Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's look at a passage...

Matthew 22:24-30 King James Version (KJV)
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Here we see the Sadducees, who do not believe in the resurrection, asking Jesus about whose wife will this woman be in the resurrection. Their goal is to make a mockery out of the doctrine of the resurrection by using the Law of Moses and what it says about marriage and divorce. Jesus answers,

Matthew 22:29-30
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Christ's point is that in the resurrection glorified human beings do not marry, nor are marriages arranged, but rather they are spiritual beings, like the angels in Heaven.

Then according to you, that must mean that WE CAN FALL AND HAVE ABILITY TO MARRY if we walk away from God, right? You say that was the case with angels. They DO NOT marry, etc. But that is only for angles IN HEAVEN, as though IN HEAVEN implies fallen angels FROM HEAVEN can and did change themselves to procreate.

Many use this text to say, "See angels can't have sex." But that isn't at all what the passage is about. Had they asked a question implying starvation, surely Jesus would have explained that glorified people don't need food and are like the angels in Heaven who don't need food either. However, in Scripture we see that while in physical form on earth the angels were eating with Abraham and the LORD in the physical form of human visitors. I believe that it is safe to say that angels are clearly capable of doing anything an assumed physical form will allow them to do.

How can you derive all of that from Christ's words? Nothing hinted at angels being unable to eat as it did unable to have sex. The issue is inability. You say they are UNABLE to do so in heaven but CAN do so on earth. And you use eating food on earth as a basis. Nothing implies normally angels DO NOT EAT but under certain circumstances they can. No matter how you slice it, nothing ever hinted at ability to not eat in heaven versus ability that changes once in earth.

You cannot compare their ability to eat ON EARTH with having sex. You just can't. there's no logical basis to say otherwise.

That would include having sex, if they were so wicked and debased to do so (i.e. were fallen angels). So, my point here is that this passage cannot be a proof text regarding the capabilities of the angels. It is only addressing the institution of marriage and how it doesn't exist in the resurrection.

I disagree. Wholeheartedly. Your implication is what makes this absurd. You imply angels have ability to change forms and do things which they simply are not allowed to use. I believe it is speaking about inability. We're not going to heaven and have the ability to marry and have sex but just deny it from ourselves as you imply the angels are.

So... take this passage off the table.

Sorry, no deal. IT IS the biggest issue I have against your view.

[Aquila]

Now let's turn to Genesis 6...

Genesis 6:1-4 English Standard Version (ESV)
1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God (bene' ha-elohim) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim (giants) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

That phrase, "bene' ha-elohim" is interesting. It's found in the following verses:

Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Job 2:1
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.

Job 38:1-7English Standard Version (ESV)
1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Most ancient commentators and interpreters understand the phrase "bene' ha-elohim" in these passages to be referring to the angels. The phrase "sons of God" thus translated, "divine beings". Biblical archeologists also testify that this very same phrase is used in extra biblical literature to denote the pagan gods and spirits among the ancient Canaanites and Philistines and in said literature the phrase is translated, "the gods". Even Josephus embraces this interpretation.

So, we have good reason to embrace the interpretation that these "sons of God" were indeed fallen angels.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Then according to you, that must mean that WE CAN FALL AND HAVE ABILITY TO MARRY if we walk away from God, right?

No one said that, stay on topic.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

How can you derive all of that from Christ's words? Nothing hinted at angels being unable to eat as it did unable to have sex.

That's my point. The text says nothing about the ability to eat or have sex. So just as we know they can take form and eat... we can assume they can take form and walk, drink, use the restroom, and anything else their form would allow.

I disagree. Wholeheartedly. Your implication is what makes this absurd. You imply angels have ability to change forms and do things which they simply are not allowed to use. I believe it is speaking about inability. We're not going to heaven and have the ability to marry and have sex but just deny it from ourselves as you imply the angels are.

You're not understanding what I really said yet. lol

My point is that the angels appear to be able to do whatever their physical materializations would allow... be it eating, wrestling, walking, slaughtering thousands... etc. Can you agree with that statement?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Now let's turn to Genesis 6...

Genesis 6:1-4 English Standard Version (ESV)
1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God (bene' ha-elohim) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim (giants) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

That phrase, "bene' ha-elohim" is interesting. It's found in the following verses:

Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Job 2:1
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.

Job 38:1-7English Standard Version (ESV)
1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Most commentators and interpreters understand the phrase "bene' ha-elohim" in these passages to be referring to the angels. The phrase "sons of God" thus translated, "divine beings". Biblical archeologists also testify that this very same phrase is used in extra biblical literature to denote the pagan gods and spirits among the ancient Canaanites and Philistines and in said literature the phrase is translated, "the gods". Even Josephus embraces this interpretation.

So, we have good reason to embrace the interpretation that these "sons of God" were indeed fallen angels.

1 Chronicles 22:10 HeH1931 shall buildH1129 an houseH1004 for my name;H8034 and heH1931 shall beH1961 my son,H1121 and IH589 will be his father;H1 and I will establishH3559 the throneH3678 of his kingdomH4438 overH5921 IsraelH3478 for ever.H5704 H5769

Solomon was called God's SON... That is the same Hebrew word as SONS in your reference.

GOD is Elohim. That's the Hebrew word in Gen 6. It is in the very next verse after the above:

1 Chronicles 22:11 Now,H6258 my son,H1121 the LORDH3068 beH1961 withH5973 thee; and prosperH6743 thou, and buildH1129 the houseH1004 of the LORDH3068 thy God,H430 asH834 he hath saidH1696 ofH5921 thee.

Techincally, Solomon would have to be an angel, too, if you're limiting that phrase to angels and not men.

The SON Solomon in verse 10 was SON to Elohim, named in verse 11.

[Aquila]

Then we have two other verses of Scripture... let's look at the first one...

2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

In Peter, Peter offers no explanation of what sin these angels did commit to deserve being committed to chains of darkness and kept until the judgment. That is common literary practice if you know that your readers should already know what you're talking about. The only event that comes close to this would be Genesis 6 and the sons of God violating the natural order by violently taking women as their wives. Some might like to water this down to say it refers to the original fall of Satan and the angels who rebelled with him. However, we know Satan and these angels aren't bound. So they might wish to make the chains of darkness more metaphorical to justify their position. However, the next verse strengthens the case for the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6...

Jude 1:5-7
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And 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— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Ahhh... we see a statement here...."just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire..." This phrase indicates that the sin of the angels was one after the similitude of the unnatural desire found in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Oh... let's return to the verse in I Peter and look at it in it's over all context...

2 Peter 2:4-5 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Notice how the very next clause in the sentence regarding the angels bound in gloomy chains of darkness speaks of God destroying the world and preserving Noah when He brought the flood upon the earth.

The very historical context in which the "angels that sinned" are mentioned is just prior to... the flood... Genesis 6.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Chronicles 22:10 HeH1931 shall buildH1129 an houseH1004 for my name;H8034 and heH1931 shall beH1961 my son,H1121 and IH589 will be his father;H1 and I will establishH3559 the throneH3678 of his kingdomH4438 overH5921 IsraelH3478 for ever.H5704 H5769

Solomon was called God's SON... That is the same Hebrew word as SONS in your reference.

GOD is Elohim. That's the Hebrew word in Gen 6. It is in the very next verse after the above:

1 Chronicles 22:11 Now,H6258 my son,H1121 the LORDH3068 beH1961 withH5973 thee; and prosperH6743 thou, and buildH1129 the houseH1004 of the LORDH3068 thy God,H430 asH834 he hath saidH1696 ofH5921 thee.

Techincally, Solomon would have to be an angel, too, if you're limiting that phrase to angels and not men.

The SON Solomon in verse 10 was SON to Elohim, named in verse 11.

Are you saying that God uses the exact term "bene' ha-elohim" to describe Solomon?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That's my point. The text says nothing about the ability to eat or have sex.

Sex is certainly involved.

So just as we know they can take form and eat... we can assume they can take form and walk, drink, use the restroom, and anything else their form would allow.

No we cannot assume that. lol. That is stretching things too far.

Having ability to eat is not something angels in heaven cannot do.

Did you know MANNA was called food of angels? And we shall eat with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom.

I disagree. Wholeheartedly. Your implication is what makes this absurd. You imply angels have ability to change forms and do things which they simply are not allowed to use. I believe it is speaking about inability. We're not going to heaven and have the ability to marry and have sex but just deny it from ourselves as you imply the angels are.

You're not understanding what I really said yet. lol

My point is that the angels appear to be able to do whatever their physical materializations would allow... be it eating, wrestling, walking, slaughtering thousands... etc. Can you agree with that statement?

You're assuming too much into that, though. I follow your thought. But materializing does not mean they can assume any abilities we have as humans that they otherwise do not have.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Are you saying that God uses the exact term "bene' ha-elohim" to describe Solomon?

When you use Hebrew you can make the mistake of creating an illusion of something that is not present. It's like saying two persons can be related to each other in a certain way as God and Son, but when it is PHRASED "SON OF GOD" it means different than any other arrangement of the same words dealing with the same relationship between the two persons.

This is hard to explain, but all that you quoted were two Hebrew words put in a certain sequence that actually mean nothing more than the same two words speaking of the same two persons in another sequence. They're just two Hebrew words in a certain sequence as much as two English words in the same sequence does not change the picture if the same words are in another sequence while speaking of the same two persons.

"SONS OF GOD" is not different in Hebrew than in English from the ordering of terms used in the passage in Chronicles of GOD speaking about his SON, Solomon. Just because SON and GOD are not in the same sequence as they are in Genesis 6 does not mean the same idea is not being presented.

It's like saying the sentence, "You are SON OF GOD," is different in meaning and implication than "GOD is your Father and your are His SON."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sex is certainly involved.

Where is sex mentioned in the text? The question was regarding who would be a woman's husband in marriage upon her entering the resurrection, not sex. Jesus could have prophetically said, "They neither marry nor are they given in marriage, but they are like the priests of the Catholic church." Of course we all know, while Catholic priests don't marry, they are capable of having sex. The point was marriage and being given in marriage (arranged marriages) in the resurrection. Nothing more, nothing less.