The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

by Amazing1914 111 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Amazing1914

  As JWs we learned the utmost central Watchtower doctrine that Jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then J. F. Rutherford decided Jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to JWs as "Jesus Second Presence" (Greek: parousia = English: presence):
  

  Ref. related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx

  This teaching, above all others, is the cornerstone of JW theology ... and is based on Charles Taze Russell's exposure to Bible students in Pennsylvania who talked of this "Second Presence" ... it is where Charles got the idea that the reason they (Second Adventist) did not "see" Jesus is that the Greek word "parousia" is not a visible "coming" but an invisible one ... and it is why Jesus left in clouds to conceal his departure, so by George, he must return in a cloudly murkey - hence - invisible manner too ... its all in the Bible ... NOT.

  What does "Parousia or Presence" really mean? A fellow engineer I worked with years ago is from Greece. [George Davliakos] ... he is well versed in modern Greek, Koine Greek, Classical Greek, and about every other kind of Greek you can think of ... so, being the good JW that I was, I would often try to witness to George by getting him to comment on Greek as the New World translation goes ... I would drag out the Interlinear, the Diaglott, etc. and he would read it fluently ... then explain translation to me ... btw: George is also fluent is several languages, besides English ... but Greek is special to him.

  "George, please tell me about the meaning of "Parousia." Most often, George would agree with how the NWT was translated (the NWT is not always bad) ... he would take exceptions here and there, but they were not too serious ... so, I enjoyed how George validated my JW NWT Bible to some extent at least ... and the times where he disagreed with the NWT, I would ignore it or decide that more research was needed ... but then ... one day ... we discussed that word, parousia.

  He said it means - "Coming." ... No, George, you have it wrong, the Greek word "parousia" means "presence" such as being there by being invisible - just like the Society says ... they have Greek translators you know ... No, Jim, you are an idiot for believing that ... Greek no more justifies "invisibility" than does the English word "presence." Neither word has anything to do with "invisibility" ... for that matter, if Jesus is invisible, he can be "coming" invisibly or "present" invisibily ... so the assumption by your religion is wrong ...

  He went on to tell me that for nearly two thousand years, Greek speaking Christians have anticipated Jesus "coming" when they read the word "parousia" because to be coming, as you might be approaching a place but everyone sees you coming, or to be there as present, and everyone sees you there is a matter of small difference, almost symantic. No, the Bible says that every eye will see Jesus ... and for that matter, Jesus really left "visibly" before he disappeared ... so, in like manner he returns in his "coming" to emerge from the invisible to become visible ... just as scripture says ...

  No George, it is like this, you see ... and I went on to "witness" to him about the ugly truth regarding his native Greek language and how "parousia" really means invisible ... yes, I was the idiot ... a good JW ... but an idiot nonetheless ... now, I understand the real ugly truth about "parousia or presence" ... that it neither requires visibility or invisibility ... the whole CENTRAL DOCTRINE of the Watchtower is based on a Red Herring as is most all of their other teachings.

  Simply Amazing
• 

  blondie

  I always thought it interesting that this "understanding" of it meaning an invisible presence came after a failed visible coming in 1844.
• 

  Farkel

  Good comments, Amazing.

  What you've described is only part of the Charlotte's Web mess known as the "invisible second coming." The WTS is still faced with the dilemma that the synoptic gospels clearly show Jesus himself stating that his second coming would be when he arrived in the clouds and EVERY eye would see him. In fact, when the disciples asked him what would be the "sign" of that coming, he didn't say it would be wars, and earthquakes. No. He said specifically that the "sign" would be when he arrived in the clouds and appeared before all of humankind.

  The WTS tries to explain this simple fact away by asserting it was a "spiritual" seeing, not a physical one. For that to be true, even the most wicked of people would somehow magically have a "spiritual" seeing of Christ. It's all bullshit. The Watchtower's foundation is not so much built upon a house of sand as it is rather built upon a house of incomprehensible bullshit.

  I know you know all of this, but there are many new readers on the board.

  Farkel
• 

  kls

  Well Amazing , you spoke like a dub is supposed to . No matter if the other person is fluent in Greek or the best scolar the jws wrightings are always right. As you know you can't make a dub see with his blind fold on and he can't hear with watchtowers stuffed in his ears.
• 

  hillary_step

  Jim,

  Good post.

  The WTS has little defense over its misuse of this Koine Greek expression. The only 'proof' they ever offer is by quoting W. E. Vine's understanding of this word from his Expository Dictionary whenever they discuss this topic. What they *never* explain to the reader, in their typical selective style, is that Vine was *himself* an Adventist, very much influenced by the Adventist theological thinking that gripped the religious world during the latter part of the 1800's.

  Remember, it was Vine who first applied apocalyptic symbols from the Book Of Revelation to the League Of Nations, well in advance of the WTS, in fact I believe a decade beforehand.

  What is truly astounding is that in one WTS concerning the ?parousia?, the writers admitted that the term applied to the *arrival* of a ruling King or army, but they reasoned that as preparations would always be made in such circumstances, this would indicate that the WTS usage of this term was the correct one.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Tuesday

  A site I enjoy about Jesus' second coming www.bsotl.org
• 

  metatron

  This always bothered me as a Witness. How a word is actually used is more important than its literal meaning.

  I might say that their explanation is "lousy" - do I really mean that it is covered with lice?

  So too, with parousia. If they commonly used it to refer to the arrival of a king, then that's its most likely meaning.

  The FRAUD involved in Watchtower interpretations can be seen from the fact that they never offer a clear,

  detailed exposition of this stuff. Even Russell tried to do this - but if the WTS did, you'd see the foolishness

  of multiple comings by Jesus. One for the FDS slave, a different one for the sheep and goats and so on.

  metatron
• 

  AlanF

  A few other points on the meaning of parousia and such.

  The flavor of the disciples' question to Jesus in Matthew 24:3 was not, "What's to be the sign that you're invisibly present?" but "What sign should we look for that you're about to arrive?" The parallel verses in Mark and Luke prove this:

  Mark 13:4: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?" (ASV)

  Luke 21:7: "And they asked him, saying, Teacher, when therefore shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?" (ASV)

  The Greek word for "are about" is almost always translated that way, but in these passages the New World Translation changes the meaning by using the phrase "are destined to occur" -- which is nonsensical when you think about it. The disciples already knew that what Jesus prophesied was destined to occur simply because he said it. They certainly didn't need a future sign to tell them this again.

  The notion that parousia means presence in these and related passages came about when Nelson Barbour's prediction that the world would end in 1873 failed and his followers searched for an explanation. One of his readers noticed that a new NT translation, The Emphatic Diaglott by the Christadelphian Benjamin Wilson, translated parousia as "presence" in Matthew 24:3. Bingo! Here was the perfect excuse for the prophetic failure: Jesus came alright, but invisibly! In other words, they began claiming that parousia referred to an invisible presence that only "the elect" could discern via "Bible understanding". When Charles Russell in 1876 accepted Barbour's "Bible chronology" he also accepted this silly notion, and the Watchtower Society has used it ever since.

  Various earlier people who wrote about Jesus' coming and end-of-the-world nonsense adopted some form of an "invisible rapture" doctrine. Carl Jonsson, in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, gives a history of this concept.

  Parousia can mean "presence", "coming" and "arrival with subsequent presence". The difference in focus can be subtle, and it's not always possible to determine, even from context, precisely what the writer means. Sometimes it seems that the distinctions are not particularly important.

  A 1996(?) Watchtower article attempted to justify this claim once again, but it contained many outright misrepresentations and false arguments. For example, it quoted Josephus' use of parousia five times where he used the word with the sense "presence". But Josephus used the word another 28 times in the senses of "coming" and "arrival with subsequent presence", as shown by the context. So the Watchtower article lied to readers by failing to give them full information. What else is new?

  It's sad when a religion has to lie to its members by giving them false information and even mistranslating the very Bible they claim to revere.

  AlanF
• 

  ThiChi

  Good points. I am by no means a WT apologist, however, one point the WT makes is why would his followers ask for a sign if Christ could be seen? This seems to be a good point. And, Why can?t one be present and invisible at the same time?

  What do the lexicons say?
  Thayer's, "1. presence: 1 Co. xvi. 17; 2Co. x. 10; ...2. the presence of one coming, hence the coming, arrival, advent."

  Vine's, "lit., "a presence," para, "with," and ousia, "being" (from eimi, "to be"), denotes both an "arrival" and a consequent "presence with." For instance, in a papyrus letter a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property there. Paul speaks of his parousia in Philippi, Phil 2:12 (in contrast to his apousia, "his absence"...Other words denote "the arrival"...Parousia is used to describe the presence of Christ with His disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration, 2Pet. 1:16. When used of the return of Christ, at the rapture of the church, it signifies, not merely his momentary "coming" for His saints, but His presence with them from that moment until His revelation and manifestation to the world. In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that period, the course of the period being implied, 1 Cor. 15:23; 1Thess. 4:15...In some, the course is prominent, Matt. 24:3, 37...in others the conclusion of that period, Matt 24:27..."

  McKenzie,s Dictionary of the Bible, "Parousia (Gk parousia, "presence" or "arrival") ...In the Synoptic Gospels the Parousia is described as the coming of the Son of Man in glory (the glory of the Father) with the angels (Mt 16:27; 25:31; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26), as a coming on the clouds with power and glory (Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27, omitted in Lk 22:69). The Parousia will be preceded by signs in the heavens...The coming will be like a flash of lightning (Mt 24:27; Lk 17:24); this image no doubt refers primarily to the sudden and unannounced appearance of the Son of Man, but it also suggests the brilliance of his appearance. He will come in the manner in which he ascended into heaven (AA 1:11). He takes his throne in the heavens (Mk 25:31)."

  Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 1343) shows that pa·rou·si'a is used at times in secular Greek literature to refer to the "visit of a royal or official personage."

  J. B. Rotherham's Emphasised Bible Appendix (p. 271): "In this edition the word parousia is uniformly rendered 'presence' ('coming,' as a representative of this word, being set aside). . . . The sense of 'presence' is so plainly [shown] by the contrast with 'absence' . . . that the question naturally arises,-Why not always so render it?"

  TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) "in the NT the terms [pareimi and parousia] are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and PAROUSIA never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one PAROUSIA is first found only in the later Church . . . A basic requisite for understanding the world of thought of primitive Christianity is that we should fully free ourselves from this notion, which, so far as the NT is concerned, is suspect both philologically and materially" (TDNT 4:865).
• 

  Farkel

  :I am by no means a WT apologist, however, one point the WT makes is why would his followers ask for a sign if Christ could be seen?

  They didn't know he would be seen until they asked for the sign of his advent. It's obvious from his answer to their question. Matthew 24:30.

  Farkel