Angels reproducing with humans possible? - Page 59

shazeep · #**581** 03-18-2015, 11:57 AM

it seems one would have to define "sons of God" in this context to learn anything definitive.

Sean · #**582** 03-18-2015, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jesus didn't say that angels are "unable" to marry. Jesus implied that the holy angels of Heaven do not marry.

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Unholy angels sin... meaning they do things that are against God's natural order.

.....they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels

It means they dont marry, which means they would not try to marry, which means they cannot marry.

Remember, you somehow think they left their STATE of being, but they left their former ESTATE(all they own and where they live), not STATE. (it does not say state)....

Jude 1:6

And the angels which kept not their first(their belongings) estate, but left their own (where they live)habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

If you leave your possessions and habitation behind, to go live in another habitation, you dont become a different being, right?

shazeep · #**583** 03-18-2015, 02:06 PM

hmm, i'd say that the serpent in the garden might disagree. If we can't definitively answer whether the sons of God are fallen angels or Seth's progeny--although i guess i still lean toward fallen angels--then anything is a guess.

Aquila · #**584** 03-18-2015, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

hmm, i'd say that the serpent in the garden might disagree. If we can't definitively answer whether the sons of God are fallen angels or Seth's progeny--although i guess i still lean toward fallen angels--then anything is a guess.

Why would the Sethites be called the "sons of God" if they were falling into apostasy and taking "daughters of men" (women from Cain's line)? Why not speak of the "children of Seth" or the "children of Cain"? Why use a term (bene-ha-elohim) that is used throughout ancient Middle Eastern literature to speak of angelic or divine beings? Why don't the most ancient sources embrace the Sethite theory? Why do they speak of the sinful "angels"? Why would the text imply that their progeny before the flood, and even afterwards, were "giants" (Nephilim)? The Bible already speaks of man's progression into wickedness... why convolute the story with strange language and implications if "something" different wasn't going on?

And I want to keep going back to II Peter and the book of Jude. Both mention the angels that "sinned" and are currently "bound" with chains of darkness. Satan isn't bound. Demons dealt with throughout our lives aren't bound. Who are these angels that are bound? And what did they do that was so HORRIFIC that it warranted God immediately taking them into confinement? Both Peter and Jude mention these "angels" in passing without explanation... which implies that they both assumed their readers would know exactly what they were talking about. Seeing that these early Christians only had the OT to go on... what in the OT would teach about a special class of angels and a horrendous sin that might warrant confinement until the day of Judgment other than Genesis 6???

It all makes perfect sense... if we can get past the idea that evil angels might be able to do terrible things if they took on a material form.

Aquila · #**585** 03-18-2015, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

.....they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels

It means they dont marry, which means they would not try to marry, which means they cannot marry.

First, lets examine this more thoroughly. Let's look at the entire verse.

Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Who are the "angels" being referenced? Jesus said it plainly, "the angels which are in heaven", i.e.... holy angels. Upon immediate examination, Christ's statement excludes any reference to fallen angels. Therefore, this "rule" or "expectation" is one to only be attributed to the holy angels in Heaven. We might say that the angels wich are in Heaven also never commit blasphemy. That doesn't mean that fallen angels also refuse to commit blasphemy. The subject, with regards to the angels referenced, are the angels of Heaven.

Then we have to consider the use of language. This isn't an "ontological" statement. Jesus isn't saying that angels "can't" marry due to their nature. It's saying that the "angels which are in heaven" don't marry. No doubt, this is attributed to their obedience and holiness.

For example... One might say,

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the Catholic priests which are in the Vatican."

...or...

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the faithful who have taken a vow of celibacy."

Would such a statement imply that all human beings "cannot" marry? Would this statement imply that, by nature, human beings "can't" marry? Would this be an ontological statement depicting man's over all nature? Nope. Such statements would only be speaking in reference to the Catholic priests or those who have taken a vow of celibacy. Even if we want to believe that that Christ's words imply an "ontological" statement regarding the nature of the angels of Heaven still begs the question... What about the angels that are not in Heaven?

Therefore, Christ's words do NOT describe something impossible for all angels in accordance to their nature... but rather something the heavenly angels do not do in accordance to their obedience. To make Christ's statement an "ontological" statement about the nature of angels in general is to stretch it far beyond its clear and literal wording.

Quote:

Remember, you somehow think they left their STATE of being, but they left their former ESTATE(all they own and where they live), not STATE. (it does not say state)....

Jude 1:6

And the angels which kept not their first(their belongings) estate, but left their own (where they live)habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

If you leave your possessions and habitation behind, to go live in another habitation, you dont become a different being, right?

I think you misunderstood me. Let me try to clarify...

The fallen angels (not the angels which are in Heaven who don't marry) clearly didn't leave their "state of being". They are, and continue to be,... "angels". However, angels throughout the OT have taken on physical form. They have wrestled, eaten, waged war, etc. My point is that an fallen angel that has taken on physical form might not only be capable of eating... but it might be capable of murder, rape, assault, and yes... even seduction into marriage in effort to further the demonic agenda to destroy mankind. Also, if angels in physical form can "eat"... perhaps their physical forms are "fully functional", meaning they have testicles and can produce semen. When an angel assumes the physical form of a man... is it genderless, or truly "male"? If their physical form has the "plumbing"... perhaps they have some degree of reproductive ability if coupled with a species, like man, that will reproduce naturally upon insemination.

In choosing to come to earth and take physical forms to take "daughters of men"... they left their first estate. This is their fall... their act of rebellion.

Sean · #**586** 03-18-2015, 05:00 PM

Aquila, your post is filled with only assumptions of these fallen angels transforming into humans and suddenly having the ability to have intercourse with humans.

Marriage is when two are joined together as one(I will leave it at that)....LOL

There was no visible demon seen on planet earth by a human, nor were there any mentioned being seen, running around in the history of the Bible to this day. These INVISIBLE demons can only possess things, unless the Lord gives them the ability to be visible(in the Spirit). This "power" or miracle of appearing human was ONLY used in good, not evil(Abraham, etc.). Remember that SATAN himself can only become as an ANGEL of light.

These same fallen angels are still alive...did God take away their transformation power? Why is it not occurring today"
If God gave them the power to become human and have sex, then this ancient miracle was an exclusive "setup" from God to have an excuse to destroy mankind, etc.

shazeep · #**587** 03-18-2015, 06:14 PM

so, serpent in the lead...

mfblume · #**588** 03-18-2015, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why would the Sethites be called the "sons of God" if they were falling into apostasy and taking "daughters of men" (women from Cain's line)? Why not speak of the "children of Seth" or the "children of Cain"?

We already addressed this. The thought is because the end of Genesis 4 is alternatively translated as Enos' birth was when men called themselves by the name of the Lord.

Michael The Disciple · #**589** 03-19-2015, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why would the Sethites be called the "sons of God" if they were falling into apostasy and taking "daughters of men" (women from Cain's line)? Why not speak of the "children of Seth" or the "children of Cain"? Why use a term (bene-ha-elohim) that is used throughout ancient Middle Eastern literature to speak of angelic or divine beings? Why don't the most ancient sources embrace the Sethite theory? Why do they speak of the sinful "angels"? Why would the text imply that their progeny before the flood, and even afterwards, were "giants" (Nephilim)? The Bible already speaks of man's progression into wickedness... why convolute the story with strange language and implications if "something" different wasn't going on?

And I want to keep going back to II Peter and the book of Jude. Both mention the angels that "sinned" and are currently "bound" with chains of darkness. Satan isn't bound. Demons dealt with throughout our lives aren't bound. Who are these angels that are bound? And what did they do that was so HORRIFIC that it warranted God immediately taking them into confinement? Both Peter and Jude mention these "angels" in passing without explanation... which implies that they both assumed their readers would know exactly what they were talking about. Seeing that these early Christians only had the OT to go on... what in the OT would teach about a special class of angels and a horrendous sin that might warrant confinement until the day of Judgment other than Genesis 6???

It all makes perfect sense... if we can get past the idea that evil angels might be able to do terrible things if they took on a material form.

You have explained this as well as can be done.

shazeep · #**590** 03-19-2015, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

We already addressed this. The thought is because the end of Genesis 4 is alternatively translated as Enos' birth was when men called themselves by the name of the Lord.

seems weak, i have to admit. Especially when this heinous sin is put upon them. Now you must needs explain why some fallen angels fell even further, and their connection here. I don't see the point, frankly.