a-seeker

The fruit of the tree need not be anything special--let's call it a regular old apple, with regular seeds. The only distinction required for the story to be comprehensible is the prohibition. It was selected as a token of obedience, providing, unfortunately, room for temptation and disobedience. The phrase "knowing good and evil" may not refer to moral content. There are things called 'merisms' in the ancient literature; expressions used to convey "totality" by employing polar opposite conceptions...."as the east is from the west, so far have I removed..." etc. etc. What Adam and Eve did by eating the fruit was to declare themselves autonomous, which is God's prerogative, and therefore NOT good for man. clb

So in that we agree. Now Paul says that one day "every tongue will confess...Christ is Lord". Does every tongue include those of the patriarchs and David and the rest? Or will there be two classes of people in heaven, those who only know God as a single entity, or those who also know Him as Triune? Again, will Abraham be denied the experience of that relationship, next to which Paul considered all things as 'rubbish' (Phil 3.8)? You talk of 'being saved'. But salvation is not simply a place--it is a relationship, unblemished, with God. Now that either means with Christ or nor with Christ. You see the problem? Either the patriarchs will or will not know Christ. If they will, how? It would have to be after death, which opens the door to the question of post-mortem opportunities. clb Everyone, including the lost will one day have to bow down to Christ and confess he is Lord. That means everyone. The thing is, the Bible is revealing two covenants. In reality, you could say it reveals more than two covenants, as it also discusses those who lived before the law of Moses was given. You have those before the law, and God dealt with them in one way. Then you have those who lived from the time the law of Moses was given till the cross. God dealt with them in another way. Now you have those living during the time that runs from the cross to the millennial reign of Christ. God deals with them in a certain way. Then you have those living during the millennial reign of Christ. God deals with them in a certain way. Finally, you have a new heaven and a new earth. We have to play by God's rules based on the covenant we are under. Today, the only way of salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Those living before the cross were saved because they looked forward to the cross, and obeyed the law of Moses to the best of their ability. When they failed, an animal had to die. Now comes a kind of mystery. Jesus has always existed, and those who lived under the law of Moses did know Jesus. How did they know him? They knew Jehovah. Jesus and the Father are one. Let me see if I can explain this in another way. Notice what the Bible says about the creation of man. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:27 This was before we see Eve. How can this be? Because Eve was created with Adam, because she was part of him. She was his rib. When God created Eve, he literally took a part of Adam and fashioned her from it. That is why when a man and woman marry, they become one flesh. The carnal way of looking at this is to relate it all to the act of sex, but there is a spiritual side to it. A part of man was missing, but when he marries, it is restored. The man and the woman are one flesh because the woman came from the man. Jesus is God, and always has been God. He came to earth and was born of a woman, and from that time forward, we know God as Jesus Christ. He has always existed as part of God, but was not known as Jesus Christ to those under the law. He was known as Jehovah, I Am or God, but not as Jesus, yet to know God was to know Jesus. Those living under the Old Covenant make it to heaven because they followed the law by faith in the true and living God. Those under the New Covenant make it to heaven because they trust in Jesus. There is nothing in scripture that indicates anyone has a chance of getting saved after they die. I think we are getting away from the point that started this tangent--the possibility of post-mortem opportunities to meet and accept Christ as Lord. My central argument is that persons who died without knowing the grand plan will meet Christ--Abraham did not know Christ, nor Moses nor Joshua nor David etc. etc. I believe they will, either between this life and the next (intermediate consciousness) or on the day of resurrection. By extension, is it contrary to Scripture that other persons (people who lived in various parts of the world unknown to the canonical world) would be granted the same opportunity. That was the point, not a discussion on dispensationalism. clb I didn't get away from that point. You are just not understanding me. I am saying those people living under the law did know Jesus, as they knew God. Jesus himself stated that "before Abraham was, I am." I do not believe anyone has a chance to be saved after they die. I see, sort of...a couple questions 1) why do you not believe in opportunities post-mortem? 2) I take it you do not mean that the Patriarchs knew Christ in the same way that we did--of course they believed in God, and at points in their history, conceived Him as Father. But never as triune: theirs was a completely monotheistic theology. Nor were they given prevision of the Incarnation or the passion. Nor did they ever suspect that the animal sacrifices were mere symbols pointing to a future sacrifice....? God reckoned their trust in Him and, unbeknownst to them, extended it to Christ...right? 3) assuming 2) is right, will the patriarchs ever come to know Christ directly, as we do? Will the concluding chapter to their story ever be told them--about the incarnation and the atoning sacrifice and resurrection and how the animal sacrifices did not actually atone? Or will two classes occupy heaven--persons who know Christ directly, and those who know Him (if we can even call this "knowing") indirectly, or obliquely? Hypothetically, if Abraham and I were to sit down in heaven, could we have a conversation about a person named Jesus of Nazareth who was God incarnate and died and was raised....or would ABraham stare at me blankly and then say, "Who?" clb

So in that we agree. Now Paul says that one day "every tongue will confess...Christ is Lord". Does every tongue include those of the patriarchs and David and the rest? Or will there be two classes of people in heaven, those who only know God as a single entity, or those who also know Him as Triune? Again, will Abraham be denied the experience of that relationship, next to which Paul considered all things as 'rubbish' (Phil 3.8)? You talk of 'being saved'. But salvation is not simply a place--it is a relationship, unblemished, with God. Now that either means with Christ or nor with Christ. You see the problem? Either the patriarchs will or will not know Christ. If they will, how? It would have to be after death, which opens the door to the question of post-mortem opportunities. clb Everyone, including the lost will one day have to bow down to Christ and confess he is Lord. That means everyone. The thing is, the Bible is revealing two covenants. In reality, you could say it reveals more than two covenants, as it also discusses those who lived before the law of Moses was given. You have those before the law, and God dealt with them in one way. Then you have those who lived from the time the law of Moses was given till the cross. God dealt with them in another way. Now you have those living during the time that runs from the cross to the millennial reign of Christ. God deals with them in a certain way. Then you have those living during the millennial reign of Christ. God deals with them in a certain way. Finally, you have a new heaven and a new earth. We have to play by God's rules based on the covenant we are under. Today, the only way of salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Those living before the cross were saved because they looked forward to the cross, and obeyed the law of Moses to the best of their ability. When they failed, an animal had to die. Now comes a kind of mystery. Jesus has always existed, and those who lived under the law of Moses did know Jesus. How did they know him? They knew Jehovah. Jesus and the Father are one. Let me see if I can explain this in another way. Notice what the Bible says about the creation of man. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:27 This was before we see Eve. How can this be? Because Eve was created with Adam, because she was part of him. She was his rib. When God created Eve, he literally took a part of Adam and fashioned her from it. That is why when a man and woman marry, they become one flesh. The carnal way of looking at this is to relate it all to the act of sex, but there is a spiritual side to it. A part of man was missing, but when he marries, it is restored. The man and the woman are one flesh because the woman came from the man. Jesus is God, and always has been God. He came to earth and was born of a woman, and from that time forward, we know God as Jesus Christ. He has always existed as part of God, but was not known as Jesus Christ to those under the law. He was known as Jehovah, I Am or God, but not as Jesus, yet to know God was to know Jesus. Those living under the Old Covenant make it to heaven because they followed the law by faith in the true and living God. Those under the New Covenant make it to heaven because they trust in Jesus. There is nothing in scripture that indicates anyone has a chance of getting saved after they die. I think we are getting away from the point that started this tangent--the possibility of post-mortem opportunities to meet and accept Christ as Lord. My central argument is that persons who died without knowing the grand plan will meet Christ--Abraham did not know Christ, nor Moses nor Joshua nor David etc. etc. I believe they will, either between this life and the next (intermediate consciousness) or on the day of resurrection. By extension, is it contrary to Scripture that other persons (people who lived in various parts of the world unknown to the canonical world) would be granted the same opportunity. That was the point, not a discussion on dispensationalism. clb

So in that we agree. Now Paul says that one day "every tongue will confess...Christ is Lord". Does every tongue include those of the patriarchs and David and the rest? Or will there be two classes of people in heaven, those who only know God as a single entity, or those who also know Him as Triune? Again, will Abraham be denied the experience of that relationship, next to which Paul considered all things as 'rubbish' (Phil 3.8)? You talk of 'being saved'. But salvation is not simply a place--it is a relationship, unblemished, with God. Now that either means with Christ or nor with Christ. You see the problem? Either the patriarchs will or will not know Christ. If they will, how? It would have to be after death, which opens the door to the question of post-mortem opportunities. clb

We need to examine the nature—even the mechanics—of what it means to “be saved”. Salvation is from the sin within us; it is obtained by participation in the death and life of Jesus. EVERYONE admitted into heaven must participate in this mystical union, including the patriarchs. There is no other way to be saved. To say that people of the O.C. were saved by trusting God means that the sin within them was purged by that trust, apart from Christ. To say that they kept the Law is to say that they kept it perfectly, or well enough (merited salvation). If that were possible, then there would be no reason for Christ—God does not change His mind in the Bible. It always was Christ that saved and always will be. But if that is the case, how should the patriarchs come to know Christ? I am not sure from where in Scripture you derive this enormous negative with such confidence: clb They were under a different covenant. Those who lived before Jesus were given a method of obtaining eternal life. They had to trust in Jehovah God, and they showed that faith by becoming circumcised and keeping the law to the best of their ability. Under the Old Testament, if you messed up, an animal had to die to allow you to be forgiven for that sin. It was a temporary system that would remain in effect until Jesus would come and die on a cross for our sins. Once Jesus came and paid the penalty for our sins, we entered into a new covenant. Under this covenant, we trust in Jesus in order to be saved. When we sin, we confess our sins directly to God, and we are forgiven. There is no more Levitical priesthood. Acts makes it clear that under the New Covenant, there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved, other than Jesus Christ. Jesus is the door to the sheepfold. There is no other way to gain entrance. Jesus is the one who reconciles us to right relationship to God the Father. Without him, there is no way of salvation. Under the OT, failure to be circumcised and keep the law meant you were not saved and hell bound. Under the NT, failure to put your trust in Jesus Christ means you are not saved and hell bound. To reject Jesus is to reject the Father, because when you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father. They are one and the same God. can you show me the scripture that says the old covenant offered eternal life?? Indeed, "eternal life" isn't even an OT concept. Even in Isaiah's time the dead were considered to reside in sheol, the righteous and the unrighteous. The hope of a general resurrection does not spring up until after the OT. The "life" which the OT covenant offered was a good life here in the now, and especially in the Promised Land. To die an old age with posterity within the boundaries of the land was the ultimate blessing which obedience to the Law offered. clb

We need to examine the nature—even the mechanics—of what it means to “be saved”. Salvation is from the sin within us; it is obtained by participation in the death and life of Jesus. EVERYONE admitted into heaven must participate in this mystical union, including the patriarchs. There is no other way to be saved. To say that people of the O.C. were saved by trusting God means that the sin within them was purged by that trust, apart from Christ. To say that they kept the Law is to say that they kept it perfectly, or well enough (merited salvation). If that were possible, then there would be no reason for Christ—God does not change His mind in the Bible. It always was Christ that saved and always will be. But if that is the case, how should the patriarchs come to know Christ? I am not sure from where in Scripture you derive this enormous negative with such confidence: clb They were under a different covenant. Those who lived before Jesus were given a method of obtaining eternal life. They had to trust in Jehovah God, and they showed that faith by becoming circumcised and keeping the law to the best of their ability. Under the Old Testament, if you messed up, an animal had to die to allow you to be forgiven for that sin. It was a temporary system that would remain in effect until Jesus would come and die on a cross for our sins. Once Jesus came and paid the penalty for our sins, we entered into a new covenant. Under this covenant, we trust in Jesus in order to be saved. When we sin, we confess our sins directly to God, and we are forgiven. There is no more Levitical priesthood. Acts makes it clear that under the New Covenant, there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved, other than Jesus Christ. Jesus is the door to the sheepfold. There is no other way to gain entrance. Jesus is the one who reconciles us to right relationship to God the Father. Without him, there is no way of salvation. Under the OT, failure to be circumcised and keep the law meant you were not saved and hell bound. Under the NT, failure to put your trust in Jesus Christ means you are not saved and hell bound. To reject Jesus is to reject the Father, because when you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father. They are one and the same God. This is dispensationalism, right? I have no doubt that I misunderstand that doctrine, but from what I do understand, I would have to reject it. Hebrews as well as Paul make it perfectly clear that the old sacrificial system did NOT work, not even for the best of our OT. If it had worked, then there would be no reason for Christ; they were not given 'a method' of obtaining eternal life; as if there were a smorgasbord of 'methods' and God likes 'variety'. If the OT figures are to be saved, they too will be saved by Jesus and by no other means; I am not saying that the faith of Abraham in Gen 15 was impotent--He trusted in God and therefore was counted as righteous--but ultimately he trusted in teh God who raised Jesus from the dead, and it is that event and that event alone in which ours and everyone's salvation lies. clb

I am not sure how that quote is a response to my questions--but I do not regard that passage as referring to Satan or any angel. It is clearly referring to the King of Tyre and is using Edenic imagery and metaphor. clb Some of the prophetic scriptures have double meanings. There is the obvious one, and then there is the hidden one. God was speaking to the King of Tyre, but then began speaking of Lucifer. There are things in this passage where you know it couldn't have been speaking of anyone but the devil. I have my doubts. We could easily be seeing in this passage references to Satan because we already have a conception of Satan which makes us see him where he isn't. clb

We need to examine the nature—even the mechanics—of what it means to “be saved”. Salvation is from the sin within us; it is obtained by participation in the death and life of Jesus. EVERYONE admitted into heaven must participate in this mystical union, including the patriarchs. There is no other way to be saved. To say that people of the O.C. were saved by trusting God means that the sin within them was purged by that trust, apart from Christ. To say that they kept the Law is to say that they kept it perfectly, or well enough (merited salvation). If that were possible, then there would be no reason for Christ—God does not change His mind in the Bible. It always was Christ that saved and always will be. But if that is the case, how should the patriarchs come to know Christ? I am not sure from where in Scripture you derive this enormous negative with such confidence: clb

Ok I know my question now. Ok, John Chapter 3 says you must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Are the Jewish people born again? When I refer to the 'christian church' I'm referring to all born again believers in Christ who have accepted Jesus as Savior. Is that also required of the Jewish people of Israel also? - David Yes, it is absolutely required of them. This doesn't mean that God in fact does not care for them; nor that He has abandoned them. Romans predicts a day when the rest of the Jews will return to Him (which means accepting Christ as Lord). Salvation is a kind of spiritual surgery--by placing our faith in Christ we are uniting ourselves to His death and resurrection: the old, sinful man is slain, the new man is raised? There is no other way to achieve new life except by that process. clb

It is my opinion that most of these difficulties are Red Herrings (I think that is the term). First, as to violation of freewill: Even if God created creatures knowing that they would rebel, still that does not render freewill obsolete—it is still their will which moved against God. Pharaoh is often cited as an example of God’s violating man’s freewill. This is nonsense: it creates a picture of Pharaoh, quite disposed to release the Hebrews (whom he enslaved in the first place, let's remember), then suddenly, under an external pressure upon and AGAINST his will, deciding not to. That is a psychological impossibility. When we talk of one’s freewill being violated, it involves something besides their will—like a body when it is abducted or abused--I was put in a trunk against my will. But in this discussion we are talking about a WILL acting upon another will: two naked wills. We have very little in our terrestrial experience to help us comprehend this: but even in natural affairs we talk of “falling in love” against our will, or a child liking the taste of squash though he was forced to eat it—do we really mean that it violated our freewill? No. My guess is that “violated freewill” is a contradiction in terms, a non-entity, a meaningless combination of two words which we mistake for having meaning. We might as well talk of a right-handed left-foot, or a triangular square. Secondly, often we must talk of God as “seeing ahead”, but we must not become victims of our own language. God does not “see the future”, for such an act puts Him at one point of time in relation to others; in fact, makes Him finite. Thus all problems that really result from that picture are illusory. So when we question God’s justice in creating persons whom He knows will perish, we are creating a problem that isn’t really there—as if God is now at point 0 contemplating (for, an hour?) creating Zach, looking ahead to a Zach that hasn’t even been created yet, a mere theoretical abstraction, and perceiving that Zach (who, remember, doesn’t even exist yet!) will not accept Him, then deciding to create him anyway! Or not create him, for that matter. Either way It is far too anthropomorphic. Thirdly, to question God’s justice for creating such lamentable creatures as, say, Judas, involves the more fundamental and paradoxical question of whether it would be better not to create—but for whom would it be better?? How should I, if I didn't exist, profit by my not existing? There are simply no scales in which we can weigh non-existence against even the worst of existences. Finally, there is a difference among “goods”. The creation of freewill is a good thing, even if it can be used for bad purposes. But God can exploit these bad purposes to create an even greater good. Thus Judas was truly free when betraying Christ; but God used that betrayal to, ultimately, lead to Christ’s resurrection and our salvation. Another writer pictured God as the master chess player, using what seemed to be very crafty maneuvers against His plan to in fact fulfill His plan. All Roads lead to Rome! But for some reason God has allowed creatures to determine which one He will use. clb

I have run into this before but am not really sure what it is called or where from Scripture it is gotten--you are suggesting that the physical domain promised to Abraham and obtained by David but lost by Solomon will one day restored to the Jews as a nation, correct? clb

I tend to avoid giving quick responses since they are easily misconstrued or kill conversations, but your question is so open-ended, I guess I will have to say 'Christ'. Perhaps you can expand upon your question? clb

But the bold was one of my points! Now if you mean that there are no opportunities to meet and accept Christ as Lord but in this life, we shall have to condemn every single patriarch, every good king (not many, granted) who "walked in the way of David" and David himself to hell. We shall have to condemn John the Baptist to hell, who died clearly unsure of what Christ's mission was. If, however, we are unwilling to admit that, then we shall have to allow that opportunities to convert are granted post-mortem. And if for those heroes of the O.T. and even N.T. how not for others. The question is not about "what" saves a person, but "when". clb

As I see it, a mistake (at least the kind we are considering here) can only be committed by a being bound by time. To make a mistake is to miss- guess an outcome; to inappropriately anticipate the consequences of one’s actions. But God is not bound by time— Even language which represents Him as “seeing ahead in the future” is slightly misleading, for to see something “ahead” you have to be “behind”—that is, you have to occupy one of infinite points of time from which you look back into the past and forward into the future. God’s reality is not like that. He is not only omnipresent in space but omnipresent in time. Thus He cannot make mistakes; and neither can we conceive that timeless reality. Thus discussions about the justice of God in creating creatures foreseeing their ultimate ruin have a very short life-span; for they rest on a false view of God's relationship to time. It is one of those points where we can legitimately thrown in the "it's a mystery" towel. However, God has conceded not only to create but to interact with creatures like us who are bound by time. That being so, He must communicate to us in ways that are “finite” and often highly anthropomorphic: this of course opens the door to all sorts of confusion and misinterpretation. But the alternative language, that of philosophers and sometimes even of theologians, is not only just as misleading but more so—it involves negation, and does not replace it with anything positive. To say that God is “infinite” tells us nothing except that He is not “finite”. Being finite creatures we do not know what the positive side of that negative is like. The anthropomorphic language is far more useful for the purposes of Scripture; for Scripture is not a philosophical description of God—it is a story of His interaction with a fallen people whom He created and is highly intent on saving. Thus it must use human language which, on the one hand, positively conveys God’s will and holiness and affections (using language like “repenting”), at the risk of smuggling in other notions which are not appropriate (like making mistakes and quickly having to correct them). I think the risk worth taking (obviously He does as well, since He wrote it). Attempt to rewrite those passages in more philosophical language and you will find you have said almost nothing about God and using about 20 times the number of words. As far as the harsher passages of Scripture (killing all of mankind by flood etc. etc.) First, I think we need to remember that the death sentence covers all humanity—the flood is not the first we have heard it issued. It was issued in the garden. Every person that died at the flood was going to die anyway, and that by God’s decree, and probably by fates equally or worse than water. We are committing a fallacy (not sure what it is called) when we regard the idea of the instantaneous death of a thousand people worse than the idea of those same thousand dying horrible deaths spread out over 20 years. Death is death, and it is usually horrible, and most certainly for those who lived before modern medicine. Secondly, I for one do not feel obliged by Scripture to regard every person who has died apart from Christ as being damned. No one comes to the Father but through Him, true; but what and how many opportunities are afforded for such blessed meetings, that is left wonderfully ambiguous. IF a man drowned in the flood should come to know Christ, and realize from what perversity those deadly waters saved him, and learn that his death served as a moral to resound from thence forth in Scripture---or if a Canaanite should learn that his death was intended to provide a safe haven in which the Incarnate Lord could live and grow from infancy to manhood…….I wonder, would they complain that it “wasn’t fair”? clb

I would go on to say that faith, as in "trusting God" is not solely a New Testament concept. It is everywhere in the Old Testament. I would go even further to say that Grace is not absent from the Old Testament: the sequence of salvation and works is in the same order as we see in the NT. God did not first give the law to the Hebrews, and then save them from Egypt. He saved them first, and then said what He expected of them. It goes back to Adam--He was put in paradise (Garden) first, and then told how to stay there. That is how the Law functioned in teh lives of the Israelites. clb

This is what leads me to include physical death as a possibility. I've done some thinking on this since, and I suppose physical death should not be ruled out; but it doesn't solve much for me. But what would a sin that leads to death be? Armed robbery might get you shot; or murder might get you hanged? But perhaps there need not be a direct, natural correlation between the sin and the ensuing death. In New Testament times even there was the belief that sickness was a judgment of God upon the sick. Perhaps John is saying that if the man's sins have brought this judgment, then there is no point praying for him. However, how do I know if my ailing mother is dying because of some heinous sin unknown to me? Should I pray for her? So the practical problem remains. clb

I am not sure how that quote is a response to my questions--but I do not regard that passage as referring to Satan or any angel. It is clearly referring to the King of Tyre and is using Edenic imagery and metaphor. clb

I haven't read ANY of the posts, so if this question has been posted already, I apologize for the redundancy. If angels do not have freewill, then that leaves a huge problem of demons (presuming them to be fallen angels)--at least one species of creation will have fallen simply because they were what they were, just as a rock does not choose to fall, nor even a dog chooses to bite a mailman. But if angels do have freewill, then this leaves us with the problem of grace. Angels will have made a bad choice--but then Man has made a bad choice. Why should Christ's sacrifice atone for man's sins but not for angels'? Is there something in their constitution, their ontology, that makes it impossible for them to repent? Or is there some reason why God will give ear to man's repentance but not angels? All these are speculative questions, obviously, but then the thread was speculative... clb

You obviously don't know anything at all about Jesus or the Gospel he brought us..... and that's a shame.... for your sake I pray that the Lord would open your eyes to his truths. Christ told us that we should help,our fellow man, thus good works. If one is evil, he can be redeemed by sacrificing himself for the good of mankind, which is the ultimate Christ like action one can do to obtain the Kingdom of God. Hello Best, There is a logical problem with your assessment. You say "countless deeds" but deeds are "countable", in the sense that there are only so many and no more and no less. Thus the question is, how many bad deeds puts one over the brink of salvation by Christ and rests one on the side of meritorious sacrifice? Seems rather arbitrary--why not one more or one less bad deed to determine one's fate? The fact of the matter is, salvation in Christ means salvation by death of the old self and rebirth to the new. By participation in his death we are freed from sin; participation in his resurrection we are raised to righteousness. Only complete destruction of the old man leads to creation of the new. So that in one sense, we all suffer the same fate, the really wicked and the wicked and the fairly wicked and the really bad etc. (judging by human standards, of courese). If I may use baptism as an example--if drowning is the only way to survive, what does it matter how many sins you committed, you have to drown anyway before you are raised. That is Christianity. We all must die in Christ, drown in baptism, before we wake up on the shoreline of heaven. clb

What a skeptic to your hermeneutic (not Christianity of course) might question is the original formula--why, in the first place, would a Christian convert the square root and add them together in the first place? From when did you get THAT formula? Why didn't you instead...say......................add all of them together and multiply them by 777?? A biblical number, right? Or divide it all by 777. Or take only the numbers of every 7th person in every genealogy in Genesis and do something with them? Or take the 10th person of every genealogy, add the number of their lives, then divide that by the trinity (3), then multiply this by the number of books in the Bible (66), divided by the number of posts on this site.....(?)........., then add to that the number of chromosomes that make a female child, add to that the number of years Abraham lived, and then divide that by the number of hours it took to compute all that? Why didn't you do that, instead of what you did and other people who spend so much time crunching codes and numbers?? You are talking about throwing numbers and seeing what sticks to coincidence. The astronomical matrix is not the result of chance. It is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Since discovering it several years ago I have spent countless hour trying to understand how and why it came to be. I have written several books about these numbers and I still find things I did not realize existed when I study them. Whether or not you are willing to understand or admit it the Bible contains layers of information. It is in this way that Scripture contains something for everyone and can be a new and rich experience each time we read. I'm confused, Didn't you already respond to my post above? It seems you have responded to the same one, only a little more defensive. clb

Because, men will be in their specific DISPENSATION. In other words, all souls from Adam to Moses will be in the Dispensation of their CONSCIOUS. Why? Because the law of Moses didn't exist. So, they cannot be judged by the Law. From Moses to Jesus, it is the Dispensation of the Law. That is how they will be judged. But what about the nations who never heard the Law of Moses? Well, they would stil be on the dispensation of the conscious. And the Law was givne to the Jew anyway, not the nations of the earth. Fast forward to Jesus, and the Dispensation of Grace. The Law no longer applies (though this does not mean reckless abandon of the "moral law"). We will be judged by the Dispensation of Grace - our obediance to Jesus. But what about people who are living right now and never heard the Gospel? Same thing - Dispensation of the Conscious. Then comes another Dispensation post the Rapture. It's not more "repent - turn to Jesus and be saved". Instead, it's "do not take the mark or bow to the image of the beast" So, they will be judged differently. They are not even among the uncountable number in Revelation, but are instead under the throne of God. Some people try to excuse themselves saying "not everyone has a conscious". Yes you do. We know this because ADAM ATE OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. God will Judge! Scriptures also say that in times past, God WINKED (excused) their sins, but no longer. NOW He calls all to repent through Jesus. But obviously if someone has never heard doens't know to follow. They will be Judged differently, and that is based on the dispensation that they lived in. ABEL will be judged different from Joshua. JOSHUA will be judged different from Peter. PETER and I will be judged the same. The person in the Tribulation may be judged differently from the Raptured saint. Why? Because of the different dispensations. But all are judged for SIN (not necessarily sinS [which is plural]). And that singular SIN is rejection of God ... whether its offending your conscious, disobeying the Law of Moses, rejecting the Gospel, or taking the mark of the beast. SIN ... is summed up in rejection of God. That is what men will be judged for. So, that is the root of Judgment, but the means will probably depend on their dispensation. I've never understood the logic of dispensationalism so I would greatly appreciate an explanation. When you say people are judged by conscience, you mean "damned" or "judged"? i.e. is it possible to be judged favorably if you lived before in the time between Adam and Moses--it would be hard to condemn Noah to hell since, on this view, his conscience was clean. But then that means it is possible to sin and still be saved, right (or was Noah as perfect in moral obedience as Jesus)? And NOah was saved quite apart from Christ's sacrifice? Which obviously yields the question: "Why not stick to one dispensation if it works just as well as any other?" clb Sorry for the late response. Basically, its easy to grasp when you simply look at what actually occurred. Consider a few things. Was Cain judged for MURDER? Was Noah charged for DRUNKENNESS? Was Abraham charged for IDOL WORSHIP (even Jacobs wife carried idols)? No. There is a reason why they weren't. The Law of Moses didn't exist yet. Mankind had no law, and when there is no law, there is no transgression. How can you be fined for "speeding" when there is no law against speeding? You cannot be. And you cannot have any form of a law in the absence of punishment for breaking it. Otherwise, it will not be effective. Those ancients will be judged on their conscious. Basically, did they listen to the voice in their head to not do wrong, or did they ignore it. The Israelites will be judged on their observation of the Law, as the Law is the taskmaster that teachers us the difference between what God expects of us, and what He hates. so, take notice... Where people judged for MURDER? Yes. Where people judged because of DRUNKENNESS? Yes. Where people judged for IDOL WORSHIP? Yes. That is because there is no more excuse once you are told. They weren't told in the dispensation of the conscious. People in the absence of the Law ... cannot be judged BY the Law. There are enough webpages to give you greater detail (or abysmally ignorant opinions) on the dispensations. Just know that they exist, academically. It's not a Biblical teaching, similar to how the Law has no classification such as "moral" or "dietary" or "ceremony" ... but to better understand the Law, we divide it into those segments. We do the same for the dispensations. Just know, also, that the BOTTOM LINE IS... God will Judge the world for SIN, and that singular SIN is rejection of Him regardless of what dispensation the person lives in. Indulge me in some questions which might help me understand: Is it possible for a person in the dispensation of conscience to merit or attain admittance into heaven (there will be people in heaven who lived a life decent enough to be accepted), or does "judgment" simply mean condemnation, and each dispensation entails a condemnation but on different grounds; i.e. the truly bad student will fail whether the grade is based on reading, papers, participation, attendance? Does Jesus' atonement have anything to do with the salvation of those who lived in a different dispensation, or is his sacrifice only for those who live in that dispensation?

============================================================================ Thanks for resurrecting the thread Are you saying if you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything? Well in these specific cases, I didn't torture anything so that one's out. And most importantly, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just put it out there and leave it for each individual to make a call. You're assuming again. Take it from my personal experience....basing your conjectures on assumptions almost always ends in a Trainwreck. something went wrong here. I posted that eons ago. It was not my intention to resurrect this thread. clb

Philip Seymour Hoffman just died...and get this! He was 46! Enoch, you have in mind important numbers (important to YOU) and then look for ANYTHING in Scripture that might yield those numbers; or are excited by any computation that yields a number that happens to be important to YOU. that is all that is going on. clb

What a skeptic to your hermeneutic (not Christianity of course) might question is the original formula--why, in the first place, would a Christian convert the square root and add them together in the first place? From when did you get THAT formula? Why didn't you instead...say......................add all of them together and multiply them by 777?? A biblical number, right? Or divide it all by 777. Or take only the numbers of every 7th person in every genealogy in Genesis and do something with them? Or take the 10th person of every genealogy, add the number of their lives, then divide that by the trinity (3), then multiply this by the number of books in the Bible (66), divided by the number of posts on this site.....(?)........., then add to that the number of chromosomes that make a female child, add to that the number of years Abraham lived, and then divide that by the number of hours it took to compute all that? Why didn't you do that, instead of what you did and other people who spend so much time crunching codes and numbers??

Gotcha, It is worth looking into