Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why do you keep insisting the GIANTS were the OFFSPRING when the text simply does not say that? It just says giants were around at that time.

[mfblume]

I would say the more reasonable approach is demonic possession if I had a choice between physical angels having sex and possession instead. But for some reason you good brethren WANT TO BELIEVE it was angels with whatever happened. THAT I do not understand, except that that it sounds more carnally fascinating.

Anyway, the issue is really too silly for me. Thanks and blessings!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So what? Why do we need an explanation?

Because it may be ignoring something we're unwilling to see. In addition, it leaves a loose end for any number of competing doctrines.

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.

So, you're saying it's just a big shrug our shoulders and accept that we don't know what he was talking about. I don't find that compelling.

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.

Yes, I see the folly in taking the approach. But I'll show you why I think this is different in a moment...

So you say,

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.

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

I will underscroe the pertinenet 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.

I'd argue that more commonality is implied beyond their being doomed...

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.

The commonality is that both the angels that sinned and Sodom and Gomorrah are doomed on account of sexual immorality.

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?

Again, the angels that sinned are mentioned along with the decadence prior to the flood, the flood itself with Noah and his family being saved, and the perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah. The theme tying it all together is... a transgression of sexual boundaries and the doom that follows.

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.

The commonality I see is the doom that results from transgressing against God's design as it relates to sexual morality. From the angels that sinned that brought doom upon themselves and the entire world... to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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!

I don't question your methodology. I question your conclusions.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

Nope. If that were the case then sexual intercourse would result in being "married in God's eyes". Marriage involves a covenant, a contract, vows. While two who are married do become one flesh... so to do two who are not. Being one flesh all by itself doesn't establish a marriage. The question was regarding whose wife she would be so as to discredit the doctrine of the resurrection... not specifically who she can have sex with. The entire argument was to discredit the doctrine of the resurrection... not to establish sexual boundaries.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

I'm not saying anyone said that. Why do you argue about things unsaid to explain why Scripture doesn't mean what it says?

I'm simply saying that it isn't a leap of logic to assume that if an angel did materialize it would possess all the qualities and abilities it's form would allow for. I'm sure the angel that wrestled with Jacob was sweating and perhaps even skinned a knee or an elbow in the encounter. I'm sure he was flushed and breathing as one would who was engaged in a physical confrontation. However, given the story, it would appear that his stamina was supernatural.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why do you keep insisting the GIANTS were the OFFSPRING when the text simply does not say that? It just says giants were around at that time.

Yes, it does say that the giants were around at that time. But the implication it presents is that these were the offspring of these sinful unions, whatever they were. Of course, this is another loose string, like the references in I Peter and Jude that your interpretation leaves dangling in the wind.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I would say the more reasonable approach is demonic possession if I had a choice between physical angels having sex and possession instead. But for some reason you good brethren WANT TO BELIEVE it was angels with whatever happened. THAT I do not understand, except that that it sounds more carnally fascinating.

Anyway, the issue is really too silly for me. Thanks and blessings!

I'm curious Bro. Blume... do you believe that the angels who took on the physical forms of men and ate with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, or appeared in any other context had the normal "plumbing" their physical forms would ordinarily have? Or do you believe they were genderless like the proverbial Ken doll from the Barbie collection???

You see... I believe their physical forms were complete. If you take the physical form of a man... you have all the plumbing of a natural and healthy human male.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't question your methodology. I question your conclusions.

I obviously see far more exegetical foundation for my belief than I see in yours, but I still respect you and your desire to know truth. I admit I still am surprised you good brethren think this THAT much an issue to argue it to this extent, though.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm curious Bro. Blume... do you believe that the angels who took on the physical forms of men and ate with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, or appeared in any other context had the normal "plumbing" their physical forms would ordinarily have? Or do you believe they were genderless like the proverbial Ken doll from the Barbie collection???

You see... I believe their physical forms were complete. If you take the physical form of a man... you have all the plumbing of a natural and healthy human male.

They were genderless in my view. Anything else is speculation and we cannot build on that.