If You - How Recognize The Resurrection Of The Soul

[locusts]

if the soul goes to heaven ?????

These four people /returns to life /

represent people who had died


Jesus have been dead for three days and was resurrect //
to life as a spirit..
he did not go to heaven //straight away-
it was 40 days later he arrived in heaven

John 20- 17 where the go --??????????

1 Lazarus has been / death //for four days /and then-
resurrected to life ?
John -11 . 21--26 No comment about heaven

2 little girl of 12 was resurrected from the death.
A possibility/death / for two day's
Mark 5-41 - Luke 8 -- 51 No comment about heaven

3---- a young man // in his early 20 //death// approximately two day's
and return from the death. to life
Luke 7 -10 No comment about heaven


4 -/ Peter resurrected Tabitha from death
acts 9—39 No comment about heave
All these people who had died...
And the church say we all go to heaven.

With a great experience of see their Creator or god

Matthew 10:28) And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul
; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge·hen′na
( pit grave sheol back to the dust)

Acts 3:23) Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.

who will be resurrected

[locusts]

LazyGun
@locusts - you said this
"lI have watched many videos on Darwin and his theories of evolution

but that has not convince me // and in fact some of the things
he said // was rubbish//"






Richard Dawkins is always talking about the creation.





"and his argument is that the earth is a lot older and sixth as in years.

Then he asked you do you believe it // and normally// you .// uses say . yes.

Why // this is a normal reaction


we don't stop// and think in the way we are talking - of the planet earth // problem //. this is in the way we are talking.

we need to think // about what we are saying.

First When analyzing the Scriptures or the Bible // and the way it is talking about the 6000 year. ( one day is thousand years in God s eyes )

the earth itself //
I mean for the birth of the earth from nothing // the void // is more than 45 and 50 billion years old..// As the planet or a star

but this . was a . planet waste

(2) now Genesys talks about the creation of the planet Earth and with heavens ./ / not the cosmos or Milky Way galaxy.s

To the formation of the creation of the planet earth from the waste land

heavens and the earth
forming a wasteland
distinguishing between day and night
separating the two waters the upper waters and the lower waters
lower waters are the great sea.s
and the upper waters (expanse firmament)
plant life // without lights nothing will grow
let the luminaries come // Moon & Sun
and he goes on

let's get down to the creation of man

www. .w. f. libby nodel historical 1960 - Radiocarbon


Genesys chapter two - 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


dust of the ground //so is all the compounds//chemical //of the ground.
All these are in the body.

Now there is something // in portend ingredients missing..

so what is missing

breath of life// this is whot starts s a chain reaction which brings it altogether.

The final ingredients .. and it becomes a living soul
.this is just one explanation ......of the series

[naomi24]

Locusts, so what precisely did Richard Dawkins say that was rubbish?

[LazyGun]

Given the sheer weight of observational evidence from all scientific disciplines, the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) and the age of the earth ( 4.5 billion years), the start of life on earth (3.5 billion years or so ago) and the emergence of the earliest modern ancestors of humanity ( 40,000 years or so) are all pretty uncontroversial and uncontested figures.

To try to deny this wealth of evidence, to reject the science is to embrace delusion. It leaves fundamentalist believers looking silly, trying to reinterpret the genesis myth, inconsistencies and all, as a literal explanation of creation.

If this is why you are claiming that Richard Dawkins speaks "rubbish", then you are simply exhibiting for all the world to see, a blinkered and - I'm sorry to say - a delusional mindset.

Richard Dawkins is not making this stuff up, when he cites these figures - He is just summarising the scientific evidence that is out there.

I know Dawkins is sometimes seen as a polarising figure - some describe him as hectoring, shrill, militant - but on the issue of the science he is just factually correct, based upon the best available evidence to date.

I am trying to think of a suitable analogy to describe this mindset. It is like being a member of the Flat Earth Society, and flatly denying the fact that the Earth is actually a sphere, or maintaining that we live in a geocentric solar system, rather than a heliocentric one.

[locusts]

naomi24
Locusts, so what precisely did Richard Dawkins say that was rubbish?


in this clip is using //manipulating words to win winner is// dispute // cleverly uses words // argument pointshttp://


www.youtube.com/watch?
v=c9fpwCC6bk8Catholic vs Richard Dawkins and Lawrence krauss

Than goes on to say// the woman do you believe // that // the wafer// would turn into the body of Christand reply is no //
normal reaction //or course
not so once again manipulation of words // will calls a confusion in her mind

or what // she is trying to say.

this presents// puts in place / block // symbol / act as / depict/

if you read

Matthew .26 -26 luke 22 19 14-22

Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed[b] and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

The word- my// represents concise english dictionary

( MY ) MY-- belonging to or associated with the speaker or writer ( me) my own ideas / 2 used in various from of address : my lord / 3. an exclamation of surprise.


HE IS VERY CLEVER IN MANIPULATING WORDS // AND HIS CAUSES CONFUSION AS WELL
we all can you s MANIPULATING


he also goes on to say 99 percent is better than 100 percent /than nothing


YES of course // this is true in a sense of scientific research and in biology: research


you can also apply that in the same way to the Bible and we have many illustrations of that with archeologist

older historians as well.

[Mamyalynne]

locusts link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9fpwCC6bk8

[LazyGun]

@Locust - So, you do not like Richard Dawkins because he is - clever?

Like any scientist, he works from observation, hypothesis, experiment. The evidence cited to support a deity is the bible, and the various myths associated with it. Believers often use this evidence as a literal intepretation.

They believe the bible is literally true. So, what Dawkins does is to point out the inconsistencies and errors in the biblical record.

It is simply amazing how often those defending the bible will claim that sceptics are taking it too literally, when they themselves expect us to believe the literal truth of, for example, the creation myth, or Noahs Ark.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is inerrant and literally true, in which case errors and inconsistencies undermine any "truth" you might feel it offers - or it should be interpreted metaphorically, in which case it is, basically, a book of stories - not something that can be used as evidence for god.

Which is it?

[naomi24]

Locusts, you can make all the excuses you like, but telling yourself it’s true doesn’t make it so. In the face of evidential science, religion is shrinking rapidly.

[jake-the-peg]

This idea that the wafer actually physically becomes Christ's body (Transubstantiation) is one of the historical differences between Catholicism and protestantism.

The fact that jesys says this is *my* body doesn't mean anything - Jesus used lots of parables and metaphors and this was almost certainly another one.

There are a number of differences these days between what the Catholic church teaches and what it's followers do or say.

Contraception is one example but this is another.

From the Catholics I've met I think very few actually, really believe that the wafer actually changes to become flesh

[naomi24]

//From the Catholics I've met I think very few actually, really believe that the wafer actually changes to become flesh //

True - but I think a lot of people in the poorer, less educated countries, believe it, just as they believe the use of birth control is a sin - which is without doubt a contributing factor to their poverty.