"Sons of God"? & nephalim

Ask the question you always wanted to ask, and were afraid to. There is no dumb question. Be courageous, for here you will find people ready to talk.<P>All Villagers may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Re: "Sons of God"? & nephalim

Postby Ramblinman » Mon May 14, 2018 12:03 pm

OzTech wrote:Another reference which makes me think that angels do not indulge in 'relationships' with men... Mat 22:30 and Mark 12:25 "...they (the resurrected) neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" implying (to me) that angels do not have, or need to have, any binding connections to another... and... presumably... this would also include any requirements (or desires) to procreate. It was God's commandment to Adam and Eve to go "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". This command was not made to any of the angelic host.

Generally speaking, I would agree with you OzTech, but...
We are talking about fallen angels and not all fallen angels, just a select few whom, I contend, took on human form.
Once in human form, then sexual needs they did not have as bodiless spirit beings were present with bodies of flesh and blood.
And, being demons, those desires would have been directed by Satan toward taking humanity captive by producing a race of supermen.
It may be that some of the supermen did not stick to the plan and were men of righteousness instead, but in the Bible we read about those who did use their extra strength to attempt to seize power and thwart righteous government.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: "Sons of God"? & nephalim

Postby baresoul » Fri May 18, 2018 8:49 pm

The discussed idea of angels taking on human form meaning being human enough to mate with humans is absolutely assumed. There was the unique occasion of the incarnation of Logos, the Word with God who is God, as a human being, Jesus Christ. Other manifestations, as those of angels, even in resembling humans more, were not incarnations as humans.

Though angels in an account are called sons of God, like those of us who are really believers, being in Christ, are sons of God, none that were fallen in their rebellion were sons of God. Angels incarnating to be human enough to mate among humans, if that were even possible, would not be called sons of God there, having already come in rebellion. But the judgment from God was on humanity for their wickedness. So those humans who had yet been sons of God were apostasizing in taking any women for their wives, joining then in rebellious wickedness. And those giants born in that time called nephilim, just like more in the centuries later, were not clearly born from the sons of God from what is actually said. But what we know now is that mutations such as those that cause giantism would be expected, and there would have been other mutations developing.

There doesn't seem to be righteous government in any of the time preceding the global flood.
baresoul
Permanent Resident
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:04 pm
Location: Western United States

Re: "Sons of God"? & nephalim

Postby Ramblinman » Mon May 21, 2018 10:27 am

baresoul wrote:The discussed idea of angels taking on human form meaning being human enough to mate with humans is absolutely assumed. There was the unique occasion of the incarnation of Logos, the Word with God who is God, as a human being, Jesus Christ. Other manifestations, as those of angels, even in resembling humans more, were not incarnations as humans.


If you claim that the angels who appeared to Abraham, Sarah, Lot and his family did not have human bodies, I'd like some evidence from scripture.

If "sons of God" appeared before God's throne with Satan (book of Job), then sons of God are definitely NOT human beings, at least not in every case.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: "Sons of God"? & nephalim

Postby natman » Mon May 21, 2018 5:04 pm

I think there is a huge difference between an angel "appearing" in human form and actually "being" in human form, including sexually.

Angels are described in fairly good detail in Isaiah 6.

Further, I believe that it is God Himself (not angels or demons themselves) Who determines when and if an angel appears in human form and that He would not likely do so to allow angels to have sexual relations with human beings, ESPECIALLY if they were "Fallen Angels".
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7231
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: "Sons of God"? & nephalim

Postby Ramblinman » Mon May 21, 2018 8:38 pm

natman wrote:I think there is a huge difference between an angel "appearing" in human form and actually "being" in human form, including sexually.

Is this like the difference between a glass half-full and a glass half-empty? :lol: :lol:

natman wrote:Angels are described in fairly good detail in Isaiah 6.

But wouldn't that be irrelevant when they take on human form?

natman wrote:Further, I believe that it is God Himself (not angels or demons themselves) Who determines when and if an angel appears in human form and that He would not likely do so to allow angels to have sexual relations with human beings, ESPECIALLY if they were "Fallen Angels".


As I see it, God did not allow it. They were punished severely for doing what was not allowed.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: "Sons of God"? & nephalim

Postby natman » Tue May 22, 2018 3:33 pm

Ramblinman wrote:
natman wrote:I think there is a huge difference between an angel "appearing" in human form and actually "being" in human form, including sexually.

Is this like the difference between a glass half-full and a glass half-empty? :lol: :lol:


Not really. "Half-full or half-empty" are saying the same thing a different way.

Appearing human means that something LOOKS LIKE a human but is NOT a human, vs actually BEING human.

Ramblinman wrote:
natman wrote:Angels are described in fairly good detail in Isaiah 6.

But wouldn't that be irrelevant when they take on human form?


Not if they only APPEAR in human form.

natman wrote:Further, I believe that it is God Himself (not angels or demons themselves) Who determines when and if an angel appears in human form and that He would not likely do so to allow angels to have sexual relations with human beings, ESPECIALLY if they were "Fallen Angels".


As I see it, God did not allow it. They were punished severely for doing what was not allowed.[/quote]

The "Fallen Angels" were punished because they rebelled against God Himself. Like Satan, they thought they could attain a position ABOVE God. I have a hard time believing that God would give them the ability to PHYSICALLY transform themselves, especially when they have usurped their position, assuming they EVER had such power.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7231
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: "Sons of God"? & nephalim

Postby Ramblinman » Wed May 23, 2018 9:44 am

natman wrote:The "Fallen Angels" were punished because they rebelled against God Himself. Like Satan, they thought they could attain a position ABOVE God. I have a hard time believing that God would give them the ability to PHYSICALLY transform themselves, especially when they have usurped their position, assuming they EVER had such power.


God would have given all angels such powers when they were created in holy perfection and MAY have not immediately removed that power.
After all, fallen angels do retain some of their angelic powers.
And scripture teaches that some of the fallen angels are chained until the Judgement Day.
Others remain on Earth, but with restraints and with the fear of the fate of those whose sin was so grievous that they went to immediate judgement instead of waiting thousands of years for "trial and sentencing".
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Previous

Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest