Eternal Companions in Heaven

[Jamdoc]

About the Heaven thing, I feel you where it sounds like being made to feel something or not feel something for eternity is a big-time manipulation of free will.

Yeah, that is my biggest fear, the holy spirit keeps trying to reassure me out of it, listening to other believers' views of heaven often throws me right back into that depression and fear because their view is that it's not a dreadful thing at all to being brainwashed to only want to stare at Jesus and fall on their face. Some people that's ALL they want, is to just endlessly praise.
and it feels like an accusation or conviction if I want other things than that.
What the spirit keeps trying to hammer into me is

Revelation 21:7

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Philippians 4:19

19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

and yes, the bolded words are shouted by the spirit while the rest is not emphasized as much.
He wants to tell me that I'm right, God is a provider, He doesn't expect me to just stare at Him. He doesn't WANT me to just stare at Him and fall on my face. I believe that God has consistently always provided for needs.. not just deleted needs out of your brain so that you only need to stare at Him... but a lot of theologians propose that in eternity, God BECOMES your one and only need, and that fulfillment is just.. staring at Him, and all your other needs and desires just get deleted. What is put on my heart when I think about that view, the "Eternal staring contest with Jesus" "heaven" is actually.... offense. Like He's offended I'd even believe people saying that. So I want to believe Him. I want to believe He'll supply me with a companion, that I will miss out on NOTHING good.
But smaller than a mustard seed faith gets shaken up by verses like Matthew 22:30, Revelation 21:1 (and there was no more sea - I like the oceans, the beach is my "happy place" but I rarely get to spend time at the beach, even though when I am on one... my soul is at rest... I feel content to just... be, I don't know why if you take me away from a coastline I feel less at rest.. I just do).. things like that. If the place my soul feels most at rest, is no longer even a thing, and if I miss out on things I want very dearly, immaterial things mind you, I don't care if I never have material luxuries. It doesn't reconcile with the promise to inherit all things.
But I can't believe when scripture says those things against what I want.

 

[pc_76]

I wish I had the strength and faith to not let what some people believe bring me down.

 

[pc_76]

And that Satan and his minions still get to have their way down here in the mean time with destroying families and all that. Sounds like God just created the earth to later permit Satan to be steward of it and destroy it and ruin good things for us that will no longer be things one day.

 

[Jonathan Dahlin]

See also Why doesn’t everyone have soulmate
Why doesn't everyone have a soulmate? Also, no, contrary to what part of the article says, not every boy should necessarily be born with a twin sister. And people can't and shouldn't be married from birth, but maybe betrothed from birth.
But the article gets one thing right: Ideally, everyone would be in pairs of male and female.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Who here believes the possibility that everyone will receive an eternal companion once we are in Heaven? I've been researching this of late, and there is much debate about it. I don't think anyone really has the knowledge of what Heaven will be like, so it might be interesting to talk about it. I think as a single person, it sounds wonderful, if it is true, and I think a lot of arguments for it, are very sound that there could be companionship between two souls, and that new companionships can form if someone didn't get to experience it on Earth, but on the New Earth and Heaven.

What do you think?

The old way of things will pass away. This will not be a disappointment, but a revelation of what the tenuous things we consider real and final during this life really represent. Imagine knowing each other as completely and intimately as we know ourselves.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Most Christians say that that need for intimacy is met in Jesus.
and to me that's like.. "but He's also a dude.. I'm uncomfortable with that"

And that Satan and his minions still get to have their way down here in the mean time with destroying families and all that. Sounds like God just created the earth to later permit Satan to be steward of it and destroy it and ruin good things for us that will no longer be things one day.

What we see during this vapor of an existence is only a weak representation of the real thing there. You won't be at all uncomfortable.

In heaven, Jesus isn't 'a dude'. He's supermasculine, not male; males (on earth) are one of the several things that are masculine. We are called the Body of Christ, bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh: The Bride of Christ is not a female, but Feminine in comparison to Him, and one with Him in a way that has no representative equal on earth.

Personally, I don't see anything God does, going to waste. I consider the things we know here to be representative of a much more solid fact there.

 

[Jamdoc]

What we see during this vapor of an existence is only a weak representation of the real thing there. You won't be at all uncomfortable.

In heaven, Jesus isn't 'a dude'. He's supermasculine, not male; males (on earth) are one of the several things that are masculine. We are called the Body of Christ, bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh: The Bride of Christ is not a female, but Feminine in comparison to Him, and one with Him in a way that has no representative equal on earth.

Personally, I don't see anything God does, going to waste. I consider the things we know here to be representative of a much more solid fact there.

Still has a beard, still has a masculine form.. I .. don't see myself kissing and cuddling my Lord and Savior.

I mean I have faith in Jesus for a lot.. but.. in regards to Him being my spouse in any sense? That's a hard saying, who can hear it?

That desire for intimacy and a COMPLIMENTARY companion.. that's where I hit a brick wall and just assume, I'm not going to be totally happy, maybe content, but always feeling like I'm missing out on something. Because what I saw as perfection was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but without sin. 2 lovers, in fellowship with God, in a perfect Earth.
and I mourn the loss of that picture.
of what could have been.
the new plan of.. everyone single just worshiping God in front of gaudy gold and jewels? Feels less to me.
There's no complimentary companionship, and Lord forgive me, all the gold and jewels just sound like a Donald Trump fantasy than the artistry of what God creates when He originally created the world to be good.

 

[pc_76]

The old way of things will pass away. This will not be a disappointment, but a revelation of what the tenuous things we consider real and final during this life really represent. Imagine knowing each other as completely and intimately as we know ourselves.

I'm still feeling underwhelmed.

 

[pc_76]

What we see during this vapor of an existence is only a weak representation of the real thing there. You won't be at all uncomfortable.

In heaven, Jesus isn't 'a dude'. He's supermasculine, not male; males (on earth) are one of the several things that are masculine. We are called the Body of Christ, bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh: The Bride of Christ is not a female, but Feminine in comparison to Him, and one with Him in a way that has no representative equal on earth.

Personally, I don't see anything God does, going to waste. I consider the things we know here to be representative of a much more solid fact there.

So in Heaven I can't be masculine anymore.

No wonder Christianity seems to have a feminine bias.

 

[Jamdoc]

I don't think what Mark has said is entirely right.
He means well, and it's a common teaching, but it's not biblical that we are feminine or are to be at all feminine, the Chruch being the bride is symbolic of the level of devotion that Jesus has to the church, it is not like Jesus is marrying individuals and individual men are the "bride". Ever since the Torah, men being effeminate has been considered sin, I don't think that changes in heaven (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 6:9).. so no, we are to be masculine men, because we are to bear the image of God. and Jesus is a masculine man.

the teaching that Jesus "transcends" Gender is also not biblical and is tainted by the world really. Sure it makes it sound good if He "transcends" gender, that's a positive term right?

But what you're really saying is "Jesus is nonbinary", which is something they say at liberal churches or in the world. It's a perversion.
Everywhere in the bible all 3 persons of God are always referred to as male (even the Holy Spirit, John 14:26, John 15:26)
The person we will interact with most in person, is Jesus, who was born physically as a male.

There are many wrong teachings that I am commonly referred to when it comes to this subject, now the idea of eternal companions is probably wrong too, there's nothing in the bible to support it, so it's just unfounded speculation, but at least it's not based in sin like 2 of these are.

Teaching #1: You personally are married to Christ, and Jesus personally fulfills needs for companionship, sex, etc. They claim that Jesus wants the "one flesh" relationship of a married couple. I hear this from Jonathan Cahn and John Piper and it's revolting, I call it "Gay for Jesus" theology and it's not just wrong, it's blasphemously wrong since it's basically treating it like a homosexual relationship, but hey, it's okay, it's with Jesus! Cahn even aluded to a sex act with Jesus in his description. I've seen Jimmy Evans claim you're personally married to Christ too. The "bride of Christ" teaching of Paul in Ephesians 5 gets twisted into this, Paul was referring to a corporate relationship, not a personal one.
Homosexuality is always sin (1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1, Leviticus 20:13). If God had been making marriage to be a picture of your personal relationship with Jesus, it would have been Adam and Steve.

Teaching #2: "Jesus transcends gender so it's not gay to have a one flesh relationship with Jesus" what I call "Trans Jesus" Theology, while they mean "transcends" to make it sound good, they don't get that they're in agreement with the LGBTQ community and their "non binary" Jesus. All scripture has always referred to all 3 persons of the Godhead as male. It is blaspheming to distort the person of God and emasculate them. This one is often connected to teaching #1 to make it seem "not gay" and try to polish out the sin in that first teaching, without realizing it itself is rooted in sin. It is the devil that teaches androgyny, we see evidence for that in our world today.

Teaching #3: That you will simply lose your desires for sex, companionship, etc. This isn't based in sin, it is however, inconsistent with how God has dealt with unfulfilled needs all through history. God has always provided for needs, knowing that fulfilling a need gives satisfaction, and ideally, thankfulness to God for providing those needs. In our sinful state that last part is lacking. I see evidence of this way of dealing with needs continuing in the eternal state as well.

Revelation 21:6

6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Revelation 22:2

2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

So, if we thirst, God provides drink, if we have hunger, God provides food, and in our sinless state we will be thankful to the one who provides. It honors Him. Why would He just take away hunger and thirst, so that He doesn't provide, and He is not thanked?

We've all encountered situations where we've "lost our appetite" and has that ever been a good thing that you felt thankful for?

So while it wouldn't be rooted in sin for God to simply take away needs and desires, it wouldn't be a satisfying means of dealing with them, vs providing for them and being thanked and glorified for supplying.
After all, it's what Philippians 4 promises, not that needs would be taken away, but rather that God would supply.

19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

This is consistent with Romans 8:32

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

This isn't just teaching that your only need becomes Jesus and that by seeing Jesus all your needs are fulfilled because every other need has been taken away.. This is teaching that along with having Jesus.. all things are provided. That God is a lavish giver of gifts and provider.

Revelation 21:7

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Again, an image that God lavishes those in Christ with everything that they need, not that needs are taken away.

God is a creator. in every instance, He has created the fulfillment of every need we have encountered. It has always been providence, not losing one's appetite, that has brought God praise.

as to what He provides in lieu of marriage to satisfy needs for companionship and love, and desires for sex, I don't know, But that the personal relationship with Him is the fulfillment.. is rooted in sin one way or another, and taking away the need so it doesn't have to be fulfilled does not bring with it praise, so I doubt it.

 

[pc_76]

I still want there to be eternal companions or some form of sexuality and romance in Heaven. It's especially bad for those who wanted to have a partner for whatever reason, maybe they didn't get a kiss or a date at all, or could have had a nasty partner here, and that is at least large part because of sin in society, even if on an individual level, that might not be any person's fault. Why is that considered fair? That Satan is allowed to have his way and his works are tolerated by God, but when somebody dies or Jesus returns to defeat Satan once and for all, but after he does, then all our original relationships we made have to be dissolved.

 

[pc_76]

I don't think what Mark has said is entirely right.
He means well, and it's a common teaching, but it's not biblical that we are feminine or are to be at all feminine, the Chruch being the bride is symbolic of the level of devotion that Jesus has to the church, it is not like Jesus is marrying individuals and individual men are the "bride". Ever since the Torah, men being effeminate has been considered sin, I don't think that changes in heaven (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 6:9).. so no, we are to be masculine men, because we are to bear the image of God. and Jesus is a masculine man.

the teaching that Jesus "transcends" Gender is also not biblical and is tainted by the world really. Sure it makes it sound good if He "transcends" gender, that's a positive term right?

But what you're really saying is "Jesus is nonbinary", which is something they say at liberal churches or in the world. It's a perversion.
Everywhere in the bible all 3 persons of God are always referred to as male (even the Holy Spirit, John 14:26, John 15:26)
The person we will interact with most in person, is Jesus, who was born physically as a male.

There are many wrong teachings that I am commonly referred to when it comes to this subject, now the idea of eternal companions is probably wrong too, there's nothing in the bible to support it, so it's just unfounded speculation, but at least it's not based in sin like 2 of these are.

Teaching #1: You personally are married to Christ, and Jesus personally fulfills needs for companionship, sex, etc. They claim that Jesus wants the "one flesh" relationship of a married couple. I hear this from Jonathan Cahn and John Piper and it's revolting, I call it "Gay for Jesus" theology and it's not just wrong, it's blasphemously wrong since it's basically treating it like a homosexual relationship, but hey, it's okay, it's with Jesus! Cahn even aluded to a sex act with Jesus in his description. I've seen Jimmy Evans claim you're personally married to Christ too. The "bride of Christ" teaching of Paul in Ephesians 5 gets twisted into this, Paul was referring to a corporate relationship, not a personal one.
Homosexuality is always sin (1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1, Leviticus 20:13). If God had been making marriage to be a picture of your personal relationship with Jesus, it would have been Adam and Steve.

Teaching #2: "Jesus transcends gender so it's not gay to have a one flesh relationship with Jesus" what I call "Trans Jesus" Theology, while they mean "transcends" to make it sound good, they don't get that they're in agreement with the LGBTQ community and their "non binary" Jesus. All scripture has always referred to all 3 persons of the Godhead as male. It is blaspheming to distort the person of God and emasculate them. This one is often connected to teaching #1 to make it seem "not gay" and try to polish out the sin in that first teaching, without realizing it itself is rooted in sin. It is the devil that teaches androgyny, we see evidence for that in our world today.

Teaching #3: That you will simply lose your desires for sex, companionship, etc. This isn't based in sin, it is however, inconsistent with how God has dealt with unfulfilled needs all through history. God has always provided for needs, knowing that fulfilling a need gives satisfaction, and ideally, thankfulness to God for providing those needs. In our sinful state that last part is lacking. I see evidence of this way of dealing with needs continuing in the eternal state as well.

Revelation 21:6


Revelation 22:2


So, if we thirst, God provides drink, if we have hunger, God provides food, and in our sinless state we will be thankful to the one who provides. It honors Him. Why would He just take away hunger and thirst, so that He doesn't provide, and He is not thanked?

We've all encountered situations where we've "lost our appetite" and has that ever been a good thing that you felt thankful for?

So while it wouldn't be rooted in sin for God to simply take away needs and desires, it wouldn't be a satisfying means of dealing with them, vs providing for them and being thanked and glorified for supplying.
After all, it's what Philippians 4 promises, not that needs would be taken away, but rather that God would supply.


This is consistent with Romans 8:32


This isn't just teaching that your only need becomes Jesus and that by seeing Jesus all your needs are fulfilled because every other need has been taken away.. This is teaching that along with having Jesus.. all things are provided. That God is a lavish giver of gifts and provider.

Revelation 21:7


Again, an image that God lavishes those in Christ with everything that they need, not that needs are taken away.

God is a creator. in every instance, He has created the fulfillment of every need we have encountered. It has always been providence, not losing one's appetite, that has brought God praise.

as to what He provides in lieu of marriage to satisfy needs for companionship and love, and desires for sex, I don't know, But that the personal relationship with Him is the fulfillment.. is rooted in sin one way or another, and taking away the need so it doesn't have to be fulfilled does not bring with it praise, so I doubt it.

A lot of this is still insightful. But the last part where you said he would provide something is lieu of companionship or sex...Then it isn't exactly companionship or sex anymore, is it? Do you think about that?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm still feeling underwhelmed.

Yoda: "You will be.... Oh yes, you will be!"

 

[Jamdoc]

A lot of this is still insightful. But the last part where you said he would provide something is lieu of companionship or sex...Then it isn't exactly companionship or sex anymore, is it? Do you think about that?

I don't know what it is.
I just know that it's not marriage, nor is it taking away the need
it is fulfilling the need, but not in a manner that is sin (as the 'gay for jesus' or 'trans jesus' theories would be)

 

[Mark Quayle]

So in Heaven I can't be masculine anymore.

No wonder Christianity seems to have a feminine bias.

Haha! No, that's not what I said. What's funny to me is, we, find ourselves defining male and female in spite of our political correctness, still don't know what constitutes masculine and feminine except by our current worldviews. But for what it is worth, the riddle includes the fact that females also have certain masculine characteristics, such as testosterone. And, believe it or not, men have estrogen.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

MOD HAT ON!

Thread moved out of FTB!

MOD HAT OFF!

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't think what Mark has said is entirely right.
He means well, and it's a common teaching, but it's not biblical that we are feminine or are to be at all feminine, the Chruch being the bride is symbolic of the level of devotion that Jesus has to the church, it is not like Jesus is marrying individuals and individual men are the "bride". Ever since the Torah, men being effeminate has been considered sin, I don't think that changes in heaven (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 6:9).. so no, we are to be masculine men, because we are to bear the image of God. and Jesus is a masculine man.

the teaching that Jesus "transcends" Gender is also not biblical and is tainted by the world really. Sure it makes it sound good if He "transcends" gender, that's a positive term right?

But what you're really saying is "Jesus is nonbinary", which is something they say at liberal churches or in the world. It's a perversion.
Everywhere in the bible all 3 persons of God are always referred to as male (even the Holy Spirit, John 14:26, John 15:26)
The person we will interact with most in person, is Jesus, who was born physically as a male.

There are many wrong teachings that I am commonly referred to when it comes to this subject, now the idea of eternal companions is probably wrong too, there's nothing in the bible to support it, so it's just unfounded speculation, but at least it's not based in sin like 2 of these are.

Teaching #1: You personally are married to Christ, and Jesus personally fulfills needs for companionship, sex, etc. They claim that Jesus wants the "one flesh" relationship of a married couple. I hear this from Jonathan Cahn and John Piper and it's revolting, I call it "Gay for Jesus" theology and it's not just wrong, it's blasphemously wrong since it's basically treating it like a homosexual relationship, but hey, it's okay, it's with Jesus! Cahn even aluded to a sex act with Jesus in his description. I've seen Jimmy Evans claim you're personally married to Christ too. The "bride of Christ" teaching of Paul in Ephesians 5 gets twisted into this, Paul was referring to a corporate relationship, not a personal one.
Homosexuality is always sin (1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1, Leviticus 20:13). If God had been making marriage to be a picture of your personal relationship with Jesus, it would have been Adam and Steve.

Teaching #2: "Jesus transcends gender so it's not gay to have a one flesh relationship with Jesus" what I call "Trans Jesus" Theology, while they mean "transcends" to make it sound good, they don't get that they're in agreement with the LGBTQ community and their "non binary" Jesus. All scripture has always referred to all 3 persons of the Godhead as male. It is blaspheming to distort the person of God and emasculate them. This one is often connected to teaching #1 to make it seem "not gay" and try to polish out the sin in that first teaching, without realizing it itself is rooted in sin. It is the devil that teaches androgyny, we see evidence for that in our world today.

Teaching #3: That you will simply lose your desires for sex, companionship, etc. This isn't based in sin, it is however, inconsistent with how God has dealt with unfulfilled needs all through history. God has always provided for needs, knowing that fulfilling a need gives satisfaction, and ideally, thankfulness to God for providing those needs. In our sinful state that last part is lacking. I see evidence of this way of dealing with needs continuing in the eternal state as well.

Revelation 21:6


Revelation 22:2


So, if we thirst, God provides drink, if we have hunger, God provides food, and in our sinless state we will be thankful to the one who provides. It honors Him. Why would He just take away hunger and thirst, so that He doesn't provide, and He is not thanked?

We've all encountered situations where we've "lost our appetite" and has that ever been a good thing that you felt thankful for?

So while it wouldn't be rooted in sin for God to simply take away needs and desires, it wouldn't be a satisfying means of dealing with them, vs providing for them and being thanked and glorified for supplying.
After all, it's what Philippians 4 promises, not that needs would be taken away, but rather that God would supply.


This is consistent with Romans 8:32


This isn't just teaching that your only need becomes Jesus and that by seeing Jesus all your needs are fulfilled because every other need has been taken away.. This is teaching that along with having Jesus.. all things are provided. That God is a lavish giver of gifts and provider.

Revelation 21:7


Again, an image that God lavishes those in Christ with everything that they need, not that needs are taken away.

God is a creator. in every instance, He has created the fulfillment of every need we have encountered. It has always been providence, not losing one's appetite, that has brought God praise.

as to what He provides in lieu of marriage to satisfy needs for companionship and love, and desires for sex, I don't know, But that the personal relationship with Him is the fulfillment.. is rooted in sin one way or another, and taking away the need so it doesn't have to be fulfilled does not bring with it praise, so I doubt it.

I don't recall saying that we will be feminine, though I admit I don't think we (men) will be masculine to the same degree that God is. The problem I see with assessing these things is that regardless of how we think, we are still human-temporal-minded and find implications in all our words that are not necessarily apt to the subject at hand.

Before this thread I was told that if our use of words is not apt, that our words become meaningless, but I think that is false. The concepts we try to describe, by words, are not dependent on words. So when I say God is super-masculine, I mean there is something to that notion, though I don't know how better to describe it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A lot of this is still insightful. But the last part where you said he would provide something is lieu of companionship or sex...Then it isn't exactly companionship or sex anymore, is it? Do you think about that?

It isn't what WE now think of as companionship or sex.

 

[Jamdoc]

I don't recall saying that we will be feminine, though I admit I don't think we (men) will be masculine to the same degree that God is. The problem I see with assessing these things is that regardless of how we think, we are still human-temporal-minded and find implications in all our words that are not necessarily apt to the subject at hand.

Before this thread I was told that if our use of words is not apt, that our words become meaningless, but I think that is false. The concepts we try to describe, by words, are not dependent on words. So when I say God is super-masculine, I mean there is something to that notion, though I don't know how better to describe it.

Well you said Jesus "isn't a dude"
which is inconsistent with the bible, even when John saw Him in Revelation, He was a dude. It has always been in terms of being male.
Never referred to by anything other than being male.
I can guess that you see because we're to submit to His authority that is somehow "feminine" for us, but it's not. Men always look to authority and obey, we're naturally designed to. It's a masculine thing to obey authority Even as the head of a family, a man is to subject to the authority of Christ (1 Corinthians 11). There's nothing emasculating about that at all, nothing feminine. It's part of being a man to seek and integrate into Order.

Using terms like "masculine" and "feminine" rather than male and female is conforming to the world's teaching of gender theory.
we were created as male and female.
not as "masculine and feminine" independent of our God given genders.

 

[pc_76]

Sad to think that if Adam and Eve didn't fall at all, God's plan would not have to be changed or done away with in the future just because they messed up on something. Everyone would be able to find their own companion if they could, and produce many offspring for eternity, if the fall never happened. But no, we may get a next life, but that specific part of the condition has to changed because of how things turned out last time.

I appreciate the vision of Heaven or the New Earth as conditions being restored and more like an enhanced version of the existing earth more than the idea that the "reward" will just be spending an "intimate relationship" with Jesus and anyone else, just because he says it is "even better".