Featured The Meaning of "parousia" in Greek

I'm pretty sure the article quoted below is of 'post 19th century' origin, and I don't see the terms "everyday sense" or "everyday meaning" used in it, so it ought to be eligible for consideration by the 'Modern Linguistics' camp.

Wrong, it's absolutely crucial to understand what 'this generation' entails in the gospels, and how it had been foretold of in the OT.

http://americanvision.org/6133/jesus-and-the-parousia/
“...If “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 means what it means everywhere else in the gospels — the generation to whom Jesus was speaking — then the use of parousia by Jesus must refer to the period of that first-century generation. As to the timing of Jesus’ parousia, James wrote to his first-century audience that “the coming of the Lord is near” (James 5:8).....this is what’s in dispute. When is the end of the age? The “ends of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11), “these last days” (Heb. 1:1–2), and the “consummation of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) are references to the generation of the apostles, not a distant end-time age.

"....the parousia of Jesus in Matthew 24 is not linked to the judgment of “the world.” It’s about the judgment of the temple (24:1–2) and Judea (24:15–20). Notice what Matthew 24:15 states: “When YOU see the abomination of desolation.” Throughout the discourse, Jesus continually uses the second person plural. Consider what He says in verse 33: “so, YOU too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is NEAR, right at the door.” It was that audience that would “see all these things.” This confirms the statement by James that “the coming of the Lord is near” (5:8). “Near” is defined by Jesus as “right at the door” to that first-century generation.....”

“...There is no doubt that parousia means “presence.” In fact, I have a list of more than 50 authorities that confirm that parousia means “presence,” so this is not in dispute. The more significant question is to what event does the use of parousia in the Olivet Discourse refer, and what is the nature of Jesus’ “presence”? Milton Terry’s comments make it clear that the context and timing are very specific:

Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age.[2]

Terry is an important authority on interpretive issues since dispensationalists give his book Biblical Hermeneutics high praise. Like Tommy Ice, Milton Terry describes his interpretive methodology as “grammatico-historical”[3] Confirming what he wrote in Biblical Apocalyptics on the timing of the events in the Olivet Discourse, Terry asks, “On what valid hermeneutical principles, then, can it be fairly claimed that this discourse of Jesus comprehends futurity? Why should we look for the revelations of far distant ages and millenniums of human history in a prophecy expressly limited to the generation in which it was uttered?”[4]....”

 

Squirming as Theology

I would like to start a new thread outlining that there is only one judgment spoken of in Revelation 20 not multiple judgments, but I know I would not have the time to interact with a new thread over the course of many days so I will settle for responding on this thread for now.

JOJ is proving my point earlier that he is a one trick pony that elevates Greek interpretation above all else—even and plainly in this case when it puts him in direct opposition to specific bible passages (I’m not attacking John’s greek skills I’m observing that he goes several bridges too far for what he has to work with and ends up out of harmony with scripture).

If you take the preterist side of the argument that parousia should be interpreted as meaning the presence of Christ being found in events such as the 70 AD events around Jerusalem then you are in harmony with the balance of the bible.

This view is in harmony with My kingdom coming without observation Luke 17:20 and My Kingdom is not of this World John 18:36. There is no place that this view contradicts scripture.

However, if you want to wiggle, squirm, and force your way into saying the parousia mean a literal or physical return of Christ you are at odds with scripture in several places.

First there is not one single bible verse that will outright simply back you up on that—not even one. No where does the bible say Christ will return in a literal body or physical body.

Second, you are at odds with John 18:36 where Christ says His kingdom is not of this world.

Third, it is at odds with Luke 17:20 where it comes without observation.

This squirming your interpretation around to the desired meaning so you can ignore what is inconvenient to your desired outcome and embrace something that defies the relevant scripture on the topic turns greek interpretation into something it was never meant to be. It should be a tool to better understand the scriptures not a magical permission slip to ignore passages you find inconvenient to your view on a subject.

This is an example of squirming theology at its best.

Logos1 – preterist extraordinaire—JOJ (I appreciate the endorsement John)

 

I think that would be an easy mistake any 'Greek geek' (no disrepect intended) to fall into.

In a favorite sermon of mine a country preacher from S. Georgia had something like this to say (cant' quote him verbatim):

"Before we adopt any interpretaion of scripture to be 'doctrine', we should first consider the passage carefully through the magnifying glass, then we should check it out thoroughly through the telescope, and lastly we should scrutinize it under the microscope."

Probably the above would be considered a 'pre 20th century' approach and old fashioned 'traditional hermeneutics' and not at all in sync with the 'Modern Linguistics' camp by JoJ, who, IMO, elevates the microscope above all else.

 

Wrong, for one I'm not full preterist, and two there's NO 'answering' you when you reject what was brought to light in post #29 because the writer says 'everyday use' (which you insist no real linguist would say) instead of 'contemporary use'. It's ridiculous.

"*However, the term was also used in Hellenistic contexts to refer to a theophany, or a manifestation of deity. In the Greek form of several Jewish apocryphal works (Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Judah, Testament of Levi) it is "used to refer to the final coming of God." Josephus uses the term to refer to OT theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9:55). "