Robert - Cutting To The Bottom Line....

by hillary_step 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  Hello YK,

  Trying to precis your long post, I quote the following:

  Alan Wrote : They declare that anyone who publicly disagrees with their opinions is also disagreeing with God, and therefore is an apostate.

  YK replied : That’s because they blaspheme God by denouncing those whom God appointed over his household. Remember, Satan’s criteria for God’s servants and Jehovah’s are two different things entirely. Satan is the Accuser who accuses us night and day before God. Jehovah is not nearly so harsh in his judgments. And those two points of view are reflected in the contrast between faithful witnesses and apostate dubs. The bottom line is, that just because the faithful slave may err or misinterpret some prophecies, of have premature expectations, does not mean that he does not have an appointment over God’s household. That is pure apostate bull manure.

  The whole premise for your argument throughout this thread, and many others that you post, seems to be based on the WTS having the correct understanding of the Greek expression ‘parousia’.

  The WTS claim that an invisible ‘presence’ of Christ occurred in 1914, that the House Of God was judged at that time and found, after a brief period of discipline; worthy of his sole attention. They claim that this word ‘parousia’ is more correctly translated 'presence, than ‘coming’, and upon this foundation they build the beliefs for millions of souls.

  If the WTS, when inheriting this doctrine from Nelson Barbour, made an incorrect interpretation of the scriptures containing this word, an action you yourself admit could have happened, and given that the same misconception seems to have laid low the apostles in the C1st, albeit over different issues; you must accept that it is absolutely essential to have a correct understanding of this Greek word.

  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.

  I am well aware of course of the understanding that W.E.Vine places on the word ‘parousia’, which is largely similar to the WTS. Given that his Expository Dictionary was published in the 40’s, before a truly accurate understanding of the ‘koine’ Greek expression was researched, and also given his own Brethren / Adventist heritage and his expectation of a culmination of all things within his lifetime, please note that his comments would need to be very well proved.

  Remember W.E. Vine was the man who first applied the understanding that the League of Nations was being pictured by a beast in the Revelation, nine years before the WTS.

  Of course I do not disagree with all he has to say and agree wholeheartedly with his conjecture in his book 'The Church And The Churches', that centrally organized churches are an evil never designed by Christ. But I digress!

  I appreciate that you may have limited time on your hands to attend to your opponents, and I would just re-iterate as I have done on other occasions, that I am not your opponent. You have of course every right to believe exactly what you like, within the Law. I would just ask that the tone of you reply be as dignified and reasoned as one would might expect from a representative of the Christian faith.

  Thank you -- HS
• 

  accuracy

  If you would discount Vine, what about these? These works are later than the 1940s, and are generally praised by scholars of New Testament Greek:

  "Parousia: 1. Presence. From pareimi, 'to be present.'" (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 5, 1967, page 859).

  "Parousia: The state of being present at a place, presence." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, F. W. Danker, 2000, page 780).

  "Parousia: Presence, of persons." (Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, 1996 revision, page 1343).

  In each case, the first definition listed for parousia is "presence." Though other shades of meaning (e.g., "arrival," "visit") are also given, parousia first of all means "presence."
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello Accuracy,

  Many thanks for your post and comments. I am of course aware of the many variations of the translation of this word, having all the tomes that you quote from in my own Library.

  I would however, like to let this thread run a while before I reply as I am interested in reading the comments of a variety of posters on this crucially important issue.

  Best regards -- HS
• 

  Englishman

  HS,

  I don't think that you will receive an answer, you were too polite so he can't call you "Bozo" without appearing graceless.

  Regards,

  Englishman.

  Bring on the dancing girls!
• 

  happy man

  Hillary-stepp
  I must as JW give you some kredit for you writing on the C-canal bord, I think you are an exampel who is wery unusal when it comes to Ex JW, very nice you try to say you uppinion, you have a littel star from me a JW for ower 40 years , i not agree widh you , but i like the stil and the ton inn your writing.
• 

  You Know

  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. To establish whether the word parousia should better be translated as presence or coming we only have to determine what occurs during the parousia. 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?""

  The last days, by definition is an unknowable ongoing period of time 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.

  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. He is coming all during the period of his presence and at the conclusion of that presence he is spoken of as arriving. The prophecy says that at some point even the ridiculers will see undeniable evidence of Jesus' "coming." Matthew 24:30 says: "And they will see the the Son of man COMING on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

  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. 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.

  Also, 1 Thessalonians the 4th chapter reveals that all the saints who die before and during the parousia are resurrected before those who are alive during the parousia. 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. / You Know
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello YK,

  Thank you for your prompt reply.

  As this is perhaps one of the most important doctrines on which the WTS floats, I would like to wait for a short while before replying to your post, in order to gather a few more ideas on both sides of the equation.

  I am quite sure you will receive a barrage of opinions Robert on your view of 2 Peter and many of them may be insulting. Turn the other cheek, and let us keep a civil and scholarly tone throughout this thread as the subject is worthy of very serious discussion.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello Robert,

  That's not too terribly difficult.

  MMmm - we shall see.

  To establish whether the word parousia should better be translated as presence or coming we only have to determine what occurs during the parousia. 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?"" The last days, by definition is an unknowable ongoing period of time 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.

  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.

  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?’

  This of course is exactly what the early Christians expected, that Christ would come again in their lifetime. 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’. This again is an exercise in 'wishful thinking' style translation that so dogs Adventist theologists. This ignoring of such evidence of the ‘parousia’ coins, and the recently discovered usage of the Koine Greek where ‘parousia’ is applied to aa arriving conquering army, is always discretly avoided by apocalyptic thinkers with a vested interest in preaching end-times theology.

  It is my conjecture that in the final event the weight of evidence is against the concept of an ‘invisible presence’, and that this relatively recent (mid C19th ) theological concept is more a matter of Adventist wishful thinking than accurate translation.

  We could say then that the last days and the parousia of Christ are one and the same interval.

  . We could if we accept your view of its NT usage, we might just as easily conclude that ‘we could not’ say that.

  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.

  No evidence at all given for this by you Robert, and remember these linguistic ‘semantics’ have been seized upon by the WTS in order to stake a claim to total exclusivity where it comes to God’s recognition of mankind. The parousia in 1914 is an essential dogma for the WTS, its timing is of absolute important, for it is upon this hook that most of its theology hangs.

  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.

  He is coming all during the period of his presence and at the conclusion of that presence he is spoken of as arriving. The prophecy says that at some point even the ridiculers will see undeniable evidence of Jesus' "coming."

  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?

  Matthew 24:30 says: "And they will see the the Son of man COMING on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." 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. 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.[quote]This analysis is based in part on a similar problem to your initial one, a misunderstanding of what the Greek word for ‘ridiculer’ really means. The ‘ridiculers’ as I mentioned above are those who bought physical harm to Christs disciples, while taunting them with the fact that Christ had not as yet ‘come’. Those ‘lamenting’ in Matt 24:30, mayhave been the ‘ridiculers’ receiving judgment at Christs coming or they may not, but the evidence certainly does not move the weight of evidence from viewing ‘parousia’ in terms of a 'coming'.[quote]That proves that there is a difference between Christ's presence and his coming as those terms are used in the NWT.

  Robert, it does not! It proves only this:

  1) Christ’s disciples would preach a ‘parousia’, a ‘coming’ in Regal Glory of their King. They expected this in their own day. They were physically persecuted for preaching this and those doing the persecuting scorned them by asking ‘where is this coming of his?
  2) At Christ’s parousia, his Kingly arrival, or coming, many would lament his appearance.

  The reference to Thessalonians that you made will be discussed as this thread progresses. I have been purposefully general in my comments as I believe you have also, but I wish to discuss in greater detail the scriptural evidence in the original Greek as well as the contemporary reaction of the disciples to the use of the term 'parousia'. A uniformity of language between the words ‘parousia’ and ‘coming' is in agreement with mainstream translators, that they are transferable terms is evident by their usage. I invite others to comment.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  hillary_step

  Accuracy,

  If you would discount Vine, what about these? These works are later than the 1940s, and are generally praised by scholars of New Testament Greek:
  "Parousia: 1. Presence. From pareimi, 'to be present.'" (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 5, 1967, page 859).
  "Parousia: The state of being present at a place, presence." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, F. W. Danker, 2000, page 780).
  "Parousia: Presence, of persons." (Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, 1996 revision, page 1343).
  In each case, the first definition listed for parousia is "presence." Though other shades of meaning (e.g., "arrival," "visit") are also given, parousia first of all means "presence."

  Perhaps you might also inform the readers what conclusions the instigators of these quotations actually reach about the owrd 'parousia' and what it actually means.

  Do they for example feel that this words allows for the development of a theology of an 'invisible presence', or do they not? Quotations without conclusions can be decieving.

  As I recall, only Bretheren Vine reaches such a conclusion.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  AlanF

  accuracy said:

  : In each case, the first definition listed for parousia is "presence." Though other shades of meaning (e.g., "arrival," "visit") are also given, parousia first of all means "presence."

  So what? All that that means is that parousia has several meanings. All competent scholars acknowledge this. Your implication is that because the definition "presence" is listed first, it must be so that all uses of parousia in the NT must mean "presence". That is a transparently false implication, but is precisely the implication given by the Watchtower Society.

  Now let's take a look at what the references you listed say about how parousia is used more generally in Greek and NT literature.

  You first listed the following:

  : "Parousia: 1. Presence. From pareimi, 'to be present.'" (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 5, 1967, page 859).

  The definition you listed from Kittel's is listed under the topic "A: The General Meaning". Under that topic, we also have the definition:

  2. Appearing. pareimi, "to have come," ... or "to come." ... parousia, "arrival" ...

  Since you have not discussed anything about context, how do you logically manage to imply that definition 1. is somehow better than definition 2. in every usage in the New Testament?

  Next in Kittel's is listed "B. The Technical Use of the Terms." Here we find a number of definitions:

  I. In Hellenism.
  1. The Visit of a Ruler...
  
  II. OT Presuppostions for the Technical Use of the Terms in the NT...
  1. The Coming of God in Direct Self-Attestation and in the Cultusl...
  2. The Coming of God in History...
  3. The Coming of Yahweh as World King...
  4. The Coming of the Messiah...
  
  III. Progress and Regress in Judaism...
  1. Palestinian Judaism...
  b. Expectation of the Messiah (and other Saviours).

  
  In all these definitions we find little notion of "presence" but much notion of "coming". Thus your implications are incomplete at best.

  Going further in Kittel's we find the following discussions and definitions:

  IV. The Technical Use of pareimi and parousia in the NT.
  1. The Historical Place of the Concept of the Parousia in the NT...
  parousia as a technical term for the "coming" of Christ in Messianic glory seems to have made its way into primitive Christianity with Paul... In the Pastoral Epistles parousia is replaced by epiphaneia, which is even more influenced by Hellenism. In the Gospels we find it only in Matthew, who has it 4 times in the apocalyptic discourse or its setting.

  
  The significance of the above is the statement that "in the Pastoral Epistles parousia is replaced by epiphaneia." The latter Greek word, of course, means "appearing", so we have Kittel's explicitly connecting the notion of parousia with the future "appearance" of Christ.

  At this point it should be evident that the question of the precise meaning of parousia in the NT cannot be answered by a simpleminded reference to the first definition of the word in lexicons. Rather, the overall context of the word's usage in the NT must be taken into account.

  You next listed the following as a 1st definition:

  : "Parousia: The state of being present at a place, presence." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, F. W. Danker, 2000, page 780).

  Of course, the 2nd definition is critical to our discussion: "arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent". Under this basic definition we have a discussion of the sub-meaning: "b. in a special technical sense... 'alpha': of Christ, and nearly always of his Messianic Advent in glory to judge the world at the end of this age: Mt 24:3..."

  Here again it is evident that the simpleminded single definitions you presented are inadequate to determine the correct meaning of parousia in its various uses in the NT.

  Finally you listed this:

  : "Parousia: Presence, of persons." (Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, 1996 revision, page 1343).

  However the same reference goes on to list other definitions: "2. arrival... especially visit of a royal or official personage... of a god... 5. in the NT, the Advent..."

  By now it should be evident that a simple listing of the first definitions of a word in a dictionary or lexicon does not have much to do with the meaning of the word in a specific text. One might look up such a first usage of the word "metal" in a dictionary and get an idea of what the word means, but it will have little to do with understanding the usage in a phrase such as "I'm into metal". So it is with the usage of parousia in the New Testament.

  AlanF