Why does the world need to "end"?

[timothyu]

God is immutable.

We are not

 

[Jamdoc]

Matt 22
23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.”

29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven

=======================

In heaven we might think of our time there as the time spent at a church social event - where we are all the family of God and everyone is socializing as friends.

Yes.. with intimacy limited to handshakes and side hugs
and there will never again be a new baby born.

 

[timothyu]

If evil is not necessary, then God does not need to display His holiness, justice, and mercy through its defeat.

Genesis 3:22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

God already lives with it knowing good and evil, so defeating it does not mean eliminating it. It is and was and will always be as it always has been in God's realm.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes.. with intimacy limited to handshakes and side hugs and there will never again be a new baby born.

In Matt 22 Jesus said that the saints will "be like the angels" having no families etc. Angels of course have no biology that even applies to that function - just as humans have no biology that leads us to breathe water or fly of a cliff by flapping our arms. We don't desire to try it since we don't have that as a feature.

But one might imagine that "if" there is gender for humans in heaven - then some form of family will one day apply to humanity beyond the basic "all humans are one big family of man". I am pretty sure that humans in heaven will have zero biological features that are "of no use" - so if gender features do exist for resurrected saints in heaven - then there will ultimately be a reason for it.

As for no infants/no babies. We live in a big universe I am pretty sure people who were created on other planets will have families and children. I don't think that they will get a body-change the moment that the saints on planet Earth are resurrected with new bodies.

Heb 1 and Heb 11 say God "created the WORLDS" not just this one world. But this one world did fall into rebellion and sin. We have the death of Christ and the Gospel of our salvation.

 

[timothyu]

Ever notice how our visions of the future including life beyond, always seems limited to visions of the past. No wonder Christianity grew to resemble empires and institutions that went before. Was the concept of an alternate kingdom built upon principles contrary to man's thinking too much to fathom?

Isaiah 55:7-9

 

[David's Harp]

Was the concept of an alternate kingdom built upon principles contrary to man's thinking too much to fathom?

If it involved giving away all your material wealth...probably!

 

[timothyu]

If it involved giving away all your material wealth...probably!

So sharing was not meant to be a human concept. Logical as our entire world is built upon an alternate reality from the sharing aspects of the Kingdom, unless of course most often there is something personal to be gain by sharing.

 

[pc_76]

Matt 22
23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.”

29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven

=======================

In heaven we might think of our time there as the time spent at a church social event - where we are all the family of God and everyone is socializing as friends.

But this makes it feel like something is missing and that the other kinds of relationships are dissolved and all that is left is that we love one another just in a brother and sisterly way. "God has something infinitely much better" even if well-intentioned sounds like a sort of cop-out, since we have free choice and God can honor that by giving us a romantic/sexual type of relationship or even make a partner for us if we so desire.

 

[timothyu]

But this makes it feel like something is missing and that the other kinds of relationships are dissolved and all that is left is that we love one another just in a brother and sisterly way. "God has something infinitely much better" even if well-intentioned sounds like a sort of cop-out, since we have free choice and God can honor that by giving us a romantic/sexual type of relationship or even make a partner for us if we so desire.

Depends on whether you see though the eyes of the flesh or the spirit

 

[pc_76]

Yes.. with intimacy limited to handshakes and side hugs
and there will never again be a new baby born.

And as if powers on this earth aren't restricting or taking away connections and relationships already (lockdowns and social distancing).

 

[Jamdoc]

Depends on whether you see though the eyes of the flesh or the spirit

I look at it as God had a design for the world pre-fall, and it included procreation, and new life, and marriage.
But afterward God has apparently CHANGED HIS MIND
and that is what disturbs me.
That the fall has permanent consequences that will never be restored.

I guess that's the baby (literally) with the bathwater moment for me.
Everything else restored, BUT that.
No populating a vast universe
No ever meeting anyone new after awhile
just the same people you already knew forever.

 

[Jonaitis]

God on the other hand is able to see the future with skill above the ten year old. He can see and plan even in the context of free will. The ten year old cannot.

God does not need to learn the future in order to make decisions in the present.

 

[Jonaitis]

If evil does not exist then God has no plan to defeat it... it does not exist.
But since evil does exist - then when God's Word declares Him to have a plan to defeat it - we can believe it.

So evil has a purpose. It isn't, then, some mysterious force that disrupts God's plan out of nowhere. It is a means to an end.

 

[Jonaitis]

We are not

Exactly.

 

[Jonaitis]

Genesis 3:22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

God already lives with it knowing good and evil, so defeating it does not mean eliminating it. It is and was and will always be as it always has been in God's realm.

If evil exists in God's realm, then God isn't surprised by it, thus does not actually expect a different outcome by our decisions. He already knows, because it is already planned, in His realm.

 

[Jamdoc]

If evil exists in God's realm, then God isn't surprised by it, thus does not actually expect a different outcome by our decisions. He already knows, because it is already planned, in His realm.

So why did God change his mind about marriage and procreation?

The very first thing that God said was not good, was a lonely man (Genesis 2:18) He could have solved that issue just by spawning millions of other men, females were not required for there to be hundreds of millions of angels, and so they weren't necessary purely for procreation. Or, God could have said "I'm enough companionship for Adam" as many people believe that just seeing Jesus is enough companionship for us. God chose to make a complementary companion for Adam, someone who was not exactly the same as Adam but balanced him, and chose marriage (before the fall) as the way man and women were supposed to exist together.

Matthew 22:30 dramatically changes that.

To a point of entire doctrines being based around that verse that I frankly find abominable 1. that we'll lose gender ("like the angels"), God has declared being effeminate or even cross dressing was an abomination to Him, why would He change that and have all people be "gender non binary" in eternity? 2. that we'll personally be married to Jesus, even if you're a man, Jesus is your "husband". Homosexuality is abominable, how does any Christian believe that a man-man marriage relationship is the eternal and perfect relationship God had in mind make any sense whatsoever?


Any way you look at it, Matthew 22:30 and it's parallel verses in Mark and Luke represent a dramatic change in God's plan.

I can't for the life of me feel comforted or edified by the idea that God changes His mind when He already knew the future and outcomes of every decision by every person forever.

 

[timothyu]

God chose to make a complementary companion for Adam, someone who was not exactly the same as Adam but balanced him, and chose marriage (before the fall) as the way man and women were supposed to exist together.

Woman was not created separately but was taken from man, indicating an alter identity of the same entity. Why is that not possible in a non fleshy Kingdom where we have supposedly been transformed from fleshy caterpillar to fleshy/spiritual cocoon to the end result?

 

[Jonaitis]

So why did God change his mind about marriage and procreation?

The very first thing that God said was not good, was a lonely man (Genesis 2:18) He could have solved that issue just by spawning millions of other men, females were not required for there to be hundreds of millions of angels, and so they weren't necessary purely for procreation. Or, God could have said "I'm enough companionship for Adam" as many people believe that just seeing Jesus is enough companionship for us. God chose to make a complementary companion for Adam, someone who was not exactly the same as Adam but balanced him, and chose marriage (before the fall) as the way man and women were supposed to exist together.

Matthew 22:30 dramatically changes that.

To a point of entire doctrines being based around that verse that I frankly find abominable 1. that we'll lose gender ("like the angels"), God has declared being effeminate or even cross dressing was an abomination to Him, why would He change that and have all people be "gender non binary" in eternity? 2. that we'll personally be married to Jesus, even if you're a man, Jesus is your "husband". Homosexuality is abominable, how does any Christian believe that a man-man marriage relationship is the eternal and perfect relationship God had in mind make any sense whatsoever?


Any way you look at it, Matthew 22:30 and it's parallel verses in Mark and Luke represent a dramatic change in God's plan.

I can't for the life of me feel comforted or edified by the idea that God changes His mind when He already knew the future and outcomes of every decision by every person forever.

God does have feelings, nor does He have thoughts like us. Scripture conveys God in language that is relative to our experience, but He is beyond them in Himself. Sure, you can say that God expects us to repent, if only you understand that as a human analogy of His patience. You can say that God changes His mind, if only you understand that it is from our perspective in the way He has planned to direct the course of history through our actions. God is not like us, so we must understand these ways of describing Him as a concession to our finite grasp. His wrath is not like our anger, it is our perspective of His justice.

 

[Jamdoc]

Woman was not created separately but was taken from man, indicating an alter identity of the same entity. Why is that not possible in a non fleshy Kingdom where we have supposedly been transformed from fleshy caterpillar to fleshy/spiritual cocoon to the end result?

The end result is still fleshy. Christ was resurrected bodily, and so will we.
Christ was also resurrected as a man. So His gender identity was intact.

I find just putting "spiritual" as a label to everything as pretty much a copout.

 

[timothyu]

Christ was resurrected bodily

For the time he had left to deal with His mission. Was He transformed upon resurrection or upon lifting into the clouds so to . Why maintain the wounds in Heaven? We receive a new heaven and earth but who is to say it will be as we now comprehend it? Perhaps this old ant farm is obsolete.