Nostr Web Client

Good Morning, Frens, and Happy Sunday, my fellow Christians.🙏🏻😁

This is my firecracker article of the week.

https://peakd.com/story/@creatr/whispering-hope-7

You've probably been told there's no sex in heaven. Are you kidding me? Why in heaven's name would God eliminate the highest form of human intimacy that he has ever designed?🤔

Don't forget to comment below, *after* you've read the article. You might also enjoy the rest of the series.😄

#sex #fantasy #theology #Christianity #Bible #heaven

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

Hi Duncan, I'm currently reading *The Unseen Realm* by Michael Heiser and just read this which has some bearing on this discussion (p. 261):

> The text [of Matthew 22:23–33] does not say angels *cannot* have sexual intercourse; it says they *don’t*. The reason ought to be obvious. The context for the statement is the resurrection, which refers either broadly to the afterlife or, more precisely, to the final, renewed global Eden. The point is clear in either option. In the spiritual world, the realm of divine beings, there is no need for procreation. Procreation is part of the embodied world and is necessary to maintain the physical population. In like manner, life in the perfected Edenic world also does not require maintaining the human species by having children—*everyone has an immortal resurrection body.* Consequently, there is no need for sex in the resurrection, just as there is no need for it in the nonhuman spiritual realm.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

if you lived for 900 years you probably wouldn't have sex very much anyway

the life beyond being reborn into a "heavenly body" (i interpret this as having one's field purified and all causes of disease removed and maximum genetic capacity enabled) will include sex, but it is not going to be frequent because with such a long lifespan, reproduction is not as pressing a need

read through Genesis for the accounts of how long human lives were back in that time... the typical was around 130 years, and some exceptions like Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Adam, Cain, and others was in the range of the 900 years i referred to

angels are humans too, but have learned to fully control their bodies

the fallen ones are the same as the non-fallen, except they use their knowledge to steal the life force of humans who do not understand this

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

"angels are humans too"? They are not sons of Adam. The Bible also says humans are created "a little lower than elohim" (which could be translated as "angels", "God", or even "heavenly beings").

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

no, they are not sons of Adam! I didn't say that, they are, doesn't it say, "sons of man"? which is a generic term for "humans"

elohim means "bright ones" and this refers to the fact that Adam was brown as were most humans outside of the "kingdom of heaven" (ie atlantis)

the irish and celts called them "the tribe of the light ones" Tuatha de Danaan" or "Aes Dana" and the south americans referred to them as "gods" - they taught them how to use cacao, which they called "food of the gods" and the ruling class did this thing with their babies to mimic the elongated head morphology of the "gods" which has been found in many tombs found in south america

they also were the ones who set up the modern pyramids, both egyptian, south american, indonesian and all the ones that have become rubble pyramid shaped mountains in bosnia, serbia, china, and many other places, they built Gobleckli Tepe which was a training ground for the appointed ruling class who were trained by these big headed, tall, pale skinned humans, the fallen angels

anyway, that's just what the research i have been reading seems to indicate, and it all lines up so well with the biblical texts as well, and then even more so when you read apocrypha

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

"son of man", ben adam in Hebrew, could be translated "son of Adam". Interesting stuff.

Would you say Caucasians, not being brown, are "bright ones"/elohim?

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

i think that probably as the despicable, half breed man/angel types that europeans are descended from, probably the genetics of european humans is largely composed of descendants of the "unlawful" breeding with the mostly brown, common humans, practised by the fallen angels, though there is also almost certainly among the early ancestors "approved" interbreedings, and i believe that Eve was in fact an "angel" or at least her mother may have been

the way the family lines read in some versions it sounds like they would have been suffering from inbreeding if it were literally true so i surmise it can't have been literally true, and that probably there was a rule that non-fallen angels were allowed to choose to partner with "sons of adam" and indeed these would then make up some small fraction of the total cross genetics that compose the white (recessive) dominant population of europe

being descended from fallen angels doesn't make you evil, all angels choose also and 1/3rd of them are said to have fallen, and each new person born of this world has many choices to fall, and even to fall and then repent... it's a funny expression, in several places so far in Jasher i'm reading about how the Lord "repented" of having "created" certain people and in Enoch the Head of Days expressed regret at not being more careful in guiding Noah to avoid bringing fallen angels onto the Ark (Jasher's account of the ark is very interesting too, i did not know at one point they almost sank, or that as the rains started the evil people around who poo poohed noah were almost breaking the ark to get in as the rains started)

so, yeah, no... this is not related to nazi fantasies about the Arian nation though that story is a perversion of the original story itself, and indeed the nazis were looking for evidence and information about Atlantis... some woke idiots have tried to paint this whole thread of research as literaly hitler but it's not

and most of us are descended from fallen angels, no matter whether our skin is red, white, black or brown or whatever, the child of rape isn't necessarily a rapist, right?

Duncan Cary Palmer 1y ago

Hi, nostr: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 , I appreciate your note.

I hesitated to respond before I had a chance to check it out in context, but as it turns out that does not change my reply. While my default assumption is to respect Heiser's opinions, I can't go with him here. He starts by questioning the "traditional" assumption that the heart of the issue in this passage from Matthew is sex:

> ““Appeal is usually made to Matthew 22:23–33 in this regard, under the assumption that verse 30 teaches that angels cannot engage in sexual intercourse:”

I'm with him so far. This is *clearly* an *assumption.* But he then immediately follows that with an assumption of his own:

> “The text does not say angels cannot have sexual intercourse; it says they don’t.”

Nowhere in the Matthew text or context does it say anything of the kind; this is pure extrapolation on Heiser's part. He then carries this assumption further, applying an incomplete and unwarranted logic:

> “In like manner, life in the perfected Edenic world also does not require maintaining the human species by having children—everyone has an immortal resurrection body.”

While this is a "true" statement in and of itself (i.e., by the incredible kindness of Jesus our God and King, we WILL have immortal resurrection bodies), and while it is true that "maintaining the human species" would consequently be a given WITHOUT reproduction, it absolutely does not follow that expanding the human population and presence in the universe is uncontemplated or in any way illogical or forbidden.

As I make the case in the fictionalized article I cited to begin this thread, NOWHERE in scripture do we ever find God rescinding the creation mandate for humanity to "be fruitful and multiply and fill *the earth* (Hebrew "eh'-rets" which Paul renders in Greek as "cosmos" in Romans 4:13)."

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

Good response, and I thought you might say that. 😉

It had occurred to me after reading Heiser as well that why would the human population that enters the resurrection simply be maintained rather than expanding? When you look at how vast the universe is, it seems to me that it might be God's intent that we go and fill it, and that probably requires more than those redeemed humans from this life who enter the resurrection.

It just seems odd to contemplate sex without marriage (as a Christian; I know unbelievers and adulterers do it all the time, in this life). Heiser accepts the idea that "the sons of God" in Scripture are angels and that they can and have in the past reproduced with human women, so if that's true, why wouldn't there be sex in the next world?

Thanks for responding and I hope you are well.

Duncan Cary Palmer 1y ago

Hey, Friend!

> "...why would the human population that enters the resurrection simply be maintained rather than expanding?"

Exactly. There is absolutely no logical or biblical reason.

> "When you look at how vast the universe is, it seems to me that it might be God's intent that we go and fill it, and that probably requires more than those redeemed humans from this life who enter the resurrection."

Have you never wondered what we'll be doing for *eternity*?🤔 And, even if the current population of our planet were all redeemed, there are far too few of us! We must expand in order to subdue the rest of the universe.

> "It just seems odd to contemplate sex without marriage (as a Christian)..."

I understand your discomfort; but, have you read my article?😯

Our endless future will NOT be "without marriage!" It will, according to scripture, be WITH and IN the ultimate, complete, *fulfilled* state of marriage... The TRUE marriage that God, from day one, intended all of our earthly marriages to be a model and a foretaste of.

I really appreciate your open and thoughtful discussion. As heirs and followers of King Jesus, our future is blindingly bright in every possible way.😃🚀😄💜🫂💖😆👍