Here is another place where we differ. I believe there is a distinction in the following two phrases used (regarding Jesus):
[quoting past post of mine]
1 John 4:2-3a -
" 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit
that confesses Jesus Christ
having come [perfect participle] in flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that
does not confess Jesus is not of God, and this is that of the antichrist, [...]"
2 John 1:7 -
"7 For many deceivers have entered into the world, those
not confessing Jesus Christ
coming [present participle] in flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."
Do you see any distinction between the phrases:
--"
having come [perfect participle] in flesh"; and
--"
coming [present participle] in flesh"
[end quoting that post]
"parousia" is also used of "the man of sin" in 2Th2:9a … translated "[whose]
coming" in the kjv, but I often add the further definitions "
presence, advent, arrival"... see BibleHub quote, below:
[quoting]
3952 parousía (from
parōn, "be present, arrive to enter into a situation") – properly,
coming, especially the
arrival of the
owner who alone can
deal with a situation (cf.
LS).
3952 (
parousía) is a "technical term with reference to
the visit of a king or some other official, 'a royal visit' " (Souter) – "hence, in the NT, specifically of the
Advent or
Parousia of Christ" (
A-S).
[
3952 (
parousía) is "used in the east as a technical expression for the
royal visit of a king, or emperor. The word means literally 'the being beside,' thus, 'the personal presence' " (K. Wuest, 3,
Bypaths, 33).]
[end quoting]