Atonement, Hell, and the Presence of God

If Enoch was without sin - does that mean that Jesus is not the only way, and that ordinary human beings can enter heaven without the blood of the Lamb? And if he was without sin, doesn't that render his achievement even more spectacular that Jesus's, who was fully God and thus, basically, incapable of succumbing to sin?

Click to expand...

Wicked Willow said:

Now, this thread is aimed at Christians who believe that hell is "merely" the absence of God, and that people need to be saved by Christ in order to be able to be in the presence of the Almighty.
I suppose you know the drill: "No one is good but God", "sin cannot be in the presence of God, so the unsaved choose to be without him forever", etc. etc.
The long and short of it is: the ONLY way to avoid eternal separation from God is to appeal to Jesus as a replacement sacrifice, (or, if you happen to live in the times of the Old Covenant, to keep all of the laws, always). Else, God can do nothing for you.

Now, how does that fit in with what the Bible tells us about Enoch? He lived long before either the Old or the New Covenant was established, even prior to the Flood, which was pretty much God's first attempt at taking care of sin by means of a "tabula rasa"-strategy. And yet, this Enoch was not only in the presence of God, but bodily taken into heaven, never dying an ordinary mortal's death! How does that fit in with this particular Christian approach to hell, sin and atonement?
If Enoch was without sin - does that mean that Jesus is not the only way, and that ordinary human beings can enter heaven without the blood of the Lamb? And if he was without sin, doesn't that render his achievement even more spectacular that Jesus's, who was fully God and thus, basically, incapable of succumbing to sin?

Click to expand...