Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If we want to believe something, no argument can change it.

AMEN.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Are you saying that God intended for man to have sex OUTSIDE of marriage?

Heterosexuality, yes: within the confines of marriage.

"Come, and let us reason together...".

ha no, i'm saying that "strange flesh" is easily interpreted as being any flesh that one is not joined to.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ha no, i'm saying that "strange flesh" is easily interpreted as being any flesh that one is not joined to.

Could be.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If we want to believe something, no argument can change it.

i agree with you there--but we have a subject here that i really have no position on. I may have when i entered the convo--that being what seems obvious by interpretation, and what i assumed most people believed--but i am still open here. I just don't really get how you are interpreting Jude's mention of the story, regardless of whether one views it as Sean does, or as homosexuality; these are irrelevant--it seems to me--to the passage

"6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,d serve as an example..."

in which "angels" are compared to the inhabitants of "S&G," in that they both "pursued unnatural desire." While i certainly agree with Sean, that these here are meant to "serve as an example," and i might even agree with you, that homosexuality is also a perversion, still neither of these speak to the obvious, direct statement that some angels did not stay in their positions (tellingly, "of authority," indicating that going in to women was possible for them, if not advisable), but acted "likewise" to S&G when they "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire."

So, while we are texting, and i'm willing to give some allowance, as misunderstanding is easy, see that going homo, or noting "example" are just evading the point, and the direct quote (in my mind) of Scripture.

Pulpit Commentary
"...The sin suggested by the context is not the sin of pride, but a sin against nature. The reference, therefore, is taken to be to the Jewish idea that amatory passion is not limited to the creatures of earth, and that some angels, yielding to the spell of the beauty of the daughters of men, forsook their own kingdom, and entered unto unnatural relations with them. The Jewish belief is seen in the story of Asmodeus in the Book of Tobit; it is found by Josephus (who has been followed by not a few modern interpreters) in Genesis 6:1-4; and it is given with special distinctness in the Book of Enoch."

and also Alford, apparently. I note all the others steadfastly ignore the relevant comparing phrase in Jude, dancing all the way around "angels" without ever commenting upon it directly. Not that i blame them, as i seriously doubt that any angels found any humans attractive in a sexual way.

[shazeep]

However, if angels did not come in to women in some way, you paint yourself into a corner, and are forced to admit that you believe the Bible is wrong @ Jude 6.

[shazeep]

So i wonder if a better way to approach this is to look at the end result of Genesis 6, which is the flood necessitated by whatever it was that occurred. Obviously, binding the "sons of God" was not sufficient to alleviate the problem. God "would not contend with man," here, but we witness that the punishment extended to all of nature--at least landed nature--save those that God put in the Ark.

This suggests to me that a Pandora's box had been opened, that a mere plague upon the humans involved would not eradicate. The apparent fact that it was not merely man's licentiousness being eradicated--as even one of Noah's sons becoming evil, and a raven, prolly, being brought into the Ark, represent--and sin did not abate after the flood, leaves us to determine just what exactly was in "the times of Noah," before and after the flood, apparently, that does not obtain in the rest of human history.

So, you decide; but personally i'm seeing that we are now able to have babies with three parents, and insert human genes into rice.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If we want to believe something, no argument can change it.

it is not a matter of wanting to believe something or a matter of argument, but it is a matter of what does the word of God says.

If it is in the Bible then we need to believe it, regardless of how we may feel about it, or whether we think is logical or makes sense.

Come on does it make sense that iron floats, yet such a miracle is described in the Bible.

Yet it did happened regardless of whether we want to believe it or someone may argue against it.

so no the argument that we just want to believe in something is the basis for a certain belief does not hold water, neither that there is no argument for a position and/or only the negative arguments have to be accepted.

This is similar to the Catholic Church position, that only they have the correct interpretation of the Bible passages. So in their point of view if we differ from them on any point, then we are wrong despite of how much scriptural support we may have.

We affirm that we have scriptural support for such a belief, if we had no scriptural support for such stand, then it would make sense to say that we just want to believe in something.

Per example there is absolutely no scriptural support for the no beards, no short sleeve, and other such similar things, yet some hold on them dear and in those cases we can truly say that no argument would convince those who simply want to believe such doctrines.

[mfblume]

FZ, from evidence produced, I stand by my statement in this discussion. When Jesus said angels don't procreate, to say anything else as we continue, in my opinion, means someone wants to believe something.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by mfblume

FZ, from evidence produced, I stand by my statement in this discussion. When Jesus said angels don't procreate, to say anything else as we continue, in my opinion, means someone wants to believe something.

You are absolutely right, Jesus did say that the angels in heaven don't procreate, however that statement by Jesus might not represent the fallen angels.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You are absolutely right, Jesus did say that the angels in heaven don't procreate, however that statement by Jesus might not represent the fallen angels.

I absolutely and completely disagree with that. It's not a contrast of angels fallen or unfallen. It's immortals versus mortals. IMHO. So, I would only repeat that as often as we chat about it. Time to bow out. But, again, I know this is only my opinion.