Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

Where do we find precedence stating that they can't have all the abilities of their form upon materialization? I assume that if an angel could take the form of a dog... the angel would bark and have a keen sense of smell.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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."

I agree. However, it doesn't explain why the most ancient rabbinical sources and commentators (including Josephus) took the position of the "sons of God" being angels. It also doesn't answer why the very same phrase is used in extra biblical literature to refer to the pagan gods of the Canaanites and Philistines. Your argument completely ignores these facts.

[Aquila]

Trust me... the interpretation of the "sons of God" being angels isn't a comfortable one. It is perhaps the silliest and most fanciful interpretation on the table. However, I can't ignore how the ancient commentators (who lived in a time closer to the original writings and oral traditions) interpreted the passage. Nor can I ignore that the phrase "bene' ha-elohim" is used to denote idolatrous pagan deities (demons, according to Paul). Nor can I ignore that I Peter references the "angels that sinned" in context with the flood. Nor can I ignore how Jude refers to the sexual perversion and unnatural desire in Sodom and Gomorrah in context with the "angels that sinned".

[Aquila]

To embrace that the "bene' ha-elohim" were sons of Seth, kings, or some order of ancient priesthood would cause me to have to ignore all the facts and implications stated above. In addition, it would assume that Christ's words ruled out any possibility of demons being able to engage in sexual perversion (succubi/incubi) when in fact the topic was marriage, not sex. It would also leave the loose ends of I Peter and Jude going without explanation, ignoring the very context clues in the passages themselves as to the sin of the angels mentioned. Seeing that no explanation would be given, I'd have to assume that the readers knew what they were talking about, even if it wasn't written in Scripture. Which opens another issue... what do the extra biblical sources of Christ's day claim the "sons of God" were? And the answer would lead us back to... angelic beings.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by 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.

So what? Why do we need an explanation?

That is common literary practice if you know that your readers should already know what you're talking about.

Of course! But there are so many variables for an answer as to why he wrote them as though they already knew about it that you cannot say that proves anything in particular. Who knows what Peter taught them that we do not have recorded?

The bible relates all we need to know about for salvation, mainly. God does not inform us of things that really mean nothing in regards to our salvation, which is another reason I think this angel/sex idea is absurd. So, there are many things written about that point to an antecedent for which the bible contains no antecedent. We've got BOOKS referred to in the bible that no longer exist. There's no antecedent in the bible for the book of Jasher.

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.

So we look for every single antecedent to every reference that demands one in the Bible alone? Where is the book of Jasher in the Bible? We read reference to it. But it's not in the bible. Do we have to find what comes CLOSEST because IT HAS TO BE in the bible somewhere if it was referenced?

I am sure you see the folly of such a thought.

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 you say,

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...

It doesn't strengthen the case at all. I admit it COULD BE what you are saying. But your methodology lacks. You're making vague references that require antecedents to be found in the bible just for the sake of making up that rule. There is just no logical reason for that mannerism. There just isn't.

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.

Now, you know that is not concrete to say the least. the commonality is not sex but rather being doomed.

I will underscore the pertinent commonality:

Jude 1:5-7 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. (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. (7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them 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.

It's not the fallen angels' actions and the sex acts of Sodom that are meant to be understood as common.

That's bad exegesis.

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.

Let's read more to get proper context here.

2 Peter 2:4-9 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (5) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (6) And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; (7) And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (8) (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds (9) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Again, just because angels are mentioned before Noah's flood is mentioned, does not mean the two are related as though they were mutually involved with one another in time and space. He mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah right after the flood. Does that mean Sodom's fate occurred in conjunction with the flood, too?

The context is actually saying that there is a commonality between the issue of angels, Noah and Lot. It is NOT SPARING PERSONS and preparing them for judgment. By no means are we meant to believe one incident took place in conjunction with another in that list by mere mention of them in that sequence.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Trust me... the interpretation of the "sons of God" being angels isn't a comfortable one. It is perhaps the silliest and most fanciful interpretation on the table. However, I can't ignore how the ancient commentators (who lived in a time closer to the original writings and oral traditions) interpreted the passage. Nor can I ignore that the phrase "bene' ha-elohim" is used to denote idolatrous pagan deities (demons, according to Paul). Nor can I ignore that I Peter references the "angels that sinned" in context with the flood. Nor can I ignore how Jude refers to the sexual perversion and unnatural desire in Sodom and Gomorrah in context with the "angels that sinned".

Well, your basis for doctrine is far different than mine. I do not care what scholars commented to the extent my belief has to adhere to theirs. We all use scholars' comments to support what we already agree with, but in no way does what determine what doctrine is correct.

I highly question you methodology . But you can do the same with mine!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree. However, it doesn't explain why the most ancient rabbinical sources and commentators (including Josephus) took the position of the "sons of God" being angels. It also doesn't answer why the very same phrase is used in extra biblical literature to refer to the pagan gods of the Canaanites and Philistines. Your argument completely ignores these facts.

Again, that is not basis for doctrine. I hardly read anything about Josephus, despite the common accusation his writings are like bible for partial preterists. lol

My argument does not ignore any of those facts, btw.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

Sex is the one thing that makes marriage the actual union in God's eyes. That's why Paul wrote that having sex with a whore makes you one flesh, which is a marriage term. And his point is well taken in that he took the furthest thing people would LIKE to associate with marriage to drive a point that true marriage is integral to sex whether people like to admit that or not.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Where do we find precedence stating that they can't have all the abilities of their form upon materialization? I assume that if an angel could take the form of a dog... the angel would bark and have a keen sense of smell.

Who said they could turn into a dog? You have a lot of speculation going on.

[Aquila]

In all of this we've also focused on the "materialization" of the fallen angels as it might relate to this topic. However, we also know that fallen angels (demons) oppress and even possess individuals while leading them into sexual perversion all the time. Could these "bene' ha-elohim" have possessed men and through their possessed vessels engaged in unnatural perversion and desire by taking wives with all abandon (polygamy)? Could these demon have used these possessed individuals to somehow spawn possessed children in the womb (more than one demon can possess a body at once) causing the deformity of gigantism?

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.

Why would their children be considered the supernatural demi-gods of ancient history like Hercules, Thor, Osiris, etc.??? The heroes of demonized religious systems??? The Nephilim almost become an early mockery of the foretold, Son of God, Jesus Christ.