"Sons of God"? & nephalim

[Ramblinman]

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.

[baresoul]

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.

[Ramblinman]

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.

[natman]

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".

[Ramblinman]

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?

Angels are described in fairly good detail in Isaiah 6.

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

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.

[natman]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Ramblinman]

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".

[baresoul]

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.

I am sure that there is no basis from anywhere in the scriptures that angels appearing as humans before actual humans, as those in that case, were all entirely human with all the actions of humans. Nothing in scriptures shows me that any angels are sexually active, or have capacity for that.

In the description of sons of God before the throne of God, those would not have been fallen angels. Satan was not among them as a son of God. Sons of God are never meaning any that are fallen in sin. But Adam was a son of God, as Luke shows, and sons of God came after him among humanity, calling on Yahweh God. Enoch was among them, whom God took. Noah who descended from him stayed with his family as the last of the sons of God then, who didn't apostocize in the rebellion.

God would have given all angels such powers when they were created in holy perfection and MAY have not immediately removed that power.

I don't see from anywhere in scriptures themselves that it is shown that angels procreate or could do so. I believe angels would do what is shown they would do or have done. Anything further is interpretation without enough basis that I see.

[Petros]

Which of course we all of us eschew.

[Ramblinman]

In the description of sons of God before the throne of God, those would not have been fallen angels. Satan was not among them as a son of God. Sons of God are never meaning any that are fallen in sin. But Adam was a son of God, as Luke shows, and sons of God came after him among humanity, calling on Yahweh God. Enoch was among them, whom God took. Noah who descended from him stayed with his family as the last of the sons of God then, who didn't apostocize in the rebellion.

Sons of God cannot be human because the "sons of God" in the book of Job stood before the Lord himself, which would kill a living human to look upon the Lord.

God would have given all angels such powers when they were created in holy perfection and MAY have not immediately removed that power.

I don't see from anywhere in scriptures themselves that it is shown that angels procreate or could do so. I believe angels would do what is shown they would do or have done. Anything further is interpretation without enough basis that I see.

Well they had the power to become human as testified in the book of Genesis when they appeared before Abraham and Sarah, advised her that she would be with child, then went to Sodom to save Lot and family.
To be human is to have the power of procreation (until advanced old age in men and menopause in women).

[Petros]

To be fair and follow the evidence: from where we stand we cannot distinguish externally humanoid from internally human.

To be sure, angels are represented looking human and engaging in human activities - else would Abraham have noticed that gis visitors most rudely declined the food he prepared. But they are also depicted doing non-human things while superficially human. We cannot claim to know.

[Ramblinman]

To be fair and follow the evidence: from where we stand we cannot distinguish externally humanoid from internally human.

To be sure, angels are represented looking human and engaging in human activities - else would Abraham have noticed that gis visitors most rudely declined the food he prepared. But they are also depicted doing non-human things while superficially human. We cannot claim to know.

And to be sure, I am not demanding acceptance of the Sons of God theory as I see it.
But if these fallen angels (demons if you prefer), were human enough to reproduce with humans, but possessed of some ability either inherent or after the fact to impart in their offspring things such as:
unusual strength, great height and intelligence, they would naturally arise as leaders.
All men have choice, free will. But, raised by wicked parents, their natural inclination would strongly bend toward evil ambition.
And we might also expect some occasional freaky phenotypes from incompatible genes, say polydactyly as is reported in the Bible?
Quickly adding that not all cases of multiple digits (fingers and toes) is proof that the bearer is "Demon Spawn", but it could be one of the more visible outward manifestations of human/near-human sexual unions.
I do not claim to "know", just looking at evidence and developing theory, and offering it for peer review.

[baresoul]

In the description of sons of God before the throne of God, those would not have been fallen angels. Satan was not among them as a son of God. Sons of God are never meaning any that are fallen in sin. But Adam was a son of God, as Luke shows, and sons of God came after him among humanity, calling on Yahweh God. Enoch was among them, whom God took. Noah who descended from him stayed with his family as the last of the sons of God then, who didn't apostocize in the rebellion.

Sons of God cannot be human because the "sons of God" in the book of Job stood before the Lord himself, which would kill a living human to look upon the Lord.

The sons of God before the throne of Yahweh were not fallen angels. Any angels who were those sons of God would not ever take women for themselves as wives. But I am one of the sons of God now, while I am still human.

I don't see from anywhere in scriptures themselves that it is shown that angels procreate or could do so. I believe angels would do what is shown they would do or have done. Anything further is interpretation without enough basis that I see.

Well they had the power to become human as testified in the book of Genesis when they appeared before Abraham and Sarah, advised her that she would be with child, then went to Sodom to save Lot and family.
To be human is to have the power of procreation (until advanced old age in men and menopause in women).

Any interpretation I have is not calling for further things of what is supernatural than what is actually said to explain any of it. Angels that came appearing as men were not such that would take any women for themselves as wives. Those that came with God are in a different circumstance, and still it isn't known that they do things as humans, other than have an appearance then as such, ability to speak to people, and capacity to eat. Human power for procreation would only be for humans, to produce after their own kind as was required originally in God's design.

Ultimately I see that God's judgment was to come on humanity, it was then the fault of humanity that led to that. Humanity was in rebellion to God, and now there is overwhelming rebellion to God too, with a minority still who are of the sons of God.