Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Sean]

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.(They simply fell)

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner(cities about them in like manner, NOT ANGELS IN LIKE MANNER), giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.(Immorality is commonly how humans leave their inheritance or first estate with God, they dont get kicked out of heaven to leave their estate)


2 separate sin types ENTIRELY.

[Sean]

Sin robs us of our innocence no matter what part of creation we are.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well then, i'll ask again how you might interpret Jude 6? Regardless of whether i might agree with it or not, he says "Angels." Do you guys just put a different context on this, or what?

I thought we answered that. The context is angels are compared with people of Sodom in that both left God and faced destruction. That's as far as the comparison goes, and no more.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, but Jude goes further, and describes how, @ "7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire." So, i read this "Sodom and Gomorrah did just what the angels did, in indulging in sexual immorality..." but you must have come to a different interpretation here. what is it? It is all very well to relate it to Sodom and Gomorrah, or humans, but how do you relate it to the "angels" named here?

No, Sodom and Gomorrah did what angels did in falling away from God and receiving judgment. That's as far as the comparison goes.

But like I said I was bowing out.

[shazeep]

ok, i get you: you make "likewise" apply to "and the surrounding cities," comparing them with S&G, and not "likewise" applying to "S&G, and the surrounding cities." interesting.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, i get you: you make "likewise" apply to "and the surrounding cities," comparing them with S&G, and not "likewise" applying to "S&G, and the surrounding cities." interesting.

I am not following you, but it's not that hard to deal with.

The likewise is nit cities compared. It's backslidden angels and sinful people who were judged.

[shazeep]

well, it is easily read that it was both angels and the human cities who indulged in seeking strange flesh, also. But i see how this is strictly in how one reads the syntax. So at the end of the day, one must positively id "sons of God," which apparently is not possible, if it is not angels. In my mind, you either paint yourself into one corner, or the other! (Which may not be true)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, it is easily read that it was both angels and the human cities who indulged in seeking strange flesh, also. But i see how this is strictly in how one reads the syntax. So at the end of the day, one must positively id "sons of God," which apparently is not possible, if it is not angels. In my mind, you either paint yourself into one corner, or the other! (Which may not be true)

Well, I totally disagree. It's simple context. The vast majority agree with my view. So, again, I said I'd bow out. If what we discussed already does not persuade one another either way, nothing else can be said.

[shazeep]

well, if this comes down to a proper definition of "sons of God," i'd say it depends upon whether Jude was actually defining them as angels, or not, regardless of the intent of the individual passages. The two passages are so often related, i just assumed the definition. I guess it is possible that Jude just used such similar language to Gen 6 that the reference was unintentional...but doesn't this seem like a stretch to anyone else?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, if this comes down to a proper definition of "sons of God," i'd say it depends upon whether Jude was actually defining them as angels, or not, regardless of the intent of the individual passages. The two passages are so often related, i just assumed the definition. I guess it is possible that Jude just used such similar language to Gen 6 that the reference was unintentional...but doesn't this seem like a stretch to anyone else?

A stretch is angels having sex with humans. That still amazes me that so many posts saying otherwise occurred..

Anyway, blessings.