The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

by Amazing1914 111 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing1914
    Amazing1914

    Scholar,

    The lexical facts of the matter is that parousia has the primary meaning of 'presence' followed by secondary meanings as 'árrival' and 'coming'.

    Not according to my Greek speaking Greek, George ... who grew up in Greece, speaking Greek ... and I am still an idiot when it comes to Greek ... except for math symbols in my engineering and research science world ... so I am in no position to argue the point ... my above opening post is about an experience I had arguing as a JW with a Greek expert.

    This gives a secure foundation to the earlier and current understanding of the Lord's invisible presence which can be traced to the nineteenth century expositors and fully expounded by Russell.

    ABSOLUTELY NOT ... not yelling, just empahtic ... the concept of invisibility has nothing to do with parousia ... that much I know ... and likewise the 19th century expositors were nicely dealt with by above posters ... and Russell was in good company with those of the Second Advent movement .. they all were good at doctrinal spin.

    It has been the determination of many critics of Jehovah's Witnesses that the meaning of this Greek word should be subverted to 'coming' aloné which is a gross dishonesty. Such a pitiful attempt is well illustrated in the Appendix of the book by Carl Jonsson- Sign of the last Days.

    No one said it means "coming" alone ... and that is not what Mr. Davliakos stated ... he was arguing that "invisibility" was not involved in the word 'parousia' ... and that the 'coming' or 'presence' in Greek were of little difference with respect to the return of Christ ... e.g. I see you """coming""" up my driveway ... I can say that you are both coming and present ... a distinction without a difference ... that was his point.

    Alan F has also engaged in sloppy exegesis when discussing the disciple's question as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. He does not present for careful analysis the Interlinear and the NWT translation of these three texts but simply argues his position on the basis of another translation inferior to the NWT.

    I did not understand Alan F was making an unabridged arguement to address "all" aspects to be sure to be fair to the NWT ... he was making a comprehensive statement about "parousia which the Watchtower conveniently leaves out of its studies in misinformation.

    scholar ... BA MA Studies in Religion

    I do not disrespect your degrees in religious studies ... but I must defer to an expert in language rather than an expert in how religions interprets language ... at least for the time being.

    Amazing ... full of BS, filling up with More S ... and Piled higher and deeper.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Non-scholar, you're so predictable you're funny. I could have written your response for you. You're also so stupid that you don't see that when you took me to task for my brief summary by saying this:

    : Alan F has also engaged in sloppy exegesis when discussing the disciple's question as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. He does not present for careful analysis the Interlinear and the NWT translation of these three texts but simply argues his position on the basis of another translation inferior to the NWT.

    You failed to realize that by failing to back up your claim with "careful analysis the Interlinear and the NWT translation of these three texts" you engaged in the same "sloppy exegesis" you accuse me of. Of course, I realize that your purpose here was not to present any facts, exegesis or anything of substance, but as usual to simply make false accusations. And readers can see that my purpose was not to give an exhaustive exegesis on the topic but only a brief summary of some relevant points.

    It's easy enough to prove how parousia was used by 1st-century Greek speakers by examining the works of Josephus. Below I've extracted the instances in his works where parousia is used exclusively in the sense of "arrival". Of course, you'll never find such references in Watchtower literature. The material is taken from my much larger essay on how the article ?Jesus? Coming or Jesus? Presence?Which?? in the August 15, 1996 Watchtower magazine lies to the Jehovah's Witness community about this question.

    In the following section I present the context of instances in which Josephus uses parousia in the sense of "arrival", based on the listing in Rengstorf?s Concordance to Josephus. The first part of each instance is an English translation from the Loeb Classical Library. The second part is from William Whiston's translation of the works of Josephus. The references below are taken from Josephus' works The Antiquities of the Jews and The Life of Flavius Josephus.

    Each instance is marked with the name of the work in which Josephus used parousia, the number of the book (e.g., Antiquities contains ?books? numbered from 1 through 20), and the section number used in the Loeb Library. Modern printings of Whiston's translation, which are widely available, include these section numbers, so it is easy for readers not having access to the Loeb collection to follow along.

    . . .

    This section contains quotations where parousia takes on the meaning of ?arrival? only. In these, note that the words translated from parousia cannot sensibly be rendered in English by words having only the meaning of ?presence? or ?arrival with a subsequent presence.? In some cases there is a parallel phrase showing clearly that the focus of parousia is on ?arrival,? ?coming? or ?advent.?

    Antiquities 6, 102

    Saul waited awhile as the prophet had enjoined upon him; then, however, he would observe his command no longer, but when he saw that the prophet tarried and that his own soldiers were deserting him he took the victims and performed the sacrifice himself. Then, hearing that Samuel was approaching, he went out to meet him. But the prophet told him that he had not done rightly in disobeying his injunctions and anticipating his advent [parousian]: he was paying that visit in accordance with the will of the Deity?
    He waited, as the prophet sent to him to do; yet did not he, however, observe the command that was given him, but when he saw that the prophet tarried longer than he expected, and that he was deserted by the soldiers, he took the sacrifices and offered them; and when he heard that Samuel was come, he went out to meet him. But the prophet said he had not done well in disobeying the injunctions he had sent to him, and had not staid till his coming [parousian], which being appointed according to the will of God?

    Note the phrase where Saul ?went out to meet? Samuel. It means that Samuel was not yet present, but was on his way?he was coming and about to arrive.

    Antiquities 8, 325

    She reproached the prophet for having come [parousias] to her to convict her of sin.
    [She] complained to him that he had come [parousias] to her to reproach her for her sins.

    Antiquities 11, 328: The setting is that Alexander the Great is approaching Jerusalem:

    When the high priest Jaddus heard this, he was in an agony of fear? He therefore ordered the people to make supplication, and offering sacrifice to God together with them, besought Him to shield the nation and deliver them? But, when he had gone to sleep after the sacrifice, God spoke oracularly to him in his sleep, telling him to take courage and adorn the city with wreaths and open the gates? and that they should not look to suffer any harm, for God was watching over them. Thereupon he rose from his sleep, greatly rejoicing to himself, and announced to all the revelation that had been made to him, and, after doing all the things that he had been told to do, awaited the coming [parousian] of the king.
    Jaddua the high priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror? He therefore ordained that the people should make supplications, and should join with him in offering sacrifices to God, whom he besought to protect that nation, and to deliver them? whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates? without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced; and declared to all the warning he had received from God according to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming [parousian] of the king.

    Since the king was not yet present, parousia must mean ?coming.?

    Antiquities 12, 86

    Eleazar, the high priest, after dedicating [the gifts] to God and honouring the bearers, gave them gifts to take to the king, and sent them back to the king. And when they came [paragenomenon; paraginomai] to Alexandria, and Ptolemy heard of their arrival [parousian] and of the coming [eleluthotas; erkhomai] of the seventy elders?
    When Eleazar the high priest had devoted [the gifts] to God, and had paid due respect to those that brought them, and had given them presents to be carried to the king, he dismissed them. And when they were come to Alexandria, and Ptolemy heard that they were come [parousian], and that the seventy elders were come also?

    The word paraginomai means ?to be by the side of, to come, approach, arrive? (Matt. 2:1: ?astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem), or ?appear, make a public appearance? (Matt. 3:1: ?John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness?). Josephus also wrote (Life; 272-3): "News of these proceedings reached me in a letter from Silas, urging me to lose no time in coming ? Responding instantly to his advice I went [paragenomenos: paraginomai] ? Jonathan and his party having, during their stay at Tiberias, induced a number of aggrieved persons to desert me, on hearing of my arrival [parousian] were alarmed about their own safety. Josephus went or came (paraginomai) to Tiberias; he arrived and became present (parousia), and the deserters became aware of his being there.

    The word erkhomai means ?to come or go, arrive? (Matt. 24:30: ?they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds?; Matt. 25:10: ?the bridegroom arrived?). Here we find three parallel uses of words that illustrate their use as synonyms: the gift bearers came (paraginomai) to Alexandria; Ptolemy heard of their arrival (parousia); the seventy elders came (erkhomai) at the same time. Note that while parousia and paraginomai by themselves could conceivably mean ?presence? here, the parallel use of erkhomai with respect to the seventy elders forces the meaning of ?arrival.?

    Antiquities 12, 93

    [The king] promised, moreover, that he would make a special occasion of the day on which they had come [epiphane; epiphaino] to him and would celebrate it every year so long as he lived, for, he said, the day of their coming [parousias] happened to be same as that of the victory which he had gained over Antigonus in a naval battle.
    [The king} promised, however, that he would make this day on which they came to him remarkable and eminent every year through the whole course of his life; for their coming [parousias] to him, and the victory which he gained over Antigonus by sea, proved to be on the very same day.

    Again note the virtually synonymous use of epiphaino (epiphaneia) and parousia. Again we note the parallel use of a word which cannot mean ?presence? along with parousia, forcing the latter to mean ?coming.? The parousia of the visitors was their epiphaneia.

    Antiquities 12, 352

    This reverse befell them because they disobeyed the instructions of Judas not to engage anyone in battle before his arrival [parousias].
    This misfortune befell them by their disobedience to what injunctions Judas had given them, not to fight with anyone before his return [parousias].

    Using something like ?before his presence? would be awkward and inconsistent with the overall context.

    Antiquities 13, 266

    The praetor Fannius should give them money from the public treasury for their return [epanelthoien; epanerkhomai] home. Accordingly Fannius dismissed the Jewish envoys in this manner, giving them money from the public treasury and a decree of the Senate to those who were to conduct them on their way and furnish them a safe return [parousian] home.
    Their praetor Fanius should give them money out of the public treasury to bear their expenses home. And thus did Fanius dismiss the Jewish ambassadors, and gave them money out of the public treasury; and gave the decree of the senate to those that were to conduct them, and to take care that they should return [parousian] home in safety.

    The word epanerkhomai means ?to come back, return? (Luke 10:35: ?I will repay you when I come back here?; Luke 19:15 ?when he got back after having secured the kingly power?). Here again we find the parallel use of an unambiguous word determining the precise meaning of parousia?which is here ?return.?

    Antiquities 20, 30-32

    [Helena entreated the nobles] to defer their decision about putting the brothers to death until after Izates had arrived [paragenomenos; paraginomai] and given his approval. Failing to persuade her to put the brothers to death as they advised, they, for their own safety, admonished her at least to keep them in custody until his arrival [paraousias]? Helena ? set up Monobazus, her eldest son, as king ? she exhorted him to administer the kingdom until his brother's arrival [parousias]. The latter, on hearing of his father's death, quickly arrived [heke; heko] and succeeded his brother.
    Helena replied to this ? [that the nobles] would however defer the execution of this slaughter of Izates's brethren till he should be there himself, and give his approbation to it. So since these men had not prevailed with her when they advised her to slay them, they exhorted her at least to keep them in bonds till he should come [parousias], and that for their own security? Helena ? set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king ? and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come [parousias]; who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother.

    We have already seen that paraginomai can mean ?be by the side of, come, approach, arrive.? The context alone shows that it and the two instances of parousia mean ?arrival.? The meaning is paralleled by another word, heko, which means ?to be come, have arrived.? Vine?s Expository Dictionary comments on the difference between erkhomai and heko: ?erchomai ? signifies the act, in contrast with heko ? which stresses the arrival, as, e.g., ?I am come [exerkhomai; ?to come out?] and am here [heko],? John 8:42 and Heb. 10:9.? (?I am come (heko) to do your will?). Again we find an unambiguous word, heko, determining the sense of two others, so that parousia here means ?arrival.?

    Life, 90

    I mustered two hundred men and marched all night long, sending a courier in advance to inform the people of Tiberias that I was coming [parousian].
    I took two hundred men along with me, and traveled all night, having sent before a messenger to let the people of Tiberias know that I was coming [parousian] to them.

    Since he had not yet arrived, he could not yet be present. This is an extremely clear example.

    This shows that the claims that Rolf Furuli made in the quotation in the above post by Leolaia are lies, just as are the claims of the Watchtower Society that he prostitutes himself to.

    AlanF

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Furuli basically argues (I think) that parousia is a stative verb and does not necessarily express a dynamic change-of-state; he admits that it might be possible, and he also says he has not seen an example where the context "demands" an instantaneous sense of "coming". Although his discussion claims to distinguish aspect from lexical semantics, his use of old-style (i.e. AT Robertson) Aktionsart terminology confuses the issue because it encompasses both grammatical aspect and lexical aspect. Thus at times he seems to stray a little into discussing punctiliarity as it functions in the Greek tenses (technically, the tense/aspect system), which is inappropriate for discussing lexical semantics. He says, for instance, that:

    durativity is a semantic property (it is not dependent on the context and cannot be canceled) punctuality is a pragmatic property (it must be construed by help of the context and can be canceled)

    Considering that Furuli has defined the punctiliar in terms of "instantaneous" action, he is here mixing up lexical meaning with grammatical contextual meaning. According to Vendler and later semanticists, events can be catagorized into four categories (activities, accomplishments, achievements, states) according to three properties (telicity, duration, dynamicity). "Instantaneous" is simply [- duration], while the "durative" is [+ duration]. Both equal counterparts of a semantic feature at the lexical level, independent of grammatical or pragmatic context. Thus we find that:

    activities are [- telic, + duration, + dynamic]
    achievements are [+ telic, - duration, + dynamic]
    accomplishments are [+ telic, + duration, + dynamic]
    states are [- telic, + duration, - dynamic]

    Other combinations of these features lead to ill-formed and nonsensical events (i.e. an instantaneous event that does not involve a change of state). To give some examples, "Peter was sad all day" is a state, "Mary swam for twenty minutes" is an activity, "Mary drew a circle" is an accomplishment, and "Peter arrived at 9 p.m." is an achievement. In terms of event structure, we can characterize these kinds of events in the following way:

    activities: [x ACT <manner>]
    achievements: [BECOME [ x <state>]]
    accomplishments: [[ x ACT <manner> ] CAUSE [BECOME [y <state>]]]
    states: [x <state>]

    As I see it, the issue really boils down to whether the lexical meaning of parousia is only [+ duration], that is, only as a state, activity, or accomplishment, or whether as an achievement. A separate issue, which Furuli conflates with the duration question, is also whether parousia is dynamic and only expresses a state, or whether it can express a change of state as an accomplishment or achievement. Thus Furuli says ?the crux of the discussion about PAROUSIA is whether it in any passage of the NT signals anything but a state (presence)?, yet he also says that the main issue is whether there is any evidence that ?the context demands the instantaneous sense?. Two separate questions that are being treated together as the same. But both are relevant in the case of achievements (like the example above, ?Peter arrived at 9 p.m.?) which are both [- duration] and [+ dynamic], whereas states like "presence" are [+ duration] and [- dynamic]. So, though they are distinct issues, they are both relevant.

    Now consider one of the examples that AlanF gave, from Josephus (Antiquities 20, 30-32):

    Helena ? set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king ? and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come [parousias]; who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother.

    This is almost a classic example of an achievement. First, there is the change of state. Monobazus is first engaged in an ACTIVITY, that of administering the affairs of the kingdom. Activities are [- telic] and have no inherent goal; until things change, Monobazus continues engaged in the activity. This activity is also durative; it continues for some time. What ends this activity, as indicated by the aspectual adverb translated "till", is the "presence" of his brother. This is a new state that did not exist at the time Monobazus was administering the kingdom; otherwise he would not be engaged in the activity. Thus, regardless of how the word is translated, there is a semantic change-of-state that parousia indicates. So the event structure of parousia in this sentence is not [x <state>] but [BECOME [ x <state>]]. It cannot be an accomplishment because the event has only one participant, the one coming, and it also does not indicate a durative, non-instantaneous action. If the second instance of "come" (translated "came") in the sentence is also an instance of parousia, the punctual adverb translated "suddenly" would definitely discount this possibility. So would the fact that parousia halts the activity of "administering" at a single point in time. But even if the verb is not instantaneous and expresses both the act of coming and the presence, it is inescapable that parousia does indeed express "something other than a state".

    The examples that AlanF provided might suggest a three-fold event structure of parousia, one could even think of them as three separate words that are used in different contexts. First, there is the stative parousia, which means "presence". This is used in contexts where no change in state is implied, and where the "presence" is an ongoing, nondynamic, durative event, i.e. "My uncle was present in the kitchen when I made dinner". There is also an activity parousia, one that indicates a dynamic action. This is the act of "coming", i.e. "It took a long time for me to come home". As I showed with the durative adverb "long time", this parousia would also be durative. Finally, there is an achievement parousia, one that indicates "arrival" and thus is telic, i.e. "Finally John arrived when we were eating dinner". Like the example from Josephus cited above, this parousia is not durative. The examples provided by both Furuli and AlanF seem to attest all three kinds of parousia. To determine which of these is involved in the case of Jesus' parousia, one needs to examine the pragmatic context to see which adverbs are being used, which grammatical constructions and tenses are being used, etc. to see whether changes of state and non-durativity is involved. A verb merely indicating the state of "being present" would not express dynamism and punctuality.

    I hope this clarifies a few things. BTW, Furuli says that states are not cancellable. Of course, that may be true in relating grammatical aspect to lexical meaning (that is, if durativity is encoded lexically), but not at all true at the lexical level. For instance, in certain Austronesian languages, neuter verbs are statives that can be used to indicate achievements. Even a color term like "red" could be used as a verb to indicate a change in state, "to redden".

  • scholar
    scholar

    Alan F

    Your choice of Josephus for establishing the meaning of parousia in the 1st century is at variance with the meagre discussion of his material in Kittel's TDNT, Vol.5, pp.864-5. Clearly, This term in Josephus can be translated in various ways, all that you have done is selected those texts that show arrival rather than presence. You do not demonstrate completely how this term is used and so arbitrary selection is irrelevant. What figures most importantly for Christians is how this word should be rendered in English for the 24 times it occurs in the NT. Perhaps, as you make bold and fanciful claims about this term, you could indicate how parousia dhould be translated in each of those occurrences.

    The Society's WT article on this subject contains no lies as you allege but simply presents the facts of lexicography that parousia means presence with its connotations of arrival and coming unless of course you intend to produce your own lexicon or Bible transaltion.

    scholar

    BA BA Hons(cand.) MA Studies in Religion

  • Sunspot
    Sunspot

    **Once the membership sees this lie, they will come up with another lie.

    **It's just their way, you know

    <giggle>

    Thanks, Farkel.........ya gotta love it......

    hugs,

    Annie

  • johnny cip
    johnny cip

    scholar: i have been following channel C . it's amazing how you got chewed up and spit out there as a fraud. now you come back here and try to con many here, but even here , there are many to expose you. since i'm not the greatest at puting thoughts on paper. i'll just watch you stumble all over your keyboard, and worship your idol the wtbts. you may think your some type of Scholar. But you have not reached the AGE OF REASON YET!!!!!!!!! i'll be waiting for that day. if you like you can send me a private message. and i'll give you my phone number , and we can talk....sure we can have some interesting talks..........................john

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    scholar,

    Despite the that that you have been demolished on the 607-1914 mess your pet religion is attempting to deal with, at least you are humble as Christ said one should be humble:

    : BA BA Hons(cand.) MA Studies in Religion

    You "humbly" broadcast that piece of nothingness on every post as if it means something. You've obviously violated the WTS sanction on not going to college and then FLAUNT the fact that you say you went to college., while violating that same WTS policy. You hypocrite!

    You are either a traitor to WTS policy or you are a traitor to WTS policy. Which would it be, self-described "scholar?"

    Farkel

  • scholar
    scholar

    johnny cip

    I fail to see that I have been exposed as a fraud on Channel C as you claim or perhaps you only read what you want to believe. I intend to continue to post on that forum whenever it is appropriate. In fact I have not been demolished as you claim for I have been posting on this forum for quite some time and you can check the history of my postings on this forum. Also, my academic qualifications are authentic and I welcome the opportunity to converse by phone.

    scholar

  • Amazing1914
    Amazing1914

    Scholar,

    I would love to see the following Watchtower article. Would / could you scan it and post it here ... or at least cite it so that someone else can scan a copy? You noted:

    The Society's WT article on this subject contains no lies as you allege but simply presents the facts of lexicography that parousia means presence with its connotations of arrival and coming unless of course you intend to produce your own lexicon or Bible transaltion.

    First, you have still EVADED the main point that "parousia" has nothing to do with invisibility. That is the point Mr. Davliakos made. Also, your admission that "parousia" also can mean "arrival" and "coming" demonstrates the point perfectly ... a point made earlier by my Greek speaking friend that "parousia" [presence and coming] are distinctions without a difference.

    Amazing

  • AlanF

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit