S
Soma-Sight
Guest
I never said Hitler... I said the NAZIS!
There is a difference!
Just like George W Bush is not a Christian in my eyes.... but his soldiers butchering the 30,000 civilians to date in Iraq ARE in many cases!
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
I never said Hitler... I said the NAZIS!
There is a difference!
Just like George W Bush is not a Christian in my eyes.... but his soldiers butchering the 30,000 civilians to date in Iraq ARE in many cases!
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
The example is pointless. I don't have any objection to justice. The doctrine of an eternal hell would involve an evil God because it would would be an unjust thing to do.
protos said:
The example is pointless. I don't have any objection to justice. The doctrine of an eternal hell would involve an evil God because it would would be an unjust thing to do.
A
ArtGuy
Guest
Re: holocaust
The rationale behind a judge sentencing a criminal to prison isn't quite like that. We don't just round up criminals and throw them in jail because they deserve it. If that was the case, then we could also justify rounding up people who are just generally jerks, people who are cruel, people who cheat on the their wives, and the like, and fine or imprison them. After all, they deserve it.
The reason criminals go to jail is that the implicit social contract that governs our nation dictates that they must. We set up rules in order to create a functional society, and those rules include punishments for not following them - this provides the impetus for people to behave. Our justice system is based more on utlitarianism than justice, strictly speaking. It's premised on the idea that society needs rules. This is why a criminal can be let free if his rights are abused in the course of his trial. He still very much deserves to go to prison, but the rules say that if the police cheat, the criminal gets to go free. The system is tempered by notions of justice, but it's not a means of administering justice in and of itself. In short, we send criminals to prison because we have to.
Now, God doesn't have to do anything. He makes the rules, and he can bend the rules if he sees fit. If he so desired, he could rig a system in which everyone receives salvation. He could make a system in which Jesus was so ear-bleedingly obvious that nobody could deny he existed. These systems may be sub-optimal, but He could do it. And, of course, he could make a system in which there was no Hell. It's nothing like the analogy of the judge. The judge sentences the criminal to prison because there's a tangible benefit to doing so. There's nothing to be gained by either God or true believers in sending unbelievers to Hell, unless you're of the opinion that God likes torturing people. Since an omnibenevolent God wouldn't enjoy that, it stands to reason that nothing can really be gained by sending people to Hell for eternity.
Now, if God is merciful, and God is good, and God cannot tolerate sin in heaven, there are a couple of possibilities:
- First, we have universal reconciliation. However, this topic is banned because mods don't want to hear about it, so I won't elaborate.
- Second, we have annihilationism. This dictates that souls that don't go to heaven are simply destroyed. They receive no reward, but neither are they tortured forever.
Either of these choices would make more sense than a big pit of souls writhing forever in agony while God sits on high and watches. But then, I tend to believe that God is omnibenevolent.
protos said:
The rationale behind a judge sentencing a criminal to prison isn't quite like that. We don't just round up criminals and throw them in jail because they deserve it. If that was the case, then we could also justify rounding up people who are just generally jerks, people who are cruel, people who cheat on the their wives, and the like, and fine or imprison them. After all, they deserve it.
The reason criminals go to jail is that the implicit social contract that governs our nation dictates that they must. We set up rules in order to create a functional society, and those rules include punishments for not following them - this provides the impetus for people to behave. Our justice system is based more on utlitarianism than justice, strictly speaking. It's premised on the idea that society needs rules. This is why a criminal can be let free if his rights are abused in the course of his trial. He still very much deserves to go to prison, but the rules say that if the police cheat, the criminal gets to go free. The system is tempered by notions of justice, but it's not a means of administering justice in and of itself. In short, we send criminals to prison because we have to.
Now, God doesn't have to do anything. He makes the rules, and he can bend the rules if he sees fit. If he so desired, he could rig a system in which everyone receives salvation. He could make a system in which Jesus was so ear-bleedingly obvious that nobody could deny he existed. These systems may be sub-optimal, but He could do it. And, of course, he could make a system in which there was no Hell. It's nothing like the analogy of the judge. The judge sentences the criminal to prison because there's a tangible benefit to doing so. There's nothing to be gained by either God or true believers in sending unbelievers to Hell, unless you're of the opinion that God likes torturing people. Since an omnibenevolent God wouldn't enjoy that, it stands to reason that nothing can really be gained by sending people to Hell for eternity.
Now, if God is merciful, and God is good, and God cannot tolerate sin in heaven, there are a couple of possibilities:
- First, we have universal reconciliation. However, this topic is banned because mods don't want to hear about it, so I won't elaborate.
- Second, we have annihilationism. This dictates that souls that don't go to heaven are simply destroyed. They receive no reward, but neither are they tortured forever.
Either of these choices would make more sense than a big pit of souls writhing forever in agony while God sits on high and watches. But then, I tend to believe that God is omnibenevolent.
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
OK, lets consider your argument-
If certain people have really rejected God, why doesn't God just let them fade into non-existence? Why would God sustain their existence, knowing that such people have an eternity of suffering before them?
If you claim that the soul is indestructible, and so this isn't an option, how could God create something which he can't later destroy? And even if it is possible for God to create an indestructible soul, why would he have done it knowing that it could result in eternal suffering for some people?
If there is some kind of "hell", after people have spent a little time there, why doesn't God give them a chance to change their mind about rejecting him? Wouldn't a good God give people that opportunity?
Has a non-Christian really chosen to reject God? It seems obvious to me that a Jew, Muslim, or Hindu etc. has not rejected God at all. The committed Hindu wants to be "with" God, that is the option they have chosen.
If a person rejects Christianity, this may not be a rejection of God as such, it may simply be that they think Christianity is false, that it isn't the way to God.
Now someone can always claim-
"If they really wanted God then they would be a Christian. The unbelievers have chosen hell, they have chosen to reject God."
But can you provide sensible argument on this point? Why shouldn't we accept that someone Jewish sincerely wants to be "with" God? Do you have evidence against it?
protos said:
OK, lets consider your argument-
protos said:
If certain people have really rejected God, why doesn't God just let them fade into non-existence? Why would God sustain their existence, knowing that such people have an eternity of suffering before them?
If you claim that the soul is indestructible, and so this isn't an option, how could God create something which he can't later destroy? And even if it is possible for God to create an indestructible soul, why would he have done it knowing that it could result in eternal suffering for some people?
If there is some kind of "hell", after people have spent a little time there, why doesn't God give them a chance to change their mind about rejecting him? Wouldn't a good God give people that opportunity?
Has a non-Christian really chosen to reject God? It seems obvious to me that a Jew, Muslim, or Hindu etc. has not rejected God at all. The committed Hindu wants to be "with" God, that is the option they have chosen.
If a person rejects Christianity, this may not be a rejection of God as such, it may simply be that they think Christianity is false, that it isn't the way to God.
Now someone can always claim-
"If they really wanted God then they would be a Christian. The unbelievers have chosen hell, they have chosen to reject God."
But can you provide sensible argument on this point? Why shouldn't we accept that someone Jewish sincerely wants to be "with" God? Do you have evidence against it?
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
If onlt religion could do away with reason like this....
We would all be converts to one cause!
Re: holocaust
He does, in this life.
Those who have never met Christ, the historical one, have a Christ within them, and if they are advocates of righteousness, they will go to Heaven.
Nope, it's a rejection of Christ who is God.
If someone Jewish wanted to be with the God in the Scriptures, he/she would sensibly conclude that Christ was his/her Messiah. There are Jewish historians who admit Christ rose from the dead but reject He was the Messiah, just because they choose to. Those people go to Hell, Hades, Tartarus, whatever your made up religion describes eternal suffering, damnation, all the evils of the world. A just God doesn't send people to Hell because He specifically asked them to believe in His only begotten Son? That makes God a liar. Christ has enough evidence. One is rising from the dead.
Deal with the truth, or admit that you're just looking for excuses as petty as they might be. Philosophy isn't something I suggest you indulge yourself in to try to disprove Christianity.
DivineNames said:
He does, in this life.
Those who have never met Christ, the historical one, have a Christ within them, and if they are advocates of righteousness, they will go to Heaven.
Nope, it's a rejection of Christ who is God.
[/quote:e5989][/quote:e5989]
If someone Jewish wanted to be with the God in the Scriptures, he/she would sensibly conclude that Christ was his/her Messiah. There are Jewish historians who admit Christ rose from the dead but reject He was the Messiah, just because they choose to. Those people go to Hell, Hades, Tartarus, whatever your made up religion describes eternal suffering, damnation, all the evils of the world. A just God doesn't send people to Hell because He specifically asked them to believe in His only begotten Son? That makes God a liar. Christ has enough evidence. One is rising from the dead.
Deal with the truth, or admit that you're just looking for excuses as petty as they might be. Philosophy isn't something I suggest you indulge yourself in to try to disprove Christianity.
Re: holocaust
Aside from God's Wrath as I previously mentioned (which is perfectly justified just as you have every reason to be angry with a computer program which didn't work), consider this:
I) Is it just to send the believers to Heaven, where they enjoy the gifts of Our Father, whereas those who deserve the exact opposite get what Charles Darwin, an agnostic, himself said, "The sweetest spot on earth?" No
II) OK, if you agree to the above, but ask, "Then why did God create disbelievers in the first place?" then consider this:
God knows who will go to Heaven and Hell right? So why is this world here? It's to PROVE TO US His Justice, not to Him. So if God never gives that nonexistent person a chance at the eternal gifts of Heaven, that is not Justice. True the person is nonexistent, but with respect to God he/she is very existent.
The only Justice that can be served in the afterlife, is either eternal Heaven, or eternal Hell. There is no inbetween. God does not want anyone to go to Hell. But you only send yourself to Hell. Does a judge sentence a person to jail if he commits something wrong? Yes. Does he sentence him to freedom if he hasn't? Yes. Does a judge not try a person who has done something? IF A JUDGE DOES NOT TRY someone for their wrong, as you suggest, then he is no judge, and he does not serve justice.
Of course, the next objection you might raise, is why is justice needed for God to be perfect? Well, if God isn't just, then there is no standard for right and wrong, and thus He cannot be perfect. But since there is, and He is just, He is.
Aside from God's Wrath as I previously mentioned (which is perfectly justified just as you have every reason to be angry with a computer program which didn't work), consider this:
I) Is it just to send the believers to Heaven, where they enjoy the gifts of Our Father, whereas those who deserve the exact opposite get what Charles Darwin, an agnostic, himself said, "The sweetest spot on earth?" No
II) OK, if you agree to the above, but ask, "Then why did God create disbelievers in the first place?" then consider this:
God knows who will go to Heaven and Hell right? So why is this world here? It's to PROVE TO US His Justice, not to Him. So if God never gives that nonexistent person a chance at the eternal gifts of Heaven, that is not Justice. True the person is nonexistent, but with respect to God he/she is very existent.
The only Justice that can be served in the afterlife, is either eternal Heaven, or eternal Hell. There is no inbetween. God does not want anyone to go to Hell. But you only send yourself to Hell. Does a judge sentence a person to jail if he commits something wrong? Yes. Does he sentence him to freedom if he hasn't? Yes. Does a judge not try a person who has done something? IF A JUDGE DOES NOT TRY someone for their wrong, as you suggest, then he is no judge, and he does not serve justice.
Of course, the next objection you might raise, is why is justice needed for God to be perfect? Well, if God isn't just, then there is no standard for right and wrong, and thus He cannot be perfect. But since there is, and He is just, He is.
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
: Thats Justice allright....
Masturbation.... Stealing bread.... using the name of Jesus inapropraitly....
Means the justice of eternal hellfire?
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
You haven't answered the question-
how could God create something which he can't later destroy?
Can you explain how this would be possible? Is the soul something uncreated? (Wouldn't the Self be identical with God in that case?) Or is the soul something created? If the soul is something created, then how can God not have the power to destroy it? As God is supposed to sustain everything in existence, a created thing which can't be destroyed does not look like a possible thing.
Also-
Is this not saying that only God is immortal?
So God is wrathful? And wants to make people suffer?
What argument did you give?
I can't see anything about God being wrathful. What you are saying in that quote, is that God, "gives them what they want", NOT that God is wrathful and wants to make them suffer. Are you trying to change your argument?
If you are trying to change your argument, or make some addition to your argument, then I will take that as an admission that your argument as originally given is not very good.
protos said:
You haven't answered the question-
how could God create something which he can't later destroy?
Can you explain how this would be possible? Is the soul something uncreated? (Wouldn't the Self be identical with God in that case?) Or is the soul something created? If the soul is something created, then how can God not have the power to destroy it? As God is supposed to sustain everything in existence, a created thing which can't be destroyed does not look like a possible thing.
Also-
Is this not saying that only God is immortal?
protos said:
So God is wrathful? And wants to make people suffer?
What argument did you give?
protos said:
I can't see anything about God being wrathful. What you are saying in that quote, is that God, "gives them what they want", NOT that God is wrathful and wants to make them suffer. Are you trying to change your argument?
If you are trying to change your argument, or make some addition to your argument, then I will take that as an admission that your argument as originally given is not very good.
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
Well as one example, look at the thread-
Blood atonement - our Lord Jesus Christ
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 58&start=0
Do you see Christians winning the debate on that issue? Because I don't!
protos said:
Well as one example, look at the thread-
Blood atonement - our Lord Jesus Christ
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 58&start=0
Do you see Christians winning the debate on that issue? Because I don't!
Drew
Member
Greetings Soma (and others):
As you may know, the issue of the reality of an eternal hell has been roundly discussed here at 123. I joined this board having an unexamined belief that the lost will indeed suffer forever in hell.
I am now convinced that this is not the case. Even apart from non-scriptural arguments, the scriptures themselves do not, on my understanding, speak of an eternal hellfire even though this is widely believed as you are no doubt are aware.
I know this sounds deferential, but perhaps you (and others) might want to read some of those threads and decide for yourself which arguments carried the day regarding the fate of the lost.
As you may know, the issue of the reality of an eternal hell has been roundly discussed here at 123. I joined this board having an unexamined belief that the lost will indeed suffer forever in hell.
I am now convinced that this is not the case. Even apart from non-scriptural arguments, the scriptures themselves do not, on my understanding, speak of an eternal hellfire even though this is widely believed as you are no doubt are aware.
I know this sounds deferential, but perhaps you (and others) might want to read some of those threads and decide for yourself which arguments carried the day regarding the fate of the lost.
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
You can prove that Jesus actually did rise from the dead?
Also, I think it says in the Old Testament that Jews shouldn't follow someone merely because they can provide signs.
protos said:
You can prove that Jesus actually did rise from the dead?
Also, I think it says in the Old Testament that Jews shouldn't follow someone merely because they can provide signs.
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
OK...
It is a principle of justice that the punishment should be in proportion to the offence. I will quote a Christian on this point-
The punishment of an eternal hell would be completely out of proportion to any offence that we could commit. It would be an unjust punishment.
This looks rather confused.
protos said:
OK...
protos said:
It is a principle of justice that the punishment should be in proportion to the offence. I will quote a Christian on this point-
The punishment of an eternal hell would be completely out of proportion to any offence that we could commit. It would be an unjust punishment.
protos said:
This looks rather confused.
Re: holocaust
Haha! Christ fulfilled all the prophecies. Did you know that the Jewish Messiah must have come prior to 70 A.D.? Do you know that Daniel and Isaiah both calculated the exact year of Christ's coming when He was born???? What more do you need?That's the sign God gave them. How are they supposed to recognize their Messiah??????Truly the first person to discredit Christ for rising from dead, but oh well.... Yes, I can prove to you that Christ rose from the dead:
At this point, if you are to discredit historians, then you fall into the category of historical revisionism, such as the Holocaust deniers.
Haha! Christ fulfilled all the prophecies. Did you know that the Jewish Messiah must have come prior to 70 A.D.? Do you know that Daniel and Isaiah both calculated the exact year of Christ's coming when He was born???? What more do you need?That's the sign God gave them. How are they supposed to recognize their Messiah??????Truly the first person to discredit Christ for rising from dead, but oh well.... Yes, I can prove to you that Christ rose from the dead:
[/quote:94946][/quote:94946]
At this point, if you are to discredit historians, then you fall into the category of historical revisionism, such as the Holocaust deniers.
Re: holocaust
There are different levels of Hell. So that sweet old lady does not get the same torture that Hitler would. It is Hell nonetheless.
A sin with respect to a perfect God is an infinite offense. You're not the judge. With respect to a baby anything besides food, water, sleep and mom's love wouldn't matter.
EDIT: You seem to believe that in Hell there is some kind of 'infinite' torture done at every instant. This is not so. It may not even be torture, though the Bible sure describes it as having such a pain. Think about it, we are partially separated from God now, and we have all these problems that people are looking for their grave sometimes. Imagine what it would be like to be like that in Hell, for eternity? It's not infinite torture every moment, it's torture for eternity. Whether it's physical pain or the pain of being away from God is an opinion. The Bible describes being separated from God in Hell as the equivalent of being tortured, even worse. It is Hell nonetheless.
Nope, unrepentant go to Hell. As I mentioned before, different levels of Hell.
This just explains why God needs to be just in order to be perfect in case you might ask. To explain what I said, it means that if God wasn't just, then there can't be a standard for righteousness by which we are judged, and thus couldn't be perfect. Would be something out of a pantheist philosophy. But since He is just, He is perfect.
There are different levels of Hell. So that sweet old lady does not get the same torture that Hitler would. It is Hell nonetheless.
A sin with respect to a perfect God is an infinite offense. You're not the judge. With respect to a baby anything besides food, water, sleep and mom's love wouldn't matter.
EDIT: You seem to believe that in Hell there is some kind of 'infinite' torture done at every instant. This is not so. It may not even be torture, though the Bible sure describes it as having such a pain. Think about it, we are partially separated from God now, and we have all these problems that people are looking for their grave sometimes. Imagine what it would be like to be like that in Hell, for eternity? It's not infinite torture every moment, it's torture for eternity. Whether it's physical pain or the pain of being away from God is an opinion. The Bible describes being separated from God in Hell as the equivalent of being tortured, even worse. It is Hell nonetheless.
Nope, unrepentant go to Hell. As I mentioned before, different levels of Hell.
This just explains why God needs to be just in order to be perfect in case you might ask. To explain what I said, it means that if God wasn't just, then there can't be a standard for righteousness by which we are judged, and thus couldn't be perfect. Would be something out of a pantheist philosophy. But since He is just, He is perfect.
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
In fact, Jesus did next to nothing to fulfill what Jews regard as genuine Messianic prophecies. It is also worth pointing out that Jesus (a) wasn't anointed, and (b) didn't have Davidic lineage.
protos said:
In fact, Jesus did next to nothing to fulfill what Jews regard as genuine Messianic prophecies. It is also worth pointing out that Jesus (a) wasn't anointed, and (b) didn't have Davidic lineage.
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
Well what historians have provided good evidence for the resurrection?
protos said:
Well what historians have provided good evidence for the resurrection?
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
That isn't the issue. The point is that the punishment of eternal hell would be out of proportion to the sins committed in one lifetime.
Would you like to provide an argument in support of that claim?
No, I didn't say this.
protos said:
That isn't the issue. The point is that the punishment of eternal hell would be out of proportion to the sins committed in one lifetime.
protos said:
Would you like to provide an argument in support of that claim?
protos said:
No, I didn't say this.
D
DivineNames
Guest
Re: holocaust
An argument I came across-
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq135.html
Matthew--and only Matthew--tells us that a profound event occurred after Jesus gave up the ghost and rose to heaven.
"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama zabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."(Matthew 27:45-53)
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century AD, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, and he had not one word to say about this most extraordinary occurrence. Fifty days after the alleged event, Peter was giving a speech recorded in Acts 2, but said nothing about the saints rising. Paul, who spoke at great length (1 Corinthians 15) to convince his listeners that Jesus' resurrection had occurred, had nothing to say about it either; surely his listeners would have quite readily accepted the resurrection of Jesus if the resurrection of saints "appearing to many" were a fact.
The appearance of these bodies "unto many" must have been the sensation of a lifetime for the residents of Jerusalem. If this remarkable event actually happened, why did only Matthew report it? About twenty percent of the gospels is repetition so it is not as if New Testament writers did not like to repeat what others have written; repetition of the most mundane events occurs everywhere, so why didn't Mark, Luke, John, Peter, or Paul write about the dead bodies of the saints marching through Jerusalem, appearing unto many?
Also, how come Matthew doesn't think we should know the names of the saints that rose from their graves? Why doesn't he tell us with whom the bodies of the saints met, and what they said--assuming they said anything, and where they went after their appearance unto the many? Did the bodies of the saints dutifully return to their graves after a polite visit, or did they remain for years among the residents of Jerusalem?
Is there proof of veracity for this event that has so many unanswerable questions? We have an answer that might surprise you: It never happened!
An argument I came across-
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq135.html
Matthew--and only Matthew--tells us that a profound event occurred after Jesus gave up the ghost and rose to heaven.
"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama zabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."(Matthew 27:45-53)
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century AD, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, and he had not one word to say about this most extraordinary occurrence. Fifty days after the alleged event, Peter was giving a speech recorded in Acts 2, but said nothing about the saints rising. Paul, who spoke at great length (1 Corinthians 15) to convince his listeners that Jesus' resurrection had occurred, had nothing to say about it either; surely his listeners would have quite readily accepted the resurrection of Jesus if the resurrection of saints "appearing to many" were a fact.
The appearance of these bodies "unto many" must have been the sensation of a lifetime for the residents of Jerusalem. If this remarkable event actually happened, why did only Matthew report it? About twenty percent of the gospels is repetition so it is not as if New Testament writers did not like to repeat what others have written; repetition of the most mundane events occurs everywhere, so why didn't Mark, Luke, John, Peter, or Paul write about the dead bodies of the saints marching through Jerusalem, appearing unto many?
Also, how come Matthew doesn't think we should know the names of the saints that rose from their graves? Why doesn't he tell us with whom the bodies of the saints met, and what they said--assuming they said anything, and where they went after their appearance unto the many? Did the bodies of the saints dutifully return to their graves after a polite visit, or did they remain for years among the residents of Jerusalem?
Is there proof of veracity for this event that has so many unanswerable questions? We have an answer that might surprise you: It never happened!
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
PRAISE GOD!!!
THE FORUMS HAVE HELPED AT LEAST ONE PERSON SEE THE LIGHT OF GOD'S LOVE RATHER THAN THE DEVIL DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL TORMENT!