• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Biblical Realities of Hell

Now I know you are dense.

Obviously these were the people like today who had an N.D.E. dead for a short time, duhuh!!!
Ladewig posted this, but I want to repeat it to show that either you have no idea what your Bible says, or you are incapable of comprehending the written word:
Matt 27:52-54
tombs were opened, and many saints who had died were brought back to life.
After his resurrection, they came out of their tombs and went into the Holy City and appeared to many people.
"Tombs were opened." "They came out of their tombs." That's not waking up from a NDE. That's dead and buried one minute, up and walking around the next.


There was probably several deaths each day or week back then.
"Back then"? At present, 70,000 people die every day worldwide.


As I pointed out less than Christ, less than three days.
No one comes back after three days, except Christ period.
Are you saying that every single person who, according to the Bible, walked out of his or her tomb had died within two days of Christ's death?


I look at it with logic and understanding.
You have no logic at all, and if you understand anything right now it will be the first time.


How obstinate and ridicules can you be, all for denial?
You tell us, since you're the poster boy for obstinate ridiculous denial. Heavy emphasis on ridiculous.


An unconscious mind does not make images...
What the hell are you talking about? What do you think dreams are?


They start to remove organs from donors when this point is reached and usually they are still keeping the persons organs alive with oxygen.
My husband had been dead several hours, and certainly not on oxygen, when they took him away to remove his corneas for donation.


But non-organ donors are put into the morgue or DNR persons
Why in the world would any reputable hospital or medical practitioner insert dead non-organ donors into still-living persons, whether they had DNR orders or not? Sounds like some kind of perverted religious ritual.


And again he didn't free the slaves as you want or think, but spiritually, what else do you want him to do Judas?

You are going to force Gods Hands?

No oxygen, no heart beat, no BRAIN WAVES, THIS MEANS DEAD.
PAY ATTENTION.
Could be for a minute could be for a day.

What you want it to say isn't what has been described...in the reports.
Are you drinking when you post stuff like this? It has no internal coherence, it follows no logical sequence, and it answers no questions that have been asked of you, nor does it give a responsive answer to any points that have been made by other people.

By the God that you believe in, please learn to express yourself in a clear, logical, understandable fashion. You do him no service with these confused, disconnected, discontinuous ramblings.
 
Ladewig posted this, but I want to repeat it to show that either you have no idea what your Bible says, or you are incapable of comprehending the written word:

"Tombs were opened." "They came out of their tombs." That's not waking up from a NDE. That's dead and buried one minute, up and walking around the next.



"Back then"? At present, 70,000 people die every day worldwide.



Are you saying that every single person who, according to the Bible, walked out of his or her tomb had died within two days of Christ's death?

It was in Jerusalem back then I don’t know what the census said the numbers were but there probably were 70,000 in that city back then and not all of them were dead.

This small passage could have another meaning.
We have to also look at what those Hebnrews believed about death and if Christ accomplished the mission, which he did, then there was a place for all those that died before Christs sacrifice, a place to then go to.



The evangelist records that the violent earthquake resulted in many of the tombs in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Mt. 27:53) being opened. These tombs were not like modern burial plots but were hewn out of solid rock. The violent shaking rolled away stones, as well as split open stone doors and walls. This miracle serves as a prelude to the resurrection of many of the saints and their exhibition to believers in the holy city.

The miracle of the earthquake with the opening of the tombs and the resurrection of many saints is so amazing that many commentators refuse to take this section of Scripture literally. A. B. Bruce believes it may belong to “the region of Christian legend.”[1] A. Plummer thinks it has “a legendary element in it.”[2] R. T. France says “it is a matter of faith; not objective demonstration.”[3] Many modern scholars believe “this passage is a piece of theology set forth as history.”

All such thinking denies the verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and must be rejected as speculations influenced by higher critical modernist concepts of Scripture. What Matthew recorded literally took place in history and must not be explained away as myth, legend, early tradition or theology masquerading as history. If the events that Matthew describes did not really happen in history, then they are not real signs and they are not significant at all. The fact that they really did occur, points to the earth-shattering effects of the death of Christ. “This shows that the death of the Savior had—and still is having—significance for the entire universe.”[9]

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/21 The Earthquake and the Tombs Opened.htm

I don't know why you want to make a big deal out of this.
And be insulting at the same time?
 

Fascinating. In other threads, you asserted that not everything in the Bible is the literal word of God - there are man-made passages that do not reflect God's intention or God's instructions. Now you are citing a person who claims that every word in the Bible must be taken to be inviolate Truth and nothing can be dismissed as not coming directly from God.

And be insulting at the same time?

If you believe you are being insulted, I urge you in the most imperative manner to report it.
 
It was in Jerusalem back then I don’t know what the census said the numbers were but there probably were 70,000 in that city back then and not all of them were dead.

This small passage could have another meaning.
We have to also look at what those Hebnrews believed about death and if Christ accomplished the mission, which he did, then there was a place for all those that died before Christs sacrifice, a place to then go to.

I don't know why you want to make a big deal out of this.
And be insulting at the same time?
It's a big deal because if it had actually happened, it would have been HUGE, probably reported all the way back to Rome, and yet there is no - repeat, no, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada, aucun, keine - evidence for it outside the Bible, and it's not even mentioned in other books of the Bible.

So it appears to be a fiction in your holy word of God. If that's a fiction, how do we know the whole rest of the thing isn't fiction too?

And in what way did I insult you?
 
It is funny how an so-called all-knowing all-powerful being can't even control his so-called book. That anyone can rewrite and/or see whatever they want to see in it.


Hey, maybe the bible is a test, so that for those that think it is in anyway the work of a god are the ones that go stright to hell, and all those that see thru it and can see it for what it really is go stright to heaven.

Paul


:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Fascinating. In other threads, you asserted that not everything in the Bible is the literal word of God - there are man-made passages that do not reflect God's intention or God's instructions. Now you are citing a person who claims that every word in the Bible must be taken to be inviolate Truth and nothing can be dismissed as not coming directly from God.



If you believe you are being insulted, I urge you in the most imperative manner to report it.

There you go again lying for atheists again.
I said the O.T. in particular.
I never said I backed all that the particular author says, I just agree with what he says about the tombs being opened.
You are all insulting so should I report you all to your masters?
The head of your cult will just laugh it off.
:jaw-dropp
 
It's a big deal because if it had actually happened, it would have been HUGE, probably reported all the way back to Rome, and yet there is no - repeat, no, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada, aucun, keine - evidence for it outside the Bible, and it's not even mentioned in other books of the Bible.

So it appears to be a fiction in your holy word of God. If that's a fiction, how do we know the whole rest of the thing isn't fiction too?

And in what way did I insult you?

Are you drinking when you post stuff like this? It has no internal coherence, it follows no logical sequence, and it answers no questions that have been asked of you, nor does it give a responsive answer to any points that have been made by other people.By the God that you believe in, please learn to express yourself in a clear, logical, understandable fashion. You do him no service with these confused, disconnected, discontinuous ramblings.



That's ok because when you say stuff like this I know what you are feeling.

I don't do a service?
You all drive the topic off the op and I answer you any way... and I am not doing A good thing when I show you the truth about your deceptions?
Well that's just your opinion because a praticing believer will see the truth where a atheist will not.
It is because we know that it works for us in our everyday life.

Taken from that link above:
Matthew simply says that the many which were raised went to the holy city and appeared unto many. Most scholars believe that the risen saints only appeared to believers because after His resurrection Jesus always appeared to Christians. He never showed Himself to unbelievers. Interestingly, unbelievers could look upon the cross and see the humiliation and suffering of the Savior. But, they were not given the privilege of beholding the glorified exalted Redeemer. They will only see the Mediator on the final day of judgment as He sits upon His lustrous white throne. They received the evidence of the empty tomb, Pentecost and the gospel preached. If these appearances followed Jesus’ pattern and example, then these risen saints would have appeared to believers to increase their faith; lift up their sad hearts and explain the accomplished redemption of the Lord. One can infer from the fact that all these saints went to the same city at the same time, that they were following specific instructions from Christ.

If these resurrected-glorified believers did appear to all, whether Christian or non-Christian, it would have caused widespread astonishment in the population and severe panic among the leadership. A reading of the early history of the church in Jerusalem in the book of Acts gives the distinct impression that the resurrection saints were not seen by unbelievers. If they had, it would have figured into the discussions of the Sanhedrin on how to stop this new, vibrant movement.

Third, why did these resurrected saints only appear in the city of Jerusalem? One reason is that this city had been set apart by God and chosen as the place for His special presence. It had been chosen by God and thus Matthew calls it the “holy city.” Its holiness obviously did not derive from the character of its populace, the vast majority of whom were wicked, but from its adoption by God. It was the center of the Jewish religion and the capital of the Hebrew nation. Therefore, Jesus designated this city as the starting point for the spread of the gospel after His resurrection. “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Ac. 1:8). According to Luke this is precisely what happened. Powerful gospel preaching began in Jerusalem (Ac. 2:1); then went into Judea and Samaria (Ac. 8:5); and, then went deep into the Gentile world (Ac. 8:26ff.).

You need to read the whole thing from that link.
This answers many of your objections.


It may be that these resurrected saints were Jewish Christians such as Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and Elizabeth who had recently perished. If these kinds of people were resurrected they would have been immediately recognized by friends and loved ones. It also could have been a sampling of believers from many periods of history. Matthew doesn’t elaborate on who these “holy ones” were. If the saints raised were notable historical persons such as Job, Moses, Abraham or Isaac, it is likely that they would have been identified by name. “[T]hose who lived and died before the death and resurrection of Christ, had saving benefit thereby, as well as those who have lived since; for he was the same yesterday that he is today, and will be for ever, Heb. xiii.8.”[15]

Regarding the specific nature of this resurrection Matthew is silent. Therefore, commentators are divided as to whether these saints were resurrected like Lazarus, who resumed a normal earthly existence and died of old age; or, received glorified spiritual bodies which were eventually received up into heaven. Given the fact that these saints were resurrected as a sign of the victory of the Redeemer’s sacrificial death; and, as a token of all believers, it is likely that they were resurrected with glorified bodies that could not die. “t would appear to be absurd to suppose that, after having been once admitted by Christ to the participation of a new life, they again returned to dust.”[16] According to Hebrews 11 (cf. 11:13-16, 35, 39-40) the Old Testament saints all died looking forward to resurrection and a better life in a heavenly country. For a select group that hope now comes to fruition at the death of Jesus.

Third, why did God only raise some saints to life when He could have raised all, now that the Redeemer’s vicarious suffering and death was accomplished? The answer to this question lies in the purpose of this resurrection. The purpose of this resurrection was to testify regarding the efficacy of the Savior’s suffering and death. It was designed to give the people of God an example of the new life which they ought to expect. “n order that the minds of believers might be more quickly raised to hope, it was advantageous that the resurrection, which was common to all of them, should be tasted by a few.”[17]

Further, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the final resurrection of the saints and their receiving glorified bodies occurs at the second bodily coming of Christ. Therefore, a resurrection of all would be premature. God ordained that in the salvation of His elect, which occurs over a long process of history, the final act in the application of redemption in the broadest sense of that term comes at the very end of human history. Therefore, in this resurrection of “many saints” around Jerusalem God was giving His people a taste of the result of Christ’s redemptive work. Although their appearance on Sunday testified to the Redeemer’s resurrection, it also gave the church, which would soon be sorely persecuted, a glimpse of the end of history. Therefore, this resurrection looks back at the death of Jesus and looks forward to complete victory of the cross at the consummation. This exhibition of the resurrected saints ought to give the church a great optimism as it battles the forces of evil and suffers affliction. It would be akin to the British troops at Dunkirk in 1940 getting a glimpse of the end result of World War II and seeing themselves marching in a victory parade in London.

Fourth, why is it significant that only believers were raised? Our Lord is showing us that the benefits of His death and resurrection are applied only to His people and not unbelievers. The cross opens the prisons of our graves. It takes rotten flesh, old bones and even bodies obliterated into nothing but dust and makes them into perfect, beautiful, flawless, glorified, incorruptible bodies. Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and we shall be reformed from the dust of death. Modernists, skeptics and full-preterists cannot accept this truth. But the eyes of faith know that our omnipotent Savior will have no difficulties with this miracle.

This miracle demonstrates the efficacy of Christ’s death to spiritually resurrect His own people. If the Redeemer can take the dust of a dead man and give it new glorified life, then can He not also raise up dead hearts of stone? These miracles that accompanied the death of the Savior prove that the resurrected, glorified Mediator will continue to exercise His great saving power throughout history until He comes again: “rocky hearts are rent, graves of sin are opened, those who have been dead in trespasses and sins, and buried in sepulchers of lust and evil are quickened, and come out from among the dead, and go into the holy city, the New Jerusalem.”[18]


There is no fiction.
If you can't get it from my bolding then you will never get it.



The resurrection saints were not seen by unbelievers.
From Acts
 
edge said:
Elizabeth I said:
Are you drinking when you post stuff like this? It has no internal coherence, it follows no logical sequence, and it answers no questions that have been asked of you, nor does it give a responsive answer to any points that have been made by other people.By the God that you believe in, please learn to express yourself in a clear, logical, understandable fashion. You do him no service with these confused, disconnected, discontinuous ramblings.
You have frequently alluded to the fact that you like your beer and that you have a history of overindulging. That first sentence could be considered an insult, but I think it's an arguable point. The rest is not an insult; it is my opinion of your writing, and I think it's accurate.


Matthew simply says that the many which were raised went to the holy city and appeared unto many. Most scholars believe that the risen saints only appeared to believers because after His resurrection Jesus always appeared to Christians. He never showed Himself to unbelievers. Interestingly, unbelievers could look upon the cross and see the humiliation and suffering of the Savior. But, they were not given the privilege of beholding the glorified exalted Redeemer. They will only see the Mediator on the final day of judgment as He sits upon His lustrous white throne. They received the evidence of the empty tomb, Pentecost and the gospel preached. If these appearances followed Jesus’ pattern and example, then these risen saints would have appeared to believers to increase their faith; lift up their sad hearts and explain the accomplished redemption of the Lord. One can infer from the fact that all these saints went to the same city at the same time, that they were following specific instructions from Christ.
Wow, great example of "heads, I win, tails, you lose":

"I believe in Jesus because I saw him after the resurrection."

"I haven't seen him."

"That's because you're not a believer."

Can you honestly not see how illogical that is?

(And I seriously doubt that any academic scholars "believe that the risen saints only appeared to believers because after His resurrection Jesus always appeared to Christians." Christian apologists, maybe, but not many serious researchers.)


It may be that these resurrected saints were Jewish Christians such as Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and Elizabeth who had recently perished. If these kinds of people were resurrected they would have been immediately recognized by friends and loved ones. It also could have been a sampling of believers from many periods of history. Matthew doesn’t elaborate on who these “holy ones” were. If the saints raised were notable historical persons such as Job, Moses, Abraham or Isaac, it is likely that they would have been identified by name. “[T]hose who lived and died before the death and resurrection of Christ, had saving benefit thereby, as well as those who have lived since; for he was the same yesterday that he is today, and will be for ever, Heb. xiii.8.”[15]
Speculating on exactly who the risen saints might have been does not eliminate the uncomfortable fact that there appears to be NO independent corroboration of the story, outside the Bible, and not much in the Bible since it's only in one book.


edge said:
I don't do a service?
You all drive the topic off the op and I answer you any way... and I am not doing A good thing when I show you the truth about your deceptions?
I said you do your God no service when you post "confused, disconnected, discontinuous ramblings."

People just dismiss you as, at best, ignorant, and at worst, a nut, or someone who has scrambled his brain with one sort of chemical or another.
 
There you go again lying for atheists again.

Can you precisely show me the lie in that post? I've read it several times and everything seems to me to be completely truthful and accurate.
 
Wow, great example of "heads, I win, tails, you lose":

"I believe in Jesus because I saw him after the resurrection."

"I haven't seen him."

"That's because you're not a believer."

Can you honestly not see how illogical that is?

(And I seriously doubt that any academic scholars "believe that the risen saints only appeared to believers because after His resurrection Jesus always appeared to Christians." Christian apologists, maybe, but not many serious researchers.)

Liz,
You know, gawd had JC and the saints appear to only believers.
He didn't want 'em to appear before Pontius Pilot, Herod, the Sanhedrin, the Roman execution crew, etc.
.....because he wanted people to come to be xians on there own. Of course, that meant 3 more centuries of brutal persecutions, but it was part of the plan.

Yes that plan included watching them being burned, nailed to trees/posts, ripped up by wild animals and the like.
He works in mysterious ways.
 
Liz,
You know, gawd had JC and the saints appear to only believers.
He didn't want 'em to appear before Pontius Pilot, Herod, the Sanhedrin, the Roman execution crew, etc.
.....because he wanted people to come to be xians on there own. Of course, that meant 3 more centuries of brutal persecutions, but it was part of the plan.

Yes that plan included watching them being burned, nailed to trees/posts, ripped up by wild animals and the like.
He works in mysterious ways.


The Roman executioners did know they killed the Christ/God.
The Sanhedrin got their sign that day and a few years later with the destruction of the temple.
Roman atheists did all those things to the Christians in my bolding above.

Even after all that brutal persecution we still have what history says about Christ and Christianity.
People don’t or won’t give up truth no matter what happens to them.
For them it was like hell on earth in those early days.
 
Adding a smiley doesn't detract from the fact that calling someone a liar without evidence is rude and against the MA.
 
The Roman executioners did know they killed the Christ/God.
Outside of the bible, there is no record of it.

Also, did you know that all the people that wrote the NT never met Jesus, all that was written about Jesus was 20 or more years after he was suppose to have lived? And still they couldn’t get all the stories the same.

So with knowing that, why should anyone believe without proof a hell made by a so-called loving god.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Fascinating. In other threads, you asserted that not everything in the Bible is the literal word of God - there are man-made passages that do not reflect God's intention or God's instructions. Now you are citing a person who claims that every word in the Bible must be taken to be inviolate Truth and nothing can be dismissed as not coming directly from God.

What's your point?
We are all Christians and agree on all most everything?
You make this out to be a misrepresentation when it's not that's the lie.

That's why we all have the right to be called Christians and if we are in agreement we are in agreement, but you imply there's something wrong with that.
If you want to see an argument between that author and me then bring it up.
If you are talking in general, as I said they are trying to know God as in the Christian way, we are brothers in Christ, you make it out to be a bad thing that’s the lie.
 
Last edited:
Adding a smiley doesn't detract from the fact that calling someone a liar without evidence is rude and against the MA.

There you Go.
If you can't follow then I suggest you read more of this thread....:eek:
 
Outside of the bible, there is no record of it.

Also, did you know that all the people that wrote the NT never met Jesus, all that was written about Jesus was 20 or more years after he was suppose to have lived? And still they couldn’t get all the stories the same.

So with knowing that, why should anyone believe without proof a hell made by a so-called loving god.

Paul

:) :) :)

Because your headed there in a hand basket! It will look like this : :boxedin:
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom