62 of 75 people found the following review helpful
Heaven is for Real- a review by a skeptic,
This review is from: Heaven is for Real Movie Edition: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back (Kindle Edition)
I'm generally pretty skeptical of "I went to heaven but came back and now I'm going to tell you all about it" kinds of books. I just think there are some things... ok, a lot of things, that God leaves as mysteries for us. I have to say, though, that Heaven is for Real is very compelling- it feels true. I read it cover to cover in less than 24 hours.
I know we can't base everything on feelings, especially with our faith, but let me tell you a few reasons why Heaven is for Real made me a believer-
1. The experience happened to an innocent, untainted child and his admissions seem to have come about very naturally, not coerced.
2. From what I can tell (except for MAYBE where he said the nail holes were on Jesus' hands instead of his wrists) everything lines up with scripture.
3. The reserve his parents had for many years in even sharing Colton's story and the way they went about it causes me to believe that they genuinely wanted to share something life changing that happened in their family with others to offer hope and ultimately to point people back to Jesus as the only way.
Beyond the cold, hard reasons why I feel this book is most likely not fabricated, I also have some gut reactions to the words in its pages. Just like Colton's mother, I too have lost a child to miscarriage and the thought of him being up there, with my great grandmother no less, and being adopted by God, it strikes a big cord with me. When I lost my Micah I very distinctly had the feeling that he went to be with Jesus when I released him to go be well. I had the overwhelming impression in my soul that he would be "raised" by God himself and even his name, which came to me out of the blue late one night, means "Resembles God" which I figured he would if he was being raised by the almighty Himself. So, the stories in this book lined up with and confirmed for me some very personal experiences and standpoints, to top it all off.
To go beyond just the original book, though, I have the movie version that contains interviews and pictures from the set as well as an updated interview with Colton. I always prefer to read a book before I see a movie anyway, but I liked that this version gave me a little more insight into the movie as well, which I appreciated. I must say that I had hoped to hear more life changing testimonies out of the actors and others involved, but I'm glad that at least seeds have been planted in them through their participation in the making of this film.
I enjoyed this book immensely, highly recommend it and also believe that it will probably cause you to want to see the movie as much as I now do. More than seeing a feature film, however, this book strikes a new excitement and anticipation for heaven and that is always a good thing.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 16 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 18, 2014 8:51:48 PM PDT
Where in scripture does it say that the nail holes were in Jesus' wrists? You may be surprised when you see him. ; )
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2014 11:48:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2014 11:51:44 PM PDT
This claim comes from the medical sciences which state that the tendons and ligaments in the hands and feet are NOT strong enough to support the mass/weight of a person's body under the force of earth's gravity... LOL -- For the person to be supported like this, the authorities would typically put the nails in the WRISTS and ANKLES -- Google it, if you will - to confirm: Put the following words into Google -with no quote marks or anything:
medical tendons ligaments nails jesus hands wrists
(Or, google this phrase: "Was Jesus nailed to the cross by the hands or by the wrists?" for a good 'con' argument against my claims - to be fair, I'm including it -and it claims that the wrists could not have been used as that would have broken a bone, and violated Scripture that says no bone would be broken.)
The Greek word rendered 'hand' in the KJV, includes the wrist, if I am recall correctly.
-- Also, I thank the original commenter - I had noticed this possibly inconsistency, but had forgotten about it.
Gordon Wayne Watts
Lakeland, between Tampa & Orlando, Fla.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2014 11:17:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2014 9:29:13 PM PDT
Thanks for your interest, but my question referred to MacKenzie's statement: "From what I can tell (except for MAYBE where he said the nail holes were on Jesus' hands instead of his wrists) everything lines up with scripture." So the issue concerns what scripture says, not medical science. Essentially, MacKenzie said that it is unscriptural to say that the nails were in Jesus' hands, and therefore Colton's account doesn't line up with scripture ("MAYBE"). I take issue with that statement. There is no "maybe" about it.
BTW, the Greek word for "hand" is "cheir." The Greek for "wrist" is "karpos." Karpos doesn't appear in the NT.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2014 1:04:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2014 1:04:39 PM PDT
Ah, you're right - I see the question was about her claims regarding Scripture, not science - my bad. But, in any case, this is still difficult for me to figure out: I see both science and Scripture as giving both sides of the argument good and compelling evidence and testimony.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2014 9:28:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2014 9:32:18 PM PDT
Gordon, good for you in struggling to understand both sides. That's what a thinking person does! Now the question is: do science and Scripture contradict each other here? (meaning the entire account, not just the location of Jesus' wounds)
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2014 11:29:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 27, 2014 11:30:57 AM PDT
Scripture occasionally has typos, but the original manuscripts are not in error, and the science will always line of with Scripture. Yes, even the KJV, which does have a few minor typos, is so accurate it in mind-boggling... Even the KJV has errors (2 Samuel 15:7: It COULDN'T have been 40 years -why even the full tenure of David was 40, so, starting later, it had to've been less) -and Ezekiel 39:2 ('sixth' is not in the original text -and no scholars of note disagree with this), -- also: John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law. -- ALSO: Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents...however, of all the versions, it is the most reliable: VERY accurate - science WILL agree with God, because God is supreme!
In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2014 9:35:48 AM PDT
M. Schraps says:
Would not have GOD made sure his Son's hands would suffice?
Think about THAT one!
In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2014 3:14:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 5, 2014 3:19:23 PM PDT
[[Re: "M. Schraps says:
Would not have GOD made sure his Son's hands would suffice?
Think about THAT one!"]] --- With all due respect: that is not necessarily good logic!
We *could* have just as easily said: 'would God not have made sure His Son could live in a human body without having to sleep?,' .... riiiight?? (But Matthew 8:24 and Mark 4:38 say differently!)
My point? While I admit that I don't know for sure whether Jesus' hands were strong enough to support his body-weight without having to resort to nailing His wrists, it is moot: Jesus lived in a human body[[**]], and if the human body's hands are physiologically not strong enough to support the weight of the body with those tendons and ligaments, then Jesus probably didn't use that method: We must NOT assume that there was a miracle involved here (but rather that God followed the natural laws). (Many times, God uses the natural laws: He created BOTH the supernatural AND the natural, didn't He? If not, then Jesus would have never had any need to sleep, but history tells us differently.)
[[**]] Jesus was 100% God, but He was also 100% man!!
In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2014 5:43:29 PM PDT
M. Schraps says:
point made and taken being a fan of reason and common sense,although with those thoughts in mind since the scrolls were found and translated to what we read now all have a common thread.
point? everything points to and depicts a block to nail feet which might reasonably offset a body's weight from tearing hand.perhaps even the barbaric Romans found this out the hard way - who knows?
common sense dictates a block could have in fact made what is written both possible and reasonable.just a common observation.
no mystique involved any more than any miracle Not happening
Posted on Jun 16, 2014 2:50:55 PM PDT
Just take a look at Therese Neumann's stigmata. They were in her hands and not her wrists.