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
Nobody knows the answer to that. Not written. All we know is that marriage goes away
Try reading the article, Fren?🤔
Marriage remains. Read your Bible.😃
Jesus answered that . Read your bible
https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/passage/?q=luke+20:27-38
Why would I read the article when Jesus clearly said no marriage in heaven?
https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/passage/?q=luke+20:27-38
You'd better read that again, Fren.😃
What Jesus actually says *clearly* in the Scripture you reference is this:
"...those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage..."
Jesus is not careless about the *verb tenses and moods* he uses when he speaks. The phrase "neither marry nor be given in marriage" clearly and precisely means there will be *no more weddings*.
And why is that?
Because *the ultimate marriage*, the marriage that all human marriages point to (Ephesians 5:25-33) will at that point in history have already taken place.
The entire state of everyone and everything in heaven is "Married:"
"You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the Lord delights in you,
and your land shall be married."
- Isaiah 62:4
I look forward to reading. Hard to square with the “there will be no marriage” in heaven quote from the Bible.
Interesting take. Disputable but not a central tenet of chrisitianity, so this article with worthy of discussion and for all we can know it’s true…or false…
I like the idea of concretely thinking about heaven. Have you read “All Things New” by John Eldredge? https://www.audible.com/pd/All-Things-New-Audiobook/B072C3KN1S?action_code=ASSGB149080119000H&share_location=pdp
I truly appreciate your reading and interacting with me on the topic.🙏🏻😁💜😆👍 Thanks so much. One day I hope to give this topic a less populist, more scholarly treatment. I think there is a considerable depth of exegesis yet to be done that supports this view.
Thank you also for the book reference, it's one I have not yet encountered. I will devour it with considerable glee! You see, the New Heavens and New Earth have been a persistent, recurring topic of my thinking for more than half of my life.
I'll recommend two lovely books for your consideration, both bearing the same title; "Heaven."
One by Randy Alcorn, and one by Joni Earekson Tada (sp?).
I went through the entire series of posts. I can’t say I disagree with anything. The eternal church service in the sky view is not supported by the Bible.
To highly accurately quote Jesus in revelation: “Behold! I am making all things new.” And “like really, no fooling, write it down man!” — It is almost too wild to consider. And hence many don’t.
The sex thing kinda threw me for a loop. The base nature finds it impossible because if sex were an option, who would do anything else. But that is thinking from an earthly perspective. In a world where one can’t want what is wrong, surely there’d be reason to do more than that (as hard as that is to contemplate). And I agree with the malum prohibitum vs. malum in se analysis. Not that the existence of a logical internally consistent set of facts proves them to be true but it does demand an argument to the contrary…an argument that explains the absence of something good…
I’ve read the chronicles of Narnia series to my girls about two dozen times. Your posts remind me of what Lewis was trying to teach us about heaven throughout the series, especially book 7.
Thx for the book recommendations. I picked up both, the newer version of the Joni book from 2018…hopefully it’s true to the 1990’s version…
I'll have to check out her latest version, thanks for mentioning it.🙏🏻😁
My friend, I profoundly appreciate your kind words and your investment of time reading me.🙏🏻😁 I pray it's been profitable for you, and that you'll now look forward to that truest of true "new ages" with ever-growing anticipation.😆
In our eternal lives, we will finally come into the perfect balance of the humanity God has designed for us. I, for one, can't wait.😃 I'm looking forward to glorifying Jesus / God as I am privileged to fully experience and enjoy his magnificent creation to the fullest.🙏🏻😁🫂💖💜😆👍💯🚀
It makes coming in to the hospital at 9 pm on a Sunday easier to bear when I keep the eternal in mind. Like right now…
Pardon my levity, but you just reminded me of this meme 😂
Brother, your levity is always welcome here.🙏🏻😁🫂💖💜😆👍💯
I do appreciate this "different take" on sex in heaven. I have always thought that we oversimplify Jesus remarks on no marriage or giving of marriage. In context he was addressing a hypothetical question about a woman who had multiple husbands that died before she did. I agree that we will have even deeper relationships with our spouse(s) in the kingdom of heaven than we have in this world. However, I think you seem to almost present heaven as one giant orgy? I know that is not your real purpose, but it could be read that way, and I think that is missing the mark, figuratively and literally. I think the idea is that we will be the bride of Christ. Yes we will have unimaginable intimacy with God and each other, but it cannot be reduced to even remotely like the romantic act of sexual intercourse, as beautiful and good as that is in the bond of mortal marriage. Will there be procreation in heaven or in our redeemed state? That is I think an interesting question that is hard to answer with scripture. I like what C.S. Lewis said on the topic:
"The letter and spirit of scripture, and of all Christianity, forbid us to suppose that life in the New Creation will be a sexual life; and this reduces our imagination to the withering alternatives either of bodies which are hardly recognizable as human bodies at all or else of a perpetual fast. As regards to the fast, I think our present outlook might be like that of a small boy who, on being told that the sexual act was the highest bodily pleasure, should immediately ask whether you ate chocolates at the same time. On receiving the answer ‘No,’ he might regard [the] absence of chocolates as the chief characteristic of sexuality. In vain would you tell him that the reason why lovers in their raptures don’t bother about chocolates is that they have something better to think of. The boy knows chocolate: he does not know the positive thing that excludes it. We are in the same position. We know the sexual life; we do not know, except in glimpses, the other thing which, in Heaven, will leave no room for it.”
Thanks for your very thoughtful interaction.🙏🏻😁
Though I appreciate Lewis's brilliance and writings generally, I think he is wrong on this point. "The very letter and spirit of scripture" uniformly celebrate sexuality in its proper context, and that context is bounded by the constraints of the present age. In the Hebrew cultural thinking of the authors of Scripture--including the founders of Christianity--the absence of marital relations in any possible future life would have been unthinkable.
Could my presentation here be misconstrued as some sort of perpetual orgy? Certainly--likely by those with a high time preference--but you are correct about that not at all being my intent. While Lewis's analogy is one of the best attempts ever at defending what has become the "traditional" view, I think it, too, is subject to the same criticism Jesus leveled at the Sadducees.
The core of the "traditional" view is based on the passage repeatedly cited by nostr:npub1x0r5gflnk2mn6h3c70nvnywpy2j46gzqwg6k7uw6fxswyz0md9qqnhshtn , which appears in all three synoptic gospels. We need to recognize what Jesus was berating the Sadducees for in that encounter; they had elevated their own anti-human, Gnostic-like, anti-resurrection tradition above what scripture *actually says* on the topic.
“Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God?" - Mark 12:24
The Sadducees imposed their own legalist, materialist framework on their reading of Scripture. They viewed Torah as eternally binding, rather than as a contingency plan tailored and adapted to a temporal, fallen world.
The whole of Scripture is always greater than the mere sum of its parts, and every detail matters. And while I don't deny that there may be pleasures in the Glory that transcend those sexual, and as much as I enjoy the physical intimacy of marriage, I also still enjoy chocolate.😃
Yeah....Christianity is really being destroyed by the world because nobody reads the bible and puts God in their own image
I appreciate your original thinking, nostr:npub1cxp3l03x20mkzezzr4takm8w8zuva7xwvacmcewp97z58hjt8xls3mexlq, and I once also came up with this interpretation and shared it with another young Christian who seemed to agree, but I have since come to see it differently.
In context, the Saduccees had asked Jesus about whose wife this woman who had been married to seven different brothers would be in the resurrection:
> In the resurrection, then, whose wife will she be of the seven? For they all had married her.” Jesus answered them, “You are mistaken, because you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.
Matthew 22:28–30 (CSB)
Under your view, I would think Jesus would have said that all of the brothers would be married to her (assuming they all make it to the new world), am I right? Instead, Jesus' answer seems to imply that she wouldn't be married to any of the brothers because there won't be any marriage (perhaps other than that of Christ and His Bride, the Church). And if there is no marriage between the children of the resurrection, I can't imagine there would be fornication or adultery among them either!
Saying that the children of the resurrection will be like the angels of God is interesting and mysterious. I remember in the movie Dogma an angel there was portrayed as having no genitalia. I would think we humans would retain our sex and presumably our organs thereto, but I also note that the Bible always appears to portray angels as looking exclusively like men (and they also don't have wings or look like fat little babies). And they are called the "Sons of God". If there are no female angels there is probably no means or need for angels to reproduce. And they certainly wouldn't be engaged in a big homosexual orgy in heaven!
Anyway, just adding my thoughts to the discussion.
> However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love Him”
1 Corinthians 2:9 (NIV)
revelation 19
"10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.”"
the nature of angels has been hidden from the bible that was compiled by the catholic church... they even burned all copies of the book of enoch they could get their hands on because the book of enoch extensively describes the interbreeding of the fallen angels and "mortal" humans - and you can also see in the qur'an that there seems to be a story surrounding jesus that seems like an artificial insemination specifically by one angel known as gabriel
Well, the Book of Enoch wasn't even written by the real Enoch, otherwise it would be the oldest book in the Bible even older than the Book of Job or Genesis. So that makes it dubious even before you consider anything else that it has to say. And as for the Qur'an, well, it's the Qur'an, so...
when mohammed was around, there was plenty of other books still circulating that the catholics hadn't eradicated yet, there wasn't even an eastern branch of the church at that time
the text was found in dozens of copies in the dead sea scrolls and first reappeared in the 19th century as the ethiopian orthodox church retained it and it was part of their canon
the "trustworthy" modern scholars try to assert that by the dating of the physical scrolls that the book of enoch could not be older than around 2500 years, which was around the same time as daniel and the height of the babylonian empire but it extensively refers to and tells other versions of stuff that you find all through the first 5 books, it has the crossing of the red sea, the back story relating to noah and the great flood, and a big part of the text is specifically addressed to teaching his son methuselah
just read it before you start expressing other people's opinions about it, it's a really interesting read
I should give it a read, if only because it is quoted in the New Testament. That might mean that there was once a genuine Book of Enoch by the real Enoch, although I'm skeptical. I think that the New Testament authors may have been quoting from a pseudepigraphal book.
i think that it has been a deliberate erasure of history that people "never had writing" before the days of the babylonian empire - yes that is literally the canon of the modern science/archaeology/etc isn't it?
and yet we are supposed to believe that the first kind of writing involved the use of base 60 numbers... right... when almost all primitive counting systems are based on 10 or 12, because of the number of fingers on our hands... and that before that it was all ideographs like the egyptian
and yet according to all the texts that refer to this time the concept of books and words seems to be extensively referred to as though these were relatively well understood concepts
the empires of satan's offspring have been hiding this from us plebs for thousands of years, they deliberately burn the books on a regular basis to stop us advancing enough to learn what they are doing to us
also "pseudoepigraphical" is a pretty absurd concept
according to the narrative at the age of 12 jesus was taken into studying by scholars and priests and very likely had read ALL of the important books that were available at the time, and he extensively repeats proverbs and expressions from book of enoch... one of the most famous ones "the meek shall inherit the earth" is from enoch originally, and it's proven, according to the "scholars" to have been written at least 500 years before the time of jesus
How do you know that Jesus wasn't quoting Psalm 37:11, written by David some 1,000 years before His time?
how do you know David wasn't quoting Enoch?
Since I haven't yet read Enoch, according to Google: "The oldest part of the Book of Enoch is the Apocalypse of Weeks, which is thought to have been written around 167 BC, shortly before the Maccabean uprising. The Book of the Watchers, which contains fragments found in the Qumran caves, is thought to date back to 200–150 BC."
So that's at least several centuries after David.
yes, and we are certain about david's text age too, right? because it has corroborating old documents, i'm guessing, and being the king, of course his story got protected, while the opponents didn't
this is how the message gets mangled and this is why it is absolute BULLSHIT that anyone tells you that the bible is authoritative because it's been a propaganda product of the catholic church for over 1600 years
I guess there comes a point where I just have to trust that "God’s divine power has given us everything we need for life and for godliness" (2 Peter 1:3). Even in regards to which books made it into the accepted canon of Scripture, as well as those left out.
can't think where they appear off the top of my head but i'm pretty sure there is words about how things will be revealed when the time is right... this could be pointed to in the form of the entire apocrypha and pseudoepigraphy - which was lost but really was just hidden from the devil until the time was ready to launch the great reckoning
they have come to light because it is time, they are a sign that it is time, the time is very very close
Maranatha
So you reject God's word? Just because Enoch is Apocrypha does not mean that there is not some truth in it since it was used in the New Testament.
I personally take statement quoted by Jude from Enoch as true, but I don't think that necessarily means he automatically endorsed everything that was written in that book.
> Jude 14–15 (CSB): “Look! The Lord comes with tens of thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly concerning all the ungodly acts that they have done in an ungodly way, and concerning all the harsh things ungodly sinners have said against him.”
God's word is personal and private, the bible is one public compilation of a myriad of documents about wisdom and prescience that has been given to us, one with a provably distorted selection criteria and not just excluded but outright purged elements that survived in far flung reaches beyond the control of the roman catholic agents
i think that there is among the writings of many others from many other places that constitute divinely inspired, and you can compare them to each other to find the connections, like vishnu purana, like corpus hermeticum, like the tao te ching and the writings of chuang tzu, like plato, socrates, there is many who have been inspired to write words that are markers pointing towards God the entire doctrine of The Bible being The Word of God is a catholic/christian doctrine of the churches, not something that is actually even written in them very many times either, at least not unambiguously, since they are compilations how could they possibly be unambiguously self referential!
How can you know God if you reject his word? No idolatry
you know what the latin word for writing is, right? scripto... to scratch or engrave
there is no substitute for direct connection with the divine, anything concrete is intermediate and thus capable of becoming an idol and a fetish that separates you from your divine nature
the catholics allow statues, the orthodox allow icons, the muslims allow The Book and the black cube at the end of the Hajj, the jews have their candelabra and their torah
bruce lee sums up the meaning of "thou shalt have no god before me" and "don't worship graven images" in his monologue about the finger pointing to the moon
if that means you think i am a heretic, that is sad for you
it means i think of you and most religious people as idolators too, it is in the animal nature of humans to worship and follow leaders and codes and identify with collectives, all i can do is just point that out, and i only am going to do it once
You are right. Catholic church was infiltrated by Jews and Jesuits in the early days and fell to identity politics now. There is not Good Church now. They all do non-biblical things. I go by the Bible only.
many good christians are this way nowadays with how utterly brazenly obedient the orthodoxy has been to the plainly evil corruption of pharma, media, intelligence and government
my mother stopped going to church 25 years ago because of it, and she developed a phobia towards reading religious texts and the bible as well as a result, she mostly concerns herself with her daily life and meditating upon it
whatever method you use to find your own connection is a good thing that's why i don't mean it as a slur when i point out that one collection of writings and other writings that were not included does not intrinsically make them incompatible with the Word of God
i personally couldn't read Daniel after i got to the part where it was clear daniel arranged nebuchanezzar's assassination however, that really disturbed me, as did the mention of the watchers
Nebuchadnezzar's assassination? Where is that from, the Book of Enoch? I've never heard of that.
lol, it's before, i dunno... man, really, you need to read the first part up until the death of nebuchanezzar again, obviously
oof with my mind alert to the toxicity of the vegan cult of today it raised my hackles in so many places that when i got to the death of nebuchanezzar i was done, it was like watching leviathan kill behemoth, an orgy of evil
What are you smoking, my friend? 😄
j/k!
lol, haven't smoked anything since like july last year, would be nice for my cramp condition...
seriously though, you gotta try reading it in the context of understanding the machinations of politics
i hated nebuchanezzar, and i actually hated daniel even more because he was even more conniving and tricky, not just plain narcissistic and inhuman
btw, i managed to chase away that problem and ironically the UHT milk that helped me mostly make it go away, was keeping it happening
literally 3 days now no UHT milk and no cramps either now
and i should add, about 5 months since seed oils, and i've resumed some carbs now but very little, a little bread... anyway, point is it seems very clear that the UHT milk and the seed oils and excess carbs were the multiplicity of factors causing the cramps
and i'd been smoking weed for years to keep that away
years.
I believe you mean Belshazzar, not Nebuchadnezzar?
In chapter 5, Daniel revealed that Belshazzar would be murdered when he (with God's help) translated the handwriting on the wall...
There is zero evidence in the text that Daniel was complicit in the murder.
you know of the concept of "subtext" right? also of the idea of "getting the reader to have sympathy with the character"? neither happened for me, i was sus on him from the get go and especially because watchers told him things, like he was being handed the keys to the kingdom by those who decide
for me "watchers" is a red flag word because it almost never appears in the bible meaning good angels, almost always fallen ones
Probably due to my very high view of Scripture, I perceive Daniel to be an honorable man. Consider, for instance, how he refused to compromise his principles to the point of being thrown into a den of hungry lions...😳
That takes considerable moral backbone, something I seriously doubt a murderer posesses.🤔
i will have to try and read it again... if i muddled those identities that may change my view of it
Thanks for articulating your perspective. Mine is considerably more aligned with the traditional canon, though somewhat informed by other sources, but I respect yours.🙏🏻😄👍
Thanks for entering the discussion, Brother!🙏🏻😁 I appreciate your participation.
Since you have appealed to Jesus' observation here about angels, I have a few questions for you about them.🤔❓
Do you know that angel is a Greek word, not English? Please read this:
https://peakd.com/life/@creatr/the-curmudgeon-s-bible-the-word-angel
Before reading, did you know there were *at least* three kinds?
Where did the artistic notion of "genderless angels" come from; Scripture, or human tradition?
If you think the idea is scriptural, can you cite the Scriptures it comes from? And if angels are *only* men, does that mean Christians all become men in heaven?
Genesis six seems to indicate that the heavenly beings called "Sons of God" are quite capable of copulating with humans and bringing forth progeny...
Why would you consider gender to be the particular angel characteristic Jesus was alluding to, and not rather, for example, immortality, or four faces, or wings? All of which Scripture actually does describe certain celestial beings as having?
You've said "Jesus' answer seems to imply that she wouldn't be married to any," but wouldn't it be just as likely to imply that theSadducee's "only one husband in the resurrection" assumption was faulty?
In Scripture, are men with multiple wives ever called fornicators or adulterers within the boundary of their marriages?
I'm just pointing out that most of the ideas you mention seem to be more traditional than biblical or cultural.
By the way, why do people always quote 1 Corinthians 2:9 without the very next verse? Oh, maybe because verse 10 says:
"...these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit."🤣
Seriously, I very much appreciate your reading my story, and hope you might find the opportunity to read and comment on the rest of the series.🙏🏻😁🫂💜😆
Hi Brother, I did read your article about the different kinds of "angels" and it's good, thanks for sharing! I'm glad it didn't consist of you saying that cherubim and seraphim are also angels...
The notion of "genderless angels", artistic or otherwise likely comes from the fact that
> Scripture universally refers to angels with male names (Luke 1:19, 26; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7) and with male pronouns (Daniel 9:21-22). When they appear, they are referred to as men. Compare Genesis 18:2, 16, 22 to Genesis 19:1. Also, Luke 24:4, 23 refers to two angels as men.
>
> No angels are referred to as women or with feminine names. There are no angels appearing as females in the Bible. This means that we should not understand these two women in Zechariah 5:9 to be female angels. It would be inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. By the way, it is doubtful that there are actually biological male angels." [(Source:](https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/are-the-two-women-in-zechariah-59-angels/)
I don't think Christians will all become men in the resurrection (despite what the Gospel of Thomas says 🙄); we will likely retain some recognizable correspondence with our previously mortal body, although it may strangely not appear quite the same, judging by the way Jesus was received after His resurrection. And of course Jesus' resurrected body could do things like appear and disappear. My point is our resurrected bodies will be somewhat different, and perhaps might even lack unnecessary organs or even those that led to so much trouble in a past life 😅
As to Genesis 6, I'm more inclined to the interpretation that "The sons of God could be translated 'the sons of the gods'. Ancient texts attest to an ideology of divine kingship; human kings were called sons of various gods." (Note on Gen. 6:1-4 from Guthrie, Donald, *The New Bible Commentary Revised.* Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1973, p. 87.) I think it refers to the despotic rulers of the time who had cities built for themselves and imitated the lifestyle and cruelty of Lamech. They began to call themselves "sons of the gods" and associated with demonic forces (compare Ezekiel 28:11-15; Daniel 10:13). Jude 6-7 speaks against the interpretation that they were angels. If these "sons of the Elohim" were angels, then humans would then have been punished by the Flood for what angels were guilty of.
I think when Jesus' was asked whose wife would the woman who had seven husbands be in the resurrection Jesus' answer was in essence "none of their wife, since there is no marriage in the resurrection." They would be unmarried, like the angels of God. I think the context rules out Jesus referring to the angels' gender or immortality or number of faces, etc.
Good point on quoting 1 Corinthians 2:10: "...these are the things God has revealed to us by His Spirit," though I don't believe the context is referring to sex in heaven as one of them 😄
Hi again, Bro!
I really, really appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response! It is good to know what underpins your thinking, and I'm more than glad to see that there's a lot of Scripture there. Believe me, I will be reading up on the passages you've shared and giving them some serious thought!🙏🏻😀🫂😆
Yah, not morning any more... so, Good Evening?😁 You might have missed this...😜🫂😆
Last call on Sunday... nearing midnight here.😃
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.
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
"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").
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
"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?
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?
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)."
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.
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.😃🚀😄💜🫂💖😆👍
