T
thelasttrumpet
Guest
I'm not following your argument here. And what "present judgment" are you talking about? And what do you mean by, "the words Jesus is using here have never been understood as figurartive." Understood by who?
Again, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please elaborate.
When did I ever say God was "a God of life" or "a God of love?" Are you confusing me with someone else?
Again, who are you talking to? I never said God was "a God of comfort." You're the one that was using that expression, and I denied that our "comfort" was a priority for God (which is obvious from the world in which we live, which can often be very uncomforatable). "God is love," but God is not "comfort."
But perhaps you're arguing that, if everyone is ultimately saved (from sin and death), then that would somehow undermine God's justice, or his righteousness, or his holiness. If that's what you're saying, then I would ask why you think such would be the case.
Well that's certainly what you're trying to prove, but so far, I must say, without any success. I deny that "what God says concludes as much." God doesn't say any such thing. You're mistaken.
And I might ask you the same question. You're the one making scripture stand on its head in John 5, just because you need it to teach what you thought was such an obvious doctrine (that of post-mortem punishment). And if you're wondering what I mean by "making scripture stand on its head," then look back at my objections to your understanding of John 5.
I deny that the author of Hebrews is even talking about literal death here. But even if he is, the only judgment said to follow literal death is stated in Genesis 3:19 (and if it be anything else, the judgment could be positive for all you know; not all judgment is negative, as I'm sure you're well aware). But again, I do not believe the author even has physical death in view here. If you read the entire chapter, you'll notice that the structure and context of the passage encompasses the perpetual sacrificial work of the High Priests, and how what Christ did is superior. The continuous and imperfect ministry of the Old Covenant High Priests was but a type of what Christ accomplished.
The word "men" in verse 27 is preceeded by the Greek definite article tois. In order to maintain the popular reading of this verse, most translators leave out the article. But correctly parsed, the verse reads, "...as it is appointed for THOSE (tois) men to die once..." Just look at verse 28, where this definite article appears again: "...but to save THOSE (tois) who eagerly wait for him." "Those men" doesn't refer to all men universally, but to the High Priests (Aaron and his successors in office), which the author of Hebrews has been referring to, and contrasting with Christ. The context of Hebrews 9 is a discussion about the Levitical priesthood. What the chapter treats is those ritual offerings which represented Christ and his "better sacrifices" than those offered by the levitical priests (9:23).
Annually, on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest entered the Most Holy alone. When he entered, he did so only with sacrificial blood. That animal blood represented himself and the nation as a whole. When he thus entered, he symbolically died. Not until he emerged from the tabernacle to bless the people did they know whether his sacrificial offering met God's acceptance or whether he had been struck down. The benediction he pronounced, expressed in the words Moses instructed him to use, was God's judgment on the matter. Then the national anxiety over atonement dissipated, and they rejoiced and thankfully prepared for the Feast of Tabernacles immediately following the Day of Atonement.
Again, the context here clears up all uncertainty. This passage is a comparison/contrast between Jesus and the Old Covenant High Priests. The popular reading, however, does not reflect the true intent of the passage, but makes it meaninglessly disjointed. Read with the context in mind (and with the Greek word tois actually translated!), then the two little words "as" and "so" actually mean something: "And AS it is appointed for THOSE MEN [i.e., the High Priests] to die once [ceremonially, once a year], SO CHRIST was offered once to bear the sins of many..."
I'm not asking myself these questions; I'm asking you these questions to see what you think. Nowhere does Scripture state that God will inflict pain on anyone after they die - especially not endlessly - so I'm naturally curious as to why you think it's so necessary.
While I haven't yet argued this point, it is true that I believe that all pain has a purpose that will prove to be for our benefit at a future time. However, it is also true there is much pain experienced in life that does not have an obviously "healing purpose." In many cases, pain simply ends in death - and death, in itself, doesn't "heal" anything.
This is a baseless assertion. Perhaps you have something with which to substantiate it...
No, I don't see in the present creation that "some pain is beyond redemption." So, you have yet to substantiate your assertion. Now, perhaps if I was an atheist, I would be forced to come to your conclusion, but I'm not. I believe in a God who is all-wise and all-powerful, and who can therefore bring good out of any evil - both in this life and after this life is over.
I'm not even sure what this statement means.
I agree; but you seem to be obsessed with arguing with a strawman.
What do you mean? If God told people they'd die for their sin (and he has), then I believe they died for their sin. But since when does "dying" mean "living in endless pain?"
Because people were raised to judgment in the future. But that doesn't mean they were raised from physical death to judgment, or that it's still in our future.
This is your unsupported opinion, and I'm afraid it's not worth much to me.
I thought the same exact thing about what you've been saying!
Here is what I said in an earlier post:
and
The spiritual resurrections in verses 24-25 climaxed in a dramatic change in peoples' circumstances, which depended on how people responded to the Gospel (and whether or not they remained "awake" and "sober"). Thus, the people of Israel were "raised" to two very different states: for those who remained spiritually alive and endured to the end, their resurrection was to a state of blessing (the "resurrection of life") and for those who, having been raised spiritually but then fell away, their resurrection was to a state of shame and condemnation (the "resurrection of judgment').
See above.
Upvote
0