One could argue that that was part of the problem. In chapter 10 we see the warning for trampling the Son of God, insulting the Holy Spirit and angering The Father. Christ was coming back, alright, but with a sword and in just a little while. And the writer likens the Trinity as the ‘three witnesses’ bearing testimony against that generation. Heb 10:28

They had murdered God, not a mere man and yet another prophet. So HIS sacrifice was the atonement for all sins for all time - so that even His enemies are ‘being made holy’ by it. He repeats the phrase ‘once for all’ often enough that the eternal redemption won by Christ should be seen as both complete and universal. Heb 10:13

Actually, if we believe the account of 70ad by Josephus - that did happen! And Caiaphas’ bones and vestments were found in a tunnel under the city - we know he was in the city to see what Christ predicted he would see what Josephus said everyone saw.

But there is no krisis in that if one is not conscience of it. What continues (the spirit of a man) is not his earthy body - so the krisis must be of fitting that spirit into an immortal resurrected body - the imperfect into the perfect - there’s the moment of krisis! The imperfect must need to undergo something - I think that ‘something’ is fire in terms of refinement and not destruction of the essentially made holy resurrected person. It is certainly not a battle of wills - no one can withstand His Fire because His Love is in it. It may happen as quickly as regeneration here - instantaneously. But is THAT the judgment? I don’t think so.

The judgment is clearly about rewards due (and never lost) to some of the resurrected. Faith will be rewarded, not in and of itself, but by the fruit it produced in advancing His kingdom while here. A spurious faith which actually hindered the advance of His kingdom (Lord, Lord!) will be burnt up in the resurrection itself.

‘Everyone will be salted with fire.’ THAT’S NOT a judgment on mankind - that’s part of salvation and the renewal of man.

Although I have no doubt that some miraculous things occurred at the overthrow of Jerusalem (including a vision of “chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor running about among the clouds, surrounding the cities”), I have not read in Josephus that anyone saw with their eyes Christ seated at the right hand of God and “coming on the clouds of heaven” (even though I do think this prophecy was fulfilled at this time!).

I see it as being a “krisis” from the perspective of the living, not the dead (for “the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing”).

But the word translated “judgment” in this verse is krisis, so they’re one in the same thing. I’m not sure how you can consistently say that one thing is “the moment of krisis” but that another is “the judgment.”

“Clearly?” While I could certainly be wrong about the krisis referring to our return to the dust, I’m not so sure I can agree with you that it refers to rewards being dealt out after the resurrection. Where do you believe it is taught that rewards will be given out after the resurrection of the dead?

I can’t think of any interpretation of scripture that I hold that is original with myself. I’m always picking-up things from others. It’s tantalizing to think that (given 2,000 years of Christian meditation upon the scriptures) for any given passage there is probably a written interpretation that I would joyfully adopt.

Ok, it was in going through my saved “favorites” the other day that I came back across this forum and a few minutes ago I decided to just start poking around through my “favorites” again and came across this thread at Theology Web. Aaron, is this your thread?

The direct answer to that would be: show me your mansion. The best Christians are rewarded here with death (martyrdom) - surely, you don’t think that’s their reward! He has something better for them.

Faith leads to works - what we do. That’s where the judgment lies: in determining rewards. A faith without works is really no faith at all. The two go hand in hand.

But the basis for our salvation is solely His redemption, not our faith and not our works - those are the basis of rewards.

My bad; I was misunderstanding you. But I’m not sure I can agree with your interpretation, because whatever the “krisis” refes to, it is evidently something that follows the death that “the men” are said to “die once.” In other words, if tois anthropois refers to mankind in general (which you agree it does), and the death here refers to the death that all men are appointed to “die once,” then the judgment (krisis) that follows “after” (meta) this death is a judgment that necessarily follows the death of each man. Consequently, it could not be a judgment that follows Christ’s death only. Does that make sense? Or perhaps I’m missing something here!

Now, as I alluded to in my last response to you, my understanding is that tois anthropois (here translated “men”) could take on a singular meaning and refer to one man (e.g., as representative of the race) and not necessarily to all men in general (although I don’t know of any NT examples where this is the case). I could be mistaken about this, however; I just remember reading that somewhere a while back. Perhaps Jason (who has more knowledge of Greek than I do!) could shed more light on this. But anyway, that’s why I originally thought you understood v. 27 to be referring to Christ only, and not to mankind in general.

No, you’re correct; I believe all punishment takes place during this lifetime only, and that there are only two states of conscious existence for men: this mortal life, and the one that will commence when the dead are raised and the living are changed. After the resurrection, I believe all people will be sinless (thus, no more punishment will be necessary).

and

Again, the judgment appears to be connected not with Christ’s death, but with the death that tois anthropois (i.e., mankind in general) are appointed to “die once” (unless, of course, tois anthropos refers to Jesus Christ alone, and not to mankind in general). Unless I’m mistaken, the word meta (“after this”) connects the death of tois anthropos with the krisis, not the krisis with Jesus’ death in v. 28. So I’m not sure I can agree with your interpretation here.

Also, I don’t understand Christ’s death to have been the “second death” (which I must confess is something I’ve never heard before!). For my thoughts on the “second death” go here: The Hell on Earth View - a subset of UR

But I’d be interested in knowing how exactly you apply the “second death” and “lake of fire” of Revelation to Christ’s death!

It is! Were you posting on the forum back then as well?

Ain’t that the truth!

How does THAT happen? Simply because their bodies decay? Surely, something happened! Something changes resurrected people.

If you want to continue to see our being salted with fire (post-mortem) as punishment - then so be it. But if the salting is an integral part of the resurrection for everyone why not call it a necessary good that only the self-righteous and hypocrites think they will escape, and let them make their case. But don’t make their case for them.

Don’t they all claim that they have become sinless elsewhere? When in fact, they aren’t.

No, I joined TheologyWeb a little over a year ago (Jan 09). I think because I came across that thread (and a few others that I liked quite a bit, which is probably why it is bookmarked). I posted a little then (not to that thread though) but have not been back in quite some time. I was there with a friend and she didn’t like the forum for some reason (I love vBulletin - it’s so much easier to use, no offense to the phpBB users ) and we both left.

I’m reading through the thread again (and loving it, again ) but I have to say that it amazes me that, despite everything you seem to understand about “death” and “resurrection” (not being "literal’) in your posts there, that you still do believe that we are in a state of unconsciousness upon physical death as we await a future resurrection of the dead… and I’m not sure if I should inquire about that here or there… and if here whether on this thread or another one. As I see you also address the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in that thread over there and you have a thread on it here too (if I recall correctly).

Small world.

If by “mansion” you’re referring to John 14:2-3, what makes you think Jesus is here talking about “rewards?” I agree that the resurrection is in view here, but whatever the “mansions” (or “rooms”) refer to, I see no reason to believe that they’re “rewards” bestowed for good works done here.

Of course I don’t think death is a reward. The believer’s reward (graciously given by God in response to his “faith that works”) is “the life of the age” (Rom 2:6-7), which has nothing to do with going to Heaven and everything to do with inheriting the kingdom of God now and receiving all the spiritual blessings that the subjects of God’s kingdom enjoy.

I agree!

Yeah, it seems my views haven’t changed very much over the last 3 years! Hopefully that’s not a bad thing, though.

Well my understanding is that it’s not something that changes people, but someone (i.e., Jesus Christ), and that he does it by the power that God gave him when he exalted him as Lord of all and gave him all authority in heaven and on earth. So no, I don’t think people become sinless “simply because their bodies decay.”

As I’ve said in another thread, I see no proof that this “salting with fire” refers to something post-mortem. I realize this single verse from Mark 9 is rather central to your theology, but for me, the evidence seems to point to its pertaining to a this-life judgment that took place nearly 2,000 years ago. I believe the “all” (pas) whom Jesus said would be “salted with fire” refers to all who were to be thrown into Gehenna (i.e., all who had to undergo this temporal judgment). But anyway, I think we both agree that people in the resurrection are sinless. If you want to ascribe this radical change to our being “salted with fire,” then ok, fine.

The hypocrites maintain that they enter the resurrection sinless and AS IS. They cannot admit to correction being necessary - because to do that would mean that others would be corrected because they need it too. That would be opening the flood-gates as far as they are concerned. So they maintain they’re sinlessness at all costs, while condemning the next guy to hell.

I don’t find your version any better. Where everyone enters the resurrection sinless and AS IS and in no need of correction. At one point you call death the enemy and in the next, it’s the magical means to sinlessness all by itself.

It’s not a question of deserving correction and refinement, but of needing it.

Ooops, I missed a post…

I think you are missing something. I think you are still overlooking the fact that, despite the fact that it is appointed unto men to die once, the passage is still about the death of one man not all men.

I was reading in one of your post at theologyweb that you believe that the first and second death have to do with (1) Babylonian captivity and (2) God’s judgment on Israel; but I see both deaths in conjunction with the two Adam’s. And just as all were found dead “in Adam” all have been baptized into the death of Jesus Christ (making them “twice dead”). But it is though “the second death” (dying with Christ and being found “in Him”, who has the keys of death and of hell) that “the dead” are resurrected and death is destroyed.

I think you are misreading the intent of the passage, as it doesn’t seem to me that the passage is about anything other than the sacrifice being wrought through one man, Jesus Christ. A man who came to die ONCE (just as it is appointed unto all men to die “once”) and in so doing take away the sins of the world.

If the passage was speaking about men in general and it said “it is appointed unto to men once to die and after this the judgment” I would agree with you. But it’s not talking about the deaths of men, in general, other than to point out that it appointed unto all me to die “once”. The fact remains that it is the death of one man in particular that is being discussed. And it goes on to say “and after this the judgment”.

Remember that Christ said:

John 16:7-11 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. **And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. **

ie, “now is the judgment of this world”. (John 12:31)

I will check that out. Perhaps it is similar to what I read at theologyweb, that I referenced above?

If the above doesn’t answer that, let me know and I will elaborate.

Certainly the passage as a whole (indeed, the entire epistle and NT) is about Christ and not about the death that all men die once. But v. 27 most certainly is about the death of all men (at least, if tois anthropois denotes all men here!). Even you admit this. But then you do what I think the grammar itself does not allow (i.e., connect the krisis with that which follows Christ’s death instead of what follows the death of tois anthropois). Again, I do in fact understand Christ to be the subject and reason for which the death of all men (and the judgment that follows after, meta, every man’s death), was introduced. The death of all men is not the subject of this epistle, or even this chapter. But it is introduced briefly, for a purpose that is consistent with the larger emphasis on Christ’s death. So again, it’s not that I fail to understand your interpretation or am “misreading the intent of the passage”; I think I understand the intent well enough. It’s that I don’t think your interpretation of these verses is even grammatically tenable.

So let’s say that there is a law that says that “every man must visit the moon once in his lifetime”.

Now let’s say that It is my time to go visit the moon so I say: “I am going to visit the moon, as it is appointed unto all men to do once in their lifetime, and after this I am going to the movies.”

Are you going to tell me that this means that every man must now go to the movies after he has made his required trip to the moon, just because I pointed out that every one is required to take that trip and I told you what was going to happen after my trip to the moon?

In order for your statement to be parallel to the text it would have to read, “every man must visit the moon once in his lifetime, and after this the movies.” So yes, when expressed in a way that is consistent with the original statement, it would mean that every man has to go to the movies after visiting the moon. Meta (“after this”) connects the krisis with the death that every man must die previous to the krisis.

OK, well we are going to have to agree to disagree, I guess, since to me it says that Christ came once to die, as it is appointed unto men, and after this the judgment. So, again to me, the “but after this” refers to Christ death (“once” for all).

And since it’s not about every man’s death, but about one man’s death, and it is at the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (which happened soon after Christ was crucified and resurrected) that the world was “judged” and you say yourself that there is no scriptural support a post-mortem judgment, I am not quite sure why you see it as speaking about a judgment that takes place “after physical death”. But, it is what it is, I guess.

Just wondering “out loud” as I think some more about this…

We DIE “in Adam”

We DIE “in Christ”

We DIE physically

But it is appointed unto me “ONCE to die”. ???

The passage is talking about Christ’s physical death and surely we all die “physically” only ONCE.

But it also seem to me that physical death is a ‘type’ (that which “is seen”, which is temporal) of the actual “death” that we all suffer as “the wages of sin” (which is spiritual death).

And we know that Christ said; “I AM the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”

This takes “physical death” out of the way, as the one who is “dead” (in sin) is “resurrected from the dead” (according to a spiritual truth) and has already passed FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE and Jesus says “he shall never die” (despite the fact that he will die, physically).

And even the one who is “dead” IN ADAM (in sin) is “twice dead” when baptized into the death of Jesus Christ… and it by being found in Christ (being baptized into HIS death, this “second death”) that one can overcome death and be “resurrected from the dead” (by being raise WITH HIM)… but then comes physical death.

hmmmmmmmmm… it’s getting late and I just can’t THINK.

Oh well, thought I was going somewhere with that…

Maybe if I sleep on it…