JWs & The Bible

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace said : "Hi Clear. Brian and I are in disagreement on the usage of parousia in the text we were considering, so I am not sure how we can be both correct... but thanks for sharing your thoughts" (post #179)

My example of ancient usage of the term was specifically referring to the point that παρουσια can refer BOTH to a "presence" (i.e. the King is here now) AND to an "arrival" (i.e. the King is coming next week).

While my examples were meant to show the word could mean either principle depending on context, you may both disagree on the use and meaning of the word in a specific context.

I will leave it up to you both to decide if matthew 24:3 is referring to a future state where Jesus returns is a "coming" or a future "presence" and what the nuance means.

I admit that I did not read enough to tell why the difference was important to your discussion.

Good luck to both of you.

Clear
τωειειφιω

 

[Kenny]

Thanks.
Just to be clear... There is to be a universal family both in heaven and on earth. Yes?

That's a good question. Now, yes. Later? Don't know for sure. Maybe you can shed some light here.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heavenfrom God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. ... He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son." (Revelation 21:1-4, 7)

The New Jerusalem comes down to the new earth and comes "out of heaven" from God and His tabernacle is now with men. (Not in Heaven)

 

[nPeace]

That's a good question. Now, yes. Later? Don't know for sure. Maybe you can shed some light here.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heavenfrom God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. ... He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son." (Revelation 21:1-4, 7)

The New Jerusalem comes down to the new earth and comes "out of heaven" from God and His tabernacle is now with men. (Not in Heaven)

Okay, I guess we can step back a bit.
I like how you said Genesis 3:15 is a vehicle that gets us to Ephesians 1:8-14.
Hopefully you mean what I agree with, that the Genesis 3 prophecy gets us to Ephesians 1.
So to answer your questions, perhaps we can answer a few questions for now.
Where does the Abrahamic covenant, and its promise fit in - Genesis 22:18?
Where does John 14:1-4 , 2 Corinthians 5:1 , 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17 fit in to God's purpose as mentioned earlier (universal family in heaven and on earth)?
Will God dwell on earth? Revelation 21:3-5

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace said : "Hi Clear. Brian and I are in disagreement on the usage of parousia in the text we were considering, so I am not sure how we can be both correct... but thanks for sharing your thoughts" (post #179)

My example of ancient usage of the term was specifically referring to the point that παρουσια can refer BOTH to a "presence" (i.e. the King is here now) AND to an "arrival" (i.e. the King is coming next week).

While my examples were meant to show the word could mean either principle depending on context, you may both disagree on the use and meaning of the word in a specific context.

I will leave it up to you both to decide if matthew 24:3 is referring to a future state where Jesus returns is a "coming" or a future "presence" and what the nuance means.

I admit that I did not read enough to tell why the difference was important to your discussion.

Good luck to both of you.

Clear
τωειειφιω

Thanks Clear.
Would you mind just sharing your thoughts on this, for a moment?

The word parousiʹa literally means “a being alongside,” it being drawn from the Greek preposition paraʹ (“alongside”) and ousía (a “being”). Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon, Volume II, page 1343, column 2, gives as the first definition of parousía the English word “presence.” It gives as the second definition thereof arrival, and then adds: “Especially visit of a royal or official personage.” In agreement with this the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (by Gerhard Friedrich), in Volume V, gives as “The General Meaning” the English word “Presence.” (Page 859) Then, as “The Technical Use of the Terms,” in Hellenism, it gives “1. The Visit of a Ruler.” On page 865 it says concerning “The Technical Use of pareimi [verb] and parousía in the N.T.”: “In the N.T. the terms are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and parousía never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one parousía is first found only in the later Church.”

So, then, Jesus’ disciples were asking, not about his “arrival,” but about after his arrival. They were asking about his “presence.” And if, instead of using the word “presence,” we resort to “the technical use of the terms” in Hellenism, the disciples would be understood to ask Jesus: “What will be the sign of your [visit as a royal personage] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” A “visit” includes more than an “arrival.” It includes a “presence.” In the so-called New Testament the Greek word parousía occurs twenty-four times, and in all its occurrences there, not only the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translates the word every time as “presence,” but also other translations do so, as Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, of 1862 C.E.; Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, of 1857-1863 C.E.; and Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible, of 1897 C.E. We note how fittingly “presence” and “absence” are contrasted, in Philippians 2:12, where the apostle Paul says: “You have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence.”

Source

 

[Brian2]

Sorry I must have misread the question. Angels are spirits.

Jesus was resurrected as spirit, and he could materialize physical bodies. - 1 Timothy 3:16 ; 1 Peter 3:18, 19 ; 1 Corinthians 15:35-52
Jesus was born a human, on earth. - John 1:14 ; Philippians 2:7, 8 ; Hebrews 2:14
Jesus died. - Isaiah 53:12 ; Romans 5:6-8 ; 1 Peter 3:18 ; 1 John 4:10

So according to the scriptures...
Angels are spirits, and they materialize physical bodies, and Jesus was raised spirit, he also could materialize physical bodies, and he did, but Jesus was was born flesh, died flesh, and was raised up spirit.

The thing that we disagree about is if Jesus was raised with a physical (albeit glorified) body. You say the scriptures teach that He was raised as spirit and you point to places such as the ones below which can be easily interpreted and have been interpreted to mean other than what the JWs teach about them.

1Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

This scripture has Jesus after His death in the flesh going and preaching to the spirits in prison. The JWs say it is about what Jesus did as a spirit in Noah's day, through the preaching of Noah. (as far as I know)
So which spirits were in prison in Noah's day? Or do you say that those spirits are in prison now? If you say that then I guess you acknowledge that we humans have spirits which go to prison after death.
The passage means that Jesus died in the flesh and His spirit was kept alive and active so that He could go and preach to those in Hades.

1Tim 6:14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

This passage is about God whom no man has seen. People have seen Jesus. You do know that I suppose.

21Cor 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

This passage speaks of the same body that is buried being raised but changed in nature. Adam was made from dust and given a spirit, Jesus was a Spirit from heaven and was given a body. Fundamental difference and so in the resurrection we will have a body that is spiritual, which means according to the language people, a body that is controlled by our spirit. We will be more obviously spiritual. This new body in incorruptible and immortal. Flesh and blood is a synonym for corruption. Our new bodies will be incorruptible and will never die so they will always be alive and that life will keep them fresh and whole. The new body may even be more spirit that physical.
Jesus became a life giving spirit. We know that Jesus now fills all things and comes and lives in those who love Him. So it seems that Jesus is more spirit than physical and we not only derive our eternal life from Him but we also have the uncorrupted spiritual nature of the man from heaven and our carnal nature does not control us but our spirit does.
Interestingly 1Cor 15:45 does not say in the Greek "was made a life giving spirit". the word "made" is not there so it should read "was/is a life giving spirit". This shows the nature of the second Adam from heaven, the nature that we share.

Eph 1:22And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, 23which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
John 14:23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
(btw notice in the first scripture that everything has been already put under Jesus feet,,,,,He rules)

I sometimes wonder why the WT does not accept these things but I worked it out that there is so much opposition and wrong scriptures used etc because the WT requires Jesus to be an invisible spirit so He could come back invisibly and be in heaven as a spirit and an angel instead of a resurrected human,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,which the Bible plainly teaches in the gospels.

The gospels teach that Jesus body was raised, Jesus came back as a man. That is what resurrection is and that is what the WT denies. The angel said "He is not here, see the place where He laid, He is risen" The absence of the body showed a resurrection for the women and not that Jesus was now a spirit and the body was whisked away somewhere. (John 20)
Jesus said "it is I see I am flesh and bone". (Luke 24) Nothing about being a spirit with a materialised body. That part is made up by the GB.
Romans 8 says:
Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
Roamsn 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved.

This last verse the WT in the New World Translation to say the opposite, it says the "redemption from our bodies". This creates a contradiction with verse 11 and disagrees with the Greek text in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. .
Jesus said that He would raise up His body.
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
Peter said Jesus body was raised as David the prophet foretold and explained the prophecy.
Acts 2:26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay....................
31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.

Many JWs cannot go door to door because of health challenges, nobody commands that they get out of their bed or chair, and go.
Some JWs are inactive. They have not preached for months. None of them have been kicked out, according to you.
So you were misinformed.

I figured that even the GB would not force the sick to go out and that they would not force them to go to places where they are not wanted.
What is you one day up and said that you were not going to do it any longer and wanted to just speak to people you meet in your life as the Lord leads you to speak? Would you be kicked out do you think?

Apparently you are deciding whom should be preached to, how important the work is, and when and how to do it.
The Lord has not sent you. You want to come up with your own way of doing things.
You don't have that authority, Brian. Jesus does.

All are important and the Father is working to draw people to the Son as the scriptures say.
The GB has sent you as I suspect the Church in Tarsus sent Paul and Silas. Interestingly that Church did not send everyone to go out and spread the Word.
I want to come up with the way the Lord presents to me at any particular time. The Lord has that authority. Do you decide not to speak to people that you meat day to day?
I guess the question is whether the GB has the authority to send everyone (except the sick and otherwise occupied) out to preach.

Where did you read JWs saying there is only one method of sharing the good news? Can you please provide the Watchtower that says that?
What message do JWs have that is not in the Bible?

I may be mistaken about the one way to preach.
The messages that the JWs bring that are not in the Bible are many. An important message that is wrong is that someone has to come to the Watchtower to be saved. Another is that Jesus came back in 1914. Another used to be that millions now living will not die. Another is that set of rules that the GB require their Christians to obey. Another is the 2 classes of Christians, one class who are not in the New Covenant and are not Children of God and that you get that teaching from the authority of the GB because it says nothing about it in the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry I must have misread the question. Angels are spirits.

Ah. okay.

The thing that we disagree about is if Jesus was raised with a physical (albeit glorified) body. You say the scriptures teach that He was raised as spirit and you point to places such as the ones below which can be easily interpreted and have been interpreted to mean other than what the JWs teach about them.

I quoted the Bible. You read the scriptures.
There were not my words. I only agreed with what the Bible says.

Jesus was resurrected as spirit. - 1 Timothy 3:16 ; 1 Peter 3:18, 19 ; 1 Corinthians 15:35-52
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Do you think your interpretation makes scripture say anything other than what it says?
Oh, 'cause it doesn't.

Just say you do not agree with scripture. This has nothing to do with interpretation.
Question on the verses above...
Is a natural body the same as a spiritual body? Of course not.
Was Jesus raised up a natural body? Of course not.
Thus your interpretation... whatever that is, is in serious error.

For emphasis...
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

1Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

What spirits are in prison?
(2 Peter 2:4) Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tartarus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment.

(Jude 6) And the angels who did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place, he has reserved with eternal bonds in dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.

That's what the scriptures say/
What spirits are you talking about? The ones you thought up. Which scriptures say what you believe? None.

This scripture has Jesus after His death in the flesh going and preaching to the spirits in prison.

Which scripture has Jesus in the flesh after his death? None.

 

[nPeace]

The JWs say it is about what Jesus did as a spirit in Noah's day, through the preaching of Noah. (as far as I know)

What foolishness am I hearing? You know very little about JWs Brian.
JWs do not teach that nonsense.
Where did you find such foolishness, except on an erroneous website.
That obviously came out of the sewer. I warned you about drinking from those sewage websites and bringing their contaminated waters here, but you would not listen.

Forgive me Brian, for thinking aloud. Sometimes that's necessary.
Please cite the Watchtower that says such rubbish.. err... Can't find another word..

So which spirits were in prison in Noah's day? Or do you say that those spirits are in prison now? If you say that then I guess you acknowledge that we humans have spirits which go to prison after death.
The passage means that Jesus died in the flesh and His spirit was kept alive and active so that He could go and preach to those in Hades.

More rubbish Brian? Oops.
It is clear to me Brian, you now need to go and read your Bible, because you are repeatedly showing that you don't even know what the Bible says.
Where does the Bible say humans have spirits that live on after death? Nowhere.

1Tim 6:14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

This passage is about God whom no man has seen. People have seen Jesus. You do know that I suppose.

What ? What ? Why is this here?

21Cor 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

This passage speaks of the same body that is buried being raised but changed in nature.

It does?
Let's look.
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

So let me see if I understand what you are saying. My grandad is dead. His body eaten by worms.
You are saying that a buried body is not eaten by worms but is changed?
Or are you saying something else.
Please explain. Also, changed to what?

Let me get that clear before I go on.

 

[Clear]

Clear said : "I did not want to interrupt your discussion other than to point out that I like both of your last points re the Parousia (παρουσια) of Jesus as it applies to his second coming.

Παρουσια in the early literature was used both in the sense of a "presence" and an "arrival" and it is the context which differentiates the usage in a phrase.
In the peri-c.e. era it most often referred to the visit of a king or another high official (and therefore the preparation for the coming of this official).
In this sort of context, It was typically an arrival that had a purpose in mind or a noteworthy arrival such as when the word spreads that Judith arrives at the camp of Holofernes (Judith 10:18) or when the Messiah “will return in glory” (apo Baruch 30:1) though Ignatius also uses it of the first “appearance” of the Messiah Jesus at his incarnation at birth.

I’m not involved in the thread but I just wanted to point out that both of you are correct in the useage and I like your references and the points you made to historical context."


nPeace replied : "The word parousiʹa literally means “a being alongside,” it being drawn from the Greek preposition paraʹ (“alongside”) and ousía (a “being”). Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon, Volume II, page 1343, column 2, gives as the first definition of parousía the English word “presence.” It gives as the second definition thereof arrival, and then adds: “Especially visit of a royal or official personage.” In agreement with this the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (by Gerhard Friedrich), in Volume V, gives as “The General Meaning” the English word “Presence.” (Page 859) Then, as “The Technical Use of the Terms,” in Hellenism, it gives “1. The Visit of a Ruler.” On page 865 it says concerning “The Technical Use of pareimi [verb] and parousía in the N.T.”: “In the N.T. the terms are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and parousía never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one parousía is first found only in the later Church.”

So, then, Jesus’ disciples were asking, not about his “arrival,” but about after his arrival. They were asking about his “presence.” And if, instead of using the word “presence,” we resort to “the technical use of the terms” in Hellenism, the disciples would be understood to ask Jesus: “What will be the sign of your [visit as a royal personage] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” A “visit” includes more than an “arrival.” It includes a “presence.” In the so-called New Testament the Greek word parousía occurs twenty-four times, and in all its occurrences there, not only the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translates the word every time as “presence,” but also other translations do so, as Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, of 1862 C.E.; Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, of 1857-1863 C.E.; and Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible, of 1897 C.E. We note how fittingly “presence” and “absence” are contrasted, in Philippians 2:12, where the apostle Paul says: “You have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence.”

nPeace asked : "Would you mind just sharing your thoughts on this, for a moment?




Hi @nPeace ;


I am typing between appointments so my thoughts may not be well organized.

Much of the examples of the use of παρουσια comes from the work of Moulton and Milligan (vocab, comments on Thess, etc) and I don’t think any of them will confirm whether presence or arrival is the actual best word for translation in matthew partly because the word was used in early Christian literature both for the advent (arrival of Christ at birth AND at his second “coming”) but at the same time as a term which denoted the permanent presence of God (and Jesus) in the lives of the saints even after the death of Jesus. For example, even today we speak of the “presence” of Jesus in the lives of Christians yet this is different than the “second coming”. The terms are intertwined such that there is no “arrival” without a “presence” but there can be a lack of presence before an arrival.

In a similar way, the early literature forces us to look to context (which is sometimes nuanced and subtle) for which way to translate a text. For example, In P Oxy of ii a.d., Dionysis wants to return home to care for her property. The situation demands her ongoing “presence” at home but she will also “arrive” there. In this phrase, “presence” seems most appropriate. If we are using the many referrences to the arrival of a noble person or thing such as the arrival of a king, then “arrival” feels more appropriate to me. Charles Draws demonstrated that παρουσια was also the word translated as “advent” which is also the arrival of a notable person or thing. Advent is the term used for the coming of the first season of the year and as the term for the “second coming” of Jesus. However it also can refer to his presence from the advent on. It is nuanced and this is what makes an obvious confirmation difficult.

In some early literature such as the testament of Abraham, it speaks of the spirits of the time of the arrival of the righteous God who will judge them. When Ignatius (d 108.a.d) spoke to the Philladelphians he was clearly referring to the incarnation of Jesus (i.e. his arrival to the world at birth).

However, when Justyn Martyr (b. 100 a.d.) speaks to Trypho the Jew, it is clear that Justyn uses the term of the double παρουσια of Jesus. This seems clearly to indicate his incarnation as the first advent/παρουσια and his second coming or return in glory as the second advent.

The problem with determining the best translation of such uses is that the context and words Justyn uses refer to the two παρουσια's is : ”two advents of His [the messiah] ,—one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced”.

Thus, this context shows that it is not merely his incarnation or birth, but his entire life that Justyn is referring to. The second advent/arrival/presence is when he will return in glory, however one assumes he will “STAY” with us at that time and we will enjoy his presence.

I’ve never studied this word in any depth and, without further study, would not be able to render an opinion on Matthew 24:3 as to which is the best rendering in my own opinion. I also would have to do enough study make sure I overcome any inherent bias I have.



I suppose you can see why I didn’t think I could take any side in your discussion but simply wanted to point out that I like the historical aspect of your discussion.



Good luck you two.



Clear
τωτωφυσε

 

[John1.12]

@Brian2 as far as I know, based on what i have read, it is the scriptures which said the things you buck against.
I previously quoted the scriptures where jesus commanded his followers to go into the world, and preach and teach the good news, and he said that it will be done as a witness to all the nations, before the end comes. Matthew 24:14 ; Matthew 28:18-20.
Jesus is the one who instructed us in the method - Matthew 9:35-38 ; Luke 8:1 ; 10:1, 2 ; Romans 10:13-15, the message (the kingdom of God), the territory (all the nations of the earth), and the duration (until the end of the world, before the end comes).
Therefore, questions: how is it you say, these are commands of men? Did I misquote a scriptural text? Which command did we alter? Please state.

Questions: Do you believe that God has an organization on earth?
Then would Jesus not be the one running that organization? Would that organization not be the one carrying out the commands and the work the Lord Jesus started, and ordered his followers to continue?

Jehovah's witnesses are obeying the orders of Jesus Christ. Is that not so?

1. They preach and teach about the kingdom to every tribe and nation throughout the earth.
2. They follow Jesus example in his method of organizing in twos (two by two) those sent out to preach.
3. They go to the homes of people, and stay in the homes of those who show interest - teaching them, and making disciples... baptizing them. Those in turn become disciples - followers of Christ.
4. They do this urgently, and continually.

Question: Which one of these, is a commandment of men, and not from the lord Jesus Christ?
Another question: Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses, which organization on earth do you know of that does these things, or compares?

The words of the Lord Jesus Christ...
“Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his soul will lose it, and whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:32-39)

Then Jesus said to his disciples: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and keep following me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 16:24, 25)

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit everlasting life. (Matthew 19:29)

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

Whoever does not carry his torture stake and come after me cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:27)

Can someone please tell me, are these the same words (not in exact wording) you find in your Bible, said by jesus christ himself?
Are these therefore the word of men, or is it not true that Jesus said we must disown ourselves, and put him and the will of his father first, in order to be his disciple.
Thus family and friends should not be allowed to prevent one from following Jesus. Is this not what we are reading in the scriptures?

Question Brian: Does jesus not ask us to live a life of sacrifice, if we are to be accepted by him? How are these the word of men?

It is clear, and I hope it is to everyone, the only one holding what you described as a whip, is Jesus Christ, because what you have a problem with, is from him, and not any man, that is, if you are using the Bible.
Other than that, I would have to wonder if you take the Bible seriously.

You say...

To my mind, this seems to highlight the crux of the matter.
I think most Atheists - not all - dismiss the Bible, because there are certain things it says, that they don't want to follow.
Someone told me, there is one word he hates, which the Bible mentions a lot... "Don't. Don't do this. don't do that. Don't..." So because he likes to do certain things, for which the Bible says "Don't", he has a problem with it.
It seems to me, this is the same problem you are having, Brian. In fact, I mentioned before that many people join a religion, not because they think it speaks the truth, but because it is a part of the world. in other words, because it claims to represent Christ, but it offers its members "a taste of the things of the world".
It's as Paul describes... (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

However, such a position benefits no one, as the apostle John says.
(1 John 2:15-17) 15 Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world - the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life - does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.
(James 4:4) Adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is making himself an enemy of God.

I think that's a sad way to end, don't you?

So many miss who Jesus is speaking to . Its a western mindset . People Just say without thinking . " Jesus told US to such and such..." Jesus taught US ect ect " . Why is this how some read the bible ? In no other capacity would we use a method of reading our selves unto a text like this .

 

[nPeace]

So many miss who Jesus is speaking to . Its a western mindset . People Just say without thinking . " Jesus told US to such and such..." Jesus taught US ect ect " . Why is this how some read the bible ? In no other capacity would we use a method of reading our selves unto a text like this .

Good question, and I agree. Perhaps you can ask those persons when you have an opportunity to speak with them.
I am always careful to say Jesus told his followers, or Jesus said of his followers. Did I slip up this time?
Could you point it out to me please? It would have been a mistake if I said that.

 

[nPeace]

Clear said : "I did not want to interrupt your discussion other than to point out that I like both of your last points re the Parousia (παρουσια) of Jesus as it applies to his second coming.

Παρουσια in the early literature was used both in the sense of a "presence" and an "arrival" and it is the context which differentiates the usage in a phrase.
In the peri-c.e. era it most often referred to the visit of a king or another high official (and therefore the preparation for the coming of this official).
In this sort of context, It was typically an arrival that had a purpose in mind or a noteworthy arrival such as when the word spreads that Judith arrives at the camp of Holofernes (Judith 10:18) or when the Messiah “will return in glory” (apo Baruch 30:1) though Ignatius also uses it of the first “appearance” of the Messiah Jesus at his incarnation at birth.

I’m not involved in the thread but I just wanted to point out that both of you are correct in the useage and I like your references and the points you made to historical context."


nPeace replied : "The word parousiʹa literally means “a being alongside,” it being drawn from the Greek preposition paraʹ (“alongside”) and ousía (a “being”). Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon, Volume II, page 1343, column 2, gives as the first definition of parousía the English word “presence.” It gives as the second definition thereof arrival, and then adds: “Especially visit of a royal or official personage.” In agreement with this the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (by Gerhard Friedrich), in Volume V, gives as “The General Meaning” the English word “Presence.” (Page 859) Then, as “The Technical Use of the Terms,” in Hellenism, it gives “1. The Visit of a Ruler.” On page 865 it says concerning “The Technical Use of pareimi [verb] and parousía in the N.T.”: “In the N.T. the terms are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and parousía never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one parousía is first found only in the later Church.”

So, then, Jesus’ disciples were asking, not about his “arrival,” but about after his arrival. They were asking about his “presence.” And if, instead of using the word “presence,” we resort to “the technical use of the terms” in Hellenism, the disciples would be understood to ask Jesus: “What will be the sign of your [visit as a royal personage] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” A “visit” includes more than an “arrival.” It includes a “presence.” In the so-called New Testament the Greek word parousía occurs twenty-four times, and in all its occurrences there, not only the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translates the word every time as “presence,” but also other translations do so, as Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, of 1862 C.E.; Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, of 1857-1863 C.E.; and Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible, of 1897 C.E. We note how fittingly “presence” and “absence” are contrasted, in Philippians 2:12, where the apostle Paul says: “You have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence.”

nPeace asked : "Would you mind just sharing your thoughts on this, for a moment?




Hi @nPeace ;


I am typing between appointments so my thoughts may not be well organized.

Much of the examples of the use of παρουσια comes from the work of Moulton and Milligan (vocab, comments on Thess, etc) and I don’t think any of them will confirm whether presence or arrival is the actual best word for translation in matthew partly because the word was used in early Christian literature both for the advent (arrival of Christ at birth AND at his second “coming”) but at the same time as a term which denoted the permanent presence of God (and Jesus) in the lives of the saints even after the death of Jesus. For example, even today we speak of the “presence” of Jesus in the lives of Christians yet this is different than the “second coming”. The terms are intertwined such that there is no “arrival” without a “presence” but there can be a lack of presence before an arrival.

In a similar way, the early literature forces us to look to context (which is sometimes nuanced and subtle) for which way to translate a text. For example, In P Oxy of ii a.d., Dionysis wants to return home to care for her property. The situation demands her ongoing “presence” at home but she will also “arrive” there. In this phrase, “presence” seems most appropriate. If we are using the many referrences to the arrival of a noble person or thing such as the arrival of a king, then “arrival” feels more appropriate to me. Charles Draws demonstrated that παρουσια was also the word translated as “advent” which is also the arrival of a notable person or thing. Advent is the term used for the coming of the first season of the year and as the term for the “second coming” of Jesus. However it also can refer to his presence from the advent on. It is nuanced and this is what makes an obvious confirmation difficult.

In some early literature such as the testament of Abraham, it speaks of the spirits of the time of the arrival of the righteous God who will judge them. When Ignatius (d 108.a.d) spoke to the Philladelphians he was clearly referring to the incarnation of Jesus (i.e. his arrival to the world at birth).

However, when Justyn Martyr (b. 100 a.d.) speaks to Trypho the Jew, it is clear that Justyn uses the term of the double παρουσια of Jesus. This seems clearly to indicate his incarnation as the first advent/παρουσια and his second coming or return in glory as the second advent.

The problem with determining the best translation of such uses is that the context and words Justyn uses refer to the two παρουσια's is : ”two advents of His [the messiah] ,—one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced”.

Thus, this context shows that it is not merely his incarnation or birth, but his entire life that Justyn is referring to. The second advent/arrival/presence is when he will return in glory, however one assumes he will “STAY” with us at that time and we will enjoy his presence.

I’ve never studied this word in any depth and, without further study, would not be able to render an opinion on Matthew 24:3 as to which is the best rendering in my own opinion. I also would have to do enough study make sure I overcome any inherent bias I have.



I suppose you can see why I didn’t think I could take any side in your discussion but simply wanted to point out that I like the historical aspect of your discussion.



Good luck you two.



Clear
τωτωφυσε

I'm sorry Clear. I was trying to find those people you named. Could you please provide references. Thanks.

 

[Brian2]

Yes he is, but not the apostate one. So what's your point?

Jesus is with the Church with the weeds till the end of the age. That would mean that Jesus is with the one you call the apostate one unless the JWs have weeds that bring in false teachings etc. Hmmm come to think of it.

The weeds and wheat were allowed to grow together, meaning that there would be a time when the wheat would be overrun with the weeds,
That period proved to be when the apostasy raised its ugly head, and dominated God's temple, with the man of lawlessness siting as a god.
The wheat was under that terrible man, and the corrupt idolatrous teachings like the Trinity, Hellfire, Immortality of the soul, etc. etc.
When Jesus began ruling in 1914, thereafter, he started to gather the wheat into the storehouses, the weeds also were collected for burning.

That a good draw card for those who oppose the Catholic Church. The SDA were also part of the Millerite movement I think and they see the Catholic Church and Pope in a similar way to the JWs. May that is where the JWs got their ideas about parts of prophecy.
You paint an interesting picture.

Wait.
Am I hearing right? are my ears deceiving me?

Is this the same person that keeps complaining about, and criticizing JWs for changes in their teachings over the years!!!

Yes I complain about the GB for saying they are the mouth piece of God at this time and keep changing their teachings, showing that they are not and have been teaching untruths for years and may still be teaching them.

That does not apply to you, nor apostate Christians, so ...
Paul was speaking to the Ephesian Congregation of brothers who were joined to the GB at that time.
You seem to choose scriptures which you think you can use conveniently. Why don't you choose this one...
(2 Timothy 4:2) . . .Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching.
Or what about this... (Matthew 28:19, 20) Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.

I wonder... what does it mean to go.... What does go mean?

It does not apply to the non anointed class who are not part of the Body of Christ, the Church.
Nobody has shown me where the Bible teaches 2 classes of Christians yet and nobody has shown me where it says that most of the New Testament is about the anointed class and does not apply to most JWs.
You really cannot call yourself a Christan Biblically if you are not in the New Covenant and are led by the Holy Spirit and are Born again. The Bible teaches that everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ is Born again and the GB say, no that is wrong. And you can see that the GB is wrong on such an important point, which makes the whole house of cards collapse but you do not complain, and are not allowed to complain. Probably you don't want to lose your place in the organisation and lose eternal life and your family. You tell yourself that the GB is right even when you can see the opposite. You are like Peter who said to Jesus "Where else would we go?" And you have been taught that there is nowhere else to go by the men who teach you that you aren't born again if you believe Jesus is the Christ. Hmmmmm Such a knot and tangle of lies. It'll take you years to unravel probably when you finally realise that an organisation that teaches the opposite to the Bible is wrong.

 

[Brian2]

I remember that was post 93.
It followed this one, where I wanted some specific questions answered, which you did not answer. So I saw no good reason for your post. it seemed to be a distraction to me, and besides that, it was basically full of scriptures that would only lead to a pointless argument with no direction at all.

yes post 56 the one I spent hours answering and then lost because of a forum error and did not get around to re answering.

For example, take the last one "every eye will see him".
A person might say, Every eye will see him literally.
Another person would say, Every eye will see him figuratively, in that...
When the person is shown from scripture, why it cannot be literal, they just stick it's literal, because it says that.
That get's us no where.
I tend to shy away from pointless arguments like that, but you seem to like them.

Every eye means every eye, the eyes of faith and the literal eyes. The WT denies the scripture.

Remember the argument on the cross? Just arguing continuously, so I take my leave. I don't see the point of arguing where there is no finality on it.
I like where we can come to a finality by using scriptures and questions, that the answers must be conclusive, and there is no, "well we don't know" situation.

There is no "well we don't know" situation with most of the scriptures I posted. The WT just denies that they are true.

Just take a look at your list, and you would realize that all your hand picked questions are a set up for pointless never ending argument, unless one says, "you believe what you will."

I wasn't planning to have a pointless never ending argument, just make a comment or 2 to show that the WT denies the scriptures.
The thing about the scriptures is that they are all true. The way the WT uses scripture is to deny some of them so that some other obscure scripture can be twisted around to mean what the WT wants it to mean.

What's being discussed here could end that way too, but the difference, imo, is that there is a conclusion that one can see, There is evidence, and there is no need for a something to be left hanging in the air.

There is always something hanging in the air when there is not agreement at the end.
But with the scriptures the scriptures themselves are evidence. If you deny it or try to get around what it is saying that is obvious, if you agree, that is obvious also.

That's the way I see it. Maybe you see different, but that probably can't be helped.
I'll tell you what though, to se how it goes, post your best one from the list. The one you consider more important to you, and let's take a hit at it.
If what I just said proves to be true, then there is no point in considering the others.
If it goes differently, then i will consider the others.
What do you say to that?

OK. It won't be more important however.
Are these scriptures true?
1Kings 8:26 And now, O God of Israel, please confirm what You promised to Your servant, my father David. 27 But will God indeed dwell upon the earth? Even heaven, the highest heaven, cannot contain You, much less this temple I have built.
Acts 17:27 God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in Him we live and move and have our being.’

 

[Brian2]

Or if one is emotionally involved w/ an understanding. In the youtube the guy said that anyone who's emotionally involved w/ a belief lacks free will, I'd amend that to say that we have to be willing to overcome our emotions.

It can be hard to stand back and be completely unbiased when faced with arguments that could possibly destroy your beliefs. There is usually more than one thing however that holds a belief system together and if one place is weak the other places hold and the problem can be put in the too hard basket for the time being. It is good to be able to see problems however. I know many who cannot seem to see obvious holes and weak spots,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or at least they give that impression.

Thanks, what I was hoping maybe is that you could help me explain what I'm asking about Jesus' advice about the time of the end in Matthew. My experience is that I just want to understand what nuance or something I'm missing but all I seem to get is squabbling.

OK ask away. I can't promise anything but at least you might get another pov.

Neat! So ur in a temperate rain forest & u reminded me that not all rain forests are tropical.

Yes I imagine it is quite different to where you are,,,,,,,,,,,as I start to rug up for the winter and have fires at night.

Bible translations are quite an adventure, in fact the earliest known copy of the new testament was a Greek translation of gospels that were written in who-knows-what. The recurring problem we all face now is whether we try it word by word or do we paraphrase the entire context. Advantages either way & my tack is to try to be willing to accept other people's takes. This is a typical spread of how our English language translations end up:

It is good to have more than one Bible. Maybe from different parts of the spectrum. I like to have a reasonable translation of what is there and get indignant when I find that a trusted translation cannot be relied upon to be accurate. But is it good to get the thought behind the words some times. I guess the more you get to know the Bible the more part you have check out for accuracy of translation and meaning, especially on a forum like this when you can come across things that you just have to check out to see what the truth is behind a translation.
Studying the Bible certainly can be a big task.

 

[nPeace]

Jesus is with the Church with the weeds till the end of the age. That would mean that Jesus is with the one you call the apostate one unless the JWs have weeds that bring in false teachings etc. Hmmm come to think of it.



That a good draw card for those who oppose the Catholic Church. The SDA were also part of the Millerite movement I think and they see the Catholic Church and Pope in a similar way to the JWs. May that is where the JWs got their ideas about parts of prophecy.
You paint an interesting picture.



Yes I complain about the GB for saying they are the mouth piece of God at this time and keep changing their teachings, showing that they are not and have been teaching untruths for years and may still be teaching them.



It does not apply to the non anointed class who are not part of the Body of Christ, the Church.
Nobody has shown me where the Bible teaches 2 classes of Christians yet and nobody has shown me where it says that most of the New Testament is about the anointed class and does not apply to most JWs.
You really cannot call yourself a Christan Biblically if you are not in the New Covenant and are led by the Holy Spirit and are Born again. The Bible teaches that everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ is Born again and the GB say, no that is wrong. And you can see that the GB is wrong on such an important point, which makes the whole house of cards collapse but you do not complain, and are not allowed to complain. Probably you don't want to lose your place in the organisation and lose eternal life and your family. You tell yourself that the GB is right even when you can see the opposite. You are like Peter who said to Jesus "Where else would we go?" And you have been taught that there is nowhere else to go by the men who teach you that you aren't born again if you believe Jesus is the Christ. Hmmmmm Such a knot and tangle of lies. It'll take you years to unravel probably when you finally realise that an organisation that teaches the opposite to the Bible is wrong.

Present your case with scripture, if you think you have one. I'm just seeing a complaining person.

yes post 56 the one I spent hours answering and then lost because of a forum error and did not get around to re answering.

Wow. sorry to hear that. I know how hurtful that can be.

Every eye means every eye, the eyes of faith and the literal eyes. The WT denies the scripture.

160 results? ...and I'm sure that's just the minimum. So that's a lie Brian. The WT denies no scripture.

There is no "well we don't know" situation with most of the scriptures I posted. The WT just denies that they are true.

We know the scriptures are true, but yes, we do deny that what you belief is true.

I wasn't planning to have a pointless never ending argument, just make a comment or 2 to show that the WT denies the scriptures.
The thing about the scriptures is that they are all true. The way the WT uses scripture is to deny some of them so that some other obscure scripture can be twisted around to mean what the WT wants it to mean.

...Well all we have to do in a case like that is click the mouse button about twice on jw.org, to know that you are lying.
Every scripture can be found there... well probably without commentary on 0.000000000000001%.

There is always something hanging in the air when there is not agreement at the end.
But with the scriptures the scriptures themselves are evidence. If you deny it or try to get around what it is saying that is obvious, if you agree, that is obvious also.

Ah. We agree on something.

OK. It won't be more important however.
Are these scriptures true?
1Kings 8:26 And now, O God of Israel, please confirm what You promised to Your servant, my father David. 27 But will God indeed dwell upon the earth? Even heaven, the highest heaven, cannot contain You, much less this temple I have built.
Acts 17:27 God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in Him we live and move and have our being.’

All the scriptures are true to JWs Brian. You know this, so why ask?

 

[Clear]

I'm sorry Clear. I was trying to find those people you named. Could you please provide references. Thanks.

Hi @nPeace

The use of παρουσια in Judith referring to Judith causing a commotion upon her “arriving” at the camp of Holofernes is from Judith 10:18 “…και εγενετο σθνδρομε εν παση τη παρεμβολη διεβοηθη γαρ εις τα σκηνωματα η παρουσια αυτης...”

The reference to Dionysia is originally from Papyru Oxyrhynchus 486,15 from approx. ii a.d.. She is engaged in a lawsuit but asks to leave to return home to care for her property since the care of her property demands her “presence” (χρηζει μου της παρουσια[σ]

In Polybius 3:41, 1 it speaks of events of the war “until the arrival of Hannibal” (εως εις την Αννιβου παρουσιαν)

In 18:31. 4 the reference is of a future arrival of ambassadors to Rome “ινα με δοκη τοις καιροις εφεδρευων αποκαραδοκειν την Αντιχου παρουσιαν.”

Thus Milligan in Thessalonians (from when most of the examples originate) tells us that in his and Moultons studies of the early Papyri, the word παορουσια “occurs frequently in the papyri as a kind of terminus technicus with reference to the ‘visit’ of the King, or some other official. For example, in Papyrus Tebt 48:13 f (of ii b.c.) an extra levy was applied to a group in preparation for the “arrival” of a king (προς την του Βασιλεως παρουσιαν).

When King Ptolemy visits a district being taxed to provide him with a crown his visit is a παρουσια in papyri Petr. 2:39, (e), 18 (written approx. 3 b.c.)

Thus such word usages in normal Greek speech and contexts were easily borrowed by Christian use to refer to the Παρουσια of Jesus as a King who would return (arrive) again some day for which visit all must prepare and be ready.

Having noted this, the word επισκοπος seems to be used in the same way (though I think this word came to imply more than a visit, but it’s use in later Christianity became to be the term for a “bishop” as one who “watched over” on an ongoing basis rather than as a visitor. In such usage, a “Presence”, rather than “arrival” or “visit” is implied just as the παρησαν form of παρουσια is used in Luke 13:1 “There were those who were present…” implied a presence rather than an arrival.

The reference from the Apocalypse of Baruch is chapter 30, verse one where the text says “And it shall come to pass after these things, when the time of the advent of the Messiah is fulfilled, that He shall return in glory.”. If I had more time to search, I could probably find the quote in a greek version, but it is παρουσια they are using for “advent” of the Messiah.

I have not seen a Greek for 3rd Baruch but 30:1 there speaks of the consummation of the times when their perdition has “arrived”. I haven’t seen the Greek text of this version but suspect it will also be παρουσια. (If anyone has a Greek pdf or text for this verse, I would be interested in seeing it as well.).

The reference from Ignatius (an apostolic Father of the first century) is from his epistle to the Philladelphians 9 (…την παρουσιαν του σωτηρος ημων Ιησου Χριστου...) speaking of his incarnation (i.e. his arrival in flesh).

The reference from Justin Martyr came from his Dialogue with Trypho in chapt 32 where he speaks of «...δύο παρουσιας αυτο γενησεσθαι εξηγησαμην, μιαν μεν εν η εξεκεντηθη θφ υμων, δευτεραν δε οτε επιγνωσεσθε εις ον εξεκεντησατε.”.

Good luck coming to your own conclusions regarding the actual meaning of the word as it is used in Matthew.


Clear
τωδρφιτωω

 

[Pete in Panama]

It can be hard to stand back and be completely unbiased when faced with arguments that could possibly destroy your beliefs...

There was a physicist I was watching on youtube a while back that was saying that the happiest times in his life was when he was learning something new that proved everything he'd worked on before was wrong. I can see that, the idea being that we're now moving faster than ever before on finding out what the truth is. Sure, we're talking religion not science here, but to me it's close enough. There've been many times I'll hear something contrary to a long standing belief & finding it logically consistent AND intuitively sound I'll go w/ it --usually by incorporating it into my network of understandings. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=last+thursdayism&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=last+thursdayism&ia=web
"Last Thursdayism" is a belief structure that's reasonably sound & logically consistent while also being totally bonkers from miserably failing intuitive tests.

...OK ask away. I can't promise anything but at least you might get another pov. ...

What I was interested in was Matthew 24 where the disciples were asking about the time of the end. Of course, if that topic doesn't interest you then there's no point in pursuing it, only if ur curious.

...Yes I imagine it is quite different to where you are,,,,,,,,,,,as I start to rug up for the winter and have fires at night....

The house I'm in I built w/ no thermal insulation as local temps are stuck between 15C & 30C. otoh I got a lot of sound insulation on the roof for the rain.

...It is good to have more than one Bible...

--and in this wonderful info age we live in, having a full Bible library is as easy as clicking a Bible website. My experience is that they're all pretty much the same & we can always go word for word w/ a Greek translation if need be but that's rare.

 

[Kenny]

Okay, I guess we can step back a bit.
I like how you said Genesis 3:15 is a vehicle that gets us to Ephesians 1:8-14.
Hopefully you mean what I agree with, that the Genesis 3 prophecy gets us to Ephesians 1.

That is correct... WOW, that's a MAJOR accomplishment! (just kidding)

Where does the Abrahamic covenant, and its promise fit in - Genesis 22:18?

Here, and I'm not saying this in a bad sense, I can tell you are fishing for something in particular so we are on a hit and miss here. It can be varied depending on what you are trying to say.

Abraham's Covenant is a continuation of Genesis 3. It is very specifically, IMV, talking about the coming of Jesus Christ wherein all the nations and ethnicities are blessed as stipulated below - wherein we also receive the promised Spirit.

Gal 3: 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Where does John 14:1-4 , 2 Corinthians 5:1 , 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17 fit in to God's purpose as mentioned earlier

So, maybe we agree yet disagree? (I don't think it is a "missed Heaven" issue)

1st - I understand Thess as just simply we are going to receive a new body. But, yes, there is a time when there will be saints (I believe you call them holy ones) in both Heaven and earth.

My point is simply that we aren't staying in Heaven. Revelation 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

Notice that the Holy city Jerusalem is coming down "out" of heaven "from God".

Again... not a big issue for me for it will be whatever it will be.

Will God dwell on earth? Revelation 21:3-5

So, Revelations has the potential of God actually being 'with' men... on earth.

But we are talking about the Kingdom of God... what is your take?

PHILLIPS Luke 17:21
Later, he was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he gave them this reply: “The kingdom of God never comes by watching for it. Men cannot say, ‘Look, here it is’, or ‘there it is’, for the kingdom of God is inside you.”

KJV Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

YLT nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.'

Is it not within us already?

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace

The use of παρουσια in Judith referring to Judith causing a commotion upon her “arriving” at the camp of Holofernes is from Judith 10:18 “…και εγενετο σθνδρομε εν παση τη παρεμβολη διεβοηθη γαρ εις τα σκηνωματα η παρουσια αυτης...”

The reference to Dionysia is originally from Papyru Oxyrhynchus 486,15 from approx. ii a.d.. She is engaged in a lawsuit but asks to leave to return home to care for her property since the care of her property demands her “presence” (χρηζει μου της παρουσια[σ]

In Polybius 3:41, 1 it speaks of events of the war “until the arrival of Hannibal” (εως εις την Αννιβου παρουσιαν)

In 18:31. 4 the reference is of a future arrival of ambassadors to Rome “ινα με δοκη τοις καιροις εφεδρευων αποκαραδοκειν την Αντιχου παρουσιαν.”

Thus Milligan in Thessalonians (from when most of the examples originate) tells us that in his and Moultons studies of the early Papyri, the word παορουσια “occurs frequently in the papyri as a kind of terminus technicus with reference to the ‘visit’ of the King, or some other official. For example, in Papyrus Tebt 48:13 f (of ii b.c.) an extra levy was applied to a group in preparation for the “arrival” of a king (προς την του Βασιλεως παρουσιαν).

When King Ptolemy visits a district being taxed to provide him with a crown his visit is a παρουσια in papyri Petr. 2:39, (e), 18 (written approx. 3 b.c.)

Thus such word usages in normal Greek speech and contexts were easily borrowed by Christian use to refer to the Παρουσια of Jesus as a King who would return (arrive) again some day for which visit all must prepare and be ready.

Having noted this, the word επισκοπος seems to be used in the same way (though I think this word came to imply more than a visit, but it’s use in later Christianity became to be the term for a “bishop” as one who “watched over” on an ongoing basis rather than as a visitor. In such usage, a “Presence”, rather than “arrival” or “visit” is implied just as the παρησαν form of παρουσια is used in Luke 13:1 “There were those who were present…” implied a presence rather than an arrival.

The reference from the Apocalypse of Baruch is chapter 30, verse one where the text says “And it shall come to pass after these things, when the time of the advent of the Messiah is fulfilled, that He shall return in glory.”. If I had more time to search, I could probably find the quote in a greek version, but it is παρουσια they are using for “advent” of the Messiah.

I have not seen a Greek for 3rd Baruch but 30:1 there speaks of the consummation of the times when their perdition has “arrived”. I haven’t seen the Greek text of this version but suspect it will also be παρουσια. (If anyone has a Greek pdf or text for this verse, I would be interested in seeing it as well.).

The reference from Ignatius (an apostolic Father of the first century) is from his epistle to the Philladelphians 9 (…την παρουσιαν του σωτηρος ημων Ιησου Χριστου...) speaking of his incarnation (i.e. his arrival in flesh).

The reference from Justin Martyr came from his Dialogue with Trypho in chapt 32 where he speaks of «...δύο παρουσιας αυτο γενησεσθαι εξηγησαμην, μιαν μεν εν η εξεκεντηθη θφ υμων, δευτεραν δε οτε επιγνωσεσθε εις ον εξεκεντησατε.”.

Good luck coming to your own conclusions regarding the actual meaning of the word as it is used in Matthew.


Clear
τωδρφιτωω

Thanks Clear.
I am going to skip all of your second century references, based on the evidence presented earlier.

I also want to draw your attention to a few facts regarding your post.

parousía [from the Greek preposition paraʹ (“alongside”) and ousía (a “being”)] -
The term οὐσία is an Ancient Greek noun, formed on the feminine present participle of the verb εἰμί, eimí, i.e., "to be,

from the pres. part. of pareimi -

from para [ 'alongside', 'beside'] and eimi ['exist'].

A presence

The use of the word arrival, still applies to being present.
Never is the word used for coming.
That coming is a later usage, is seen from your sources, as well as here.

Note. Christianity - # 3.
It was later used for the reason you expressed...

Thus such word usages in normal Greek speech and contexts were easily borrowed by Christian use to refer to the Παρουσια of Jesus as a King who would return (arrive) again some day for which visit all must prepare and be ready.

The reference from the Apocalypse of Baruch is chapter 30, verse one where the text says “And it shall come to pass after these things, when the time of the advent of the Messiah is fulfilled, that He shall return in glory.”. If I had more time to search, I could probably find the quote in a greek version, but it is παρουσια they are using for “advent” of the Messiah.

The reference from Ignatius (an apostolic Father of the first century) is from his epistle to the Philladelphians 9 (…την παρουσιαν του σωτηρος ημων Ιησου Χριστου...) speaking of his incarnation (i.e. his arrival in flesh).

So, from the second century onward, the word was misapplied based on the idea that Christ would return some day... in the flesh.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I know you mean well, but I don't believe in luck. The god of good luck would have a field day with me.
Reaching a conclusion on this subject does not require luck, as you can see, all the information is there, available for us to see, and I already posted the conclusion. I just wanted to hear your input. Thanks.

Your sources are in line with mine, based on what I saw.
The word parousia literally means “a being alongside,” it being drawn from the Greek preposition paraʹ (“alongside”) and ousía (a “being”). Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon, Volume II, page 1343, column 2, gives as the first definition of parousía the English word “presence.” It gives as the second definition thereof arrival, and then adds: “Especially visit of a royal or official personage.” In agreement with this the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (by Gerhard Friedrich), in Volume V, gives as “The General Meaning” the English word “Presence.” (Page 859) Then, as “The Technical Use of the Terms,” in Hellenism, it gives “1. The Visit of a Ruler.” On page 865 it says concerning “The Technical Use of pareimi [verb] and parousía in the N.T.”: “In the N.T. the terms are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and parousía never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one parousía is first found only in the later Church.”

So, then, Jesus’ disciples were asking, not about his “arrival,” but about after his arrival. [that is, when he would return] They were asking about his “presence.” And if, instead of using the word “presence,” we resort to “the technical use of the terms” in Hellenism, the disciples would be understood to ask Jesus: “What will be the sign of your [visit as a royal personage] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” A “visit” includes more than an “arrival.” It includes a “presence.” In the so-called New Testament the Greek word parousía occurs twenty-four times, and in all its occurrences there, not only the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translates the word every time as “presence,” but also other translations do so, as Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, of 1862 C.E.; Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, of 1857-1863 C.E.; and Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible, of 1897 C.E. We note how fittingly “presence” and “absence” are contrasted, in Philippians 2:12, where the apostle Paul says: “You have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence.”

That seem quite clear to me.
Thanks again for sharing.

 

[nPeace]

That is correct... WOW, that's a MAJOR accomplishment! (just kidding)

Here, and I'm not saying this in a bad sense, I can tell you are fishing for something in particular so we are on a hit and miss here. It can be varied depending on what you are trying to say.

I wish you wouldn't assume. Don't worry though. I do that myself sometimes.

Abraham's Covenant is a continuation of Genesis 3. It is very specifically, IMV, talking about the coming of Jesus Christ wherein all the nations and ethnicities are blessed as stipulated below - wherein we also receive the promised Spirit.

Oh wow. I did not expect this, honestly.
Now I have to press you a bit more. Hope you don't mind.
When you say all the nations, you mean those putting faith in the Messiah, right?
(Galatians 3:7-9, 16) 7 Surely you know that it is those who adhere to faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 Now the scripture, foreseeing that God would declare people of the nations righteous through faith, declared the good news beforehand to Abraham, namely: “By means of you all the nations will be blessed.” 9 So those who adhere to faith are being blessed together with Abraham, who had faith.
I agree Christ is the primary seed.
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “and to your descendants,” in the sense of many. Rather, it says, “and to your offspring,” in the sense of one, who is Christ.
I say primary, because of what Paul further states.
29 Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise.
I'm skipping text, but feel free to read, and once you agree we can continue.

Gal 3: 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

We agree both Gentiles and Jews who exercise faith... I hope?

So, maybe we agree yet disagree? (I don't think it is a "missed Heaven" issue)

I think we agree. I hope.

1st - I understand Thess as just simply we are going to receive a new body. But, yes, there is a time when there will be saints (I believe you call them holy ones) in both Heaven and earth.

Can I ask a favor. I hope you don't mind.
You say we, but might it not be best if we try to keep it as more Biblically related? Wouldn't it be better if we say, for example, those who...
It's up to you. I don't want to control what you say, but for the sake of Biblical accuracy... I'm just saying...

I don't think you were clear there Ken.
Perhaps it's my fault. Maybe my vague question was expected to get a vague answer, so I'll be more specific.
Where does John 14:1-4 , 2 Corinthians 5:1 , 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17 fit in to God's purpose as mentioned earlier (universal family in heaven and on earth)?
Specifically John 14:1-4 says in part...
In the house of my Father are many dwelling places. Otherwise, I would have told you, for I am going my way to prepare a place for you. Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will receive you home to myself, so that where I am you also may be.

2 Corinthians 5:1 - For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be torn down, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens.

...and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17 . . .because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord.

I'm thinking particularly of the parts of those verses I highlighted. Where do those fit in to God's purpose in relation to his universal family?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I am refraining from being too specific. I believe you'll see what I am looking at.

My point is simply that we aren't staying in Heaven. Revelation 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

Notice that the Holy city Jerusalem is coming down "out" of heaven "from God".

Again... not a big issue for me for it will be whatever it will be.

So, Revelations has the potential of God actually being 'with' men... on earth.

But we are talking about the Kingdom of God... what is your take?

That is interesting Ken.
I may not be around persons you have come in contact with. Are they persons that you know of, who actually believe God will come down on earth and dwell with man? Do you believe that?
That would be a contradiction to many scriptures, wouldn't it?

Notice the text...
(Revelation 21:3) . . .With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them.
Notice where the voice comes from - the throne. Where is the throne? Is it not in heaven?
When it says he - God - is with mankind, does it have to mean on earth? No.
Didn't Jesus say he would be with his followers? Was he not in heaven, even though he was with them?
Did God not tell Moses, Joshua and others, he was with them, while he is in heaven.

The tent of God being with mankind, and God being with them, does not mean they must be on earth.

Jerusalem coming down from heaven does not mean it comes on earth.
There it refers to the marriage to the lamb. (Revelation 19:7)
We understand that that marriage takes place in heaven, and we also understand that the city new Jerusalem, represents the heavenly ones, on Mount Zion (not earthly Mount Zion, of course).
(Hebrews 12:22-24) 22 But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels 23 in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect, 24 and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s blood.
(Revelation 14:1) Then I saw, and look! the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who have his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.

So, the bride, the lamb, and her husband - making up the kingdom of kings and priest, are administering their duties to earth inhabitants.
The tent of God is with men.
Jesus Christ and the bride of 144,000 will shepherd the people to fountains of waters of life.
(Revelation 7:13-17) 13 And in response one of the elders said to me: “These who are dressed in the white robes, who are they and where did they come from?” 14 So right away I said to him: “My lord, you are the one that knows.” And he said to me: “These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 That is why they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. 16 They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat, 17 because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and will guide them to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.”

That great crowd is earthly. Being before God's throne does not have to mean they are in heaven, does it.

However, let's get back to Ephesians 1.
Who are the family in heaven, and who are the family on earth.