The standard Christian belief is that Jesus taught there will be no marriage (and thus no sexual intercourse) in heaven. I’ve been reading “Heaven: A History”. The authors write about a theologian named Swedenborg who claimed he went to heaven and argued that marriage and sex exist in heaven. I’m not persuaded Swedenborg’s accounts of heaven were true, but what do you think of marriage and sex in heaven?
Sex and marriage have been so fulfilling now that I’d be fine with more of it, though I doubt Jesus focused on us going to ‘heaven,’ or even provided us much grasp of life beyond death, and I have no idea what it would mean to be like “the angels in heaven.”
Regarding marriage Jesus says:
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matt.22:30)
As for pleasures like sex, i imagine the afterlife will even exceed this:
“Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Pet 1)
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Rom.14:17)
Mandisa - Joy Unspeakable:
A fairly prevalent understanding of this passage is that “the sons of God” were angels—in this case fallen angels, and that they copulated with human women (daughters of man), producing offspring called “Nephilim” or giants. It is thought that some of the mighty gods of the Greeks were actually stories of these Nephilim. If this understanding is correct, then angelic beings are capable of sexual intercourse.
It does seem that the expressions “sons of God” refers to angels in the Old Testament:
Don; where is the prevalent understanding coming from? Not that I am disagreeing, but just wondering??
Chad, you ask the origin of this prevalent understanding that the “sons of God” were angels?
Well, let’s begin with my mother. She taught me that these “sons of God” were fallen angels.
An internet search will bring you to sites that offer several different interpretations, this being one of them. Other sites, though mentioning this understanding, strongly deny it.
Here are three sites to get you started:
So virtually every website mentions this understanding, and so it seems, if it not prevalent, it is at least rather common. It is usually the first view mentioned by the sites where it is strongly opposed.
Here is a site in which it is definitely affirmed that the “sons of God” in this passage were fallen angels:
Interesting paidion. Do you think Jesus’ response to the Sadducees rules out marriage and sex in heaven. In my Heaven book, the authors quote a 19th century Anglican who thought the text merely taught that there won’t be marrying in heaven but that there will be marriage in heaven. What’s your belief?
qaz, I don’t hold any belief concerning the matter, since it is not clearly revealed one way or the other by Christ or His apostles.
However, my thoughts are that in the resurrection, our experiences with Christ and with each other will transcend sexual experiences in such a way as to be incomparable.
So you hold the standard view.
No qaz. As I stated in my previous post, I don’t hold ANY view concerning the possibility of “sex in heaven.”
Yep I agree. But the fallen angel slant has me a bit miffed… And maybe Don you can fill in the holes. So who were the fallen angels? I looked at the links you provided and to be honest did not get a clear picture of the issue, so, I will ask you to elucidate your position. I am interested in your thoughts and not some one else’s view.
In my opinion, they are the same ones mentioned in Jude 1:6
And the angels who not only did not guard the state of their own beginning, but deserted their own dwelling, He has reserved for the Judgment of the Great Day in everlasting chains of darkness.
I lean toward the view God kept those angels in darkness from the time they fell from their original state. “Chains of darkness” is a figurative term that indicates that, unlike human beings, they have no opportunity for salvation until the Judgment of the Great Day. However, though in darkness, they still have opportunity to wreak havoc. They copulated with human women to produce the Nephilim, the giants of old who also wreaked havoc on the earth. I think those Nephilim were all destroyed by the flood. However, Moses also referred to giants that the ancient Israelites found when they spied out the land, as “Nephilim.” After the flood, the name may have been used to label any giants.
I lean toward this view because I think it makes the most sense out of the text in Genesis 6:4, but I don’t hold to this view with certainty. I accept that a different explanation may be the correct one.
Are there any of those still here or were they all taken out buy the flood?
Geez - where do you think Leftists came from?
I appreciate the humor, but the question is valid!
Yeah, and I’ve no idea, so I took refuge behind humor.
Really, I have no idea on what level to even understand the original ‘data’ - I think we are talking myth all the way on this story.
Ya I’m with you bro, but I have come to realize that I have to listen to things that may originally be knee jerk to me… I have really been given some serious stuff in this forum. So I guess I would say that I am open to interpretations.
Sure. I’ve heard things here that made me feel like this:
Yur de man!!!