pseudo-scholar moaned: There are no semantics involve with the meaning of parousia that support your theory for our publications have always implied that 'presence' does indeed include an arrival for coming this is the first stage of a presence or 'beong present.
Then what are you BITCHING about??? I guess I'll be the first one to lose it on this thread, but scholar: you're an asshole of the first order and are clearly attempting to give the impression that you somehow have a doctorate in the Greek language and actually know what you're talking about. Here's a newsflash for you: The Writing Department does not get to determine what the word "parousia" means, as much as I'm sure they'd like to. That my friend, is and always has been determined by linguists and true scholars with no ulterior motive or pre-conceived doctrines that fly in the face of common sense. The Greek word 'parousia' means: presense, coming, arrival, advent.
Your continual bashing of Leolaia's excellent and thorough review is utterly nauseating and you're making a fool out of yourself with each of your tirades. In true Witness fashion, you attack anything that goes against what the Craptower teaches and even though she has clearly shown that the WTS has been less than truthful about their bizarre interpretation of the entire doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ, you continue to strain the gnat (whether the word 'parousia' is referring to presense or the arrival of someone) and swallow the camel (the bizarre doctrine that Jesus' Return would be in secret, would be invisible, and go completely unnoticed by the world, even though the scriptures say the complete opposite) which is exactly what the Pharisees did on matters of doctrine.
One must have arrived or came in order then to be present. But that is not what parousia means , it refers not to coming or arrival but to the complete state of being present.
No, it does not and you're attempting to twist the interpretation into your pre-conceived notion that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914, so cut the crap. According to Greek scholars, the word "parousia" can mean presence, but it most certainly does not imply an invisible presence unless of course you've invested decades of your life buying into the WTS's nonsensical absurdities, which apparently you have and still do. Here's an example that you should perhaps consider: the coming of Titus (2 Cor. 7:6,7); the coming of Stephanas (I Cor. 16:17); and the coming of Paul (Phil. 1:26) involved the coming or arrival of these people along with their personal presence. In addition, the arrival and "bodily presence" of Paul described in 2 Corinthians10:10 is obviously what the scripture implies: a literal visible presence. There is absolutely no place in the bible that even hints that Jesus' return would be either in 1914 or invisible. It clearly states the opposite when it says in Matthew 24: "Every eye will see him."
Now before you go off on a tangent about it meaning "with the eye of understanding", try thinking about what you're saying. This scripture does not say that only a certain group of people will understand that he 'returned invisibly' (which is really no 'return' at all), it clearly says "Every eye will see him" end of story. In fact, at that time, the Bible Students/Witnesses didn't even believe Jesus 'returned' in 1914----they believed He had returned in 1874 or 1878, so how exactly did they 'see him return in 1914 with the 'eye of understanding'??? Ya.....maybe that's a question you should chew on for a while.
Not only that, but Jesus warned against false prophets who would teach an "invisible return". He said: "If they shall say unto you, Look, he is in . . . the secret chambers; do not believe it. For as the lightning comes out of the east, and shines even to the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matt. 24:26,27). This verse clearly shows that the WT's ridiculous promotion of an 'invisible presense' that supposedly began in 1914 (i.e., he's in the secret chambers) falls under the category of a false doctrine taught by "false prophets". Lightening is not "invisible" seen only by a chosen few. It's see by everyone in the area, it comes suddenly and forcefully. I remember asking this question once at the Bookstudy and everyone's face nearly fell off when I said "everyone can see lightning, so how can His Return be 'invisible?' I never got an answer and the conductor quickly moved on.
In addition, the scripture in Zechariah 14:3-4 says that Jesus will return literally and visibly to the earth.
"...Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south...."
Hmmmm......gee, that doesn't sound like an 'invisible presence' to me.
And finally, the scripture in Acts 1: 9-11 says:
"...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..."
How did his disciples see Jesus leave? Was it with 'the eye of understanding? Was it an 'invisible departure'?? No---they saw him leave with their literal eyes and it was a visible departure. Gosh! Imagine that!! He only disappeared from their view when he reached the heavens itself. Verse 11 is quite clear that His return would be visible, just as His departure was.
Scholar, you clearly are no real scholar, because the first thing you learn when you attend university, is that you have to approach a subject with no pre-conceived idea. You have to start with a blank sheet, examine the evidence and build your conclusion on evidence, logic and available material. You have clearly done none of these things, so I highly doubt you've ever stepped foot in a university. The Watchtower's doctrine that the Second Coming of Christ refers to a secret, invisible event that happened in 1914, is without any basis either in the scriptures or anywhere else. Of course, we all know why the Society is still desperately promoting this farce: because without it, they lose the even more ludicrous doctrine that Jesus chose them as the "faithful and discreet slave" in 1919----another bizarre doctrine that they plucked out of thin air without any evidence whatsoever, except their very vivid imaginiations.
Your attack on Leolaia is really another pathetic joke and completely without merit as is your splitting hairs about the Greek word 'parousia'. She has shown you over and over again that reference works done by real scholars most certainly allows for the word to be used as "coming" or "arrival" or "advent" in addition to "presense". Your grasping of straws and moaning about how it really must mean "presence" and not "coming" is like someone telling their kids "I'll be coming over to your place on Saturday" and have one of the kids debate endlessly whether he meant he would arrive "invisibly" (which is no arrival at all), or whether he would be literally there. It's truely pathetic and only in Dumb-dumb Land is such a farce and "endless debate over words" carried on with such fanaticism.
Truly pathetic and the only person here that you're kidding is yourself (and apparently 'Fresia'---another drone from the Borg). Get your head out of your ass and try using your brain for a change, instead of just automatically accepting the crap churned out from Columbia Heights.
