PDA

View Full Version : Ice Cream > Marriage



Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 04:44 PM
Since we will still be able to eat in the afterlife (apparently for enjoyment rather than survival), yet won't have marriages, then apparently marriage is one of the least important things in life compared to desserts?

BrianW
Jan 29th 2014, 04:49 PM
I'm going to ask you to show me that this is a serious question that could lead to a serious biblical based discussion. If you can't it will be moved...somewhere. Don't know where yet.

What's the point of this?

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 04:52 PM
I'm wondering why marriage is considered extremely important if it is not retained after the resurrection, yet food is - despite food being totally unnecessary to sustaining life for immortals.

Walls
Jan 29th 2014, 06:12 PM
I'm wondering why marriage is considered extremely important if it is not retained after the resurrection, yet food is - despite food being totally unnecessary to sustaining life for immortals.

I'm also asking myself why you maintain this when the culmination, the consummation, of all that God does in the Bible is a Bride, and this Bride is the One that gets to be intimate with Jesus the Lovely One. Why is terrestrial marriage pushed to the forefront to the discarding of the Celestial?

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 06:47 PM
I'm also asking myself why you maintain this when the culmination, the consummation, of all that God does in the Bible is a Bride, and this Bride is the One that gets to be intimate with Jesus the Lovely One. Why is terrestrial marriage pushed to the forefront to the discarding of the Celestial?

Why will we still eat food if Jesus is the bread of life? Same argument.

Amos_with_goats
Jan 29th 2014, 07:21 PM
It may well just be because my brain works a little differently, but the question brings a variety of things to my (little bitty) brain.

first, the comparison. Ice cream is absolutely about pleasure. It may provide some nourishment, and sustanance but it is about pleasure.

our societal expectations of marriage are that it is about pleasure. Our comedians make jokes about how miserable marriage is, while our movies paint a hopelessly unrealistic picture of constant, and continuous bliss.

i believe that a significant part of the reason for the divorce rate has to do with this.... Folks expect ice cream every day....

i also believe that we do a fairly poor job of helping young folks "pick a flavor". A friend recently asked me about getting her son help in preparing for getting married.. What a beautiful question!

at baskin Robbins (an ice cream place for my international friends) one can choose from 31 flavors... And with very few exceptions there will not be a bad choice. The person considers a flavor and even gets a free taste...l if they choose poorly they only endure it as long as it takes to finish a cone or until it melts and runs down your arm.

we encourage folks to "take a taste test" before they get married, and they find the really like the flavor... But then later learn that it may not be the same excitement after they have it every day.

i believe that there is a real disconnect between "knowing" someone and being attracted enough to get married.

we often learn that the "flavor" we choose is not what we expect, and because we are expecting an ice cream like experience we are left hollow.... And alone.

more in a minute....

Amos_with_goats
Jan 29th 2014, 07:33 PM
Loneliness and hunger.

Ice cream satisfies a hunger. So also can marriage. The fact is that our expectations are very different. No one orders an ice cream cone and expects to never want another one..l it is by nature temporary.

Marriage is often believed to be the thing to "satisfy" us (and in one physical aspect it can) but the loneliness and the disconnection we feel in this fallen world will haunt us. Even in a wonderful relationship, the likeliness is that one spouse will pass before the other... The remaining person can be left not only alone but even more disconnected.

I my experience counseling, divorce is often viewed as an escape from the loneliness of being in an unfulfilling marriage. The fact is that in this life, we are alone.. Save for Christ.

We turn to a variety of things to avoid the loneliness, marriage, drugs, some join clubs others cults. I believe that this is one of the reasons The Lord desires we fellowship with others regularly....

The wedding feast, and the celebration that we will participate in will celebrate the death of loneliness.. Once we are together with Christ forever that isolation will be destroyed... Until then we have a faint hint at the connection we will have

Marriage, and physical intimacy are a picture, but one flawed by the echos of sin in this fallen world.


I think the (albeit somewhat weird) OP invites these questions. I think we do well to consider the difference.. I believe that if I had to pin myself down in this off the wall rant of a reply I would say that icecream is not greater then marriage, I believe that marriage and what it represents ARE going to be eternal icecream.....

We are going to be in for a great surprise someday. We hardly know what to expect, but if you think about loneliness, and the disconnection and pain we feel in this life...l I think we get a clue. Imagine what that will be like to never feel alone again.

Even in my darkest fallen condition I yearn for that day... I believe all of humanity does.

Blessings to all,

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 07:36 PM
first, the comparison. Ice cream is absolutely about pleasure. It may provide some nourishment, and sustanance but it is about pleasure. our societal expectations of marriage are that it is about pleasure. Our comedians make jokes about how miserable marriage is, while our movies paint a hopelessly unrealistic picture of constant, and continuous bliss.

That's sort of what I'm getting at - that food in the afterlife is basically like ice cream given that we won't need it for nourishment. Yet marriage is removed (even if unnecessary), doesn't this imply that marriage is less important than even the simplest form of pleasure?

BrianW
Jan 29th 2014, 07:44 PM
We don't even know what sort of bodies we will have after the judgement. Will there even be different sexes? We just don't know everything yet so....some of it is a mystery. In other words: I don't know.

Amos_with_goats
Jan 29th 2014, 07:48 PM
That's sort of what I'm getting at - that food in the after life is basically like ice cream given that we won't need it for nourishment. Yet if marriage is removed (even if unnecessary) doesn't this imply that marriage is less important than even the simplest form of pleasure?

The "feast" is a picture. The food is not for nourishment, (our new bodies will not hunger) but pleasure.. Ongoing and perpetual*. Marriage will not be required for the picture of the connection and end of loneliness for it will be no more!




* this word means different things for me than most. I believe our limited, temporal understanding is going to change. The Lord is outside of time... He created it and is not limited by it. "when the Perfect comes, we shall see Him and we shall know Him" suggests to me me there will no longer be a néed for the linear experience we are bound to now.

This unique view destroys so many divisive doctrines folks love to argue about (OSAS, predestination, the millennial kingdom, eternal torture, on and on and on...l) sadly our brains are not really wired not to think in terms of time. I believe that will change and that ever single word of scripture makes perfect sense if you can accept that there are things our limited understanding simply can not yet grasp.

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 07:56 PM
We don't even know what sort of bodies we will have after the judgement. Will there even be different sexes? We just don't know everything yet so....some of it is a mystery. In other words: I don't know.

I think there will be different sexes for these reasons:

1) Male and female were created perfect before the Fall (God didn't originally intend for asexual beings).
2) The lack of marriage/females is the only thing God called "not good" in creation.
3) The only descriptions of the resurrected body that differ from the fallen one is immortality (plus power and glory).
4) Jesus's resurrected body was not genderless.
5) Much of our identity comes from our sex and gender.

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 08:04 PM
Marriage will not be required for the picture of the connection and end of loneliness for it will be no more!

I've heard this explanation offered a few times, but if this is so, I wonder why marriage was created in the first place given that it precedes sin.


this word means different things for me than most. I believe our limited, temporal understanding is going to change. The Lord is outside of time... He created it and is not limited by it. "when the Perfect comes, we shall see Him and we shall know Him" suggests to me me there will no longer be a néed for the linear experience we are bound to now.

Hmm, I'm not sure about this either because God created us under time (after Day 5, but before Day 7) rather than above it. Plus, wouldn't this cause problems with sin in general? Because if we will be outside of time (future from now), then there was never a time when we weren't sinful (we will exist in the past).

BrianW
Jan 29th 2014, 08:05 PM
I think there will be different sexes for these reasons:

1) Male and female were created perfect before the Fall (God didn't originally intend for asexual beings).
2) The lack of marriage/females is the only thing God called "not good" in creation.
3) The only descriptions of the resurrected body that differ from the fallen one is immortality (plus power and glory).
4) Jesus's resurrected body was not genderless.
5) Much of our identity comes from our sex and gender.

That's a good bit of logic and reasoning but is it born out with scripture? I don't think so. I thinks it's just conjecture until the time comes. We haven't had some of the stuff we wonder about laid out all nice and neat in scripture so we just have to trust in God that when scripture say's no more worry and no more care and no more tears it will be just that.

As far as four goes: Jesus's resurrected body was one for this earth. We will have new and changed bodies after the judgement. We don't know exactly what the differences will be but they will be different.

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 08:08 PM
That's a good bit of logic and reasoning but is it born out with scripture? I don't think so. I thinks it's just conjecture until the time comes. We haven't had some of the stuff we wonder about laid out all nice and neat in scripture so we just have to trust in God that when scripture say's no more worry and no more care and no more tears it will be just that.

As far as four goes: Jesus's resurrected body was one for this earth. We have have new and changed bodies after the judgement. We don't know exactly what the differences will be but they will be different.

The last two may be conjecture, but 1 and 2 are based on the Bible and 3 is limited to how many verses about the resurrected body I know of at this time.

BrianW
Jan 29th 2014, 08:12 PM
Allow me to clarify, :) , I meant conjecture in the sense of how those will relate to our future changed bodies. People have been trying to connect these dots for a long, long time. Plenty of opinion out there...not so much verifiable by scripture fact.

keck553
Jan 29th 2014, 09:18 PM
We don't even know what sort of bodies we will have after the judgement. Will there even be different sexes? We just don't know everything yet so....some of it is a mystery. In other words: I don't know.

Or perhaps we are changing the context of Jesus' statement to fit our own preconceptions, or perhaps even to support an unbiblical agenda/desire.

The statement is proposed in the future tense "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage....."

What I do know that my wife isn't going to married to me after we are risen, nor will be necessary because we are ALREADY married before the Eternal One.

In my opinion.

Slug1
Jan 29th 2014, 09:35 PM
God created the woman after to man to be his helpmeet. Does man continue to need a helpmeet after receiving a glorified body and is eternally living in heaven? Clearly God is informing us through His Word, no.

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 09:46 PM
God created the woman after to man to be his helpmeet. Does man continue to need a helpmeet after receiving a glorified body and is eternally living in heaven? Clearly God is informing us through His Word, no.

What is the purpose of a "glorified body," and if it differs from the pre-Fall body, why was this purpose not included in creation? In other words, did God create Adam and Eve imperfect to begin with? Why does the common perception of the New Earth differ so greatly from the Earth God originally intended?

Again, this seems to imply that marriage is less important than simple pleasures.

jayne
Jan 29th 2014, 10:25 PM
Someone help me. Where does the Bible say that we will eat and drink in heaven?

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 10:35 PM
Someone help me. Where does the Bible say that we will eat and drink in heaven?

Jesus ate food several times after His resurrection, and if you take the "wedding feast" literally (I don't), there would have to be food there for it to be a feast. And also I'm pretty sure Isaiah talks about the people of the new Earth being able to grow food without the danger of having it stolen. I'm not sure about heaven, but our end point is not heaven, it's Earth 2.0 :yes:. The fact that Jesus was not raised in a body incapable of eating food, and also that no one reacted out of surprise or shock due to His appearance, I'm lead to believe the resurrected body is identical to the biological makeup originally intended by God before the introduction of sin. In other words - two hands, two feet, eyes, a mouth, etc. I do not believe we will be raised a different species.

Because of this, I find it strange that one of the foundational aspects of human life (perhaps the central) is removed, yet not the most basic form of leisure which borderlines gluttony.

keck553
Jan 29th 2014, 10:43 PM
God created the woman after to man to be his helpmeet. Does man continue to need a helpmeet after receiving a glorified body and is eternally living in heaven? Clearly God is informing us through His Word, no.

Who's going to make me perfect bacon in the Olam Haba then?

keck553
Jan 29th 2014, 10:45 PM
Someone help me. Where does the Bible say that we will eat and drink in heaven?

Where does the Bible say we're going to be in heaven?

keck553
Jan 29th 2014, 10:50 PM
What is the purpose of a "glorified body," and if it differs from the pre-Fall body, why was this purpose not included in creation? In other words, did God create Adam and Eve imperfect to begin with? Why does the common perception of the New Earth differ so greatly from the Earth God originally intended?

Again, this seems to imply that marriage is less important than simple pleasures.

It appears to me in the Genesis account that Adam's greatest and most simple pleasure was displayed when God brought him Eve. I don't read a lot of simple pleasures happening during the naming of all the animals or any other event.

And, since Adam needed a help mate in the pre-fall, was "married" to Eve, then assuming we all go back to that condition (and I believe in the concept of "earth 2" also), then why wouldn't men need a help mate in the form of a woman under the same set of conditions?

mikebr
Jan 29th 2014, 10:56 PM
I'm wondering why marriage is considered extremely important if it is not retained after the resurrection, yet food is - despite food being totally unnecessary to sustaining life for immortals.

I completely understood your question and I think its a good one. I am of the opinion that marriage is a crucible in that it refines us and teaches us unconditional love more than any other relationship on earth. We won't need this refining when we finish here.

jayne
Jan 29th 2014, 11:07 PM
Jesus ate food several times after His resurrection, and if you take the "wedding feast" literally (I don't), there would have to be food there for it to be a feast. And also I'm pretty sure Isaiah talks about the people of the new Earth being able to grow food without the danger of having it stolen. I'm not sure about heaven, but our end point is not heaven, it's Earth 2.0 :yes:. The fact that Jesus was not raised in a body incapable of eating food, and also that no one reacted out of surprise or shock due to His appearance, I'm lead to believe the resurrected body is identical to the biological makeup originally intended by God before the introduction of sin. In other words - two hands, two feet, eyes, a mouth, etc. I do not believe we will be raised a different species.

Because of this, I find it strange that one of the foundational aspects of human life (perhaps the central) is removed, yet not the most basic form of leisure which borderlines gluttony.

The only reason I ask is because I see in Revelation 7 - right after it speaks of the 144,000 - it speaks of a great multitude (countless) saved during the Great Tribulation.

It says that they will "never hunger or thirst again."

shepherdsword
Jan 29th 2014, 11:15 PM
Someone help me. Where does the Bible say that we will eat and drink in heaven?

I've always considered this as referring to the future kingdom. I guess we could talk about the "marriage supper of the lamb" but I guess that could be a metaphor too.
Mar 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Aviyah
Jan 29th 2014, 11:36 PM
I completely understood your question and I think its a good one. I am of the opinion that marriage is a crucible in that it refines us and teaches us unconditional love more than any other relationship on earth. We won't need this refining when we finish here.

I think this answer would be more satisfying for me if marriage was created as damage control after the Fall - sort of like the Law, covenants, and even the Cross. But since it was created when the world was still perfect, this indicates to me that it was not originally intended to be a tool for refining or fixing a problem (although it may have turned into this). I do not foresee the continuation of government-sponsored unions, legal contracts, or royal marriages for example.


The only reason I ask is because I see in Revelation 7 - right after it speaks of the 144,000 - it speaks of a great multitude (countless) saved during the Great Tribulation. It says that they will "never hunger or thirst again."

Well, I'm not saying that we will be hungry/thirsty in new bodies (because this means we need food to survive), but we will still have food for enjoyment in God's creation and His diversity. There are things that exist today which are basically just here to taste good to humans like vanilla and honey. If food was meant purely for nutrition, I don't believe God would have given us taste buds. So, if taste is a luxury while marriage is a necessity in Genesis, why does taste take priority? Doesn't this mean enjoying food should be a greater objective than having a strong marriage?

Curtis
Jan 29th 2014, 11:40 PM
If God the Father is the Gardner, and we are his garden, and he is the one plants the seed of the Word of God in us, when fruit is produced who eats it?

Does anyone plant a vineyard, and not eat from the fruit there of?

If the Word of God is spirit, and life, then what kind of tree does it produce? Tree of life? Who then is allowed to eat from this tree?

Does not God want to eat from the fruit we as christian's produce since he was the one who planted it.

John 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
John 15:2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

If Jesus lives because of the Father, where does the father get his life from? The Word?

mikebr
Jan 29th 2014, 11:42 PM
I think this answer would be more satisfying for me if marriage was created as damage control after the Fall - sort of like the Law, covenants, and even the Cross. But since it was created when the world was still perfect, this indicates to me that it was not originally intended to be a tool for refining or fixing a problem (although it may have turned into this). I do not foresee the continuation of government-sponsored unions, legal contracts, or royal marriages for example.

You don't think that Adam and Eve could have learned to love more perfectly even if the fall had never happened? What was she going to help Adam do? We assume its tend creation but maybe not. Maybe he needed help in learning to love.

Aviyah
Jan 30th 2014, 12:07 AM
You don't think that Adam and Eve could have learned to love more perfectly even if the fall had never happened? What was she going to help Adam do? We assume its tend creation but maybe not. Maybe he needed help in learning to love.

Eve was created because "It is not good for the man to be alone" first and then to help with managing the Earth second. And after Eve was created, it became "very good" - which means the problem had been solved in that instant, rather than having begun to make progress. So this begs the question of why it is not good for man to be alone in perfection pre-fall, yet good for man to be alone in perfection post-resurrection - and why God didn't simply create humans without the necessity for a companion in the first place. If, for example, marriage was created as a learning process so that we will be ready for the afterlife, what becomes of those who have never been married?

Aviyah
Jan 30th 2014, 12:11 AM
If Jesus lives because of the Father, where does the father get his life from? The Word?

I think what God is saying here is that He is the only being which is self-sustaining.

Ceegen
Jan 30th 2014, 12:14 AM
Eve was created because "It is not good for the man to be alone" first and then to help with managing the Earth second. And after Eve was created, it became "very good" - which means the problem had been solved in that instant, rather than having begun to make progress. So this begs the question of why it is not good for man to be alone in perfection pre-fall, yet good for man to be alone in perfection post-resurrection - and why God didn't simply create humans without the necessity for a companion in the first place. If, for example, marriage was created as a learning process so that we will be ready for the afterlife, what becomes of those who have never been married?

If you were eternal, wouldn't you want to share eternity with someone?

I know God is above all that is, yet we were created in the image and likeness of God, which to me means not only physical likeness but emotional/intellectual likeness also. I guess for lack of a better term, maybe God was lonely? Maybe that's why God created? We get lonely, don't we? It's not good for anyone to be alone.

How awesome of an idea is it that we give God comfort and joy, just by existing? I love God! I want to share eternity with God! Ooo, pick me, pick me!

And for future reference, I love mint n' chip.

Aviyah
Jan 30th 2014, 12:27 AM
If you were eternal, wouldn't you want to share eternity with someone?

Exactly, I don't think we will cease to be a reflection of God on an individual level :yes:.


And for future reference, I love mint n' chip.

We have a shop nearby that sells cotton candy ice cream, and I can never decide between vanilla, mint, or cotton candy LOL.

ChristianCoffee
Jan 30th 2014, 02:16 AM
We have a shop nearby that sells cotton candy ice cream, and I can never decide between vanilla, mint, or cotton candy LOL.

My decision is very easy: coffee ice cream. :lol:

Scooby_Snacks
Jan 30th 2014, 03:46 AM
Eve was created because "It is not good for the man to be alone" first and then to help with managing the Earth second. And after Eve was created, it became "very good" - which means the problem had been solved in that instant, rather than having begun to make progress. So this begs the question of why it is not good for man to be alone in perfection pre-fall, yet good for man to be alone in perfection post-resurrection - and why God didn't simply create humans without the necessity for a companion in the first place. If, for example, marriage was created as a learning process so that we will be ready for the afterlife, what becomes of those who have never been married?

Being fruitful and multiplying would be interesting with only one person making that happen.
Of course God could have made that possible if He wanted to. ;)

The amount of joy being in His eternal presence knowing Him as He knows there will be no feeling disconnected/alone/single what have you.
Do you believe your spirit is gender specific?

Aviyah
Jan 30th 2014, 03:59 AM
Being fruitful and multiplying would be interesting with only one person making that happen.
Of course God could have made that possible if He wanted to. ;) The amount of joy being in His eternal presence knowing Him as He knows there will be no feeling disconnected/alone/single what have you. Do you believe your spirit is gender specific?

I don't personally believe the spirit has a gender - but a human is a combination of spirit, soul, and body. I was taught for most of my life that we spend eternity in heaven as a spirit, but this is not true. There will be a new physical universe to compliment new physical bodies; and since bodies are gender specific, I would assume we will be raised with genders. I'd also say that the spirit is influenced greatly by the body it identifies with and many passions/desires are directly associated with gender (such as how love is shown and received).

Scooby_Snacks
Jan 30th 2014, 04:08 AM
I don't personally believe the spirit has a gender - but a human is a combination of spirit, soul, and body. I was taught for most of my life that we spend eternity in heaven as a spirit, but this is not true. There will be a new physical universe to compliment new physical bodies; and since bodies are gender specific, I would assume we will be raised with genders.

No pain, no tears...It will be unlike anything any of us have ever known, that is for certain.
I don't believe the spirit has gender, and not sure about the soul. We may be very surprised. But all will be very glad, that's for sure.

Aviyah
Jan 30th 2014, 04:20 AM
My decision is very easy: coffee ice cream. :lol:

Haven't seen coffee ice cream, but I have seen bacon ice cream (never tasted).

Balabusha
Jan 30th 2014, 07:32 AM
Who's going to make me perfect bacon in the Olam Haba then?

I will-actually I make some great pagan motso balls for you in the afterlife...with bacon!

Walls
Jan 30th 2014, 07:54 AM
Why will we still eat food if Jesus is the bread of life? Same argument.

Not so my friend.

You wrote in Posting #1;


Since we will still be able to eat in the afterlife (apparently for enjoyment rather than survival), yet won't have marriages, then apparently marriage is one of the least important things in life compared to desserts?

Balabusha
Jan 30th 2014, 08:02 AM
Jesus makes it picture clear that there will be no marriage in resurrection-it is airtight as the Saducees were trying to trap Him in saying there was no resurrection, and then gave a seemingly airtight case involving 7 spouses-which Jesus dispatched very quickly.
The fall created the need for physical procreative sexuality, and this nature is what created marriage-this is why marriage is in great debate today-you take out the procreative and make it sterile and God's purpose of marriage falls apart at the seams-same thing with premarital sex.
The same thing for marriage in ressurection as we will live forever there is no need to procreate.
You seem to have no contentment on this subject and want to discuss it exhaustively until we agree with you..the problem still lies in that this does not change the reality of what will happen.
I used to think that chocolate is the ultimate, but when I got married I found something greater than chocolate! When I am intimate with my husband I dont think of eating chocolate because I found something greater. This is the example of resurrection..right now sex is the ultimate but when we are in the presence of the Almighty we will have found something greater than sex.
1.Will you be alone and need companionship in resurrection
2.Will you need to procreate
3.Will you need to get married to prevent fornication

You liken Jesus having eyes, ears and eating as a proof positive that we will be getting married and having sex-but you ignore that Jesus was not having sex and marriage, nor did He allude to sex and marriage in Heaven.He had many opportunities to herald the rewards of those who were faithful to Him until death a beautiful wife in Heaven..but He did no such thing.
Paul even told people who were about to face a Roman cult that it might be better not to get married...this was another golden opportunity to give hope to the unmarried that they would have a beautiful spouse in Heaven. Instead we see the example of us as the Bride of Messiah.

Balabusha
Jan 30th 2014, 08:22 AM
I don't personally believe the spirit has a gender - but a human is a combination of spirit, soul, and body. I was taught for most of my life that we spend eternity in heaven as a spirit, but this is not true. There will be a new physical universe to compliment new physical bodies; and since bodies are gender specific, I would assume we will be raised with genders. I'd also say that the spirit is influenced greatly by the body it identifies with and many passions/desires are directly associated with gender (such as how love is shown and received).

I believe that my femininity is who I am. In Heaven, in spirit, I will be still female as it is ingrained in my being, sex is not something we do, or is it limited to an erotic experience-it is what we are. I am looking forward to a redeemed body and sexuality, God does not do away with things-He Redeems them-the common materialist will not understand what I am talking about.

Walls
Jan 30th 2014, 10:56 AM
Jesus makes it picture clear that there will be no marriage in resurrection-it is airtight as the Saducees were trying to trap Him in saying there was no resurrection, and then gave a seemingly airtight case involving 7 spouses-which Jesus dispatched very quickly.
The fall created the need for physical procreative sexuality, and this nature is what created marriage-this is why marriage is in great debate today-you take out the procreative and make it sterile and God's purpose of marriage falls apart at the seams-same thing with premarital sex.
The same thing for marriage in ressurection as we will live forever there is no need to procreate.
You seem to have no contentment on this subject and want to discuss it exhaustively until we agree with you..the problem still lies in that this does not change the reality of what will happen.
I used to think that chocolate is the ultimate, but when I got married I found something greater than chocolate! When I am intimate with my husband I dont think of eating chocolate because I found something greater. This is the example of resurrection..right now sex is the ultimate but when we are in the presence of the Almighty we will have found something greater than sex.
1.Will you be alone and need companionship in resurrection
2.Will you need to procreate
3.Will you need to get married to prevent fornication

You liken Jesus having eyes, ears and eating as a proof positive that we will be getting married and having sex-but you ignore that Jesus was not having sex and marriage, nor did He allude to sex and marriage in Heaven.He had many opportunities to herald the rewards of those who were faithful to Him until death a beautiful wife in Heaven..but He did no such thing.
Paul even told people who were about to face a Roman cult that it might be better not to get married...this was another golden opportunity to give hope to the unmarried that they would have a beautiful spouse in Heaven. Instead we see the example of us as the Bride of Messiah.

How close you are to the truth.

Scripture says in Romans Chapter 1 that the things of God are seen by the creation. Since marriage is part of the creation (there had been no woman before), it points to a "thing" of God. And sure enough the lesser points to the greater. Adam and Eve prefigure Christ and the Church. Thus Ephesians 5:21-33;
"21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."

Thus, seeing as, "... even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.... ;" (v.25) we are reminded in 2nd Corinthians 11:2;
"2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

The joys of a good marriage are multiplied ad infinitum when our Lord Jesus, the Beloved of the Universe, shares His delicacies with His Bride one day. I too have a good marriage, and in weak moments question why there should be no more of my union to my beloved wife in resurrection. But the Word alludes to a relationship, intimacy and pleasure that puts the temporal well into the shadows.

Aviyah
Jan 30th 2014, 03:49 PM
Not so my friend. You wrote in Posting #1;

Yes, if both food and marriage will be vestiges of the old Earth, yet food for enjoyment is retained in the absence of marriage, then there is no reason to believe marriage is more valuable or important than food. If your argument is that we won't need marriage because we will be figuratively married to God, then to apply this same reasoning with food implies it should be replaced by the "bread of life." Yet, there is both literal and figurative food on the New Earth.

Aviyah
Jan 30th 2014, 04:00 PM
The fall created the need for physical procreative sexuality,

I don't believe this, because humans were created sexual creatures prior to the Fall. Marriage was not formed as a solution to lust, sin, or imperfection.


1.Will you be alone and need companionship in resurrection

According to Genesis, yes. God determined that Adam was alone, and this was solved by marriage rather than an abstract figurative relationship.


2.Will you need to procreate

Since procreation is a secondary function of marriage, I'm not particularly concerned with this. Adam and Eve did not need to procreate for Day 6 to be "very good."


3.Will you need to get married to prevent fornication

Marriage wasn't created as a prevention for fornication, but it has evolved into this after the fall. So I'd say no, we won't need to be married to prevent sin from happening.


You liken Jesus having eyes, ears and eating as a proof positive that we will be getting married and having sex

This isn't the foundation for my argument, but it is complimentary to the notion that we will be raised in physical human bodies and not asexual humanoid "improvements".


Instead we see the example of us as the Bride of Messiah.

We will not be literally and individually married to one Person. That would be polygamous and disturbing.

Walls
Jan 30th 2014, 08:00 PM
Yes, if both food and marriage will be vestiges of the old Earth, yet food for enjoyment is retained in the absence of marriage, then there is no reason to believe marriage is more valuable or important than food. If your argument is that we won't need marriage because we will be figuratively married to God, then to apply this same reasoning with food implies it should be replaced by the "bread of life." Yet, there is both literal and figurative food on the New Earth.

I'm amazed! Who said anything about "figuratively"? Let me quote you scripture.

Genesis 2:24
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
1 Corinthians 6:16
"16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

1st Corinthians 6:17
"17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
1 Corinthians 15:44
"44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."


And then... the verse preceding - 1st Corinthians 6:15
"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid."

Was not Eve a "member" of Adam's Body?

I think maybe that's the reason why you made it in posting #1


"... then apparently marriage is one of the least important things in life compared to desserts?"

But this is an issue of the resurrection BODY, not of something figurative.

Aviyah
Jan 30th 2014, 08:46 PM
I'm amazed! Who said anything about "figuratively"? Let me quote you scripture.

We won't each be literally married to the same person.


Genesis 2:24
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
1 Corinthians 6:16
"16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

I'm not sure how this negates the possibility, because surely we will be raised physically?

Balabusha
Jan 30th 2014, 11:38 PM
I don't believe this, because humans were created sexual creatures prior to the Fall. Marriage was not formed as a solution to lust, sin, or imperfection.
They were created sexual creatures prior to the fall-God created them male and female and I see no reason why this would ever change. There will be sex in heaven and paradise.
I guarantee that your mind is now given over to physical sex and not a heightened metaphysical sex in which physical animalistic aspects give way to an redeemed agape love
*I think an older person who has/had been married for a long time could relate to this better than I could-i have had many older couples tell me that the real love grows over time even though the sex dies down..maybe someone like digging deeper could explain it



According to Genesis, yes. God determined that Adam was alone, and this was solved by marriage rather than an abstract figurative relationship.
You are only looking at the physical as "real" and then calling anything else figurative...at this point in time I dont think you will be able to crack this as it is spawned by earthly desires


Since procreation is a secondary function of marriage, I'm not particularly concerned with this. Adam and Eve did not need to procreate for Day 6 to be "very good."
-How is procreation a secondary function? It is entwined as the main purpose of marriage with other main purposes of marriage. Take the fertility out of heterosexual intercourse and you remove the purpose and definition of marriage-this is despite those who dont want kids or cant have them-lots of oops happen, just go to the abortion clinic and you will see this in action. Marriage protects.


Marriage wasn't created as a prevention for fornication, but it has evolved into this after the fall. So I'd say no, we won't need to be married to prevent sin from happening.
-Marriage was a remedy for the fall




This isn't the foundation for my argument, but it is complimentary to the notion that we will be raised in physical human bodies and not asexual humanoid "improvements".
-In your view a physical animal driven sexuality is perfection, but a redeemed sexuality where we enjoy each other in agape love is a dumbed down humanoid sexuality.


We will not be literally and individually married to one Person. That would be polygamous and disturbing.
You actually now have the answer within your own response

Aviyah
Jan 31st 2014, 01:23 AM
I guarantee that your mind is now given over to physical sex and not a heightened metaphysical sex in which physical animalistic aspects give way to an redeemed agape love

I actually don't care whether or not there is sex on the New Earth. If there is marriage, there's a pretty strong case for physical intimacy, but this isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking why marriage is destroyed but meaningless pleasures are not - unless marriage is less valuable than ice cream.


You are only looking at the physical as "real" and then calling anything else figurative...at this point in time I dont think you will be able to crack this as it is spawned by earthly desires

God created Adam, Eve, male, female, sex, and marriage before sin was introduced into the world. So I have trouble understanding why any of these things would need to be destroyed when there will be no sin in the world.


-How is procreation a secondary function?

Because the reason God states for the necessity of creating woman was that man was alone - not that man was a virgin.


Take the fertility out of heterosexual intercourse and you remove the purpose and definition of marriage

The purpose of marriage is for an individual to have a spiritual, emotional, and physical counterpart of the opposite sex. A result of marriage is children, in addition to general productivity. The primary function of marriage is not to produce children - this is why I am apathetic towards the notion of restored sexual intimacy because it is contingent upon whether or not the human-union paradigm persists in eternity.


-Marriage was a remedy for the fall

I disagree. Marriage was created on Day 6; the Fall took place after Day 7. Although marriage evolved to become a damage control mechanism upon the emergence of lust, greed, and hubris; the original model was not created as the marriage we have today. Post-Fall marriage involves an unequal form of government (man over woman) and is used as a means of controlling untamed physical desire.


-In your view a physical animal driven sexuality is perfection,

No, a God-ordained union between two individuals who are literally created for each other, and their intimacy is my view of perfection per Genesis.


but a redeemed sexuality where we enjoy each other in agape love is a dumbed down humanoid sexuality.

You use the phrase "redeemed sexuality" despite sex/marriage being totally absent in your scenario. This is why such perception of the resurrected involves humanoids and not actual human beings. Perfect love was created in Genesis and it was marred by sin - I do not understand why the untainted system originally designed by God needs to be destroyed completely. The tragedy of this would be that only two humans out of all of us have ever and will ever experience marriage as it was intended to be - and perhaps more tragically, there will be no child who ever experiences a life with perfect parents as God had planned.

awestruckchild
Jan 31st 2014, 01:41 AM
Since we will still be able to eat in the afterlife (apparently for enjoyment rather than survival), yet won't have marriages, then apparently marriage is one of the least important things in life compared to desserts?

Will there be chocolate ice cream? That's what I'm worried about. Or will it all be boring vanilla? :P I don't want Him to wash all the ice cream as white as snow....

awestruckchild
Jan 31st 2014, 02:36 AM
So now for my more serious answer now that I have read the thread.
Everything God created shows His glory, but I think we only get small hints of it because we are not seeing anything AS it was created, but are seeing it AFTER the Fall. But still, you can see something of a poet in his poems, something of a painter in his paintings. Sometimes we can feel we know something of the poet or the painter because we sense it and connect with him by examining his creation. We can feel some of what he experienced as he created it - if he was inconsolably sad, or joyful, or confused, etc. We feel like we actually connect in some way with a mans soul through his art/creation. We see something, some glimmer, of him in his creation.

Adam saw everything God had created.
There were chipmunk(s).
There were rabbit(s).
There were bear(s).
There were horse(s).
There were Adam(.....?!)
Where was one like him??
Why was he alone in a way that all the other created things were not?
So God created another one of Adam.
God made every living thing to bring forth of its' own kind.
So the Creator created things that could create through their union.

Now here is where the mystery and awe of it all go over my head in so many places, but God is making sons for Himself through Jesus.
Jesus was the firstborn, and just as Adam created sons out of his union with Eve, Jesus creates sons out of His union with His bride, us.
So we are seeing some glimpse of the Creator in His creation.
He is telling a story and it is about Himself.
He wants to connect with us in the same way that a poet is trying to connect with and find one man who can feel what his soul is feeling when he labors to explain what it is he is feeling.
If I were to go on, it would turn into too many pages, so I guess I'll stop there and go get into my jammies. :)

Curtis
Jan 31st 2014, 03:27 AM
When I read the Bible I see God as the main topic, not man. If God said, "it was not good that man be alone.." after creating all the other animals of the world, and there was no help meet found for Adam. Why? You can not have true fellowship with someone unless they are of the same class or just like you. I see God being in the same predicament as man. He had already created the angels, cherubim and the like, but they were not made in his image or likeness. The Bible is about God bringing forth a being made liken unto himself so he could share his feeling, joys, knowledge, and above all his love with. Surely we can understand this in our own husbands wife's, and children as we love our family in this life. I am sure when the Lord looks at us he sees apart of himself in us, and it makes him smile or even laugh in how sometimes we do the things he does, just like how we see our children sometimes act like their parents, and it makes us laugh.

Vanilla with chocolate topping, and nuts :)

Balabusha
Jan 31st 2014, 06:24 AM
I actually don't care whether or not there is sex on the New Earth. If there is marriage, there's a pretty strong case for physical intimacy, but this isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking why marriage is destroyed but meaningless pleasures are not - unless marriage is less valuable than ice cream.
-I dont know what you are talking about when you state "marriage destroyed" "useless pleasures" and then state ice cream-could you please expand. If i am understanding yoiu correctly you think there will be fine dining in resurrection?


God created Adam, Eve, male, female, sex, and marriage before sin was introduced into the world. So I have trouble understanding why any of these things would need to be destroyed when there will be no sin in the world.
God did not create marriage as we know it in Eden. A covenant has to be consummated in order for it to be valid. there is no evdence of Adam and Eve consummating a marriage. Only after the fall do we see that Adam "knew" his wife. Again our sex and sexuality wont be destroyed-it will be redeemed.


Because the reason God states for the necessity of creating woman was that man was alone - not that man was a virgin.
-I dont know how this pertains to the question


The purpose of marriage is for an individual to have a spiritual, emotional, and physical counterpart of the opposite sex. A result of marriage is children, in addition to general productivity. The primary function of marriage is not to produce children - this is why I am apathetic towards the notion of restored sexual intimacy because it is contingent upon whether or not the human-union paradigm persists in eternity.
-Children(fertility) are just as primary to marriage as the rest of your points-take the children(fertility) part away and the bibles stance on premarital sex and marriage fall apart rather quickly.


I disagree. Marriage was created on Day 6; the Fall took place after Day 7. Although marriage evolved to become a damage control mechanism upon the emergence of lust, greed, and hubris; the original model was not created as the marriage we have today. Post-Fall marriage involves an unequal form of government (man over woman) and is used as a means of controlling untamed physical desire.
Adam and Eve were created on day 6-the fall would not have taken place during or after day 7 as Adam never entered into God's rest-or we would not be even talking about this right now.
The days are theological and not literal


No, a God-ordained union between two individuals who are literally created for each other, and their intimacy is my view of perfection per Genesis.
Which will continue when our bodies are redeemed at resurrection-but with the whole body of Christ. I dont think our roles will change either, Adam was created first and then eve was created for Adam. Adam named Eve and in ancient Hebrew when someone names someone it shows authority. When Adam and Eve were disobedient to God, He addressed Adam first.
We will have our roles redeemed also


You use the phrase "redeemed sexuality" despite sex/marriage being totally absent in your scenario. This is why such perception of the resurrected involves humanoids and not actual human beings. Perfect love was created in Genesis and it was marred by sin - I do not understand why the untainted system originally designed by God needs to be destroyed completely. The tragedy of this would be that only two humans out of all of us have ever and will ever experience marriage as it was intended to be - and perhaps more tragically, there will be no child who ever experiences a life with perfect parents as God had planned.
- Not destroyed but redeemed. I dont understand why you go to the extreme of destroyed or annihilated-Jesus did not destroy the Law-he redeemed the Law by fulfilling it
-I have four little ones that are in much better hands than I could ever offer.

Vakeros
Jan 31st 2014, 11:40 AM
Eve was created because "It is not good for the man to be alone" first and then to help with managing the Earth second. And after Eve was created, it became "very good" - which means the problem had been solved in that instant, rather than having begun to make progress. So this begs the question of why it is not good for man to be alone in perfection pre-fall, yet good for man to be alone in perfection post-resurrection - and why God didn't simply create humans without the necessity for a companion in the first place. If, for example, marriage was created as a learning process so that we will be ready for the afterlife, what becomes of those who have never been married?
This is then a question about perfection. Can a perfect being change? God is perfect, does He change? Some state categorically that a perfect being doesn't change, because otherwise it wasn't perfect. However my understanding of perfection is different - we go from glory into glory. We are perfect and being made perfect. Woman and Man were ALL about relationships. Can a relationship deepen? Of course, over time. IOW Just as Adam discovers the world and discovers what he can do, so they mutually discover one another. This I think will also be true of our relationship with God. Sin which hampers and blinds will be removed, but I don't think we just then know everything. We have an eternity of discovery.
Very Good doesn't mean an end, but a beginning.

Vakeros
Jan 31st 2014, 12:30 PM
-I dont know what you are talking about when you state "marriage destroyed" "useless pleasures" and then state ice cream-could you please expand. If i am understanding yoiu correctly you think there will be fine dining in resurrection?
You first have a problem to resolve in that you think we will be living in heaven - this obviously colours your thinking and understanding, just as the reverse is true for those who believe paradise will be on earth.


God did not create marriage as we know it in Eden. A covenant has to be consummated in order for it to be valid. there is no evdence of Adam and Eve consummating a marriage. Only after the fall do we see that Adam "knew" his wife. Again our sex and sexuality wont be destroyed-it will be redeemed.
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Here Adam clearly states that they become one flesh. So this evidences the fact that not only were they of one flesh, but that they were intimate becoming one flesh. Also Jesus quoted this verse here:
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This shows that Jesus considered the two joined together by God from the beginning.

Possibly pre-fall Eve was capable of controlling when her body would release the ovum for fertilisation. So she didn't have any periods - until post fall.
What does redeeming our sex and sexuality mean except that it is restored to how it was BEFORE. Hence Aviyah's continual pointing back to the situation preFall.


-I dont know how this pertains to the question
The purpose of a woman isn't procreation in entirety, but firstly as someone so that Adam wouldn't be alone - IOW for relationship first. Procreation is a bonus.


-Children(fertility) are just as primary to marriage as the rest of your points-take the children(fertility) part away and the bibles stance on premarital sex and marriage fall apart rather quickly.
No they don't. Children aren't the central part to a marriage. It is basing a marriage on such a premise which leads to all sorts of problems. The central part to a marriage is that we are also shown between Jesus and His Bride - which is relationship. Children then is bonus.


Adam and Eve were created on day 6-the fall would not have taken place during or after day 7 as Adam never entered into God's rest-or we would not be even talking about this right now. The days are theological and not literal
Actually God did enter His rest on the 7th day and they hadn't sinned yet. God was separate from them when they sinned. It may have been on the seventh day in the evening as it says:
Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
The cool of the day is either early morning or evening. Due to context this would suggest AFTER day 6 and thus either day 7 or a later day. The days are literal, but that is an argument for another thread. Regardless, they were joined by God BEFORE the Fall.


Which will continue when our bodies are redeemed at resurrection-but with the whole body of Christ. I dont think our roles will change either, Adam was created first and then eve was created for Adam. Adam named Eve and in ancient Hebrew when someone names someone it shows authority. When Adam and Eve were disobedient to God, He addressed Adam first.
We will have our roles redeemed also
Again don't get confused about what happened preFall with post Fall -
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
In this verse we see the man does use a name for the woman "woman" which basically means he clarifies us as himself. This is in contrast to what happens postFall when Adam gives her the name of Eve. This naming is an effect of sin.


- Not destroyed but redeemed. I dont understand why you go to the extreme of destroyed or annihilated-Jesus did not destroy the Law-he redeemed the Law by fulfilling it.
But removing marriage means it is gone and NOT redeemed.
Where I do question Aviyah though is that God joins people together in the Genesis account. We are joined with Jesus in the marriage. This is not a physical union but a relational one. As the main purpose of Man and Woman being united was relational, then this suggests a shift in the need of man for woman in this way. We will also have countless brothers and sisters - so will there be a need for an exclusive relationship of the kind the Man and the Woman had? IOW was Man and Woman meant to be exclusive preFall as they are seen postFall. This is an unknown.

awestruckchild
Jan 31st 2014, 01:55 PM
When I read the Bible I see God as the main topic, not man. If God said, "it was not good that man be alone.." after creating all the other animals of the world, and there was no help meet found for Adam. Why? You can not have true fellowship with someone unless they are of the same class or just like you. I see God being in the same predicament as man. He had already created the angels, cherubim and the like, but they were not made in his image or likeness. The Bible is about God bringing forth a being made liken unto himself so he could share his feeling, joys, knowledge, and above all his love with. Surely we can understand this in our own husbands wife's, and children as we love our family in this life. I am sure when the Lord looks at us he sees apart of himself in us, and it makes him smile or even laugh in how sometimes we do the things he does, just like how we see our children sometimes act like their parents, and it makes us laugh.

Vanilla with chocolate topping, and nuts :)

I take exception with a part of this post.
You are wrong.
The fact that you put chocolate topping on the vanilla ice cream is just trying to hide the dullness of the vanilla ice cream. This is ridiculous. Why not just start with the chocolate ice cream? Vanilla ice cream is not biblical and you have given no verses. So why should we listen to you when you say, vanilla ice cream? It is just your opinion.

Curtis
Jan 31st 2014, 02:11 PM
I take exception with a part of this post.
You are wrong.
The fact that you put chocolate topping on the vanilla ice cream is just trying to hide the dullness of the vanilla ice cream. This is ridiculous. Why not just start with the chocolate ice cream? Vanilla ice cream is not biblical and you have given no verses. So why should we listen to you when you say, vanilla ice cream? It is just your opinion.

Psa 147:17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?

I think the Lord has the very best ice cream available for those who overcome, it will cause us to go weak in the knees.
I hope there is no Neapolitan, but there probably will, since God is into colors.

awestruckchild
Jan 31st 2014, 02:39 PM
Psa 147:17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?

I think the Lord has the very best ice cream available for those who overcome, it will cause us to go weak in the knees.
I hope there is no Neapolitan, but there probably will, since God is into colors.

And here you digress even FURTHER. Do you mean to say that we should believe this verse has to do with brain freeze??!

Sorry aviyah :OFFT: :D

keck553
Jan 31st 2014, 02:40 PM
Of course, none of what will come on "new earth in the context of marriage has any application here and now. Whatever marriage will be in the olam haba, marriage > ice creme in the existence and life God gave us on this earth, and His Word validates and confirms that, and also the Bible is clear on what God's expectations are for his people in regard to marriage and the act of consummation of marriage.

Curtis
Jan 31st 2014, 02:47 PM
Having a intimate relationship with someone is the principle part of marriage. We can not get any closer if we are in Christ.

episkopos
Jan 31st 2014, 03:35 PM
That's sort of what I'm getting at - that food in the afterlife is basically like ice cream given that we won't need it for nourishment. Yet marriage is removed (even if unnecessary), doesn't this imply that marriage is less important than even the simplest form of pleasure?

Marriage here below means self-contained units (families) that separate from the larger community. It means different households. But in the next age there will only be ONE household...the household of God.


The eating and drinking represents the fellowship among those who partake of things together. Whether there is a physical eating and drinking or that is just a metaphor for fellowship remains to be seen... Just a few ideas...

Aviyah
Jan 31st 2014, 04:34 PM
-I dont know what you are talking about when you state "marriage destroyed" "useless pleasures" and then state ice cream-could you please expand. If i am understanding yoiu correctly you think there will be fine dining in resurrection?

There will be food on the New Earth, and since it won't be to sustain life, it is equivalent to leisure.


God did not create marriage as we know it in Eden. A covenant has to be consummated in order for it to be valid. there is no evdence of Adam and Eve consummating a marriage. Only after the fall do we see that Adam "knew" his wife. Again our sex and sexuality wont be destroyed-it will be redeemed.

Okay, I agree with this.


-I dont know how this pertains to the question

You asked how procreation is a secondary function of marriage; and I cite God's reason for creating marriage, which was to solve man's aloneness not his virginity or lack of children. When Eve was created, the problem was solved - not after she had given birth.


-Children(fertility) are just as primary to marriage as the rest of your points

If making babies was the primary function of marriage, God would not have called Day 6 "very good" until Adam & Eve had children.


The days are theological and not literal

Adam and Eve were married before they sinned regardless of whether or not the days are literal.


Which will continue when our bodies are redeemed at resurrection-but with the whole body of Christ.

To be "married" to everyone is not marriage as defined in Genesis. Marriage in Genesis is defined as an ideal union with one member of the opposite sex specifically created as a counterpart. I don't want to be married to everyone let alone people of the same sex.


I dont understand why you go to the extreme of destroyed or annihilated

If there is no original/redeemed marriage model on the new Earth, then marriage will be destroyed by definition because it no longer exists.

Aviyah
Jan 31st 2014, 04:39 PM
We will also have countless brothers and sisters - so will there be a need for an exclusive relationship of the kind the Man and the Woman had?

If the remedy for aloneness could be solved by brothers and sisters, God would have created brothers and sisters for Adam - not one wife. It also suggests that God went with the inferior option if the relationship structure is "improved" by being removed entirely.

Aviyah
Jan 31st 2014, 04:42 PM
Marriage here below means self-contained units (families) that separate from the larger community. It means different households. But in the next age there will only be ONE household...the household of God.

The kingdom of God is already here - we are already a spiritual family, yet some have spouses. So I'm not clear on why the model drastically changes when we are simply moved locations and given immortality. (Not challenging you, I'm just not convinced yet).

Vakeros
Jan 31st 2014, 05:50 PM
If the remedy for aloneness could be solved by brothers and sisters, God would have created brothers and sisters for Adam - not one wife. It also suggests that God went with the inferior option if the relationship structure is "improved" by being removed entirely.
The remedy for aloneness wasn't solely in the Woman, but in all the Woman made possible. God could have created every creature on earth (in a way He continues to do so,) but He didn't, He made procreation part of the filling the earth BOTH with creatures and mankind.
Secondly, note that after Man and Woman you need to decide was God saying two people is enough. I don't believe so as man was told to multiply as well.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
So this shows that procreation was part of God's plan. Will it be a part in the future? We don't know, because there will be countless multitudes from every tribe, tongue and nation.
Thirdly, who was Cain's wife? Who was Seth's? The simplest suggestion is the sister, unless you believe that God made multiple people or that people mated with angels initially, both of which I doubt you believe (I don't).
So the remedy for aloneness is found in our brothers and sisters. God only made ONE pair of each type of creature according to Genesis, and only ONE pair of each type was brought into the ark (apart from certain groups). The fact that God therefore made ONLY one pair doesn't negate that more relationships is better. So it isn't an "inferior" option but neither is it the finished option. It comes back to whether you believe that which is very good can be improved or not. I believe ALL relationships are designed to improve over time. What the Man and Woman started with wasn't the End - it was a beginning, which tragically went wrong with a divorce.

Aviyah
Jan 31st 2014, 07:10 PM
The remedy for aloneness wasn't solely in the Woman, but in all the Woman made possible.

I disagree based on God's own words.

“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen 2:18)

The problem was completely solved upon the creation of Eve. Adam's aloneness had to do with the lack of a mate, not lack of other humans in general. God said that He would make a helper (singular) fit for Adam (specifically).


Secondly, note that after Man and Woman you need to decide was God saying two people is enough.

My point is that Adam's personal dilemma was solved by Eve - one person (wife) was indeed enough for Adam and the problem was lack of a counterpart.


So the remedy for aloneness is found in our brothers and sisters.

If this were true, God would have created brothers and sisters, but more importantly, Day 6 would not have been "very good" because there was still a "not good" given that Adam still had no siblings if this was the problem.

Balabusha
Jan 31st 2014, 08:49 PM
You first have a problem to resolve in that you think we will be living in heaven - this obviously colours your thinking and understanding, just as the reverse is true for those who believe paradise will be on earth.
-You have the problem of putting words into my mouth, and then creating an argument that never existed, and answering your own created argument-I have never stated that we will be living in Heaven with resurrected bodies


Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Here Adam clearly states that they become one flesh. So this evidences the fact that not only were they of one flesh, but that they were intimate becoming one flesh.
-It is only your imagination that creates the scenario that they were intimate in this passage


Also Jesus quoted this verse here:
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This shows that Jesus considered the two joined together by God from the beginning.
-this is all encompassing, and Jesus is talking to a fallen audience-unless you are going to impose that Adam and Eve had a Father and a Mother. context context and may I repeat the word context again Vakeros


Possibly pre-fall Eve was capable of controlling when her body would release the ovum for fertilisation. So she didn't have any periods - until post fall.
-This one takes the cake, and is just plain nonsense Vakeros


What does redeeming our sex and sexuality mean except that it is restored to how it was BEFORE. Hence Aviyah's continual pointing back to the situation preFall.
-I point to the pre fall also. You 2 keep imposing the condition of the fall into the pre-fall and cant grasp that sexuality can be more than just an erotic experience.



The purpose of a woman isn't procreation in entirety, but firstly as someone so that Adam wouldn't be alone - IOW for relationship first. Procreation is a bonus.
-It is not one or the other, it is part and parcel. Song of solomoin is a great example as it shows love, passion and affection in a background of fertility. The blessings of the Law is stated in the same language.
-Our nature gives us the exclusive right to marriage

No they don't. Children aren't the central part to a marriage. It is basing a marriage on such a premise which leads to all sorts of problems. The central part to a marriage is that we are also shown between Jesus and His Bride - which is relationship. Children then is bonus.
-I dont know how many times to repeat myself, but I will do it again. Fertility is one central part of marriage along with companionship,etc., Take the fertility, out of marriage and sterilize it and the Bibles purpose of marriage becomes "impotent" and this is apparent as the secularists are running wild with redneck lame responses. You cant live as a secularist and then debate a secularist on their own turf.



Actually God did enter His rest on the 7th day and they hadn't sinned yet. God was separate from them when they sinned. It may have been on the seventh day in the evening as it says:
Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
The cool of the day is either early morning or evening. Due to context this would suggest AFTER day 6 and thus either day 7 or a later day. The days are literal, but that is an argument for another thread. Regardless, they were joined by God BEFORE the Fall.
-It could not be the morning as Adam and Eve would have sinned in broad daylight as the text does not state that it was dark. it would have been in the afternoon as the earth was cooling, indicating the end of the 6th day..I can back this up from the whole of scripture...but may be another topic, maybe I will post it in a place like bible study.
-Adam and Eve did not enter the rest of God-this carries thru the whole of the Tanakh and New Testsament. Israel did not enter the rest either.



Again don't get confused about what happened preFall with post Fall -
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
In this verse we see the man does use a name for the woman "woman" which basically means he clarifies us as himself. This is in contrast to what happens postFall when Adam gives her the name of Eve. This naming is an effect of sin.
-This again kills you and Aviyah's sex before the fall scenarios. Adam named Eve "woman" and then after the fall named her yet again as "Eve"
-Eve means "mother to the living" this name was not given until after the fall.
-Adam names Eve before and after the fall-so we can assume that our roles continue in heaven and resurrection.



But removing marriage means it is gone and NOT redeemed.
Where I do question Aviyah though is that God joins people together in the Genesis account. We are joined with Jesus in the marriage. This is not a physical union but a relational one. As the main purpose of Man and Woman being united was relational, then this suggests a shift in the need of man for woman in this way. We will also have countless brothers and sisters - so will there be a need for an exclusive relationship of the kind the Man and the Woman had? IOW was Man and Woman meant to be exclusive preFall as they are seen postFall. This is an unknown.
-you stated "relational" and you have answered the question but your materialism blinds you

Aviyah
Jan 31st 2014, 09:12 PM
-Adam names Eve before and after the fall-so we can assume that our roles continue in heaven and resurrection.

We agree on what I've been saying this whole time :rolleyes:

Balabusha
Jan 31st 2014, 09:48 PM
We agree on what I've been saying this whole time :rolleyes:

Yes, our sexuality before the fall was male and female. Where we have a fork in the road is the marriage and physical sexuality aspect. In both cases Adam names the woman-before the fall and after the fall,showing headship of the woman. They were created equal but with different roles. In the post edenic state the woman is named "mother of all the living". Adam then "knew" his wife after this-and a child was born.
In paradise they would have had a perfect sexuality and this would have been perfect without intercourse. There were only 2 in paradise, but in paradise restored there will be billions, and we will share a heightened agape love for each other-just like Adam and Eve. Our love will not be based on selfishness.
Look forward to it Aviyah-you will share a love with my husband and my kids greater than I experience with them now in this life when- in paradise. The bride of Christ will be unified under our Groom

Aviyah
Jan 31st 2014, 09:55 PM
There were only 2 in paradise, but in paradise restored there will be billions, and we will share a heightened agape love for each other-just like Adam and Eve.

I don't see evidence that having the same feelings towards everyone is equal to or better than having a unique counterpart specifically created for you as an individual. If God wanted a singular group of people with no family unit and no exclusive intimacy between two people, why did God create just one person for Adam? Would Adam and Eve have been divorced if they had children prior to the Fall given that their feelings towards their children would be the exact same as those towards each other?

I have difficulty understanding why marriage cannot prevail while still having a perfected relationship with everyone else.


Look forward to it Aviyah-you will share a love with my husband and my kids greater than I experience with them now in paradise.

It won't be the same type of love exclusive to marriage - more accurately the love of family members.

Balabusha
Feb 1st 2014, 01:21 AM
I don't see evidence that having the same feelings towards everyone is equal to or better than having a unique counterpart specifically created for you as an individual. If God wanted a singular group of people with no family unit and no exclusive intimacy between two people, why did God create just one person for Adam? Would Adam and Eve have been divorced if they had children prior to the Fall given that their feelings towards their children would be the exact same as those towards each other?

I have difficulty understanding why marriage cannot prevail while still having a perfected relationship with everyone else.



It won't be the same type of love exclusive to marriage - more accurately the love of family members.

Aviyah, I think that you want to be married and are down about the whole thing-and now are idealizing this to the point of ignoring even the Master Teachers own words.
I will love you and everyone on here even greater than my love for my husband and children. Adam and Eve were the only two people at a given time-we will have many people to cherish and love...the Bride of Messiah! I have had 4 babies that are in paradise and they have never had the chance to ride a bike,go on a date or be married and all that jazz, I cant interpret the Bible in light of they got ripped off-that is eisegesis! It is nor realistic either Aviyah-they went from the warmth and safety of my womb, to something greater than I, my husband or marriage can ever offer!
Look forward to it Aviyah!

Aviyah
Feb 1st 2014, 01:36 AM
Aviyah, I think that you want to be married and are down about the whole thing-and now are idealizing this to the point of ignoring even the Master Teachers own words.

I'm not idealizing it beyond what God created in the beginning. If there is no redeemed marriage, then it is evidently not worth more than even the simplest form of pleasures.

Vakeros
Feb 1st 2014, 09:43 PM
I disagree based on God's own words.
“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen 2:18)
The problem was completely solved upon the creation of Eve. Adam's aloneness had to do with the lack of a mate, not lack of other humans in general. God said that He would make a helper (singular) fit for Adam (specifically).
That doesn't deny what I have stated. It in fact compliments what I have stated. The Woman is the counterpart to the Man. Without the Woman what does the Man achieve, and vice versa. The relationship between the Man and the Woman and the multiplication that would occur was ALL to deal with Man being alone. IOW with the woman there was not simply a doubling of people, but now there was a multiplication possible. Taking God as the perfect relationship we have a trinity of persons - the Man and the Woman don't have that. However when they unite then there is a deepening of each as well as an opportunity for further relationships.


My point is that Adam's personal dilemma was solved by Eve - one person (wife) was indeed enough for Adam and the problem was lack of a counterpart.
His personal dilemma wasn't simply solved in the Woman alone, but in what the Woman meant and what together they would be. IOW a fact of the sum being greater than the parts. Adam wasn't "alone" when he had God. So we need to understand what the "alone" means in context.


If this were true, God would have created brothers and sisters, but more importantly, Day 6 would not have been "very good" because there was still a "not good" given that Adam still had no siblings if this was the problem.
No God didn't create ANY brothers and sisters for any of His creation, instead what He did was create a means for US to create brothers and sisters. IOW He placed the means and opportunity in them. A very good is still only a very good, is it an excellent or a perfect - I'll say it again as you haven't dealt with this point - is perfection or even very good a static place or one of deepening relationships. Man and Woman was a starting point, NOT an end point. Thus it was very good and if things would have continued without sin, then that very good may have been even better. This is what you aren't dealing with in your thinking. You are arguing incorrectly that God had to make siblings or otherwise it wouldn't be very good. That is simply incorrect, what it means is that God makes it possible for us to go from glory to glory. The Man and the Woman didn't have a perfect relationship, but it also wasn't a wrong relationship, it was a relationship which was full of wonder and discovery - unfortunately they also discovered that which was bad for them (and us.) This also shows that the Man and Woman weren't "perfect". They were very good and full of potential. You deny their potential and hold the garden of Eden as the end of any possible relationship rather than the beginning.

Vakeros
Feb 1st 2014, 10:19 PM
-You have the problem of putting words into my mouth, and then creating an argument that never existed, and answering your own created argument-I have never stated that we will be living in Heaven with resurrected bodies[QUOTE]
You said we would be living in Heaven in post #48 so it isn't putting words in your mouth. However if that wasn't what I meant then you can ignore this point.

[QUOTE]-It is only your imagination that creates the scenario that they were intimate in this passage
-this is all encompassing, and Jesus is talking to a fallen audience-unless you are going to impose that Adam and Eve had a Father and a Mother. context context and may I repeat the word context again Vakeros
I complete agree that context is indeed what holds it together and this is what you have either ignored or misunderstood - Jesus is indeed talking to a Fallen audience, but to what does He uphold as being a VALID relationship? He quotes Gen 2 and states that they were joined together, which within context is prior to the Fall. Hence context upholds my point. I ALWAYS look for what context says. If you could show that the context that Jesus explicitly says was a joined, valid, (therefore by your understanding and mine) consummated relationship isn't that of the Man and Woman then to what relationship in the beginning was He referring to?


-This one takes the cake, and is just plain nonsense Vakeros
Why is it nonsense? Let's go back to your own understanding of what uncleanness of a woman refers to? It points to sin and death! Was the Woman in sin and death prior to the Fall? If they never sinned then would she therefore ever have had a period? Surely NOT because if she did then that means it isn't a VALID picture of sin. You have pointed to this women's time as showing this very thing on other threads and I think you have a point. So it isn't nonsense. It also isn't a big point and you can choose to disagree, but I usually have good reasons for suggesting something even if you don't get why or decide that my idea is wrong.


-I point to the pre fall also. You 2 keep imposing the condition of the fall into the pre-fall and cant grasp that sexuality can be more than just an erotic experience.
No, you keep pointing to postFall and I do grasp that which gender we are (our sex) isn't simply about eroticism or an erotic experience. However you seem to reduce it to that if we disagree with you.


-It is not one or the other, it is part and parcel. Song of solomoin is a great example as it shows love, passion and affection in a background of fertility. The blessings of the Law is stated in the same language.
-Our nature gives us the exclusive right to marriage
It is indeed a potential part - but it isn't a requirement or necessity for two to become one. What you are doing is bringing in postFall requirements and blessings. Two become one is the focus of marriage - the fact it can then become three or more is a follow on.


-I dont know how many times to repeat myself, but I will do it again. Fertility is one central part of marriage along with companionship,etc., Take the fertility, out of marriage and sterilize it and the Bibles purpose of marriage becomes "impotent" and this is apparent as the secularists are running wild with redneck lame responses. You cant live as a secularist and then debate a secularist on their own turf.
Fertility isn't the central part at all. It is an aspect, but the central part is a right relationship. The Bible's purpose of marriage isn't procreation, that is the curses requirement. Note where God shows that in Gen 3! The problem is you bring in the postFall curse and blessing into a preFall situation.


-It could not be the morning as Adam and Eve would have sinned in broad daylight as the text does not state that it was dark. it would have been in the afternoon as the earth was cooling, indicating the end of the 6th day..I can back this up from the whole of scripture...but may be another topic, maybe I will post it in a place like bible study.
-Adam and Eve did not enter the rest of God-this carries thru the whole of the Tanakh and New Testsament. Israel did not enter the rest either.
It doesn't say cooling, but cool thus it was after the heat had passed. I agree that it wasn't dark and thus wasn't night. Do you hold that it was dark at 6pm? Surely like the day which has the hottest time at midday, there is deepest night (midnight) and dusk and dawn. Thus the cool of the day was either BEFORE the heat of the day, which I agree isn't the normal usage or it was AFTER the hottest time had passed. Remember also that on day 6 God both made and brought the animals to the Man BEFORE He made the Woman. Thus on Day 6 there wasn't much time for them to sin. They also were joined as Jesus stated.
The problem wasn't that they didn't enter God's rest, but that they didn't remain IN His rest. This is a problem of many who come to church. They fail to remain IN His rest. They are like those outside His body. We ALL sometimes do this, but some actually reject God after having tasted of His goodness. This is one of the greatest sadnesses.


-This again kills you and Aviyah's sex before the fall scenarios. Adam named Eve "woman" and then after the fall named her yet again as "Eve"
Actually as I highlighted the Man didn't name the Woman but acknowledge her as Woman. This is not naming. She was Woman before the Fall because her central role wasn't fertility. It was companionship, as helpmeet, as co-equal though different. It also doesn't kill the idea that they intimately knew each other.

In fact there is a possibility that they had children BEFORE they sinned. This isn't a nonsense idea, but it isn't strongly supported either -some verses which suggest it are:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.
We often only think of the second part of this verse, but the first part suggests a possibility that she already knew what childbearing was like.
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
This could mean the earlier children of the Man and Woman BEFORE the Fall. Because they took the fallen women as wives then their sinless nature was corrupted.

This of course is a side idea and there are good reasons NOT to accept it as being correct. However what it highlights is that there are many things we aren't specifically told and we need discernment and wisdom and some things we just can't categorically state as being either this or that, instead we have to use probables.


-Eve means "mother to the living" this name was not given until after the fall.
-Adam names Eve before and after the fall-so we can assume that our roles continue in heaven and resurrection.
Naming the Woman as Eve shows a change in the relationship and NOW postFall fertility becomes a central part to marriage.
The Man doesn't name the Woman beforehand. Understand what the words he uses mean. They point to an acknowledgement that she is he yet other.


-you stated "relational" and you have answered the question but your materialism blinds you
You like to accuse others of certain things like materialism etc. I am materialistic. I am certainly not blinded by it or in my theology. The key role between the Man and the Woman is relational. This is the purpose foremost in their creation. With each other and with God and this then extends to their multiplication.

Aviyah
Feb 1st 2014, 10:44 PM
God said that Adam was alone - and given that he wasn't literally alone (God was with him as were animals), "alone" must have meant something deeper. Adam was alone because he didn't have a mate... and this is proven when God creates one person (Eve) and afterwards the "not good" becomes "very good." Adam was not "alone" because there were no other humans in general - otherwise God would have simply created more humans in general.

So, again, how is it that lack of marriage in perfection pre-fall is "not good", yet it becomes "good" post-resurrection?


God didn't create ANY brothers and sisters for any of His creation

Surely God created more than 1 single celled organism, or more than 1 tree, or more than 1 ant?

awestruckchild
Feb 2nd 2014, 12:51 AM
There won't be any Sun, because He will be our Light.
There won't be any marriage between us because He will be our Groom.
Says there won't be an ocean anymore either.

keck553
Feb 2nd 2014, 04:43 PM
There won't be any Sun, because He will be our Light.
There won't be any marriage between us because He will be our Groom.
Says there won't be an ocean anymore either.

1. What Revelation says is that there will be no NEED for the sun, or a lamp. Nowhere does it say there will be no sun. What it is saying is that we will no longer need God's creation to sustain us.

2. The Bible doesn't explicitly say there will be no marriage. It says none will be (future tense) given away in marriage.

3. Maybe no sea, but I'll wager the river of life isn't some small stream.

Vakeros
Feb 2nd 2014, 08:33 PM
God said that Adam was alone - and given that he wasn't literally alone (God was with him as were animals), "alone" must have meant something deeper. Adam was alone because he didn't have a mate... and this is proven when God creates one person (Eve) and afterwards the "not good" becomes "very good." Adam was not "alone" because there were no other humans in general - otherwise God would have simply created more humans in general.
The point I don't think you are quite getting is why God would change the "not good" to "very good", and what limitations there are on "very good."
Additionally you aren't noticing what God did with ALL of creation. He didn't create a multiplicity of one type of bird, but gave the type of bird the ability to multiply. IOW within the type was the possibility for more. Not only was there the possibility for more, but God commanded it.
This is also true for Mankind. God didn't need to create multiple men and women, because within the Man and Woman was the capability to have a multiplication. This is what God does. He plants things within us that should then grow and spread. We see this throughout the Bible.


So, again, how is it that lack of marriage in perfection pre-fall is "not good", yet it becomes "good" post-resurrection?
It isn't the lack of marriage which is "not good", it is the lack of growth and deepening of relationship and everything else that marriage brings which was "not good." Do you see the difference - it is what marriage brings which was missing and so led to the statement. The question therefore is does being the Bride of Christ and having countless Brothers and Sisters meet that preFall need?


Surely God created more than 1 single celled organism, or more than 1 tree, or more than 1 ant?
Actually God didn't seem to create more of a creature than was needed of each type. We see that confirmed in the Flood account where ONLY a pair is needed to enter the ark, which shows the original state. So more than one tree, but potentially only a pair of each type. More than one ant, but maybe only one queen and mate. The command was for the birds, the fish etc. to multiply and so fill the seas and the air, highlighting that God didn't make them having filled the air.
God makes us with potential to grow, to become more. This is true of us and was true for them. They weren't a finished item, but a beginning item, but their beginning was very good.

Aviyah
Feb 2nd 2014, 09:17 PM
The point I don't think you are quite getting is why God would change the "not good" to "very good", and what limitations there are on "very good."

Not good = Adam alone.
Very good = Adam not alone (married to Eve).


He didn't create a multiplicity of one type of bird,

Where does it say that?


It isn't the lack of marriage which is "not good", it is the lack of growth and deepening of relationship and everything else that marriage brings which was "not good." Do you see the difference - it is what marriage brings which was missing and so led to the statement.

This doesn't change the fact that the solution was marriage and not another random human or group of humans.


The question therefore is does being the Bride of Christ and having countless Brothers and Sisters meet that preFall need?

No, because we will not be married to each other.


Actually God didn't seem to create more of a creature than was needed of each type.

Well you said God didn't create brothers and sisters for any other species, which can't be true (1 blade of grass? 1 amoeba?) unless you know of any verse which says this.


We see that confirmed in the Flood account

The Flood took place after the fall, so the model cannot be compared. Plus Noah brought more than a single pair for most species.


They weren't a finished item, but a beginning item, but their beginning was very good.

You're looking at the general picture, but I am concerned with the individual. Adam's individual problem was solved with a solution specific to him.

AndrewBaptistFL
Feb 2nd 2014, 10:12 PM
Since we will still be able to eat in the afterlife (apparently for enjoyment rather than survival), yet won't have marriages, then apparently marriage is one of the least important things in life compared to desserts?

Mindless babble like this is why I have a hard time posting or visiting Bible Forums these days. It's sad really, because there was a time that I thought this was all about the Lord.

Aviyah
Feb 2nd 2014, 10:35 PM
Mindless babble like this is why I have a hard time posting or visiting Bible Forums these days. It's sad really, because there was a time that I thought this was all about the Lord.

Have you read the thread? My posts are hardly mindless and I often have difficult questions which I cannot resolve without the help of the community.

Vakeros
Feb 3rd 2014, 11:01 PM
Not good = Adam alone.
Very good = Adam not alone (married to Eve).
You are correct.


Where does it say that?
Genesis 1 and 2 and repeated in Gen 6:
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Trees and plants according to their kind - this isn't necessarily restricted to a single example, but rather points to an example of each kind.

Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

If you stopped reading here you might assume that the waters are swarming and full. However the next verse shows that this isn't the case.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
It is a blessing rather than a command, but it shows that the waters and the air wasn't full.

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Again the creation is of creatures according to their kinds - not multiples of a kind. Do you see the difference?

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Here we get a specific collection which springs up fully grown in Eden, a duplicate of the kinds that existed in the earth.

Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

Here we have one of each kind being brought to the Man where he names it. This again speaks of only one of each kind being made.

I accept that it isn't specifically stated that God made ONLY a pair of each kind, however each passage is highly suggestive of this and added to what God states for Noah seems pretty conclusive. What is also definite is that God didn't make multiple humans, but ONLY two, so that shows that in God's mind, two was sufficient for a multiplication.


This doesn't change the fact that the solution was marriage and not another random human or group of humans.
The thing you do is limit what the solution means as if marriage is the END of the solution. It isn't, it is the START of the solution. Notice God didn't say "It is perfect". IOW marriage was the starting point of the solution, which leads to NOT a random human or random group of humans, but actually a specific human and related group of humans.


No, because we will not be married to each other.
Two points as have been noted:
1) We will be married to Him.
2) What is the PURPOSE of marriage? The central purpose is relationship - this is then expanded through procreation and family. If the central PURPOSE is met and also the family aspect, then the need is not only met but taken further.

The real question you are asking is - as marriage is an exclusive intimate relationship with one other person, is that the model which is removed? The answer seems to be yes in terms of exclusivity. The intimacy will be moved from a more physical to a closer entwining of souls, rooted in true love.


Well you said God didn't create brothers and sisters for any other species, which can't be true (1 blade of grass? 1 amoeba?) unless you know of any verse which says this.
The Bible speaks clearly of God creating sufficient to allow procreation and He then states it as a blessing. Thus 1 blade of grass is insufficient - however He did specifically make the Garden of Eden as a separate work.


The Flood took place after the fall, so the model cannot be compared. Plus Noah brought more than a single pair for most species.
The model can be compared because IF a single pair is enough post Fall (post Flood) then it would be sufficient pre Fall (pre Flood). Noah didn't bring more than a single pair for most species.

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.
Gen 6:20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.

This pretty much states only two of every kind.

Gen 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate,
Gen 7:3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

Notice this might be the part you are thinking of, but this only applies to clean animals (and thus only clean birds) and NOT every type of animal or bird, otherwise it would be a contradiction.


You're looking at the general picture, but I am concerned with the individual. Adam's individual problem was solved with a solution specific to him.
The solution for the individual is also the solution for everyone. The Man was the first and we are shown that how God dealt with him is a model for all people, just as Jesus was the second Man and so the new model. As an aside notice that Jesus didn't marry anyone.
You are also stating though a general requirement with regards to marriage. You aren't asking only about the first Man.

Aviyah
Feb 4th 2014, 08:41 PM
The thing you do is limit what the solution means as if marriage is the END of the solution. It isn't, it is the START of the solution. Notice God didn't say "It is perfect". IOW marriage was the starting point of the solution, which leads to NOT a random human or random group of humans, but actually a specific human and related group of humans.

Marriage was not the beginning of a solution, because the "not good" ended after Day 6 - not after Adam & Eve had enough children. Again, Adam's problem was solved instantaneously, not over time as you suggest.


Two points as have been noted:
1) We will be married to Him.

We will not be individually married to the same person. The Bride of Christ is a metaphor for the collective saved being united with God. We are not each literal brides of Christ because that would imply God will be in a polygamist relationship - 50% of which is homosexual.


2) What is the PURPOSE of marriage? The central purpose is relationship - this is then expanded through procreation and family.

The purpose of marriage is not to have the same relationship with all other humans nor procreate with everyone of the opposite sex. If Adam & Eve never sinned, I doubt God would revoke their marital status or the status of others given that their relationship with family/friends would not be imperfect. If God never planned to have marriage in eternity, why did He create it in the first place? All of your arguments would be more effective if God created marriage after the Fall - but since He installed it prior to sin, evidently the plan was for two individuals to be married forever.


If the central PURPOSE is met and also the family aspect, then the need is not only met but taken further.

Where does the Bible say this? Where does the Bible actually say anything which has been put forward so far (that we will have a love for everyone equivalent to marriage)?


The solution for the individual is also the solution for everyone.

I don't want to be married to Eve in the garden of Eden, how is Adam's personal solution a solution for everyone?


As an aside notice that Jesus didn't marry anyone.

Jesus was/is the only human who is also God. I'm not sure how that would work unless there was a human goddess (there's not).

Walls
Feb 5th 2014, 02:26 PM
Have you read the thread? My posts are hardly mindless and I often have difficult questions which I cannot resolve without the help of the community.

I agree. You have good questions and your counter arguments are well considered.

Vakeros
Feb 5th 2014, 04:04 PM
Marriage was not the beginning of a solution, because the "not good" ended after Day 6 - not after Adam & Eve had enough children. Again, Adam's problem was solved instantaneously, not over time as you suggest.
Here is where we have to disagree. Bringing the Woman to the Man was the solution. However it wasn't the End of the solution. IOW Very good is better than not good, but it isn't as good as "extremely good." I keep saying this, but I don't think you are grasping my point - and I can't think a better way to rephrase it.
When we are a child we think like a child, when we grow up we put childish things behind us.
The solution of the Woman for the Man meant that Man was no longer alone, so it was no longer "not good". In fact it now became "very good", but that "very good" was NOT simply speaking of that moment in time, but of God's plan contained within. Their is growth within the solution. There is more within the "very good" than simply a Woman.


We will not be individually married to the same person. The Bride of Christ is a metaphor for the collective saved being united with God. We are not each literal brides of Christ because that would imply God will be in a polygamist relationship - 50% of which is homosexual.
Though that is true, it doesn't stop being a reality that I am / will be married to the Bread of Life. That I will be married to the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That I will be married to the Vine.


The purpose of marriage is not to have the same relationship with all other humans nor procreate with everyone of the opposite sex. If Adam & Eve never sinned, I doubt God would revoke their marital status or the status of others given that their relationship with family/friends would not be imperfect. If God never planned to have marriage in eternity, why did He create it in the first place? All of your arguments would be more effective if God created marriage after the Fall - but since He installed it prior to sin, evidently the plan was for two individuals to be married forever.
What does marriage speak of? This is the heart of the question and thus the answer. You see it as exclusive between two people. An answer is that it can be inclusive, which you reject. Another answer is that it is collective, which you accept on the one hand, but then reject on the other as the Man and Woman weren't in a collective marriage - though as they sinned, we don't know if that would have become the case.


Where does the Bible say this? Where does the Bible actually say anything which has been put forward so far (that we will have a love for everyone equivalent to marriage)?
What is the Biblical definition of love in a marriage? Surely it is supposed to be found within the church. Submission, esteeming the other, laying your life down for one another as He did for us.


I don't want to be married to Eve in the garden of Eden, how is Adam's personal solution a solution for everyone?
You won't be married to Eve or Adam. The point is HOW did God solve Adam's need? Will He extract ribs from us all? No I don't think so - IOW it isn't the mechanics of what He did, but the purpose of what He did. How He made the relationship between them, How He changed what is not good to being very good. How He removed the aloneness.


Jesus was/is the only human who is also God. I'm not sure how that would work unless there was a human goddess (there's not).
And? The point is that not being married isn't an issue. IOW there is no requirement to be married in order NOT to be alone. God could have made multiple people, but decided that one more was enough. That through that one more then anyone else who would be alone, would no longer need to be.

Aviyah
Feb 5th 2014, 04:43 PM
Here is where we have to disagree. Bringing the Woman to the Man was the solution.

Bringing woman to the man was the completion of Adam's solution; any suggestion otherwise is based on conjecture and not what is actually stated in Genesis. God told them to multiply after Adam was no longer alone. And if Adam's aloneness was based on sheer number of humans, it doesn't make sense why God would eliminate the not good upon the creation of one special human. God's own words suggest that Eve was the solution and not the beginning of one:

"It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for him."

I will make (God plans to solve the problem by making something)...
A helper (singular not plural)...
Fit for him (specifically designed for Adam, not everyone).

"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

The solution of Eve is why we have marriage today, not other humans.


IOW Very good is better than not good, but it isn't as good as "extremely good."

Okay, well in that case "extremely good" isn't as good as "immensely good." This is just subjectivity that I don't find relevant, TBH.


Though that is true...

You believe God is a polygamist and homosexual???


What does marriage speak of? This is the heart of the question and thus the answer. You see it as exclusive between two people. An answer is that it can be inclusive, which you reject.

I don't see evidence that marriage includes more than one man and one woman in a union sponsored by God.


The point is HOW did God solve Adam's need?

By giving him a wife specific for him. Anything beyond this is speculation, right, because this is what the text says?


IOW there is no requirement to be married in order NOT to be alone.

Then why did God create marriage before sin? The implication is that marriage would have been eternal if Adam never sinned.

Vakeros
Feb 5th 2014, 11:58 PM
Bringing woman to the man was the completion of Adam's solution; any suggestion otherwise is based on conjecture and not what is actually stated in Genesis. God told them to multiply after Adam was no longer alone. And if Adam's aloneness was based on sheer number of humans, it doesn't make sense why God would eliminate the not good upon the creation of one special human. God's own words suggest that Eve was the solution and not the beginning of one:

"It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for him."

I will make (God plans to solve the problem by making something)...
A helper (singular not plural)...
Fit for him (specifically designed for Adam, not everyone).

"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

The solution of Eve is why we have marriage today, not other humans.
No bringing the WOman to the Man wasn't the completion of the solution, unless you consider not good to very good as completion firstly. And also if you don't think them actually being together is the solution. IOW simply bringing the Woman to the Man wasn't the completion. It was the possibility for the Woman and the Man to LIVE in unity and NOT in aloneness that was the completion of the solution. What you do is make the marriage service equal the marriage. It doesn't. The marriage service holds the promise, the potential and the ability to say the two are now one, but it is the consummation DAY by DAY, with all its reality that is the fulfilment. Do you get what I am saying?


Okay, well in that case "extremely good" isn't as good as "immensely good." This is just subjectivity that I don't find relevant, TBH.
No problem with honesty, but my point is that God had more in store for the Man and the Woman than just "very good". The question is can God improve good? Yes He did, He had very good. Can God improve "very good" therefore is a crucial question, because if He can't then "very good" is what we should expect - but if He can and will then we maybe need to apprehend what His improvement is.


You believe God is a polygamist and homosexual???
Does the Father love the Son? Does He love Himself? So He is autosexual and homosexual. The problem is you are using postFall understanding and applying to a preFall / postRedemption picture. You are wrapping your ideas within a naturalistic response.


I don't see evidence that marriage includes more than one man and one woman in a union sponsored by God.
Nor do I.


By giving him a wife specific for him. Anything beyond this is speculation, right, because this is what the text says?
No, it isn't simply speculation. To limit the solution to being simply about "marriage" and NOT about the relationship within the marriage is where the emphasis differs. It isn't the institution, but the relationship that is key. The ability to give oneself for another person and to receive this in return.


Then why did God create marriage before sin? The implication is that marriage would have been eternal if Adam never sinned.
But the implication isn't that everyone would be married. Let's assume for a moment that they didn't sin, do you think they would remain childless?
So if we agree they would have children, do you think each son would have a complimentary daughter? This is speculation, but what we see is that NONE of the sons nor any of the daughters would be alone even if they never married. It is ONLY the first Man who was alone. As soon as there was another person then he was no longer alone.

Aviyah
Feb 7th 2014, 04:50 PM
No bringing the WOman to the Man wasn't the completion of the solution,

Okay, well I don't see any evidence to the contrary.


No problem with honesty, but my point is that God had more in store for the Man and the Woman than just "very good".

The point is not what God had in store, the point is what was the solution to the "not good." The solution was Eve, not random humans.


Does the Father love the Son? Does He love Himself? So He is autosexual and homosexual.

So why is homosexuality wrong if God Himself is?


But the implication isn't that everyone would be married.

How do you know that, and where does the text say this? Sounds like you're basing your opinion on your own opinion. If anything, Eden implies the original idea was for everyone to have their own counterpart.

Vakeros
Feb 7th 2014, 05:46 PM
Okay, well I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
The evidence is in the nature of God and what He did. The evidence is in God's way of stating what the blessing is - did you catch it? Was it simply for Man and Woman to be alone forever? No it wasn't. This is why I highlight it is the start of the solution and is the reason why God says it is very good.
A similar example is when Jesus says "It is finished" on the cross. Was everything finished? No it wasn't. However NOW that He had completed what He came to do, the solution to the problem is available and just needs to be applied. The Woman through living with the Man in relationship is the application of the solution. If the Woman went away and left the Man, would that be very good? No, because then the Man would be alone. There is plenty of evidence throughout scripture - it isn't a question of God stating every single par of it in one go.


The point is not what God had in store, the point is what was the solution to the "not good." The solution was Eve, not random humans.
Firstly it isn't random humans - they are family.
Secondly, Eve wasn't the solution - the Woman was. By stating Eve you actually are stating more strongly my case - for she was the mother of the living.
Thirdly, the Woman simply being created, or even being brought to the Man wasn't the solution. It was there completeness together, them being in the image of God

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Gen 1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Note that the statement isn't ONLY in reference to Man and Woman - but rather in reference to EVERYTHING He had made.

This statement doesn't occur in Gen 2. So bringing the Woman to the man simply removes the "not good" of being alone. However it is the totality of what God did, the potential and the reality that was very good.


So why is homosexuality wrong if God Himself is?
Why is incest? It is wrong, yet God made the Man and Woman to have children who would commit incest.
Why also is homosexuality wrong? It is wrong because God says so, and why does He say so? What does Paul write? This moves into another area which probably requires another thread - though I am sure it has been debated before. Pure AGAPE homosexuality is different to impure worldly homosexuality.
Why is nakedness? Is this purely a term for sinfulness? Read the story in Genesis. It wasn't wrong until they sinned.
Not sure if you want to move the thread onto discussing this.


How do you know that, and where does the text say this? Sounds like you're basing your opinion on your own opinion. If anything, Eden implies the original idea was for everyone to have their own counterpart.
No Eden doesn't imply that. It is in fact a dangerous and subversive idea. Why do I say that? Simply because Man is made in God's image and so is Woman. A person can be whole and complete without being married. There is no specific "other". No one AFTER the Man had a rib removed to create a Woman. No one else has that same bond - yet we are ALL of the same family. We all are of Adam and Eve. We are no longer the only people on the entire earth. Therefore the "alone" part is no longer true as it was for the Man BEFORE the Woman.

Ceegen
Feb 7th 2014, 06:03 PM
Does the Father love the Son? Does He love Himself? So He is autosexual and homosexual. The problem is you are using postFall understanding and applying to a preFall / postRedemption picture. You are wrapping your ideas within a naturalistic response.

... What?

Love has nothing to do with sex. What kind of craziness are you speaking of?

Aviyah
Feb 7th 2014, 06:38 PM
The evidence is in the nature of God and what He did. The evidence is in God's way of stating what the blessing is - did you catch it? Was it simply for Man and Woman to be alone forever? No it wasn't.

Once again, you're merging two issues. Adam's personal problem had nothing to do with having children, otherwise God would have said "very good" after he had children.


A similar example is when Jesus says "It is finished" on the cross. Was everything finished? No it wasn't.

You're merging two issues here also. "It is finished" is about His mission on Earth, not the entire human saga. It was finished when God said it was finished. Likewise, it was very good when God said it was very good. Neither are about the future, but the past - what had been accomplished.


Secondly, Eve wasn't the solution - the Woman was.

The human female whom God created out of Adam's side was the solution to Adam's personal problem of being alone.


Thirdly, the Woman simply being created, or even being brought to the Man wasn't the solution.

God's solution for Adam being alone was making a wife - not another Adam, not a friend, not a sibling, not an acquaintance. That's what the text says.


Note that the statement isn't ONLY in reference to Man and Woman - but rather in reference to EVERYTHING He had made.

And "everything He had made" includes marriage.


Pure AGAPE homosexuality is different to impure worldly homosexuality.

Do you have Scripture which differentiates "good homosexuality" from "bad homosexuality?"


A person can be whole and complete without being married.

Then why was Adam not whole and complete without being married?

Vakeros
Feb 7th 2014, 07:17 PM
... What?

Love has nothing to do with sex. What kind of craziness are you speaking of?
Autosexual and homosexual as definitions have nothing to do with sex per se - they mean love of self and love of the same sex. However nowadays, it is also used for performing sexual acts upon yourself or (with homosexual) sexual acts upon those of the same sex. If you know a different word which means loving yourself and for loving others who are of the same sex as yourself, then I would be interested to learn what it is.
God loves the Son and the Son loves the Father - He loves Himself and He loves the One who is the same type as Himself. These are both truthful statements. It is when we twist it with post Fallen usage that we get craziness. A little bit like Aviyah's idea that we are in a polygamous relationship with Jesus, which includes homosexuality as males are also the Bride.

Vakeros
Feb 7th 2014, 07:34 PM
Once again, you're merging two issues. Adam's personal problem had nothing to do with having children, otherwise God would have said "very good" after he had children.
The Man's personal problem was "being alone". If he had children would he be alone? No. So the problem is dealt with as we have the Man as being the sole representative of ALL of humanity, which is what you are doing in this thread. If it was solely about this Man then it wouldn't matter whether he married or not, because it is only in relation himself. However when we look at the Man as standing in for mankind, then we see a wider problem and thus need to understand the wider solution.


You're merging two issues here also. "It is finished" is about His mission on Earth, not the entire human saga. It was finished when God said it was finished. Likewise, it was very good when God said it was very good. Neither are about the future, but the past - what had been accomplished.
Not merging two issues, just showing how in one issue we see a finish, which allowed God to view things differently, and another where He does the same. Was Jesus mission on earth finished? No, He still appeared to people, He still showed them things, He still taught them. A certain number of things WERE accomplished it is true - such as the payment for sin. But that solution though finished, continues. God can thus say the same about the Man and the Woman. He finished His part and it was very good. The Man and the Woman though were just STARTING their part.


The human female whom God created out of Adam's side was the solution to Adam's personal problem of being alone.
She had the potential to be so. What if she left him? Had enough? Would He still be alone? The aloneness was a snapshot of a moment in time. God provided a solution which for a snapshot was a solution, but in fact was intended for a permanent / continual solution. Being alone is a state of being - it continues until something causes it to end.


God's solution for Adam being alone was making a wife - not another Adam, not a friend, not a sibling, not an acquaintance. That's what the text says.
It is what the text says and I am not changing the text. Is that the sole solution for someone being alone? Is that what the text is saying? No it isn't. An animal was the solution, but someone like himself, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. Would his children be of his flesh?


And "everything He had made" includes marriage.
Indeed it does, but the everything is GREATER than marriage. What you seem to do is make the marriage = the GREATER which it doesn't.


Do you have Scripture which differentiates "good homosexuality" from "bad homosexuality?"
It is simply the meaning of the word - read my response to Ceegen.


Then why was Adam not whole and complete without being married?
Who says the Man wasn't whole or complete? The text doesn't say that - all it states is that he was alone. God chose a way to deal with that aloneness. A way that matched what He did with ALL the rest of His creation. A way that highlights how God views Woman - as equal to Man. As someone to be in relationship with Man. As someone who is like and yet other to Man.
There are zero scriptures which teach the idea that a man or woman are incomplete without the other. There are zero scriptures which teach that there is a specific "other" for a man or woman. There is opinion. Actually we are less complete without God than we are without someone of the other sex.
The Man had God, but God saw that the Man didn't have someone like himself and so made Woman. Through them ALL of mankind would come to be. None would every be alone again. Yet don't we find that even in the midst of busy cities that people are more alone than ever?