Finally to AlanF's long and burdensome post.
As usual most of it is the usual nonsense about the definition of the word parousia and a repeat of his last 20 posts. Note to AlanF: Just because you might say it over and over don't mean it will ever be true. Parousia means presence and involves an arrival and subsequent stay. That is what the scholars say. That is what the Bible says. That is even what you have said. Why don't you start a thread about parousia and argue with yourself?
Ive got a great idea. Maybe Leave the part about parousia's definition out next time and that way we will have time to read the rest of your post and it will be easier to find any relevant points if any exist.
After wading thru the usual rhetoric and parousia stuff here is what I found.
Alan F quoted me: No one has ever said that Noah covered the entire world with his preaching.
And then said: Obviously, you don't know what your own cult teaches. Note:
Then he proceeded to quote several WT articles that do not prove his point at all. None of them said that Noah covered the entire world. You can go back and look at his quotes if you want to take the time.
Then he sums the WT publication up by saying: The Watchtower Society directly states that Noah preached to the entire "wicked generation" of Noah's day.
The WT didn't use the word 'entire'. I believe that was AlanF's word. There is no doubt Noah preached because the Bible said he was a preacher of righteousness. He no doubt preached to many people. And what he was doing probably spread so that he may well have been known far and wide. To what extent he preached and to what extent his work became known who can say? But I am confident that if there were any other righteous ones around Jehovah would have pointed them to Noah.
Alan F quotes me quoting and answering him:: So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.: Incorrect.
And then comments: Your claim is based on only one thing: your circular argument that Christ's "invisible presence" began in 1914 and that this Watchtower doctrine requires that JWs have been given a warning since then. Sorry, circular arguments don't cut it.
No. My claim is based on what Jesus said in comparing the days of Lot and Noah to the days/parousia of the Son of man.
As I told Auldsoul, the scriptures we are discussing in Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:26 Jesus is not comparing any preaching work of Lot to the preaching work during the presence of the Son of man. He is showing that the days of Lot and the days of Noah would be just like the days of the Son of man in that people would be living their everyday life taking no note of God until sudden destruction fell upon them. His illustration was not in connection to the preaching work done then or now.
You believe that by saying that the people of Sodom didn't receive a warning and Lot didn't preach somehow disproves the point Jesus was making that the days of Noah and Lot when people were taking no note would be like the days or parousia of the Son of man. You point makes no sense whatsoever. You only hope to confuse the issue but you have failed because we can see thru your absurd reasonings.
AlanF said: It's astonishing how severely you distort what the scriptures say. Let's look at the passage again:Matthew 24:36-39: 36 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be."Now let's analyze the individual verses. Verse 36 makes a statement that no one knows the day or the hour. Why do they not know? Verse 37 answers, beginning with the key word "for". "For" in this position introduces material that explains the preceding material. It's like "because". The sentence "I grow hungry, for I have not eaten" is equivalent to "I grow hungry because I have not eaten." Verse 37, therefore, states the reason that no one would know the day or the hour: because the coming of the Son of man would be like the days of Noah. Obviously, the days of Noah were before the flood. Verse 38 states an additional reason that no one would know the day or the hour: because just as in the days before the flood, people were living life normally as if nothing were about to happen.So, far from being disconnected from the preceding verses, verse 38 is an integral part of them because we have the logical sequence: 36 statement. 37 for this reason . . . 38 for this other reason.
Wow, What did you just say? Do you even know yourself?
I have highlighted in red one thing you said among all this mumbo jumbo because it is totally ridiculous. The reason no one knows the day or hour has nothing to do with whether a person is taking note of God. Even servants of God would not know the day or hour of Armageddon, even Jesus himself didn't know.
Then AlanF quotes scholars that might agree with him and dismisses all scholars who might disagree with him as being dispensationalists and various Bible students. So what? How many scholars can you quote that believe God is a Trinity. Bible proof overrides 'scholars'.
Alan F then quotes Luke 17:30 as if he understands it and dazzles us with some Greek to show us that he must be right since he knows some Greek words: Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days [hemera] of the Son of man. . . The same way it will be on that day [hemera] when the Son of man is to be revealed [apokalupsis].
In these passages, Matthew employs phrases like parousia tou huiou tou anthrwpou (coming of-the Son of-the man), while Luke uses phrases like hemera tou huiou tou anthrwpou (day of-the Son of-the man). It is clear that these passages equate coming [parousia] and revealing [apokalupsis].
No that is not clear and that is totally incorrect and a misreading of scripture. Here is what the scripture says in Luke 17:29,30: But on the day that Lot came out of Sod´om it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed.
What do we see from this. The very day that Sodom was destroyed is not compared to the entire days or parousia of the Son of man. But only to the day when the Son of man is to be revealed. When does this revealing take place for all to see without a doubt? It takes place at the conclusion of the parousia of Christ. Revelation 1:7 tells us at what point he will be revealed so that every eye will see him: He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him.
And as I noted a few posts up this coincides perfectly with Matt 24: 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
That is when the flood sweeps them all away, the fire falls on Sodom, and the Son of man is revealed for every eye to see.
Perhaps AlanF can explain secular chronicles which he puts above the Bible but his Bible explanations fall miserably flat on their face and ignore reason, logic, and other inspired scriptures as shown once again.
