translated coming? No. The man of lawlessness presence covers a period of time. He must establish himself with every lying sign and portent. As verse 4 tells us, he must "lifts himself up over everyone who is called “god” or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god". His presence is felt because of what he does over a period of time in establishing himself as the man of lawlessness.
-
DannyHaszard
If parousia signifies an "invisible presence," what did Jesus mean when he promised he would be invisibly present with his disciples "all the days, even to the end of the system of things"? (Matthew 28:20) Is Christ even more "invisibly present" since 1914, or what?
I know the answer,this apostate refutation is an elaborate apostate "half-truth" as only one-half of Jesus returned invisibly in 1914