Crazyguy, I understand what you're saying. But an indoctrinated JW will just weasel his way out of Luke 12:41 by saying that Peter was wrong in saying it was a parable. The JW will say that Peter and the apostles at that time lacked full appreciation of all that Jesus was saying and so Peter's words referring to Jesus' saying as a parable cannot be taken as gospel anymore than can the apostles wrong assumption that Jesus was restoring the kingdom to earthly Israel as per their question at Acts 1:6.
One time I asked a question on Yahoo Answers where I reasoned on James 5:7 and 2 Peter 3:9 to demonstrate that christ's presence could not have started in 1914 because
1. James 5:7 tells christians to exercise patience until the presence of the lord. The need for christians to exercise patience should therefore end when christ's presence begins, according to the encouragement at James 5:7. So the fact that we see christians still exercising patience a whole century after 1914 serves as evidence that the presence did not start in 1914.
2. 2 Peter 3:9 in answering the question raised by ridiculers asking where is the promised presence, indicates that God is patient in bringing the promised presence because he wants to give people opportunity to repent. This necessarily implies that when the presence starts there would be no more time to repent as it would start with the destructive day of Jehovah wherein the wicked will be destroyed - not a century of invisible kingdom rule as the JWs are claiming. So the presence could not have started 100 years ago as that would mean people still having a whole century to repent in contradiction to 2 Peter 3:9's implicit point that there would be no time left to repent once the presence starts. An objective examination of 2 Peter chapter 3 reveals that Peter associated the presence with the destructive day of the lord ("Jehovah", NWT) and compared it with the flood of Noah's day. Peter does not give the slightest hint or mention that the presence will start invisibly for a century (which surely would have been an important point in light of the question being asked by the ridculers). Peter implicitly teaches a very visible and destructive presence, equating it with the day of the lord.
3. I futher mentioned the fact that, according to JW theology, the ridiculers' would actually be living during christ's presence and still asking where is his presence, because JWs believe that the last days began with the start of christ's presence. If the JW teaching is true then this would certainly be a great irony showing how blind the ridiculers are and yet the inspired bible writer makes no mention of this great irony and great blindness on the part of the ridiculers. Surely he would have done so if the ridiculers of the last days were living during the very presence they were asking about.
What responses did I get?
Sunshine: " Peter had the understanding God granted him at the time - just as Daniel did before him."
DANIEL 12:8-9
"Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, “My lord, what shall be the end of these things?” And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. " - New King James Version (NKJV)
So a JW - at least the one I quoted above - is willing to believe that the bible implicitly teaches error in some places due to limited knowledge of the writers, rather than humbly admit that their 1914 invisible presence doctrine is wrong according to the bible.