Aaron37,
Thanks for the hint. Are you without sin?
By ‘eternal death’ do you mean annihilation? Are they ‘aware’ while they are eternally dead and apart from God?
Rom 2:6,7 God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
Sonia
Sonia
you said: Thanks for the hint. Are you without sin?
Aaron37: Nope, but I’m changing form glory to glory and I’m gaining on not sinning( 2Cor 3:18) Making a choice to sin in the weakness of my flesh does not change what happened in my spirit . You are not a sinner saved by grace ( you used to be) but now you are a new creation ( new species) in Christ with the life and nature of God himself. You are a son of God, the very offspring of God himself, you are a born again child of God. In other words, your spirit has been changed with the nature of God, but your soul and flesh…they still have the remnant of the desires to sin. That is why we are told to renew our mind or soul with the word of God, pray, private worship and fasting ( mortifying the flesh and its desires) to conform to the image of God (the nature inside your spirit) and not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. It is a process, but contrary what religion tells you…you have the ability to live from your born again spirit as you grow spiritually and not fulfil the lust of the flesh and sin.
Can a dead man sin? Your old man ( your sinful nature) is crucified with Christ, it is destroyed that you should serve sin no more. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Romans 6:6-7.
Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in the newness of life. Romans 6:4.
you said: By ‘eternal death’ do you mean annihilation? Are they ‘aware’ while they are eternally dead and apart from God?
Aaron37: No, not annihilation… was the Richman aware while he lifted up his eyes being tormented in the flames of hell? Yes, The richman was fully aware of his surroundings. The richman is still being tormented in those very flames of hell you read in Luke 16:19-31…separated from God for eternity.
God bless,
Aaron
That might be truer now than in the future. One might ask, was His PHYSICAL body resurrected for mere effect, i.e. a show? The dead are bodiless and dead.
Saying that the resurrection is ‘spiritual’ (essentially invisible) is a no-no - Paul fought against that idea. You have your ideas on the subject, but they don’t mesh well with scripture.
Ran,
I apologise if I’ve been unclear. I’m not saying that there is no physical resurrection. What I’m trying to say is that I believe that one can experience physical resurrection and still be ‘dead’ spiritually. Physical resurrection is not equal to spiritual resurrection.
Those of us who are servants of Christ have experienced a new spiritual birth (or perhaps are in a process of spiritual rebirth) but still reside in unregenerate–‘dead’–bodies. That is why Christ says that those who live and believe in him will never die–our spirits are alive with the life of Christ, and our bodies will live too: “we long for the redemption of our bodies.”
If you find me unscriptural in this, please give me some passages to consider so I can re-evaluate my ideas.
Thanks,
Sonia
That’s a needless dichotomy. People are resurrected from DEATH - body and soul to new life where they all confess Christ. The hope of salvation (from death) is always future and always universal.
Everyone will be purified (salted) with fire. And needs be. We’re sinners no matter how ‘spiritual’ we may think we have become.
Ran
you said: Everyone will be purified (salted) with fire. And needs be. We’re sinners no matter how ‘spiritual’ we may think we have become.
Aaron: No, everyone will not be salted with fire.
Mark 9:49 seems to be a difficult passage at first glance…because of this… it has been translated into 15 different meanings but we know there is only one true meaning. When we keep verse 49 in continuity with verses 42-48 the true meaning presents itself.
In the verses preceding verse 49 (Mark 9:42-48), Mark records that Jesus warned those offending “these little ones,” and declared that one would be better off to rid himself of offending parts of his body than to be cast into hell, where the fire never goes out and “their worm does not die.” It would fit this context to translate verse 49, “Everyone [who is sent to hell] will be salted by fire, that is, destroyed by fire. ( by Weston Fields)
Ran, My advice is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior to be salted with the salt of grace so you won’t be sent to be salted by the lake of fire for eternity.
Btw, Regardless what religion has taught you…I’m no longer a sinner saved by grace (I used to be) I’m now a New Creation in Jesus Christ that has been delivered from the power of darkeness (sinful nature) and has been translated into the kingdom of his Son! (Col 2:12). I have been set free from the power of sin and the sin nature. (Romans 6:6-7;11;14; 8:1-2).
God bless,
Aaron
That’s nice, but I’m not going to join you in your hypocrisy.
I think you missed my point, which was about ontological status. Which by the way the scriptures entirely affirm: all things live unto God, all that lives lives because of God Who is the only Living God, in Him we live and move and have our being and all things continue to hold together thanks to Him.
Not every such entity at all times has zoe eonian, though, which was my point for comparison: there are those who live bodily (and in some way even spiritually) now who do not have zoe eonian; consequently it should not be surprising if we also see testimony to the effect that there will be those living bodily in the resurrection who still do not have zoe eonian. Relatedly, it’s clearly possible for those with zoe eonian to only partially have it, or at least to not be physically immortal, because the faithful in Christ have some extent of zoe eonian now yet we still expect to physically die (not least like Christ Himself!!)
As you yourself emphatically point out, the choice is clearly God’s–but that’s all I meant, too, by affirming conditional immortality (per se). I didn’t just make up the concept myself (much less over-against God, which I would never willingly do.)
That being said, neither do I deny that some of the choice (though not the prime authority) lies with us; I’ve continually affirmed that. But I do so because the scriptures also constantly affirm such choice on our part as being important to the whole process. I don’t leave their testimony on this out of the account either.
I agree!–but then, I don’t stop with 49 being only in continuity with verses 42-48. 
There is one more verse after it, still in continuity. Which explains that the salting with fire must be a good thing. Even in the later manuscripts that include an extra phrase “and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt”, the context is still the passing of the sacrifice through the fire; and what happens in the fire is still salting, too (and salting is still ideal, leading to peace with one another). And it’s still “all” with blunt inclusivity, not only all impenitent sinners.
Just as it says, pas gar puri alisthesetai. For a Greek clause, it couldn’t be more straightforward: “for all will be salted with fire.” Which fire? The unquenchable fire that burns in Gehenna. Who will be salted? All. Is salting tragic? No, salting is the best of things.
What we are also warned about in verse 50, though, is that if (allegorically) we preach that this salting doesn’t really salt, then the doctrine becomes worthless, fit only to be despised by men. The salting by fire must really salt, and the salting must really be a good thing, and we have to keep that in the account, as well as its connections to the threat of the unquenchable fire to impenitent sinners. But Jesus thus explains what the point of those verses He quotes from Isaiah really involve. (Which should have been obvious enough anyway from earlier in Isaiah, where God’s eschatological final judgment isn’t hopeless: it has a hopeful goal for those being so punished.)
Jason,
This statement directly relates to this topic. I am not aware of any scriptural testimony which affirms your statement. As I see it, the resurrection will change everyone which will result in total submission to Christ.
Todd
So, the scripture I gave as one example in my comment to Ran (awhile back in this same thread) means nothing of that sort to you?
You’re certainly welcome to comment on it if you like, to show how it doesn’t actually mean what I presented it for meaning. 
(Ran, too, for that matter; he forgot to comment on it before, being too busy charging me with simply inventing concepts versus God or something. 
)
Me? You admit to an ontological change (all being in Christ as they were in Adam) - that’s fine and obviously so. But what I am arguing for (and I think Tod as well) - is that the change is comprehensive and not tentative or conditional on some residual Adamic nature handing on or lingering around to cause trouble.
So if true life is conditional on our resistance, one has to ask…where is it coming from in Christ?
Matt 27:52-53
52 And the graves were opened ; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose , 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
The raising of Lazarus as well as these saints seem to be examples affirming your statement. But in these cases there is no mention of a change; it seems they were just brought back to life in the same old natural, mortal bodies they had formerly (we aren’t really told, but I would assume that is the case). In the resurrection to immortality we are told that we are changed:
1 Cor 15:51-52
51 Behold, I tell 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 trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
This change is more than just the physical properites which will make us immortal, it also includes a change in our desires and motivations - no longer governed by the flesh (natural body); rather, one who is governed by the spirit (spiritual body).
1 Cor 44-46
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 became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.
Regarding John 5:21-29, the resurrection to life mentioned in v29 does not refer to the general resurrection of 1 Cor 15, but is explained a few verses back in v24.
John 5:24
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Notice the tense, “has passed from death unto life.” This resurrection is not something future, but happens as one becomes a faithful believer. This is a spiritual resurrection to life.
Also mentioned in v29 is a spiritual resurrection to condemnation. This condemnation is what we are freed from when we walk according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
I will admit I do not fully understand why this “resurrection to condemnation” is called a resurrection, but I have speculated that it is related to the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-10). Jesus said in John 5:28 that “the hour is coming.” This “hour” could be referring to the advent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost which brought about an awakening (spiritual resurrection?) of all the living to either the joys or convictions of the Spirit.
Todd
Ran
you said: That’s nice, but I’m not going to join you in your hypocrisy.
Aaron: Hypocrisy? That is a very strong word to accuse me of…I challenge you to prove anything I have said that would be considered hypocrisy.
God bless,
Aaron
Fortunately (for you), you don’t have to read what you write.
Ran,
Caution on the charge of hypocrisy. That term implies intentional deception. There may be (I think there is) ground for believing A37 is mistaken about his current sinlessness (or possibly one or more misunderstandings on our part!–whether about what he means, or about whether he’s correct to believe that); but that’s different from him intentionally trying to deceive us about his sinlessness.
You don’t understand what I’m talking about. I don’t admit to an ontological change in the least; that would be tantamount to saying that we no longer depend on God for our existence. (There are a few Christian theologians here and there who push an ontological change; and it’s often a staple of popular theology, as well as sometimes a tacit implication of theologians who are nevertheless affirming supernaturalistic theism and so ought to know better. But I deny it. The Christians most into ontological change for redeemed people are one branch of Mormonist theology, where the three divine gods are ontologically self-existent and any Christian is in line to transform into a self-existent entity just like them. And yes I realize that such a claim is logically contradictory, which is one of several reasons why I am not a Mormon. 
)
I do admit and acknowledge what I suppose may be called a pneumatological change (among other kinds of related change); and I think that’s what you’re talking about here, too. I just wanted to clarify (though I thought my discussion of it was pretty detailed) that when I talk about ontology I’m talking about relative dependency of existence. (Ontology is the philosophy of ‘existence sourcing’, so to speak.)
Consequently, our state of existence at any given point in our history is primarily (though not altogether solely) a function of God’s action to keep us in existence. Which leads back to the point of my comment, which I will repeat again until you bother to comment on it : clearly it’s possible for God to have us in phases of not-immortal existence (such as we are before death, whether or not we are already accepting the zoe eonian), and also to bring people back to life without even conditionally immortal physical existence (such as with the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain, and Lazarus, just to give the Gospel examples.) It isn’t a contradiction in principle, then, for God to raise some persons, namely those who are willfully impenitent sinners, in a state of non-immortality, at least spiritually and (I expect) also physically.
Insofar as the state of true life is conditional of our acceptance of the gift of true life, then the lack of true life is conditional on our resistance (and in that sense the state of true life is conditional on our acceptance), but I have always affirmed and even stressed that the true life itself comes from Christ. Even many (or most) ultra-Universalists agree that insofar as we do not have the true life now, it is due to resistance on our part, which resistance the resurrection is expected to completely remove (by one or more ways). I don’t recall you being any different on that; the issue isn’t about resistance to the true life being possible (per se) but about whether resistance will still be possible (and, if so, also actual in some cases) after the resurrection.
Unless you’re trying to say that any state of ours in this present life where we don’t have true life is NOT due in any way to rebellion on our part. (You might be, but I haven’t previously understood from you before to be going this route. Your occasional charge of hypocrisy, for example, is notionally predicated on intentional and malicious deception; it would be completely meaningless for you to charge people with hypocrisy while also denying that a lack of true life in this life is NOT due in any way to rebellion on our part.)
I don’t think the contexts of the latter part of 1 Cor 15 are intended to be talking about one general resurrection of both the evil and the good, though. If anything, the earlier part of 1 Cor 15 seems to indicate Paul believes the full resurrection of the final rebels–whatever that may be taken to mean–is subsequent to those who are Christ’s at Christ’s coming; which case is clearly what he is talking about later in the chapter where you quoted from.
I also note from verse 25 right afterward, however, that Jesus emphasizes that the hour of this happening not only “now is” but also “is coming”. (A standard Biblical already/not yet emphasis.)
Be that as it may, you haven’t explained how your interpretation of the resurrection to zoe eonian is a spiritual resurrection now connects to the resurrection in verse 29 (and 28, which you did not specifically reference). To repeat the content of those verses: “Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming [notably “and now is” is not included this time!] in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth, those who did the good to a resurrection of life and those who did evil to a resurrection of judgement.”
As you say, this resurrection to condemnation is what we are freed from when we walk according to the Spirit. How then are you calling it a “spiritual” resurrection? The imagery is specifically that of bodies coming forth from the tombs. (Also implied back in verse 21, which I was also referencing, where not only does the Father raise the dead and gives them life, but even so the Son also gives life to whomever He wishes.) There is no new spirit (yet) for the ones being resurrected to crisis; their spirits may be coming back, but without zoe eonian. And they and the ones being resurrected to zoe eonian are being called forth from the tombs in 28, a standard claim for the bodily resurrection expected at the full commencement of the Day of the Lord to come. They are sharing in the bodily resurrection to come, but not in the spiritual resurrection–not the same kind of spiritual resurrection anyway. (And I fully expect not the same kind of bodily resurrection either, insofar as any of that transformation requires the acceptance and presence of the zoe eonian.)
It could also be referring to what verse 28 said it was referring to, which is standard language about a bodily resurrection. As, in fact, any reference to “the resurrection of the good and the evil” is. For example, in St. Paul’s defense before Felix in Acts 24, he relates that he has the same hope as some of his own accusers, “that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” and that the reason he is on trial before the Romans is because while on trial before the Sanhedrin he cried out that he was on trial for believing in the resurrection of the dead. Not only must he be talking about the bodily resurrection of Christ, in context of his own beliefs and experience, but his ploy at that point was to divide the Sanhedrin by giving supporters among the Pharisees an excuse to snipe at the Sadducees who did not believe in a bodily resurrection at all. (23:6-8) Similarly, toward the end of RevJohn, the lake of fire judgment is preceded by the resurrection of the dead out of hades, which is distinguished from the “first resurrection” of 20:4-6. (Notably, though it is admittedly incautious to press apocalyptic imagery too far, the rebels who are still outside the New Jerusalem after the lake of fire judgment, chp 22, are treated as though embodied but not yet transformed with the new life from the river and the tree of life.)
In any case, it is clear, as I myself admitted and even insisted, that the zoe eonian of verse 24 is only a “spiritual” resurrection, not yet a bodily one even for those who have it. But this does not mean there will not be a bodily resurrection for them later. (As also emphasized by Jesus later during the Lazarus incident: the one who believes in Him, even though that one dies, yet he lives and shall never be dying.) This I explicitly contrasted to the resurrection of the bodies in verses 28-29, which fits the expectation of an eventual bodily resurrection for the righteous–yet the wicked are “called forth from the tombs” as well. You can only have those count as a (merely) “spiritual” resurrection, too, by first ignoring the body language and then second by practically ignoring the obvious distinction even in a “spiritual” resurrection to judgment in contrast to a “spiritual” resurrection to life. Whether you recognize the bodily resurrection implied by verse 28 or not, the doers of evil are not (yet) in the same spiritual condition of the doers of good–which is why they are resurrected to judgment instead of to the life of zoe eonian. Yet they are both being resurrected in a day to come. To reduce this to the witness of the Holy Spirit (though I don’t deny that such witness, including as testified to in John 16 as you referenced, does and will still occur, including in the resurrection of judgment–compare again with RevJohn 22), basically guts the notion of resurrection to mean nothing at all distinctive. (Similarly, it’s worth noting that the term ‘resurrection’ does not appear back in verse 24, which talks about how zoe eonian can accepted now by those who believe in Christ and receive Him.)
The data fits the standard interpretation better than alternatives: there is a bodily resurrection still to come, not yet present, of both the good and the evil, but the good to zoe eonian (which they can already be participating in now, despite subsequent natural death) and the evil to an eonian crisis (which those who have zoe eonian can expect to be exempt from in some significant way).
Whether this resurrection is simultaneous with a resurrection of the good (as the immediate contexts in GosJohn would suggest without further qualification, ditto Acts); or postdates it in some fashion (as 1 Cor 15:23-26 suggests, with 15:50-57 going on to talk to nominal believers about the importance and truth of the general resurrection to those who like them are already believers); or postdating in one way while being simultaneous in another way (as the final few chapters in RevJohn suggest), is not something I am especially concerned about, and am in fact a bit positively agnostic on. 
(I can see good arguments for all positions–which naturally inclines me to expect the third, combination position to be true.)
Aaron,
Yes I’m aware of the appeal to the double-meaning in Aramaic (or Hebrew, too, in this case) that might mean scattered (like salt is scattered) and so, by analogy, destroyed. (Much as ‘salting’ by analogy can mean saved or preserved).
I have already analyzed one attempt by an author along this line, at length, here in this thread. See also my subsequent comments, especially this one which re-presents my original analysis in another way.
The article you linked to has a few other details than the chapter I was critiquing, but doesn’t materially affect my analysis, so far as I can tell yet. (Incidentally, it makes more sense that the original statement from Jesus would be in Aramaic, not Hebrew per se, but as your author notes this makes no substantial difference to his proposal.) Your author, and the author I critiqued, both neglect to consider the textual history of the transmission in any detail; and both neglect to synch their proposal with verse 50 in any way at all, despite its clear grammatic and thematic links to verse 49. (Not surprising, as any attempt at doing so will be problematic for their thesis, as I demonstrate in detail.)
By contrast, my argument (as I demonstrate) can easily and coherently incorporate the actual application of an Aramaic double-meaning use of the term, where Jesus (in good rabbinic fashion) uses the double-meaning as a way of overturning His disciples’ expectations in a surprising fashion. Which, not incidentally, connects back thematically all the way back through verses 38-41 to the warning to the apostles and disciples following from verse 33.
Bringing up the underlying double-meaning usage of the term in Aramaic, consequently, actually makes my overall exegesis of the verses stronger. Not weaker.
(Usually I don’t bother to mention it, as it’s even more detail in an already complex exegetical situation, and after all I don’t have to have it. But since you bothered to bring it up, thanks! )
For what it’s worth, I think there’s a good argument from Synoptic comparison of grammar and themes (GosJohn doesn’t seem to have material from this incident), that in the historical scene represented at the end of Mark 9, Jesus didn’t go straight directly from His applied quotation of Isaiah to “For all shall be salted with fire”. However, I expect that the intervening material was that which is found in GosMatt’s parallel scene, chp 17:12-14. Which certainly doesn’t exclude the notion of universal salvation, to say the least! 
My full harmonization of this sequence would involve
Matthew 17:22-27
Matthew 18:1-35
Mark 9:30-50
Luke 9:46-50
Luke 17:1-4
It would take me a while to explain the textual and grammatic rationale for how and why I would reconstruct the whole sequence from these sources (i.e. the approach to Jesus’ final visit to Capernaum and some things that happened there before His final tour through Palestine), although in some cases it ought to be obvious. For reference, though, I have attached my translated and reconstructed harmonization sequence (i.e. chapter 30 of my King of Stories harmonization project) to this comment as a doc and a pdf file.
Salting in Capernaum.pdf (42.2 KB)
Salting in Capernaum.doc (33 KB)
Well, the sinless one has doubted my (and others) salvation often enough that it sure looks intentional from this angle.