Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I always assumed that when angels took on a human form, that it was just that...a form.

Otherwise we have to assume that angels have penises and sperm (not trying to be crude). The Bible refers to angels as "ministering spirits". Jesus asked his disciples after his resurrection, "Does a spirit have flesh and bone?" And to echo Jesus I ask....does a spirit have male equipment?

Would a form be "human" without human plumbing?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Do angels HAVE the ability to take human form? If so then clearly they have supernatural powers. Who knows what else they can do

Amen.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What about being BOUND to not be redeemed?

Folks, really? Angels procreating? This is nonsense.

Mysterious... yes. Nonsense, I'm not so sure. Some would say a 6 day creation and a global flood is nonsense. Or that a man died and rose again after the third day to ascend into Heaven is nonsense. If you BELIEVE the Bible... anything that the Bible states or implies is possible.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Mysterious... yes. Nonsense, I'm not so sure. Some would say a 6 day creation and a global flood is nonsense. Or that a man died and rose again after the third day to ascend into Heaven is nonsense. If you BELIEVE the Bible... anything that the Bible states or implies is possible.

I'm pretty sure it's nonsense. Any way you slice it, it's silly to say angels reproduce when Jesus distinctly implied asexuality when he said we'd be like the angels. And saying that is only true for unfallen angels is... ridiculous.

[Aquila]

If these were not angels the theories normally see these as normal men (line of Cain) or royal figures claiming godhood.

If that were true... why would their children be so unique as to call special attention to it and to use terms that would typically, in common vernacular, indicate that they were "giants"?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If these were not angels the theories normally see these as normal men (line of Cain) or royal figures claiming godhood.

If that were true... why would their children be so unique as to call special attention to it and to use terms that would typically, in common vernacular, indicate that they were "giants"?

Giants were not said to be the offspring of sons of God and daughters of men. Read it again. It just says incidentally they were there in those days.

[mfblume]

Words by Adam Clarke make most contextual a sense to me.:

Genesis 6:4

There were giants in the earth - נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, “he fell.” Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁγιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.

The same became mighty men - men of renown - גברים gibborim, which we render mighty men, signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from גבר gabar, “he prevailed, was victorious.” and אנשי השם anshey hashshem, “men of the name,” ανθρωποι ονομαστοι, Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.

It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim, gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured.

[mfblume]

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.

Genesis 6:4

giants — The term in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters, who spread devastation and carnage far and wide.

[mfblume]

GIANTS: Hebrew:

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I'm pretty sure it's nonsense. Any way you slice it, it's silly to say angels reproduce when Jesus distinctly implied asexuality when he said we'd be like the angels. And saying that is only true for unfallen angels is... ridiculous.

Let's look at the text:

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

In truth, the text doesn't imply an "asexuality". In fact, in every angelic visitation or vision angels appear to be either male or "bestial". So, they never appear as a bald asexual "it" with a figure fitting of a Ken doll or an alien "Grey". Jesus clearly states that they do not marry. In this, we are agreed. However, Jesus didn't say anything about what a group of rogue angels (demons) could accomplish if they came to earth in human form. We also don't know what their capabilities would be if they totally "possessed" human beings to exhibit some form of demonic power in their offspring. In fact, beyond expressing that angels in Heaven (Holy Angels) don't marry, it says little about angels in general... or the capabilities of demonic powers.

We know that the common interpretation of Genesis 6 during the first century is as follows:

"NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels (11) of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land." ~ Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 3 and 1.

Reference 11:
(11) This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.

The only thing that stands in the way of acknowledging that fallen angels may indeed be able to take human form and sire children is... doubt. Disbelief in the extensive powers of the supernatural (which the Bible clearly affirms in other areas). Denial of this possibility is rooted in rationalism that eventually seeks to erode and reinterpret every supernatural event from feeding the 5,000 to the resurrection.

And if this event in Genesis 6 isn't descriptive of a sin so great perpetrated by fallen angels that God would bind them until judgment day... what passage does describe such a sin? Both Peter and Jude present the statement regarding these "angels that sinned" without explanation, indicating that they expected their first century readers to know exactly what they were talking about. So we can conclude that this event is mentioned in the very Scriptures the audience had in their possession.