The Resurrected Jesus Did Not Go Somewhere. He Went Somewhen. [Questions That Haunt]

Questions That Haunt Christianity

This week’s Question That Haunts Christianity comes from Jason, and it’s a doozy:

Hello Tony, I’ve been reading your Questions that Haunt Series for a while now and I thought I’d submit my own. If I’ve understood what you’ve written correctly, you, like me, are a largely materialist Christian. “Souls” probably don’t exist, metaphysics is largely unfounded speculation, and heaven and hell seem more and more like abstract concepts than real places.

But also, like me, you seem to still affirm the bodily death and resurrection of Jesus, as well as most, if not all, of his other miracles. I feel a strong pull in this direction but I don’t know how I can honestly live there. It feels like straddling the fence to affirm the miraculous and yet denounce all the metaphysics around it.

Of all of the issues this might raise though, the one I keep getting hung up on is Jesus’ resurrection. If his resurrection was bodily and we believe that, yet we don’t believe in other “planes” of existence (a heaven where spirits and angels float around like glowing light bulbs) then where did the resurrected Jesus go? I suppose a similar problem crops up with all of his miracles but for whatever reason they don’t bother me as much. I suppose it is because I hold the resurrection so dearly that the idea of denying Jesus anywhere to lay his resurrected head bothers me the most. Thanks I really enjoy your work, -Jason

You responded in the comments. Thanks.

Especially with what’s gone on this week on the blog, answering this question is intimidating. Let me start by giving a couple caveats: 1) I had honestly never really considered this question before Jason’s question came in. Probably, I should have, but I haven’t. So my answer will be provisional, a first crack at a vexing question. And 2), as such, it will likely be disappointing to some of you. It seems that the pressure is higher than normal this week, since I have again professed how central I consider the material resurrection to be.

Jason, you’ve asked the question in exactly the right way, I think. I, too, am troubled by my own predisposition to accept Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection, yet harbor my own suspicions about all metaphysics. It seems inconsistent, even unfair to do so. Yet that’s where I currently sit.

Most people, it seems, fall to one side of that fence or the other. If miracles don’t happen and the physical limitations of the universe are not routinely broken by God, then a material resurrection seems to be an unthinkable exception to these rules. On the other hand, those who affirm that Jesus rose in some material way tend to think that he went somewhere upon his ascension. Rarely in theology do the horns of a dilemma show themselves so sharply.

I think that this is not Scylla and Charybdis. There is a not a “third way” between these two poles. If there were, I suppose it would be something like this: Jesus came back materially, walked and ate with his disciples; but when he “ascended,” he became pure spirit, and that is how he now exists. That’s not very satisfying.

So let’s play around with something that was introduced in a comment by Ric — an idea I’ve been playing around with.

The resurrection on Easter morning has nothing to do with either the revivification of the body of Jesus of Nazareth nor of the immortality of the soul or logos that dwelt therein. Instead, the resurrection is the victory of God, creating something new (Christ) out of something old (Jesus). That is, the resurrection is essentially an eschatological event — it is an inbreaking of God’s future.

Key to the resurrection is that it is an event without analogy in history. As such, we struggle to find metaphors for it. It is not like other resuscitations or revivifications. It’s also not like more commonplace mystical encounters or ghostly apparitions. Christians instead claim that the resurrection is unique in all of history. Wherein lies this uniqueness?

Let me propose that the resurrection of Jesus is not only without analogy in history, but that it is ontologically unique. I mean that in the resurrection, God is doing something wholly new. (Here, it would serve us well to disabuse ourselves of the prefix “re-” in “resurrection.”) There is a foretaste of this at the Transfiguration, at which Moses and Elijah appear side-by-side with Jesus, and Jesus himself takes on a visage that seems otherworldly to the disciples. But it happens conclusively at the resurrection, when God inaugurates a new ontology — an ontology in which death is overcome, and hence unknown.

Think of it this way: In the incarnation, God indwelt a human being in the course of history. In the resurrection, Christ is an incarnation of the future.

The Risen Christ is the ontology of the not-yet.

The biblical narrative is rife with the language of anticipation surrounding the resurrection. Even in their first response to the empty tomb, the disciples want to go to Galilee to wait — they have a sense that something eschatological is about to happen. Later, Paul writes that Christ is the “firstfruits” and a “down payment” on what is to come.

Jason, here’s my answer to your question: When Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected as the Risen Christ, he came from the future of God’s Promise, and that’s where he went to dwell upon the ascension. From there, Christ is beckoning us, even pulling us, into God’s beautiful, eschatological future. Thus, Christ continues to be Messiah, even after the resurrection. He is the promise of our future, and his resurrection is a promise of a new ontological reality that awaits us.

See all of the past questions and answers here, or buy the ebook by clicking below:

  • Craig

    Tony’s theory needs a name. “Dispensational dualism” sounds about right.

    • Mark Kirschieper

      Ironically, there is already a systematic theology, in development, labeled “Progressive Dispensationalism”. It also happens to incorporate allot of the inaugural elements, of which Tony speaks. I nominate, “Christian Neo-ontic Inauguralism”, for consideration…as a potential name, for Tony’s state/current condition/form, of Christ’s resurrection.

  • KentonS

    I’m hearing a lot of NT Wright in that response, and wonder what he would say about it.

    I like your answer, but I’m struggling with one sentence: The resurrection on Easter morning has nothing to do with either the revivification of the body of Jesus of Nazareth nor of the immortality of the soul or logos that dwelt therein. It almost makes it sound like you caved. Help me, here.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

      Yeah, you’re right. That is too strong. My bad.

    • http://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/ jesuswithoutbaggage

      No Tony, I think you were correct! Jesus’ old body was not revived; it was transformed. It really was Jesus. It was not his ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’; it was his unified identity, which had expired and was now transformed.
      This is what we can anticipate for ourselves–not immortality of our ‘souls’, but a restoration of our unified identity in a transformed existence.

      • KentonS

        I like that! Thanks! So could we say that “transformed” goes beyond “revived” instead of saying that it negates “revived”? I’m just thinking that when Jesus ate fish it was because he was revived and when he disappeared on the road to Emmaus it was because he was transformed. Maybe we need both/and instead of either/or.

  • Jesse

    This is a great response, Tony. Very Pauline I’d say. Thanks.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

      I’d say that Paul is growing on me these days, thanks to my friend, Jay Bakker. Once I get my hands on NT Wright’s new book, that should help too.

  • austinroberts

    Sounds just like Moltmann and Pannenberg. Which means you’re in good company, Tony.

  • Ric Shewell

    Damn. I had been working with this idea for a while and it just kept feeling like bonkers to me. It’s easy enough to say that Christ is ahead of us, pulling us into the future, but it’s kind of another thing to say the resurrected body returned to that eschatological reality. It always felt counter-intuitive to say Christ’s body went forward in time. It still feels weird, but more and more I’m drawn to that thought. Thanks for the way you framed this. Really interesting.

    • JoeyS

      I would love to see this fleshed out through the lens of theoretical physics. If space/time can be folded then two parts of history could coincide in this way.

      • KentonS

        I’ll take a stab at that: Jesus took…
        …a jump to the left
        And a step to the riiiiiiight

        • http://divinesalve.blogspot.com/ David Miller

          … but it’s the pelvic thrust that really drives you insaaaaaaaaaane.

  • Andrew Dowling

    Well, I will say I think this is your strongest post on this topic to date. But I still think you are grasping at straws simply because you like the theology of a material Resurrection. It’s like Christian proponents against evolution . . they give reasons that are akin to “well, evolution being true messes with my theological outlook.” I see a similar reason why you hold to a literal bodily Resurrection . . because if I don’t, it messes with my theology. Which isn’t really a legitimate argument. If one is going to maintain this was an actual act in history, one has to deal with the many Scriptural, scientific, and also theological issues accompanying a bodily Resurrection (to boot, Paul was simply wrong about the parousia . . Christianity still hasn’t found a suitable way to deal with that).

    But at least you admit you are being inconsistent :)

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

      Andrew, thanks for the backhanded compliment. I’ll take whatever I can get from you. :-)

    • JasonDStewart

      For me, it isn’t so much that I hold to the resurrection because my theology will be messed up if I don’t. It’s just really, to my eyes, the far most beautiful interpretation of scripture, and the most beautiful idea of God. If his material resurrection isn’t true, it certainly should be.

      • Andrew Dowling

        I actually think that’s a fair answer, and I think that aligns with why Tony holds to it.

    • Guest

      Have you ever heard of a human being being raised from the dead? And if so, wouldn’t you want to interview that person?

  • Sarah Raymond Cunningham

    I still try to understand spirituality using the divisions and labels I see in Scripture, so I haven’t scrapped the idea of souls, for example. But I get we don’t necessarily have the constructs in our mind or the vocabulary to understand the idea of a soul. And that the way the concept is tossed around now is probably a poor substitute for the intended meaning.

    Is it too simple to just say I don’t think we have enough information to piece together “where” Jesus went to or where he exists now? Is he in the future or in another dimension of the present or…?

    Even if you determine you don’t believe in spiritual realms and souls, why would it be challenging to imagine that a being who can overturn the normal boundaries of death could also create a “where” for Jesus to go to that breaks the normal laws of dimension and space as well?

    If you are willing to affirm the resurreciton, how does that not create openness about what elements of the way we experience existence could be being stretched?

    I’m not trying to pick a fight…as you know. I just really don’t get why anything hinges on the where if you believe the what. Help me understand why it is important to answer that question?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

      Sarah, the Jewish predecessors to Jesus had no concept of soul. Did Paul? If so, it was a nascent idea that somehow mashed up early rabbinic Judaism with Hellenism. It’s surely not the platonic gnosticism that many people today seem to believe.

      Regarding another “place,” sure, that’s possible. But that seems to me too easy of an answer: God created some magic place that Jesus dwells from now till the Parousia. But maybe that’s what I’m doing when I suggest that he’s dwelling in Parousia now…

      • Andrew Dowling

        Jewish predecessors at one point in history? By the time of Jesus it would be impossible to deny Hellenistic influence on Judaism. For example, for much of Jewish history there wasn’t a belief in any sort of afterlife whatsoever, which changed as Judaism was conquered by peoples who believed in an afterlife, and as Jews looked to divine justice for Jewish martyrs. I think there is literary evidence that some Jews had co-opted an idea of “souls” in Jewish Apocalyptic and other writings that occurred right before or around the time of Jesus.

        And really, if one is going to try to pluck Platonic/Hellenistic influence from Christianity, what will result won’t look very much like orthodox Christianity whatsoever. The Trinity, for starters, would be gone.

      • Sarah Raymond Cunningham

        So–interject here to help me if you want. There were a couple Hebrew words that got translated “soul” which meant something along the lines of “the godly force that animates life,” is that right? But how that force operates is open to speculation and you are saying that what you reject is that “soul” was intended to mean some interior space that can be…um…delineated from physical matter? (Clearly I am grasping for the right vocabulary here.)

        And similarly, you think the early church’s references to a separate spiritual realm represent a misunderstanding of traditional Jewish ideas? Hence why you don’t believe in spirit beings?

        You do believe in miracles, inclusive of the resurrection though. Rather than seeing miracles as the “spiritual realm” breaking through to ours, you would see miracles as Jesus um…manipulating the laws of the physical world…supernaturally?

        So if that is even close, that’s where it seems to me that (unless you believe in time travel) Jesus going into the future requires just as much suspension of physical matter/laws as him going to a different realm.

        Why wouldn’t you just say, we think the Gnostics too heavily influenced the way we view spiritual interventions in the physical world but we still believe they happen? I.e. You’re not gnostic but you also don’t have to be obligated to react to gnosticism. And then not be bound, just bc you believe in the resurrection, to decide when God is or isn’t willing to bend the laws of the universe?

        I’m trying to understand what is the benefit for trying to chop it up and limit what kind of physical laws God would or wouldn’t alter.

        I know I am not as versed in theology or academia, and so this might be a trivial question, but I’m trying to understand.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

          I’m not really talking about time travel, actually. I’m talking about the Risen Christ dwelling in a different ontic state, one that is the fulfillment of God’s promises.

          • Sarah Raymond Cunningham

            Right. Because that’s normative.;)

            Thanks, T.

      • http://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/ jesuswithoutbaggage

        Tony, I think you are right about the concept of the soul. And I think the issue of Hellenism also impacts our related concept of immortality.
        If we are not ‘immortal souls’ as the Greeks thought, then we do not exist after death. This is why Jesus’ offer of eternal life is so significant. If we accept the gift, we DO have eternal life, and it is not just an enhancement of our innate immortality.
        On the other hand, those who might ultimately refuse the offer of eternal life in the Father’s new order, should there be any such refusers, would simply cease to exist because they do not have innate immortality.

  • Julie Hodges

    A really beautiful description. Well stated. Love it. Thanks, Tony

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

      Thanks, Julie!

  • http://jcarlostzavala.blogspot.mx/ Juan Carlos Torres

    Very Moltmannian answer:)

  • Kien Choong

    This question truly haunts Christianity (and me!). Like Tony, I too believe in a physical resurrection. Unlike Tony, I think science (and history) matters, although I do think that science and history do not preclude a physical resurrection. But my judgment that the resurrection did happen is contingent and open to challenge from external scrutiny. I do not readily dismiss external evidence that conflicts with this judgment. So the question of where Jesus went is even more challenging for me.

    I tend to follow NT Wright, and assume Jesus’ resurrected body is a “spiritual body” vs a “disembodied spirit”. According to the gospels, Jesus had a body that could be touched. He ate fish. But he also appeared and disappeared. When people saw Jesus, they did not immediately recognise him. Assuming the gospel records are reliable, this spiritual body is unlike our biological bodies, but not a spirit either. People did physically touch and see Jesus’ resurrected body.

    While not a physicist, I understand space and time to be finite, and this does not preclude a reality outside space and time. I assume Jesus must have gone to another plane of existence outside space and time.

    Hope this answer is satisfactory to Jason and Tony.

    • JasonDStewart

      Well, if it’s any consolation, I am a physicist by training, and I can’t think of a better answer either :) .

      I mean, we can spin off wild ideas using higher dimensions, multiverses, quantum tunneling, holographic interpretations of the universe, etc etc. But they’d unfortunately be just wild ideas. The truth of it is that currently physics tells us that reality is ludicrously more complicated than we ever thought and that we don’t really understand it. Maybe one day though.

      In school, my perception was that physicists were by far the scientists most likely to be religious, spiritual, or even mystic. I think it’s a natural result of trying to think about such big thoughts and finding so much room in the unknown.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

        Love it!

    • JasonDStewart

      Actually, somewhat relevant, turns out Pew did a survey about this very thing (belief amongst scientists).

      http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

      It’s a long report with a lot of stuff in it so you have to dig for that nugget but the breakdown from most belief to least belief was:

      Most Belief: Chemistry
      Physics
      Astronomy
      Biology
      Least Belief:Psychology

      Not sure why more disciplines weren’t listed, maybe not enough responses? I wonder if there’s something to be said for psychologists being least likely to believe?

      • http://www.lara-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.com/ Lara

        I only have a B.S. in Psychology so I can’t speak for psychologists (those with a ph.d.) but I want to take a guess at this. I think it has to do with salvation from “hell” in the here and now. Christianity teaches us that Jesus saves, but those who do psychology have found that Christianity hasn’t saved anyone from much of anything, in fact it seems to cause more problems than it solves. Psychology does in fact save people from their suffering (some of the time). So, it’s hard to keep faith. Also when you come in contact with SO MUCH suffering on a day to day basis you can no longer ignore the big question that haunts, “If God loves us, why do we suffer so much?” When you’re just thinking about physics it’s easy to believe anything is possible. When you look at the stars it makes sense to believe in a Creator. When you look at broken people who live in agony every day and see God do nothing, you’re perspective starts to change. It makes sense that physicists believe because, any thing is possible when you start to understand how fluid physical matter really is. Maybe it’s a difference between trying to understand what is real (physics, chemistry) and what it worth following, pursuing, making a commitment to…you know, heart stuff. This is the stuff of psychology.
        Also psychologists are trained to be very open minded so they can work with a large variety of people. Open-mindedness doesn’t go together well with religious dogma.
        These are just my scattered thoughts this morning. No scientific data to back me up, so take it for you will.

      • Craig

        Chemistry, I suspect, is a bit like engineering, or applied math. It attracts those attracted to studying a well-established body of knowledge useful for practical applications. As currently practiced, is not a field that attracts those who want to question the nature of reality or human experience. The scholarly commitments of a chemist are easily compartmentalized, rarely in tension with her commitments as a Sunday-school teacher.

        Biology continues to pose active threats to traditional religious teachings (because of the content of such teachings). The work of biologists is regularly attacked by folks with a religious agenda–so a biologist can’t easily avoid getting drawn into controversy with disreputable aspects of religion, possibly generating some distaste for religion generally. The study of psychology, I imagine, provides ample resources for debunking religious experience and commitment. When a psychologist hears your “personal testimony,” you can imagine what kinds of explanations are ready at hand.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

      One correction: I very much care about history and science. That’s why I’m a materialist. :-)

      • Kien Choong

        Apologies for misrepresenting you!

    • Richy Smith

      I can relate and CONFIRM that resurrection did happen, and happened to me in Nov 2007. The details are graphic and traumatic. I died (for 22 minutes) and God chose to keep me here for his own reason(s). JESUS was the only face I saw the entire time. I SAW & FELT JESUS AND IS HOLY SPIRIT descend down into me. He and his spirit FILLED ME from head to toe and I am a miracle/a witness that some say would come along in the last days.? All praise and glory to God. I also felt HIS WRATH for those 22 minutes and I have never felt so helpless and powerless. JESUS showed me just how real and MIGHTY his name is! In the name of the father our God. What do I do now? I want all the promises you laid out in the bible for me. A true son of God. I can only say that now after what I experienced. Not many truly believe BUT THEY NEED TOO! Thank you Jesus for showing up when I called upon your name!

  • Mark Kirschieper

    I really like Tony’s answer, a great deal! I am wondering though, how we can deal with the fact, that there is no such English word as “somewhen”. However, I would certainly affirm, that there is such a thing, as the ontology of time. Perhaps another answer compatible with Tony’s, could be: “The resurrected Jesus, did not go somewhere. Christ went SOMEWHAT”. This is compatible with Tony’s answer. It also allows for a concept very appealing to me, that being neutral monism. Neutral monisim suggests a third substance, or “stuff”, of which the universe is composed. That substance, or “new ontic state”, as Tony suggests, would be compatible with many of Tony’s thoughts. Neutral monism is also compatible with panpsychism, and panentheism. I fell very deeply, that we are all on a very beneficial thought path.

  • Patrick O

    Moltmann has written that the resurrection wasn’t historical (or words to that effect), leading some to assume Moltmann doesn’t believe in the event of the resurrection. But you get right to the core issue. It doesn’t happen in our experience of history, determinative history which is aligned according to cause and effect. It is a wholly new reality, so is eschatological. It happened, it’s real. But does not fit into our present reality, though our present reality does not have the priority on determining ultimate meaning.

  • Gary in FL

    Tony, I really appreciate your answer. It does, however, raise a question for me (I guess a question that haunts me), related to a comment I left on your previous post about asking Marcus Borg to reconsider Christ’s resurrection. (The comment, which you did reply to, thanks, is here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/10/09/dear-marcus-borg-please-reconsider-the-resurrection/#comment-1076802884)

    Even as I mull your response above on the Where/When, I still wonder about the resurrected Christ’s current _agency_ . So say we run a bit with Jesus resurrection now locating him in the Parousia; would you still say he responds to us and our unfolding events in “real time”? Or do you envision Christ’s influence in the world today being solely the work of the Spirit acting upon us to bring him to our memories, and and thus influence how we live? I suppose another way of approaching it is asking how far removed we are from this resurrected Christ? And humanly speaking, is Jesus cut off from us, simply trusting his Father and the Spirit to empower his work to continue bearing fruit?

    Perhaps I’m not doing a very good job of phrasing my question, but between the two threads, any light you can shed on it would be much appreciated.

  • David

    I like this answer for its creativity, but am not sure how I feel about it totally.

    To be sure, the Resurrected Christ is the inauguration of the new creation–God’s future come ahead of time into God’s present. I don’t quite know if I would say, on that note, that when Christ ascended, He went into the eschatological time frame ahead of everyone else. My reasoning isn’t quite solid yet as to why, but if I had to give a rather unformed response, it would probably go something like this: Revelation 4, 5, and 6 clearly present us with the Christian dead who are still awaiting the Resurrection. In other words, there is some sort of interim period, in which God in-and-through-and-with the Lamb is also present among them, implying that God in Christ chooses to experience time alongside us rather than ahead of us. Of course, this assumes the existence of some other “heavenly” realm, which may be the fundamental difference with me here. Really interesting post, though.

  • jeffstraka

    While your conclusion sounds very poetic, it makes no sense cosmologically or biologically. Perhaps if more theologians were like Lloyd Geering and John Spong and Marcus Borg, and actually READ science from outside their religious circle, they might find the need to rethink these ancient doctrines a bit. I know this is frightening since only 5.5% of biological scientists and 7.5% of physicists and astronomers believe in God, but this just might be one of the reasons the “nones” are leaving you.

    • Ric Shewell

      Those stats are terribly misleading. They’re based on a questionnaire sent to the 517 members of the NAS, of which only half were completed and returned. I don’t think 260 volunteer members of the NAS is an accurate sample for the scientists you mention. Those numbers do mean something, but the more recent studies done by Pew and Rice are probably more accurate, between 40-60 percent believe in God or something.

  • jeffstraka

    “Death and suffering is what it means to be alive. Death is a biological necessity for life to occur, and suffering is what it means to be conscious of death. Without suffering we are not conscious, and without death we are not alive.” ~John Shuck

    So, how would an “eternal life” (with no more death or suffering) – bodily resurrected or otherwise – be any kind of Life?

  • http://practicingresurrection.wordpress.com/ Bill

    This post illustrates well the difficulty in trying to defend a physical resurrection. Doing so will necessarily require answers to some questions collateral to it (such as where is Jesus’ physical body now? what happened to it?) that are very difficult (if not impossible) to answer. From such a strident beginning (Jesus’ resurrection was physical, that is essential to the faith, and any who don’t accept that need to “reconsider” their beliefs) when pressed on the question of what happened next suddenly that original position becomes pretty flexible and immaterial (“the resurrection has nothing to do with the revivication of the body of Jesus of Nazareth” and is “essentially an eschatological event”), and starts sounding very Borgian.
    For a couple thousand years the vast majority of Christians understood this all pretty simply: Jesus rose, then later “ascended into heaven” (i.e. floated up into the sky where God is, and took a seat on a throne next to the Father). Tony’s attempt to make sense of it is fascinating, but I have it on good authority that “when one breaks with the historic church on an issue, the burden of proof lies heavily upon the one who is doing the breaking.” I don’t think this kind of speculation (which is inconsistent both with science and historical church doctrine)carries that heavy burden of proof. That is just fine by me, by the way. I can’t do any better and I’d be critical of anyone who demands that Tony “reconsider” his position because it breaks with church tradition and can’t carry a heavy “burden of proof.”
    The Christian faith is characterized by paradox. Jesus was fully man and fully human. God is both one person and three persons. God is omniscient but humans have free will, etc. Maybe the resurrection event is paradoxical as well. Jesus physically rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. How that squares with biology is just a mystery and doesn’t require that we believe he continues to occupy a physical body in some physical place.
    Great post. I’ve enjoyed the conversation.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

    The tough questions that Christians wrestle with such as this one (or the problem of evil or the problem of divine hiddenness) fall away if you drop the God presupposition.

    I’m just sayin’.

  • Richy Smith

    All I can say is that “I SAW THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR SEVERAL MINUTES AND WAS ABSENT FROM THE BODY AND WITH HIM”. I saw the Lord Jesus FACE to FACE (facing worldly death as we know it) for several minutes (22 minutes). This was THE MOST traumatic yet life changing day of my life here as I know it. The Lord and his Holy Spirit had TOTAL control over me during this 22 minute time period and I was helpless under his control (I was judged for my past sins and life and felt his mighty wrath for those 22 minutes and I am here to tell about it praise God). GOD is in control of everything including WHEN and HOW and IF we will die.

    This incident is for the MATURE TRUE FOLLOWER AND BELIEVERS (and or ANY doubting Thomas’s or Atheists)!!!

    ALL EYES NEED TO READ THIS AND THEN THEY WILL AT LEAST “read” the TRUTH.

    I have the utmost confidence in telling you all this because GOD through his one and only son JESUS kept me here on earth to tell you/or anyone who will listen that he is REAL and ALIVE and his WORD IS TRUTH. During this entire 22 minute traumatic incident, I SAW & FELT felt JESUS’s MIGHTY HOLY SPIRIT descend down onto and the into me. FROM HEAD TO TOE and raised me to life as YOU ALL now it today. I am truly one of the witnesses and FEAR OUR GOD LIKE NO OTHER! I am praying know and feel his MIGHTY LOVE AT THIS POINT!

    I am far from crazy but some will say that. I am the quite the opposite. I only speak TRUTH and the words of MY FATHER. I was raised from the dead and JESUS HIMSELF AND HIS HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED DOWN INTO ME and filled me with the Holy Spirit that words cannot describe. Many promises are in the bible for his children and followers. I ask and receive in JESUS NAME each and every one of those promises in the bible that is due to a true child of GOD which without doubt, I AM! I pray to a GOD THAT ALWAYS HEARS, and NEVER BREAKS A PROMISE AMEN! Listen2RichyPeriod!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X