Finally, here are a few points to be made against the arguements made in the e-mail previously posted.


First, within the story we start with a story of an arguement that took place previous to the accident in which Daniel and his wife argued extensively. This event in itself is not the only apparent reason that the angel later tells him he should go to hell. He is also guilty of unforgiveness toward his wife later. While no animocity is shown between the two after the wreck, apparently Daniel still did not forgive his wife. Since this tragedy had obviously helped him to get over his anger at his wife, it seems that his problem is not that he has bitterness or malice in his heart, but that he has not physically forgiven his wife. Whether it is his heart attitude or physical action that is required for heaven is not apparent, but whichever is required is not done in time. Truly, anyone who dies in an instant of such freak accident as this, or those who end up in a coma are surely condemned to hell, seeing as there is no time to pray forgiveness prior to death.


Later, we se a very obvious time in the hospital where Daniel is praying to ask for forgiveness, and not simply just because he knows he has sin in his life, but because he apparently needs to be forgiven of sins that will keep him out of heaven. So the author starts with the view point that we are required to ask forgiveness for sins in order for them to be forgiven. Thus, we can an often do lose our salvation. This is declared to be a main point in the final passage. But this is something which the author already takes for granted as common truth.


Moving into the story from Daniel's experiance after death, we see that the angel qualifies those in heaven as humans who 1) Served God, 2) Had faith focused on Christ, 3) and lived righteously. This angel basically states that the qualifications to reach heaven are three human activities. Adherance to these actions is the basis for entering or being barred from heaven.

Interestingly, these people in heaven are "ageless and raceless." What does an ageless person look like? There is no way that a physical appearance can be described as ageless, much less by someone who has only experiances those of various and progressing age. They must have at least appeared to be in some approximate age range, or that leaves two options. Did these people appear to be prenatal or corpses? If these appeared in some way ageless, they must have appeared as being either before or after age effects human beings. Even in these stages, age has its effects.


Raceless is similar in nature to ageless, for what does a raceless person look like if everyone has a race? How can a person has no distincives in the shape of their nose or the color of their skin? This would require that they were a color dissimilar to humanity and so different in shape that they in no way appeared similar to a human. To have no similarity to any race is to have no similarity to humanity.

It is interesting to note that the worshippers acted "as if a sort of electronic device was activating them." How is it that the beautiful availability of worship of God at a closer magnitude that any previous time is not an individual expression of free will, but a mechanical almost forced sounding activity? We have seen here on earth only a small amount of worship, simply incomparable to the amount available to us when we truly see his full glory in heaven. It is hard to believe that worship can be truly magnificent if it is not personal.


In quoting Scripture, it is interesting that Luke 16:19-31 is referenced first, but later verse 31 is quite deliberately left off of the second reference. It is also interesting that father Abraham is the only distinguishable character in heaven, who apparantly does not follow the ageless or even perhaps raceless rule, seeing as his age was mostly likely older because he looked like himself, and thus he would have Jewish distinctives in appearance. It is also interesting that of all of the great leaders and men of God found in the Bible, only Abraham is distinguishable from the masses.

I don't know much about the theology of singing flowers.

Later, the angel tells him that the mansion is empty because Christ has not finished revealing the proper nature of the church, as we will see is done by the end of the trip. So were do the worshiping masses live? Do they not receive mansions? It would seem their activities have certainly earned it.

Upon entering hell, we see that people are punished by repeating actions similar to the isn in their lives. But how does God decide which sin we are responsible to repeat? Is it the sin that gets us into hell? Or is it simply the worse sin we have ever committed? But how could this be if we asked for forgiveness of that sin at some point? So it must be either the sin that we last commit or the largest sin for which we have not asked repentance. Logically, since this man would be in hell for the sins specified by the angel, this would probably be what he paid with in hell. So he would be responsible to repeatedly argue with his wife or repeately forgive her? This is all very confusing to say the least.

Later on, we read that both Christians and pastors are in hell. While it is of no doubt that pastors will be in hell, it is not simply bad terminology to call those in hell Christians, but actually a very pivotal statement. This does not mean those who are here deemed Christians are simply "churched people" who were not truly saved, but those who were once saved and lost it for lack of careful repeated repentance. It is also completely logical for the enlightened pastor to think that if he is only able to find a way out he will be able to earn back his salvation. This idea runs parallel with the theology of this entire composition.

And here we come to the point where the author takes this theology that has already proven itself to be flawed and takes it one step further. The angel tells Daniel that he would end up in hell because "the prayers he prayed as he was dying in the hospital were of no effect, because he refused to forgive his wife even when she attempted to reconcile on the morning of his fatal accident." Thus, we see that this man would be in hell not because he did not accept Christ's redeeming payment for sin, but because of this lack of proper action. If we simplify the act of unforgiveness to what it ultimately is, we can simply define it as sin. Thus, the simplified statement is that the actions which he took to save himself before death (aka prayers to be re-saved) were not valid because he had committed a sin that he had not atoned for in a proper required manner. This is important because it builds off of the assunmption that one must properly react to his sin to be forgiven, and says that one must also specifically react to the action of unforgiveness, because it has been overlooked and holds sway over any other sin.

Immediately following, the angel tells that God has chosen to send him back to earth to reveal this new revelation to the church. This is were we can see a purposeful neglect of verse 31 in referencing the same passage that was earlier referenced in the story. It seems that the author would at least be consistent enough to remember to leave this verse off the first time as well, or readers may realize obvious discepencies between the text and the implications drawn. We will come back to this later.

Just before coming back to life, Daniel is told that he will "spread the gospel of salvation" through what he now knows from this special revelation. So we can see that apparently the church did not have sufficient revelation to correctly follow God and be saved.

His finishes by making the point that we cannot gain our salvation without acting holy, we are not always saved once we are originally saved, and that we must always be ready for God to come or we will end up in hell.

As a small side note, it is interesting to notice that as a point of validity of this miracle is that Reinhard Bonnke does not need the publicity. This is flawed for two reasons. First, the validity of whether an event did or did not happen is not changed by whether it is good for someone involved. It makes no sense to try to prove something happened by saying someone else did not know it. Secondly, Reinhard Bonnke is the one whose ministry produced a documentary of these events, so it is obvious that he does wish to promote this event. While he is not very instrumental in the story itself, the angel basically promotes him as one of the two men who God is sending to proclaim the true gospel. This is a pretty good testamony for him, and he has been sure to heavily promote this testamony since its occurance.

Next, let us look more deeply into the serious biblical flaws and scriptural twisting that takes place. First, we can see that the author uses the exact scriptural reference on Abraham that he will later use to illustrate his point of God's sending a man back to earth. For some unexplainable reason, the author does not leave off the final verse the first time he uses this reference , but is required to the second time because to keep it would be suicide for his point. In the final verse Abraham replies to the man in hell's request of a messenger to those on earth by saying "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." This proves the exact opposite of what this story depicts. We can assume that Abraham is saying that if people will not listen to the law within the Old Testament (this was written by Moses and the Prophets, and the only way people could listen to them) then they will not listen to a man returned from the dead. Thus, he is either saying that God will not send a man back, or at least that it would be completely ineffective. Thus, God either did not send a man back, or He did so knowing it would be completely ineffective. However, the David Servant assumes from this passage that "a man would come back from the dead and warn people fo hell." This is simply unbiblical.

He likewise ignores the context of 2 Peter 3:12 by saying that it describes Jesus as being delayed because he is waiting for Christians to be ready for him. The NASB version of 2 Peter 3:11-12 reads, "since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people aught you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!" So we can see from this small snipet that, regardless of the context of the passage, those waiting here are the Christians, not Jesus! It says men are waiting for God, not God waiting for men.

After looking at Matthew 5:21-22, we can assume that if this is to be taken literally then we should also remove our eyes and limbs when they cause us to stumble, as well as hating our families to truly love God.

The final scriptural reference is so long that it covers Jesus statements on numerous issues, and the statements from the beginning of the passage are blended with those from the end of the passage, making a new context of the authors own preference. We could all write our own, completely individualized gospel stories and Bibles if we simply follow this interesting principle.

As one final and concluding statement, we can see that in every are, the author much bend the Bible to make it fit his assumptions, which he carries to the Bible, instead of finding them there. It is most interesting that all of the main points the author wishes to prove are perfectly paralleled in the miracle. Also, the gospel itself is never mentioned, and one begins to wonder if the author has ever even heard story about a man on a cross, since it is a rather intricate part of the overall message in the New Testament (OT as well.) Here we can come to a few conclusions. First, the views that the man expresses are contrary to the Biblical text. He twists the few scriptures he can use, so their is obviously no text to back him up. Second, we have numerous passages that teach us that God had redeemed us, and we do not redeem ourselves. I am sure a few come to mind immediately. These ideas destroy the gospel message, for if we must constantly be saved over and over, what work did this useless savior truly accomplish? Obviously he was not atonement in and of himself if we must add to his gift daily from ourselves. And we can also see that this miracle is fake. While I know well that God has the power to do any miracle he wishes, and it is not rediculous to assume he may do something similar, we can know that since the entire revelation of this miracle is false, it was either demonic or stages in some way.

Jesus Christ is great because he is our only hope, there is nothing in us that can save us. We do not earn it. While it is great to strive for holiness, and the Bible requires that Christians would do this if they are to live for God, it is in no way whatsoever connected with salvation. The author says at one point "if this story is all a hoax, the result of this hoax is real holiness." Sadly, this story is on some plain a hoax, and it does not produce real holiness. True holiness is not a mindset of reaching again and again to gain our salvation, but realizing that Christ has done and become everything we could ever need, and we should be see that daily and strive to be like Christ!