When We Live In Heaven...

[Jamdoc]

Enoch is rubbish.

It's corroborated by Peter and Jude, at least that part, and makes sense of the early parts of Genesis 6.

 

[timewerx]

It's corroborated by Peter and Jude, at least that part, and makes sense of the early parts of Genesis 6.

Enoch took a trip to the center of our galaxy close to the giant black hole. It was described in detail in the Book of Enoch.

The distinct features around the giant black hole in our galaxy matched his description. Those features could not be resolved by nothing less than a massive array of radio telescopes because those features are blocked by opaque gas and dust (that only radio or x/gamma rays can pass through) and the enormous distance between the giant black hole and Earth.

So there's no way a primitive man can know those things unless someone leased him a giant radio telescope and taught him how to operate it or flew him to the center of our galaxy.

He referred to the Black Hole as Hades. He referred to the Galaxy as an incredibly enormous tree. It really does look like a tree canopy if viewed from the side more or less.

Coincidentally in Norse mythology, they also describe our galaxy as a tree or the "World Tree".

Enoch referred to the Messiah a couple times and described His character in detail. He also mentioned the "Father" and His nature. The same God Jesus calls "Father. He generally describes them as the "God of the Poor and weak". Jesus indeed was closer to the poor than to the rich and said some rather harsh remarks to the rich.

It is apparent to Enoch that he already knew our Lord Jesus Christ with the same attributes in the Bible. He also had incredibly advanced / futuristic astronomical wisdom. From this we know he is really a prophet of God, a legit one at that.

It's really not surprising his scripture did not become canon because he spoke against the rich and powerful or the God he served is against the rich and powerful. Since the rich and the powerful rule over the world why would they allow something inflammatory to be part of an authoritative literature such as the Bible?

 

[Jamdoc]

Enoch took a trip to the center of our galaxy close to the giant black hole. It was described in detail in the Book of Enoch.

The distinct features around the giant black hole in our galaxy matched his description. Those features could not be resolved by nothing less than a massive array of radio telescopes because those features are blocked by opaque gas and dust (that only radio or x/gamma rays can pass through) and the enormous distance between the giant black hole and Earth.

So there's no way a primitive man can know those things unless someone leased him a giant radio telescope and taught him how to operate it or flew him to the center of our galaxy.

He referred to the Black Hole as Hades. He referred to the Galaxy as an incredibly enormous tree. It really does look like a tree canopy if viewed from the side more or less.

Coincidentally in Norse mythology, they also describe our galaxy as a tree or the "World Tree".

Enoch referred to the Messiah a couple times and described His character in detail. He also mentioned the "Father" and His nature. The same God Jesus calls "Father. He generally describes them as the "God of the Poor and weak". Jesus indeed was closer to the poor than to the rich and said some rather harsh remarks to the rich.

It is apparent to Enoch that he already knew our Lord Jesus Christ with the same attributes in the Bible. He also had incredibly advanced / futuristic astronomical wisdom. From this we know he is really a prophet of God, a legit one at that.

It's really not surprising his scripture did not become canon because he spoke against the rich and powerful or the God he served is against the rich and powerful. Since the rich and the powerful rule over the world why would they allow something inflammatory to be part of an authoritative literature such as the Bible?

Well, the issue is with I Enoch is that Enoch did not write it, it was intertestimental, between Malachi and the New Testament.

It's just that some apostles, and possibly Jesus (as I mentioned before, Jesus gave not knowing the scriptures as for the sadducees' confusion on marriage after the resurrection, which is not addressed at ALL in canon scripture.. and Jesus gives a rationale that is also given in I Enoch.. try it, try to find anytrhing pertaining to Matthew 22:30 in canon Old Testament scripture, you can't), found some nuggets of truth in it, possibly oral traditions that had been written down in it.

 

[RevealedTruths]

Well, the issue is with I Enoch is that Enoch did not write it, it was intertestimental, between Malachi and the New Testament.

It's just that some apostles, and possibly Jesus (as I mentioned before, Jesus gave not knowing the scriptures as for the sadducees' confusion on marriage after the resurrection, which is not addressed at ALL in canon scripture.. and Jesus gives a rationale that is also given in I Enoch.. try it, try to find anytrhing pertaining to Matthew 22:30 in canon Old Testament scripture, you can't), found some nuggets of truth in it, possibly oral traditions that had been written down in it.

I personally have no problem with considering the Book of Enoch inspired. The apostle Jude certainly considered it inspired, and so did our colleagues from the first centuries AD. The book itself is very prophetic and even prophesied that it would be lost and then re-discovered in the last days to help Christians living in the end times.

As for Matthew 22:30, Jesus was most likely referring to Enoch 69:11: "For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power it is consuming men."

This verse says that humans were originally created to be "like the angels" in that they were to live in righteousness and purity and that if they did so, they would be immortal. This also fits with Jesus' statement in the parallel account of the Sadducee incident in Luke 20, where He says: "Neither can they die anymore, for they are as the angels..."

So being "as the angels" means to live in a righteous and pure state (and therefore be immortal), not being a sexless spirit incapable of intimate relationships. Enoch teaches a physical resurrection onto the new Earth, and even says in chapter 10 that after the last judgment, the saints will "live till they beget a thousand children".

 

[RevealedTruths]

What do we do when we live there? I asked this after I got saved a LONG time AGO. My stepdad said, "We follow Jesus." He may have said "We follow Jesus around" or I understood it as that. I was kinda confused. I imagined Jesus walking around and me following along. I think this caused a stress for me because I was imagining just walking around without a break for the rest of my eternity. I guess I looked at that following in a different sense, maybe. I'd take walking around in Heaven over going to hell anyday!

Why do so many Christians speak about "going to heaven", when the Bible never speaks about "going to heaven" in the first place. What has happened to "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth"?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why do so many Christians speak about "going to heaven", when the Bible never speaks about "going to heaven" in the first place. What has happened to "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth"?

Believers are given the promise of eternal life and Jesus described the place as His father's house which has many mansions (actually, the word means rooms).

 

[RevealedTruths]

Believers are given the promise of eternal life and Jesus described the place as His father's house which has many mansions (actually, the word means rooms).

So what do you say about these verses?

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth. Matthew 5:5

But the meek shall inherit the Earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. Psalm 37:11

But for the elect there shall be light and joy and peace, and they shall inherit the Earth. Enoch 5:7

 

[bbbbbbb]

So what do you say about these verses?

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth. Matthew 5:5

But the meek shall inherit the Earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. Psalm 37:11

But for the elect there shall be light and joy and peace, and they shall inherit the Earth. Enoch 5:7

I say that there is difficulty resolving the tension between the various biblical passages. We also have, for example, II Peter 3:1-13


II Peter 3:1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.

3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

This is where classic Dispensationalism shines in interpreting the restored earth as existing for the millennium of 1,000 years after which it will be destroyed and God's final judgement of mankind at the Great White Throne will take place.

 

[Jamdoc]

I personally have no problem with considering the Book of Enoch inspired. The apostle Jude certainly considered it inspired, and so did our colleagues from the first centuries AD. The book itself is very prophetic and even prophesied that it would be lost and then re-discovered in the last days to help Christians living in the end times.

As for Matthew 22:30, Jesus was most likely referring to Enoch 69:11: "For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power it is consuming men."

This verse says that humans were originally created to be "like the angels" in that they were to live in righteousness and purity and that if they did so, they would be immortal. This also fits with Jesus' statement in the parallel account of the Sadducee incident in Luke 20, where He says: "Neither can they die anymore, for they are as the angels..."

So being "as the angels" means to live in a righteous and pure state (and therefore be immortal), not being a sexless spirit incapable of intimate relationships. Enoch teaches a physical resurrection onto the new Earth, and even says in chapter 10 that after the last judgment, the saints will "live till they beget a thousand children".

well, still says that they will not marry and Enoch gives the rationale for marriage being death, so with no death = no need for procreation/marriage by that line of logic. Which is what I Enoch says and what Jesus said.

The problem I have with that rationale is that marriage was created before death was brought into the world, and God gave the command for procreation also prior to the fall.

So Marriage and procreation are not byproducts of the fall to be corrected, but good gifts that God gave that apparently He has changed His mind about and is taking away. and I struggle with that terribly. The idea that God changes His mind.
another thing I have sorrow for is marine life, like, I love marine animals, sea otters, one of my favorites, dolphins, whales, sea lions, I have a soft spot for manatees and sea turtles as well, especially seeing the rush to the surf by baby sea turtles after they're born. Even just the sound of waves on the shore, is more soothing to me than any musical performance, ever.

I look at Genesis 1

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

and

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

so the creation of the seas and all the life in them were not some byproduct of the fall they were part of God's original good creation something He loved and was pleased with.

but then Revelation 16

3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

God kills all marine life.
and
Revelation 21

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

they are not restored.
I feel this pain of permanent loss, forever, something that Jesus' atonement will not restore to God's original creation. Does God's heart break over this too? Why can't He/won't He restore them?

 

[RevealedTruths]

well, still says that they will not marry and Enoch gives the rationale for marriage being death, so with no death = no need for procreation/marriage by that line of logic. Which is what I Enoch says and what Jesus said.

The problem I have with that rationale is that marriage was created before death was brought into the world, and God gave the command for procreation also prior to the fall.

So Marriage and procreation are not byproducts of the fall to be corrected, but good gifts that God gave that apparently He has changed His mind about and is taking away. and I struggle with that terribly. The idea that God changes His mind.
another thing I have sorrow for is marine life, like, I love marine animals, sea otters, one of my favorites, dolphins, whales, sea lions, I have a soft spot for manatees and sea turtles as well, especially seeing the rush to the surf by baby sea turtles after they're born. Even just the sound of waves on the shore, is more soothing to me than any musical performance, ever.

I look at Genesis 1

and

so the creation of the seas and all the life in them were not some byproduct of the fall they were part of God's original good creation something He loved and was pleased with.

but then Revelation 16

God kills all marine life.
and
Revelation 21

they are not restored.
I feel this pain of permanent loss, forever, something that Jesus' atonement will not restore to God's original creation. Does God's heart break over this too? Why can't He/won't He restore them?

The sea is most likely not a literal body of water. In the OT, the sea was a symbolic of chaos and evil. Enoch doesn't say that the resurrected won't "marry", it says that men were created to be like the angels in that they were to live in righteousness and purity, and if they did so then death wouldn't touch them. I don't see anything about "marrying" here. Ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and stop listening to prudish pastors, who are most likely satanists in disguise and who are blaspheming the Creator by trying to turn Him into a Destroyer.

 

[RevealedTruths]

This is where classic Dispensationalism shines in interpreting the restored earth as existing for the millennium of 1,000 years after which it will be destroyed and God's final judgement of mankind at the Great White Throne will take place.

In other words, inheriting the Earth is just a temporary blessing that God will then take away from the meek? If so, why are the meek rewarded with only a temporary blessing but all the others with an eternal one? Doesn't that seem a little unfair to say the least? And doesn't the Bible itself say that God's blessing are irrevocable?

 

[Jamdoc]

The sea is most likely not a literal body of water. In the OT, the sea was a symbolic of chaos and evil. Enoch doesn't say that the resurrected won't "marry", it says that men were created to be like the angels in that they were to live in righteousness and purity, and if they did so then death wouldn't touch them. I don't see anything about "marrying" here. Ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and stop listening to prudish pastors, who are most likely satanists in disguise and who are blaspheming the Creator by trying to turn Him into a Destroyer.

Well I can't discount Jesus' own words, which are "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage"

 

[RevealedTruths]

Well I can't discount Jesus' own words, which are "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage"

Jesus also said "if you do not hate your father and mother, wife, children, even your own life, you cannot be My disciple". If taken at face value, this statement would mean that you LITERALLY have to hate your own family. Do you think this is meant to be taken at face value?

 

[bbbbbbb]

In other words, inheriting the Earth is just a temporary blessing that God will then take away from the meek? If so, why are the meek rewarded with only a temporary blessing but all the others with an eternal one? Doesn't that seem a little unfair to say the least? And doesn't the Bible itself say that God's blessing are irrevocable?

Well, there is no doubt that God has dealt differently with various people over history. For example, God promised David that his descendants would reign over Israel forever. After a few centuries came the Babylonian captivity and the end of the monarchy, at least in a literal sense. After a few centuries more Jesus Christ came on the scene and the whole monarchial, as well as sacrificial, system was upended and spiritualized. If you don't perceive these various dispensations of God's grace throughout human history then you really do have to do some major theological juggling.

 

[Jamdoc]

Jesus also said "if you do not hate your father and mother, wife, children, even your own life, you cannot be My disciple". If taken at face value, this statement would mean that you LITERALLY have to hate your own family. Do you think this is meant to be taken at face value?

that means in comparison to Christ Himself, you have to value Him over all things, and I do, I'm just sad that the choices seem so steep.

 

[RevealedTruths]

that means in comparison to Christ Himself, you have to value Him over all things, and I do, I'm just sad that the choices seem so steep.

Indeed it does. But if taken literally, at face value, it means you literally have to hate your family. But in this particular case, it's obvious that this is a hyperbolical statement not meant to be taken literally. Why then couldn't the same be the case for Matthew 22:30?

 

[Jamdoc]

Indeed it does. But if taken literally, at face value, it means you literally have to hate your family. But in this particular case, it's obvious that this is a hyperbolical statement not meant to be taken literally. Why then couldn't the same be the case for Matthew 22:30?

Because then Jesus wouldn't have been answering the Saducee's question.

They ask "who will this woman who married 7 men over her lifetime be married to on the New Earth after the resurrection" and Jesus answered "Nobody, nobody gets married after the resurrection", and they were so stunned by the answer they didn't follow up on it.

If Jesus' answer wasn't 'nobody' then He did not answer the question.

and the closest to an answer we get in all the rest of scripture, is that "marriage is a picture of Christ and His Church" a corporate relationship, which corporate is by definition, not intimate.

 

[RevealedTruths]

and the closest to an answer we get in all the rest of scripture, is that "marriage is a picture of Christ and His Church" a corporate relationship, which corporate is by definition, not intimate.

If that's the case, then what about Isaiah 65:23? Or what about Enoch 10:17, which states that the saints will beget a thousand children after they escape after the last judgment?

 

[Jamdoc]

If that's the case, then what about Isaiah 65:23? Or what about Enoch 10:17, which states that the saints will beget a thousand children after they escape after the last judgment?

Yeah the Isaiah verse is the one that actually makes me pause and think about the idea and the closest thing I can think of is that as the marriage of Christ to the Church, we are all essentially married to each other in totality. What is "lost" is the exclusivity of marital relationship, but that sex and procreation actually continue, and it is not considered sin or fornication because you are in a covenant marriage to well, everyone already.

and theologically.. it has tied in with WHY God might change His mind on the exclusivity of marriage.
The reason why being when Adam was married to Eve, and Eve was deceived and ate the fruit.... Adam was not deceived, Adam consciously chose to die with His wife rather than obey God and live without her. I mean it's not like God wouldn't have made Adam a new wife if he'd let Eve die alone.. but Adam made a choice to value Eve over God.
That is a potential problem with marriage, in that marriage causes a person to value another person above all other people, and "ideally" above everything BUT God, but in practice, the first man valued his spouse above God.

Let's look at the decrees that God makes to the 3 offending parties
Genesis 3

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Because Satan sinned first, and deceived humanity, he's cursed and promised destruction. Satan receives the most blame.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Here's an interesting spin and may prove to be an unpopular spin. Not only did Eve value something over God, wanting to become like God herself, believing the lie, but she valued herself over her husband, she didn't consult with him, and she gave the fruit to him, condemning him with herself. So part of her punishment is male headship, in other words, she should have loved Adam more than she did, and for most of history, women have been dependent on men as a result. In the restoration, this may not be the case.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

There it is, the primary sin of Adam, valuing his wife more than obedience to God. Adam was not tricked. Adam made a bad value judgement.


As a result, God may now see a problem in a monogamous union once the fall is undone, because in a monogamous union you place 2 people in such a relationship that they may value each other over God. That is a source of sin.
So removing the monogamy from it, no one person is valued above others, much less valued above God.

However this would border on Open Theism, that God would change His mind on something instead of already knowing the outcome before He even did it
and that, and the idea of an almost "free love" like approach to sexuality.. hinders my ability to actually accept this view.

but at the same time, that's the direction I feel pushed in, the verses I feel drawn to, Isaiah 65:23, and Romans 8:32, and Revelation 21:7, with the rhetorical question "what part of ALL THINGS, don't you understand? Lose your FOMO. You won't miss out on anything good."

 

[RevealedTruths]

Just stop listening to the bullcrap that modern-day pastors teach. The vast majority of pastors are either biblically illeterate unregenerate prudes, or worse, satanists in disguise. Led the Set-Apart Spirit guide you in all things.