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

[sandyRoe]

In the 40 days between the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven he was putting his affairs in order.

[naomi24]

Locusts, the sons of God were not bad angels. The religious have made that up to explain what they don’t want to, or can't, otherwise explain. Nothing in the bible leads us to believe they were anything other than the sons of God. Why would they be? The bible is all true, isn't it?

[naomi24]

Parkie, //I was hands over eyes fingers in ears for most of my life until experienced healing that could not have come from anywhere else but a Supreme Being.//

A supreme being perhaps – but the bloke in the bible was far from that, so how do you know you have the right one?

[locusts]

nailit

// I hope this show s that bad angel or spirits can materialized in to human flash de materialized out //
Bad spelling aside, what a bat shi* crazy thing to believe. Any proof?



http://www.savetubevideo.com/?v=zIYfw21dEIo

http://www.savetubevideo.com/?v=V7AxVT_X55k
just same of the skeletons of the nephilim

[naomi24]

Locusts, I get the distinct impression that you're ignoring me. Can't think why.

By the way, your links don't work. Could you try again?

[ladybirder]

Links work for me naomi:-)

[naomi24]

Not working for me, Ladybirder. Not to worry. I think these are the videos Locusts was trying to post. Having watched the second (I confess to having given up after a couple of minutes on the first), I’m almost too embarrassed to help him out here.



Hard to believe that anyone takes any of that seriously. I mean, those skeletons! Can't imagine why those astounding discoveries didn't make headlines worldwide!

[naomi24]

Oops. Looks like mine aren't working either. I'll try again.

[naomi24]

[naomi24]

One more try - and if this doesn't work rest assured you aren't missing much.

[naomi24]

This explains it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2007/12/071214-giant-skeleton_2.html

[vetuste_ennemi]

I'm interested in the three days before the resurrection. Do you guys still believe in the harrowing of hell, Sandy?

[LazyGun]

The Skeletons of the Nephalim - That, I think would be a great name for a rock band.

I know there have been suggestions of finds of "giant" skeletons - Is this to what locusts refers? ( Like Naomi, I could not get the offered u-tube links to work - kept inviting me to watch u-tube with Katie Perry or somesuch) If so, all I do know is that such finds have been rebutted quite extensively - essentially the pictures were faked or something?

Regardless - genuine finds of giant human-like skeletons would be massive news in paleontology and archeology circles, but you see nothing, so I would not place any faith in a couple of videos.

I tend to rely on Naomi for a sort of reinterpretation - what are these giant skeletons supposed to be proving, in locusts mind, anyway?

[naomi24]

LG, they’re supposed to be proving the biblical claim that ‘There were giants in the Earth in those days.” Locusts explanation for the presence of these giants is another matter entirely though.

Just a thought ……if you click here …….

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2007/12/071214-giant-skeleton_2.html

… and compare the size of the skeleton in the picture to the size of the men carrying out the excavation you have to wonder how this creature could possibly have physically mated and produced children with human women – but perhaps that’s something else that hasn’t occurred to Locusts. Ouch! Eye watering!! ;o)

[LazyGun]

Thanks for the explanation Naomi, and the photo link - As you say, eye-watering :)

And, was he buried with a xylophone? Perhaps a godly rock band was not so far off after all, although you have to question how much rock n roll in the soul if his instrument was a xylophone :)

[naomi24]

LG, I'm tempted to give you a rendering of 'Dem Dry Bones', but it's hardly rock 'n roll! :o)

[locusts]

naomi24 / Locusts, I get the distinct impression that you're ignoring me. Can't think why. By the way, your links don't work. Could you try again?


Sorry if you think I'm trying to ignore you that is not true is just / I'm busy at this time trying to do things

but you were right about those skeletons they were a hoax//

looking into the much more thoroughly I reject my information I have found this --- was much more interesting

Ahttp://firstlegend.info/nephilimoggilgal.htmlfound http://firstlegend.info/nephilimoggilgal.htm

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//

in the same way you think I talk about bible // rubbish

YouTube // in one of the programs with Darwin and the Bishop of Australia

the Bishop completely let his side down on creation in the way // he said about creation //
to me this was talking //complete // low-d of rubbish.

Because in revelations 22 -17--18--19

the Bible is the authority and not man

[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//"

What things do you think that he said that were rubbish? Can you offer us some examples?

And your link " firstlegend nephalim" does not work for me.

There are documented instances of forged pictures and dodgy evidence when it comes to these giant skeletons. Were they genuine, they would be at the top of the list for paleontologists and archeologists etc - The fact that they are not suggests these skeletons are faked. Does that not give you pause for thought, or do you just reject the evidence of fakery?

[Stargazer]

There is a difference between the soul and the spirit. Every living human being has a soul which is what makes them a living being. The spirit is dormant until it is reborn (the term born again) by the spirit of the Living God. This is how a born again soul is able to know that God is true and that Jesus came to earth for a period of time and when He left He promised his followers that He would send His Spirit to be with them always. It is not something that can be proved by argument. It is by faith we have been saved and that, not of ourselves, it is the gift of God lest any man should boast.

[LazyGun]

@Stargazer - It is this kind of answer that I find exasperating.

You assert as fact,as truth,-"that every living human has a soul which makes them a human being", -but you present no evidence, no corroboration in support of this notion. This is actually not established fact except in the minds of the faithful and the teachings of various churches - This is only your belief, powered by your faith. To present it as factual, as a foregone conclusion, is simply wrong.

You then go on to talk about a distinction between " a soul" and " a spirit" - with the spirit, as best I can tell, as being a kind of divine jump charge from god.

There are several problems with this - Again, you assert the presences of a spirit without any proof or evidence. You assert a divine cause to spirit and soul - god - without any corroborating evidence. I am intrigued though, because I am still confused about the relative functions of these hypothetical entities, the spirit and the soul? Are they separate, do they merge?

I really have no problem if you want to believe this kind of thing, but you cannot assert such things as proven fact, or as a kind of common-sense Truth. It is your belief, your supposition only.

In the absence of even the remotest form of actual evidence for a divine entity, humanity should take all the credit for human development.