Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What did Jesus mean by this? What scriptures was he referring to? Does this mean that the Angels don't get married? Then how did Angels evolve?
Angels are different types of created beings. They didn't evolve--they were created as they are now. They don't marry, they don't procreate. They are not human beings.
Jesus was saying that in Heaven, we won't be married. We get married on earth, but the marriage is not binding past death.
Still ... Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of god". So he was clearly stating that if you DO know the scriptures, you'd know that people aren't married in heaven without him having to point it out.
I am not sure what scripture he was referring to, however. It would have to be in the OT.
By the way in this passage Jesus says AT THE RESURRECTION you'll be LIKE THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN so he's not really saying people aren't married in heaven; only that angels aren't. Everything here hinges on your eschatology -- and what "at the resurrection" means. Maybe it's synonymous with eternity in heaven, maybe it's not. It's also tangled up in whether or not one believes in so-called "soul sleep": is Aunt Martha enjoying heaven right now, or "asleep" and awaiting the resurrection? Is this resurrection followed by the thousand-year earthly reign of Christ, or the new heaven and new earth?
This kind of doctrinal tangle is one reason I'm glad I have no skin in this game anymore.
Still ... Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of god". So he was clearly stating that if you DO know the scriptures, you'd know that people aren't married in heaven without him having to point it out.
I am not sure what scripture he was referring to, however. It would have to be in the OT.
By the way in this passage Jesus says AT THE RESURRECTION you'll be LIKE THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN so he's not really saying people aren't married in heaven; only that angels aren't. Everything here hinges on your eschatology -- and what "at the resurrection" means. Maybe it's synonymous with eternity in heaven, maybe it's not. It's also tangled up in whether or not one believes in so-called "soul sleep": is Aunt Martha enjoying heaven right now, or "asleep" and awaiting the resurrection? Is this resurrection followed by the thousand-year earthly reign of Christ, or the new heaven and new earth?
This kind of doctrinal tangle is one reason I'm glad I have no skin in this game anymore.
Could be "scriptures" that are lost or no longer in use.
Angels are different types of created beings. They didn't evolve--they were created as they are now. They don't marry, they don't procreate. They are not human beings.
Jesus was saying that in Heaven, we won't be married. We get married on earth, but the marriage is not binding past death.
He means because it also says that angels CAN procreate children (which procreate children themselves?) even with other species such as humans, which means "evolution". These angels are the ultimate Ridley's Alien, I suppose.
One would think that if they all can procreate with humans, they can procreate with each other. And creating other lives must be seen as a blessing by Yahweh, unless it's not. It could be a fearful supposition for any Cronyist Dictator to think that one of their children might grow stronger than them and usurp them without their blessing. What does it say in Genesis about humans achieving immortality through eating the fruit of the tree of life?
Two lifes are joined together and they become one... just kidding! they are just to lives together for the moment, not really a permanent union. A forced divorce occurs in some Bibliolaters Elysium, I suppose.
No one knows what it means. But I think the author of the story would be amused to know that people are still discussing it 2000 years later.
I recently read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Not a huge immortality cult developed around that though. So not that many people follow it selfishly and desperately.
I recently read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Not a huge immortality cult developed around that though. So not that many people follow it selfishly and desperately.
The difference between the Bible and older myths is the level of writing was more advanced, to the point of being like the writings of today. Which makes people think of it as "divine".
He means because it also says that angels CAN procreate children (which procreate children themselves?) even with other species such as humans, which means "evolution". These angels are the ultimate Ridley's Alien, I suppose.
Where? The Bible says nothing of that.
Quote:
One would think that if they all can procreate with humans, they can procreate with each other. And creating other lives must be seen as a blessing by Yahweh, unless it's not. It could be a fearful supposition for any Cronyist Dictator to think that one of their children might grow stronger than them and usurp them without their blessing. What does it say in Genesis about humans achieving immortality through eating the fruit of the tree of life?
Again...they can't. Nowhere in Scripture is the idea that angels and humans can procreate.
The difference between the Bible and older myths is the level of writing was more advanced, to the point of being like the writings of today. Which makes people think of it as "divine".
Correction: the various Bibles and other books of Immortality-Worship around the world.
And no, I don't think so.
It's all about "modernizing" through translation, and also about "application" through socialization of people into maintaining the style or idioms of the ancient works themselves.
Have you tried to understand ancient Greek manuscripts of the "holy short-books" in Christian history that were later canonized into various modern Bibles?
The level of writing was mediocre at best, I find it as very similar to Ancient Greek works. It is all about the "modernized" translation. The writing schools in Roman Greece were far more developed (but I think only in terms of sophism or rhetoric, not in story-styling), sure I'd agree to that. Not so for the Ancient Israelite schools, which would have been of a similar level to Sumerian ones.
The Epic of Gilgamish merely describes (rather colloquially) the futility of seeking after immortality through cronyism, self-effort, and other such things and describes the fickleness of the proposed supernatural entities as described religiously but applied to reality. Among other archetype or motif story-lines.
It is not a work that tries to convince the reader to convince other readers that it is paramount for their worldly survival or possible eternal continuation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
