Cassuk: Some good points made.
However care must be taken to avoid the logical fallacy of grouping separate events into one, when that is not the case. From their questions, the disciples probably lumped them (judgment on Jerusalem and world judgment) together as well. Jesus straightened them out by separating the two. One would occur before the generation then living passed away; the other at a future unknowable date. Two separate judgments; one preceded by days unparalleled trouble/vengeance upon the Jews, that would be local, you could flee Judea to escape, hopefully not in winter or with suckling infants in toe; the precise moment of which you could know and anticipate and run from. The other judgment would happen on a single day, worldwide, snare on the entire earth, occurring in normal, marrying and working times, unknowable impossible of anticipation, impossible to flee from, some taken from their beds, fields etc. others left. Jesus made it very clear that His personal arrival/presence on earth (parousia) would not accompany the judgment on Jerusalem to deliver anyone; no secret presence; when His presence on earth would happen, it would be obvious and earth-shattering.
The "great tribulation" (days of vengeance) culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was a localized coming ercmomai of Christ in judgment; an event which one could anticipate as to timing, and escape from on foot...weather permitting and after which the Jews who were not slain, would be carried off into all nations....all this in the lifetime of some in Jesus' audience (37 years removed) The parousia of our Lord however, was spoken of as future worldwide coming, impossible to escape by running anywhere, impossible to anticipate as to timing, where believers will be taken/removed from beds and workplace during normal times when people will be carrying on as usual just like in the time of Noah. No signs, no warning, no fleeing and worldwide.
Leola pu t it this way:
“ The word parousia does not necessarily denote both "an arrival and a consequent presence"; it commonly denoted just the arrival, such as a terminus or an end-point of a time period (such as a state of affairs continuing UNTIL someone arrives). It is trivially easy to find clear examples of this in Greek literature. The parousia itself would then be a sudden change of the situation as opposed to being itself a duration. That is how it is used in the synoptic apocalypse. It is used interchangeably with erkhomai, and is an event that occurs suddenly or unexpectedly. The comparison of the parousia to the Flood of Noah emphasizes the suddenness of the event that will END an ongoing state of affairs. What was arriving to those on the earth was the Flood itself; it wasn't "invisibly present" beforehand. And even if it was, what happened during those years long before the Flood that made the Flood go from "not present" to "present"? Don't you see the problem? "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left" (v. 40-41). That pertains to the parousia, in analogy with the Flood, and it highlights the suddenness of the event; people would be in the midst of their daily activities when it happens, just as those before the Flood were in the midst of eating, drinking, and so forth. The arrival denoted by the parousia isn't invisible either; " For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. " (v. 27). Sure there would be a presence after this, but it isn't one unremarked upon by the world at large. It was going to be absolutely obvious, with a spectacle in the sky and with a loud trumpet call from the heavens.