I have just finished reading Andrew’s most recent post relative to Hebrews 9.  It is an extremely well reasoned presentation and I agree with everything which he has written here with the exception of one point which we will get to in a moment.

Andrew wrote:

"If the first appearance constitutes a transaction in heaven, as I stubbornly maintain…"

In my opinion, The first appearance does in fact refer to the transaction in heaven where and when Christ, as the high priest - the office to which He was appointed by virtue of His resurrection, sprinkled (offered) His blood on the mercy seat.  Thus, you should "stubbornly maintain" that point.

Unfortunately Andrew also wrote:

Between Christ’s death and the presentation of his blood in the Holy Place there intervenes the resurrection and ascension - and, I would argue, his appointment to the position of high priest.

It is here that I cannot agree with Andrew.  According to Andrew - Christ carried His blood around with Him on earth for several days exposing it to contamination, pollution, and decay, then He finally ascended to heaven to offer that old, decaying, contaminated blood on the mercy seat.  This just cannot be.

In Leviticus 16, the high priest took the fresh, clean, uncontaminated blood of the freshly killed sacrifice into the Holy of holies and sprinkled (offered) it on the mercy seat.  Thus, Jesus can do no less.  He also, as the newly appointed high priest, must take fresh, clean, uncontaminated blood of the recently killed sacrifice into the Holy of holies and sprinkle it on the mercy seat in heaven.

This is were John 20:17 comes into the picture for without this biblical account of Christ’s first ascension to the Father we would have no record of the time period in which He; as the newly appointed high priest actually offered (sprinkled) the new, fresh, uncontaminated blood on the mercy seat in heaven and, as high priest, appeared for the first time to the disciples/martyrs who were awaiting His appearance to them (John 20:17-23; et al.  cf 20:26-31; et al.)

When Christ ascended to the Father from the mount as recorded in Act 1, it was not for the purpose of offering His old, decaying, contaminated blood on the mercy seat in heaven, but it was for the purpose of intercession (Heb 7:25; cf. Rom 8:27, 34; 11:2) for the saints who were being sacrificed (martyred) and for the mediation of the new covenant (Heb 7:6) with whom the new covenant was being established as a result of their sacrifice.

In other words; Christ, as high Priest, was now in heaven presiding over the sacrifice that was being offered during His term as high priest, i. e. the transition period (ca. 30 - 70 AD) between the two covenants (Heb 8, the passing of the old and the establishment of the new).  As soon as that sacrifice was completed (Rev 6:9-11); He, as high priest,  would "appear" before the mercy seat and offer the blood of that sacrifice on the mercy seat and then immediately "appear" to those that are "looking for His appearance to them" as a result of His having appeared before the mercy seat to offer the blood of their sacrifice for "they overcame by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, because they loved not their lives unto the death (of sacrifice, i. e. martyrdom)." (Rev 12:11) 

Guys, Andrew is right and KJ1 is not completely wrong.  They are simply looking at the same events from two different perspectives (i.e. the heavenly and the earthly), and of course KJ1 is wrong on his timing of the events because he does not see the audience relevance to that first century generation.  Please factor what I have given you into your discussion and you will see what I am referring to.

Andrew wrote:

The statement in 9:26 that ‘he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’ does not contradict this.

And from his "heavenly side" view of the offering and the appearance, he is exactly right, but (and here is what Andrew is missing [see below]) neither does it "contradict" the "earthly side" view of these things which I have presented (and which KJ1 is attempting to present) in juxtaposition to his "heavenly" view. 

Andrew has properly understood and presented "the once offered" issue, but he has (until recently, see below) ignored the "unto them who are looking for Him, He shall appear the second time…" which is where nearly all of KJ1’s focus exists. 

Andrew is right in stating that this "doesn’t support a literal second coming to earth interpretation of Heb. 9:28", but it does, in fact, very strongly support a Parousia interpretation which Andrew is just beginning to see (see below).  This Parousia support is what KJ1 has been trying to get Andrew to see and understand all along because it is that part of the whole that he sees so clearly.  However, Andrew could not see that because KJ1 improperly diffused his argument through the wrong time lense because he improperly thinks that the Parousia is still future to the year 2006.

Of this Andrew wrote:

If the first appearance constitutes a transaction in heaven, as I stubbornly maintain, then I think it likely that a comparable event in heaven is envisaged here. This could be something like the Old Testament visions of God descending to save his people and judge their enemies - only this time it is a vision of Christ acting through historical events and not YHWH. Or the allusion may be to the appearance of the Son of man before the ancient of days, which entails judgment upon the enemies of God’s people and the salvation of those who suffer

Properly understood, the Parousia occurred in the first century (Ca. 70 AD) and it included "a descending of God (Jesus Christ) to save His people and judge their enemies."  The "judgment and destruction of His and their enemies" occurred in the destruction of Jerusalem and "the saving of His people" occurred in their resurrection and/or rapture to join Him in the "heavenly kingdom" which was now fully established as a product of the Parousia. 

It is now becoming apparent that Andrew is beginning to recognize this great truth as he continued:

but if this is parousia terminology, we would also have to take into account other parousia texts.

Now we are getting some where.  This has been where KJ1 has been coming from all along.  Unfortunately, for both him and Andrew, his take on the "high priest" is wrong and his timing for all the events in question is wrong because he does not accept the fact that the NT "end times" was relevant to that first century generation - not his.

Now that we have solved the situation of Hebrews 9 and brought the reconciliation (in theory at least) of Andrew and KJ1, it is time to move on to the "Parousia texts" and a proper understanding of them.

As a start, I offer the following (which I have offered twice before):

Perhaps, the following verses (emphasis added) best explain the finale presented above:

When Christ our life appears (in glory), then you also will appear with Him in glory. (Colossians 3:4 NKJV)

I charge [you] therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: (2 Timothy 4:1 NKJV)

Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8 NKJV)

And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His Parousia. (1 John 2:28)

that the genuineness of your faith, much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 1:7 NKJV)

when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. (1 Peter 5:4 NKJV)

These verses and many more are "Parousia" texts.  The above verses clearly identify the time, location and people who the author of Hebrews identifies as those who "look for Him…who has "offered" the blood of their sacrifice (Rev 6:9-11, as this passage demonstrates, this sacrifice was not yet complete and thus is only alluded to in Heb 9:28) on the mercy seat and will appear a second time to them even as He had just before appeared a second time (the first time being ca. John 20:17) in the Holy of holies to offer the blood of their sacrifice; thus finishing His role as high priest. 

However, as Andrew correctly insists, this second appearance to the martyred saints did not take place on earth - indeed, it could not take place on earth for they had been KILLED and were dead; thus His appearance to them could only be in the resurrection, as described in 1Cor 15:23; cf 15:51-53 & 1Thess 2:16-17, at his Parousia; thus, they joined Him in the Holy place, the very thing that an earthly high priest could never accomplish!  The goal of the eschaton had been accomplished - man was now with God and God  was dwelling with man (Rev 21:3-5) in the new covenant "heaven" i.e. within the "new Jerusalem."