Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Ochuk
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102

Posted 6/25/2003 11:10 AM (GMT -6)

Doc or anyone:

I was reading in God at War that the cosmological beings view is the normal interpretation of thesee puzzling verses.

Essentially this view says the "Sons of God and the Daughters of men" is about heavenly beings marrying and impregenating women.

How can this be embraced?

Do angels have a special power where they can create a human body, grow male anatomy and have children by some rebellious power? What other texts in the bible would support this?

Also why was the world judged for the angel's actions? It seems that the daughters of men were simply being beautiful!

And doesn't Mark 12:25 at least tell us that marraige is not possible for angels?

Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com

Edited by - Ochuk on 06/25/2003 5:40:20 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 6/26/2003 6:16 AM (GMT -6)

Gen. 6:1-4 is certainly a strange passage, Ochuk. But, as I argued in God at War, and as the earliest and most prevalent ancient interpretation agrees, it seems the passage is stating that fallen angels copulated with women and begat "nephilim" -- genetically mutant beings, apparently. The author places this episode just prior to the flood narrative apparently to illustrate just how bad things had gotten and to show why God was so disappointed in the human project that he destroyed it and started over.

The passage does suggest that angels, or at least some angels, have the power to become embodied. Other passages suggest the same -- as, for example, when we are told that some entertain angels without knowing it. As to Jesus' teaching that there is no marriage in heaven, for we will "be like the angels," I don't think this passage can be stretched to rule out the possibility of evil spirits becoming embodied and having sex. Jesus is answering an entirely different question with his teaching.

Yes, its all very very wierd... but we are discovering in every field of study that the world is much weirder than we ever imagined. Reality just doesn't easily conform to our western grids.

Hope this helps,

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 6/30/2003 11:12 AM (GMT -6)

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

I've always heard the interpretation was that the Nephilim were giants- great warriors. They seem to be celebrated figures. This completely strains credulity in my opinion that this is supposed to be literal history. THere's only 2 references to the Nephilim in the Old Testament, to my knowledge, and it's stated matter-of-factly, as if it's not a big deal, everyone knows that angels came and impregnated humans, and then they had giants! how can this be considered anything other than mythology- possibly an explanation in the Israelites' minds about how these great warriors could have come to be- they were so powerful they must have been begat by angels!
To tell the truth this reference has always been a huge stumbling block to me if it's supposed to be considered literally.

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 7/9/2003 5:45 AM (GMT -6)

I am new here and not experienced at message boards so bear with me if I commit a faux pas. I would like Dr. Boyd's (doc?) response to the following if possible. I have been in dialogue via email with a Reformed Theologian (Calvinist)for the better part of the last 2 years. The following is excerpted from one of my emails to him. The context is the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, but the following section is pertinent to this thread.

REMEMBER THE CONTEXT! Chapter 4 tells us of Cain, and about how he went out from the presence of the Lord. The latter part of chapter 4 gives us the descendants of Cain. These descendants were “out of the presence of the Lord” by birth, being born in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Chapter 5 gives us the descendants of Adam through Seth. Of Enoch and Noah it says that they “walked with God”. Enoch did not die. Of any kind of alienation from God there is not so much as a hint. Therefore I conclude that the children of Adam through Seth did NOT go “out of the presence of the Lord.” That is said ONLY of Cain and would also apply to his descendants.

Because of the mention of the birth of Seth (Gen 4:25) after speaking of Lamech, who is the 4th generation from Cain, I conclude that Cain had quite a head start over Seth when it comes to quantity of progeny. The children of Cain vastly outnumbered the children of Seth.

Keeping this context in mind is important when coming to chapter 6. It says in 6:1 that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, that daughters were born to them. The men (and daughters) being spoken of are the descendants of Cain. This is consistent with the previous chapter. Verse 2 says, “…the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” The “sons of God” being spoken of are the descendants of Seth. Concerning the popular notion that this refers to fallen angels mating with human women: That’s a pagan myth common among the Greeks. Where do we find that notion ANYWHERE else in scripture? Nowhere. There IS historical evidence that both interpretations existed in early Christianity as well as in Judaism. The historical argument can go either way. So what we are left with is the immediate context. What the immediate context tells us is that the “sons of God” are the descendants of Seth and the “daughters of men” are the descendants of Cain. What it also says is that the “sons of God” took to wife “whomever they chose.” So the corruption being spoken of in 6:11 is predicated on the descendants of Seth freely choosing, against God’s will, to intermarry with the descendants of Cain.

Those who hold the “fallen angels mating with human women” theory would point to the Nephilim (v 4) as a contextual indicator that the union was unnatural and produced unnatural offspring (giants) and therefore the fallen angels interpretation is correct.

Greg Boyd espouses this position in his book, God at War. In general, I greatly respect Dr. Boyd, and appreciate his theology, scholarship and exegesis, and I agree with a huge percentage of it. However, concerning a couple of interpretations which include the one I am espousing, he says, “Perhaps most significant, neither interpretation explains the Nephilim. The passage assumes that these giants were unnatural, and it explains this by referring to the unnatural union that brought them about – the union of the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men.’ Interpreting the ‘sons of God’ as either righteous men or mighty rulers does not explain why their offspring were unnaturally huge and identified with the giants of various mythological traditions” (p 139).

Dr Boyd continues his argument by contrasting the phrases “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” He says, “The starkness of this contrast explains why their unnatural union produces mutant progeny (p 139).”

Firstly, the text doesn’t say the progeny are mutant. It says the exact opposite. It says that the progeny were “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (v 4).” How Dr. Boyd gets “mutant” from “renown” I have no clue. Neither does the text say that the Nephilim are the offspring of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men. It says that “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they [the daughters] bore children to them [the sons].” How could the Nephilim be the offspring when they were on the earth in those days, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and also afterwards? Notice the daughters bore “children”, not Nephilim, and not giants. These children were “mighty men…men of renown.” Without getting into exactly what the Nephilim were, the immediate context does not support the idea that they were the offspring of fallen angel/human women sexual relations, or that they were mutant. It says that they “…were on the earth in those days…” They were already on the earth in the days when the sons of God came into the daughters of men.

Secondly, calling the descendants of Seth “righteous men” is devaluing the significance of the contextual contrast between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain. Cain’s descendants were born “out of the presence of the Lord” while Seth’s descendants were not. The significance of this contrast is further underscored when speaking of Noah, who was “blameless in his generation” – that is, pure in his bloodline or ancestry. More on this subject below.

Dr. Boyd raises a more troubling argument, in my opinion, thusly: “Further, while there is clear evidence that gods or angels were called ‘sons of God’…there is no clear [scriptural] precedent for calling a lineage of male descendants … “sons of God” (p 139).

I acknowledge that this is true. I would counter by saying that neither is there clear precedent in scripture for angels, fallen or otherwise, mating with humans, and furthermore the immediate context doesn’t support that notion. Immediate context is more important than remote contexts when trying to ascertain what the author meant, especially if the remote contexts did not yet exist at the time of the writing, and especially if the remote contexts are extra-biblical, i.e. Greek and/or Canaanite myths about “gods” copulating with humans. Why are the respective genealogies of Cain and Seth given immediately prior to the text on the intermarriage of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men?” Because it’s relevant to what the author is subsequently talking about. The “fallen angel” position renders the previously given genealogies irrelevant which is, in effect, ignoring the immediate context. Secondly, there IS precedent for my position in early Christianity (Julius Africanus, Augustine) although admittedly it is the minority view, but more importantly, there is historical support from pre-Christian Judaism.

The so-called “Lost Books of Eden” are ancient Jewish writings from several centuries before Christ. Portions of these books are in the Talmud, which indicates their standing in Judaism. The 2nd Book of Adam and Eve tells in great detail how the children of Seth were corrupted by the children of Cain, in spite of exhortations from each Sethite patriarch on his deathbed, and from God Himself, that the children of Seth were to have nothing to do with the children of Cain. In chapter 11, verse 4, it says of Seth and his descendants, “But because of their own purity, they were named "Children of God," and they were with God, instead of the hosts of angels who fell; for they continued in praises to God, and in singing psalms unto Him...” So we have here an indication that, at least in some quarters, historical Judaism took the phrase “sons of God” to mean “sons of Seth” and “daughters of men” to mean “daughters of Cain.” We also find that, espoused along with that position, that the children of Seth were “with God” and that they took the place of the hosts of angels who fell. This was in spite of “the Fall” and the banishment from Eden.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 7/9/2003 6:30 AM (GMT -6)

Hobbes

quote:

Those who hold the “fallen angels mating with human women” theory would point to the Nephilim (v 4) as a contextual indicator that the union was unnatural and produced unnatural offspring (giants) and therefore the fallen angels interpretation is correct.

Greg Boyd espouses this position in his book, God at War. In general, I greatly respect Dr. Boyd, and appreciate his theology, scholarship and exegesis, and I agree with a huge percentage of it. However, concerning a couple of interpretations which include the one I am espousing, he says, “Perhaps most significant, neither interpretation explains the Nephilim. The passage assumes that these giants were unnatural, and it explains this by referring to the unnatural union that brought them about – the union of the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men.’ Interpreting the ‘sons of God’ as either righteous men or mighty rulers does not explain why their offspring were unnaturally huge and identified with the giants of various mythological traditions” (p 139).

Dr Boyd continues his argument by contrasting the phrases “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” He says, “The starkness of this contrast explains why their unnatural union produces mutant progeny (p 139).”

Firstly, the text doesn’t say the progeny are mutant.

Just a couple of thoughts; I'm guessing the "mutant" idea might come from this:

2 Samuel 21:20
"There was war at Gath again, where there was a man of great stature who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also had been born to the giant."

1 Chronicles20:6
"Again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature who had twenty-four fingers and toes, six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot; and he also was descended from the giants."

And secondly, the theory of evil spirits copulating with humans has been around in the "field" of exorcism where spirits named "Incubus" and "Succubus" are usually the culprits. I've heard of this in secular circles as well. Do a search on those two names and read some about it.

If this is true, it helps support the idea that the nations in Canaan were pretty far gone but that's another topic.

"The more you ignore me the closer I get, you're wasting your time" -- Morrissey

Edited by - Laika on 07/09/2003 12:02:27 PM

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 7/10/2003 6:07 AM (GMT -6)

Laika: The verses in 2nd Samuel and 1st Chronicles are interesting, very interesting, but there is no connection IN THE TEXT of 2nd Samuel/1st Chronicles between the "mutants" descended from giants in 2nd Samuel/1st Chronicles and the Nephilim of Gen 6, or the mutants of 2nd Samuel/1st Chronicles and the "mighty men" of Gen 6. One must eisegete the connection. How could there be a connection when the great flood had happened between Gen 6 and 2nd Samuel/1st Chronicles? All the progeny of the sons of God and the daughters of men - mutant, giant, mighty or otherwise - perished in the great flood. So the "mutants" of 2nd Samuel cannot be related in any way to the episode in Gen 6.

Secondly, I have some knowledge of Incubus and Succubus. However, actual experiential encounters with these types of spirits, while there may be a physical component or symptoms in the body of the victim, do not, as far as I know, involve the actual physical materialization of the spirit, and I know of no instances of a woman actually becoming pregnant as a result of these types of encounters, other than in myths and hearsay.

Another facet of this discussion is that, according to my understanding (which is always subject to change!), "Incubus/Succubus" is different in kind from "fallen angel." So I would say that equating "fallen angel" (a la Gen. 6) with "Incubus/Succubus" is a false analogy.

It still seems to me that the Sethite/Cainite interpretation of Gen 6 is more supportable from the immediate context than the fallen angel interpretation.

Please be reminded that I have the utmost respect for Dr. Boyd, and my disagreement here is a very minor thing. It could probably be categorized as minutia. If my interpretation is correct, it does not affect Dr. Boyd’s cosmology or reality construct in any way, because the “sons of God”, whoever they are, “took to wife such of them AS THEY CHOSE.” The important issue for Dr. Boyd is the free choice of the sons of God, be they men or angels, and I most certainly agree with Dr. Boyd that men and angels are, or have been, free to choose.

Thank you for responding, this is fun!

Edited by - Hobbes on 07/10/2003 11:31:43 AM

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 7/10/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6)

Hobbes

quote:

How could there be a connection when the great flood had happened between Gen 6 and 2nd Samuel/1st Chronicles?

Two points:

1. any Satanic activity practiced before the flood could have been renewed after the flood. Numbers 13:33 (certainly post-flood)
"There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

2. we do have another example of a woman becoming pregnant via a spirit, circa 0 A.D.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/10/2003 7:03 AM (GMT -6)

If demons are fallen angels and angels can take on human form (as in the story of Lot escaping Sodom and Gomorrah), then couldn't it be possible the demons can also take on human form? Hmmm.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 7/10/2003 7:16 AM (GMT -6)

John Earp

quote:

If demons are fallen angels and angels can take on human form (as in the story of Lot escaping Sodom and Gomorrah), then couldn't it be possible the demons can also take on human form? Hmmm.

And even post questions on the internet? Hmmmm.

Ochuk
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102

Posted 7/10/2003 9:49 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

If demons are fallen angels and angels can take on human form (as in the story of Lot escaping Sodom and Gomorrah), then couldn't it be possible the demons can also take on human form? Hmmm.

The story in NO WAY teaches or provides evidence that angles become human and develope functional sexual anatomy. Angels may be able to take human form in appearance, but the sopposition that they have testicles, a penis, and an entire genetic make-up of a homosapian is a bit far fetched.

The story does say that the Sodomites wanted to have sex with them. That only indicates they were ful of lust for men, and maybe you couls speculate the angels were good looking.

That is all.

Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com

Edited by - Ochuk on 07/10/2003 2:50:31 PM

Ochuk
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102

Posted 7/10/2003 9:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

quote:

If demons are fallen angels and angels can take on human form (as in the story of Lot escaping Sodom and Gomorrah), then couldn't it be possible the demons can also take on human form? Hmmm.

This story in NO WAY teaches or provides evidence that angles become human and develope functional sexual anatomy. Angels may be able to take human form in appearance, but the sopposition that they have testicles, a penis, and an entire genetic make-up of a homosapian is a bit far fetched.

The story does say that the Sodomites wanted to have sex with them. That only indicates they were full of lust for men, and maybe you could speculate the angels were good looking.

That is all.

Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com

Edited by - Ochuk on 07/10/2003 2:50:31 PM

Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 7/10/2003 9:58 PM (GMT -6)

Laika:

Concerning point #1: (Quote) “any Satanic activity practiced before the flood could have been renewed after the flood.” (Close quote)

Sheer speculation. There is no explicit Biblical text to support that notion.

Secondly, it runs counter to common sense. The situation in Genesis 6 was unique and God took steps to see that it never happened again. He completely destroyed mankind, Nephilim, mighty men, and all, with the exception of Noah, who was “blameless in his generation” – that is, in his genetics – and Noah’s family. God destroying the earth in a great flood in order to deal with man’s unredeemable depravity, even if caused by fallen angels mating with human women, only to see it happen all over again has me wondering about God’s strategic thinking. If it has happened again, why doesn’t the Bible speak of it again, and why hasn’t the same result occurred? (I will deal with Numbers 13:33 in a moment.)

Thirdly, the proponents of the fallen angel interpretation of Genesis 6 have traditionally connected that text with 2 Peter 2:4. “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment…” Without getting into whether Genesis 6 has anything to do with 2 Peter 2:4 (I’m accepting the connection for the sake of argument) notice the angels who sinned are “kept until the judgment.” That would mean that their copulating-with-human-women-days are over, wouldn’t you say?

Fourthly, the REASON that fallen angels mated with human women in the first place, according to proponents of the fallen angel position, was that it was an attempt to destroy humanity; to completely corrupt the human race and to frustrate God’s will for man. However, the reason the SCRIPTURE gives is, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful.” This is a distinctly human reason for having sex, wouldn’t you say? Especially for males, that is, “sons”. You know, being visually oriented and all that!

Concerning Numbers 13:33: This is the ONLY other place in the Bible where the word “Nephilim” is used. To say that the Nephilim of Numbers are the same kind of thing as the Nephilim in Genesis is inferring too much, especially since the appearance of the Nephilim in Numbers is in the context of what the author of Numbers calls, “an evil report.” I take that to mean “a false report.” Secondly, the genesis of the Nephilim in Numbers are given in several Biblical texts. They are the sons of Anak. The Anakim would be the ethnic group that comes from Anak. Anak’s father was Arba. Other than that the Anakim are spoken of as very tall, and that is basically all we know of them. They are spoken of in human terms. Large, but human. Think Andre the Giant. They are not human/fallen angel hybrids. And ANYBODY that is human post-flood descends from Seth through Noah, God made sure of that. Look up Anak, Anakim, and Arba in a concordance. You will find that the ONLY place the “sons of Anak” are connected to “Nephilim” is in the context of the “evil report” brought back by the 10 spies to Moses. It seems to me that all that mitigates against equating the Nephilim in Genesis to the Nephilim in Numbers.

The only thing I can see that would legitimately be a strike against my argumentation above would be the parenthetical statement in verse 33: “(the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim)” It is not clear to me whether this parenthetical statement is part of the evil report, or if it’s the author of Numbers inserting a correction into the evil report. If the latter is the case, then I have a problem. I already have a line of thought that counters it, but have yet to have occasion to use it because I have never seen a compelling argument that establishes that the parenthetical statement is not part of the evil report. Until I see a compelling argument for that, I will hold to the former because that is what fits best with the immediate context, as I understand it. (Have I qualified myself enough?)

Concerning point #2: (Quote) “we do have another example of a woman becoming pregnant via a spirit, circa 0 A.D.” (close quote)

Are you REALLY willing to say that Mary’s impregnation by the HOLY SPIRIT is analogous to (alleged) impregnation by an incubus/succubus? Or even analogous to (alleged) impregnation by “sons of God”/fallen angels? I most certainly am not. I could go on about how unique Mary’s situation was, and how unique her child was, but I think that’s self-evident. Using Mary’s impregnation by the Holy Spirit as support for the idea that spirits in general are capable of impregnating women, be they fallen angels in Genesis 6, or incubus/succubus anywhere else, is a VERY false analogy in my opinion. By the way, Mary was “overshadowed.” In Genesis 6, the sons of God “came into” (sex!) the daughters of men. I would argue that there’s a big difference there.

To all in general: I am not arguing that spirits cannot embody themselves and take on human form, I believe that certain kinds of spirits most certainly can. We “entertain angels unawares”. There are many Biblical texts that indicate that this is so. What I am questioning is whether the possibility or even the capability of sex acts necessarily follows being embodied. I think not. Nowhere that I know of in the Bible does an embodied spirit express any interest whatsoever in having sexual relations. Cite me a Biblical text and I’ll reconsider. Every indication that I can see is that spirits are not interested in sex. Are there even ANY Biblical texts that speak explicitly of an evil spirit being embodied? Only through possessing humans, as far as I can tell. All the “embodied spirit passages” I can think of are angels on a mission from God. Evil spirits ARE interested in ME having sex, in any way other than with my wife! Even if I am wrong about all this, it is a diversion from the issue at hand, which is the identification of “the sons of God” in Genesis 6. Even if it IS possible for an evil spirit to embody itself and then to impregnate a woman, it does not necessarily follow that that is what happened in Genesis 6.

To Dr. Boyd: I agree with you that western thought has truncated reality, and that things are much stranger than we even now can fathom. I am VERY interested and anxious to read your forth-coming book, The Myth of the Blueprint, or something like that, where you document Plato’s effect on Augustine, and how Augustine is where the church in the west went wrong. Plato and Aristotle, through Augustine and Aquinas, are the reason that we in the western church think like we do (exclusively linear, overly literal, materialistic). I also agree with you that that is changing. “The West” is in the beginnings of a pretty radical paradigm shift and I think it’s a good thing. Even so, the “weirdness” of fallen angels mating with human women is not reason enough to accept the notion. There’s plenty of weirdness in other places to go around!

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 7/11/2003 1:38 AM (GMT -6)

Ochuk

quote:

The story in NO WAY teaches or provides evidence that angles become human

OK so angles didn't become human but what about curves?

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 7/11/2003 5:08 AM (GMT -6)

An interesting discussion.

I admit when I first heard of the proposal of "angels" (fallen or otherwise) copulating with humans, I didn't seriously believe theologians could even consider that position.

However, given the full Diety/Humanity of Christ would indicate that taking on human form would involve all of its anatomy, including genitalia (Don't you think Joseph and Mary would freak out if their "son" anatomically looked like a woman?). Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to speculate that angels in human form (which the Bible does state as fact) also were anatomically correct, both good and evil angels.

However, now we get into a couple of questions. One, just because they CAN take on human form, does it necessitate that they CAN reproduce (What Hobbes is saying)? Well, here's a monkey wrench (and I state this with no intention for disresepct at all): Could Jesus have sexual relations? I believe in capacity He could have, since He was fully human, and also since He was a man and the Bible states He was tempted in every way we were, believe that He did have a sex drive and was tempted to lust (but did not succumb to it). This may be partly why Mormons accept that God can have literal "sons and daughters".

However, I will say that in terms of actual events, it was NOT possible, so in as much that Jesus could've sinned because He was not meant for marriage. Jesus WAS (and is still) God in full, and God cannot sin. So why then did Satan try to tempt Jesus if he knew he wouldn't fall? Pure delusion. He probably reasoned that if he could get Christ to sin, then the Godhead would be destroyed and Satan would be head honcho.

Back to the angels then. If we ASSUME angels (demons) had free will, and they could take on full human form (including sexual functionality), could you arrive at producing a half-angel or half-demon? No, I don't believe so. Even if they COULD engage in sex, I don't see compelling evidence that it would produce a child with a human.

I submit as evidence passages which clearly state that humans are separate from angels. And I see no evidence that unlike Christ, you could have a full angel/full human being.

Secondly, let's look at the implication evidence. Let's say that angels could take human form and have sex with each other, producing new "baby angels"(!). But Jesus said that there is no marriage in heaven and that we are "like the angels" there. That to me says "no sex" (sex and marriage are so intertwined in the Bible as together that I doubt from context it means that we could have one without the other). Ok then. Maybe the "good" angels couldn't have sexual relations together, but what about the demons? I don't buy that idea either. That idea implies 2 things which are obviously false. One, that sex is in fact an "evil" act, or one which only the unholy do (some believe the Fall was the result of sex or sex came out as a result and such is a necessary evil). The other is that demons which are now wicked through and through could engage in something that produces a new eternal soul (a baby demon). I doubt that a) it's possible, b) God would even allow it if it was, and c) doesn't seem to follow with what they exist for. Meaning, they exist to thwart God's will and that includes (unfortunately) ultimately ruining us humans. Why would they produce more demons except that perhaps Satan needs more worker bees? This seems highly unlikely though.

The only way I could see that angels, or more accurately demons, could "reproduce" is to posses a human (that certainly is taught in the Bible) and use them as a vessel to have sex with others. That certainly is a possibility and may have been where the origins of Succubusses (or is it Succubi?) came from.

I'm not saying that Dr. Boyd's suggestion isn't absolutely true. I'm just saying given a preponderance of the evidence that it is most likely not true. We have enough evidence of genetic variation and such (which may be influenced by demons, but not produced by them) to create these "giants".

More later perhaps, but I have to go.

"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 7/11/2003 5:29 AM (GMT -6)

Laplace

quote:

However, I will say that in terms of actual events, it was NOT possible, so in as much that Jesus could've sinned because He was not meant for marriage. Jesus WAS (and is still) God in full, and God cannot sin. So why then did Satan try to tempt Jesus if he knew he wouldn't fall? Pure delusion. He probably reasoned that if he could get Christ to sin, then the Godhead would be destroyed and Satan would be head honcho.

If Jesus did not have the potential to sin, how can He be my high priest? How was He tempted "just like me"?

Hebrews 2:
"14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted."

You're saying His temptation is different from our temptation?

Hebrews 4:
"15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

No potential for sin, no high priest status for Him, no assurance for me. The temptations of Jesus were real and not delusional.
Scripture says He was tempted like we are, to depart from that meaning, you will have to provide scripture that shows why He wasn't.

Note the "yet without sin". Why add that if the temptations of Jesus were fake?

Edited by - Laika on 07/11/2003 10:38:58 AM

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 7/11/2003 7:36 AM (GMT -6)

To Laplace: Comparing Jesus’ INCARNATION with an angel’s EMBODIMENT is a false analogy. Those two things are completely different in kind. I think you might have realized that when you said, “Back to angels then.”

Secondly, there is pretty massive historical evidence that theologians throughout the history of Jewish and Christian thought have held to exactly the same view that Dr. Boyd espouses. It is not unusual at all. Your western paradigm is responsible for your statement, “I didn't seriously believe theologians could even consider that position.” There are also theologians throughout the history of Jewish and Christian thought who have held my view as I illustrated earlier from the 2nd Book of Adam and Eve.

Thirdly, on the possibility of Jesus sinning: I am in Laika’s camp on this one. Besides the scriptures she most ably presented I would point to Jesus’ struggle in Gethsemane. Mark 14:36 – “Father, all things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.” There is an “I will” and there is also a “You will.” Jesus Himself implies that there is another possibility when He says, “Father, all things are possible for You…” In verse 53 Jesus says, “…do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” Jesus Himself here says that He COULD have done that. He CHOSE not to. God, and Jesus also, foreknew what would happen if Jesus had appealed to the Father. Jesus would have immediately had more than 12 legions of angels at His disposal, and to say that things would have gone quite differently would be an understatement! But in the interest of doing God’s will, Jesus did not make that appeal, even though he could have.

In my view Laika is correct when she says that if it was impossible for Jesus to sin, His priesthood has no relevance to us. That is somewhat of a different subject suitable for another forum perhaps.

Edited by - Hobbes on 07/11/2003 12:40:47 PM

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 7/11/2003 9:55 AM (GMT -6)

Laika/Hobbes,

I agree, the debate of Christ's sin potential (could've's, might's etc.) is another topic. So I won't give my full arguments here (Nutshell argument: If Jesus = God, can God sin [I think there's a thread on this subject somewhere]? Jesus is God AND man. Negate one aspect, you negate both. Nutshell question: Does temptation by definition always REQUIRE failure as an option?? [I say 'No']).

But back to the argument at hand. Just because a majority believe something (even those in so-called authority), doesn't mean it's true.

I'm not saying my argument is unassailable. I'm just offering evidence that is not all internally based within the Bible (or other texts), since people here are mainly arguing on those grounds. ("What does this verse mean, and that verse,...? etc.")

This "implication" evidence as I use (whatever the formal name is called), can be quite relevant and has been used in the past. For example, one of the major arugments used for Christ's Diety who was equal with God the Father was necessary to convince the early church (Arius vs. Athanasius).

Perhaps there are strict definitions between incarnations and embodiments. I guess I don't see it as distinctly as others. For example, it has also been speculated (to which I do tend to agree with) that the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT was in fact Christ Jesus incarnate. So things aren't completely separate from physical and spiritual. But again, we know a lot more about the nature of God than the nature of angels.

But my point and use of analogies (including Christ's humanity) was to indicate that if these claims "WERE true", you would be burdened to explain a lot more and you'd come to eventual conclusions that would sound quite strange or realize that your premise (assumptions) were incorrect. Questions such as, "Is this new creature a human soul or angel?" It is clear in the Bible that angels are humans are distinctly different beings. Unless you could produce a Dr. Moreau scenario among humans and animals, I don't see compelling evidence to say that the same can be said of humans and angels. Also. What is the eternal state of these half-angels (Asamir or Tiefling)? Angels are are either eternally saved or condemned (no redemption in the Bible is mentioned. Maybe there is one, but until then...). Or are they ALL angel and ALL human just as Jesus was ALL human and ALL God? Who knows. My point was to show that if there were sexual relations between man and angel, it would have to be with "bad angels" (as "good" angels don't do these things). Then if they were "bad" (through and through), it implies that they have the ability to create life, something that evil is not very interested in (they always seem to want to either destroy it or ruin it), unless the new soul was bad through and through (problems there too).

Perhaps people were viewed back then as "giants". That's certainly possible. But just because people are twice as tall as you and have 6 fingers/toes on each hand doesn't automatically mean it's because of some spiritual impregnation (A 6' tall man would be considered a "Giant" by some people in the world today, and entire tribes in recently history have been found to have 6 fingers/toes on each appendage [read National Geographic]). Therefore to me, just having these "unusuals" exist and be recorded in the Bible doesn't mean it had to have come from them.

"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 7/11/2003 9:48 PM (GMT -6)

Laplace:

I didn't mean to come across as disrespecting your argumentation by implication. I apologize if you took it that way. Forgive me. Your argument that IF we take "sons of God" to be "fallen angels" then that leads to or implies certain things and raises questions that throw the position in doubt is certainly a legitimate argument to factor into the equation. It’s just that in a discussion such as this one, I consider arguments from scripture to have primacy, and I assume everyone here agrees, given the nature of this site, and the nature of Dr. Boyd’s writing. However, inferential and implicative argumentation is most certainly useful and one of the techniques that can and should be used when trying to determine the author’s meaning in a particular passage.

Also, it occurs to me that I may have sounded condescending to you when pointing out the history of the “fallen angels mating with women” interpretation of Gen 6. I’m afraid I was not very clear with the point I was making. Forgive me again! Your initial reaction, “I didn't seriously believe theologians could even consider that position” seemed to me to be an emotionally based statement, and so I was pointing out that many theologians all through history have held that very position, as does Dr. Boyd, and so your reaction was not based on the facts of history as we know them. I was suggesting that perhaps your initial emotional reaction to the notion of fallen angels mating with women is because of your western paradigm. I agree with you that just because an interpretation is the majority opinion doesn’t make it correct. However, the "fallen angels" interpretation is the majority opinion held by many respected theologians both in the early church as well as today, and so we who hold the minority opinion should take upon ourselves added responsibility to be able to support and defend our position. And you and I are in agreement that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are NOT fallen angels.

That position leads to another problem for us, speaking of implications! If the Nephilim of Genesis 6 are NOT “the mighty men…men of renown” or the offspring of fallen angels and human women, WHAT ARE THEY? And why are they mentioned in this passage? Do you have any ideas on that?

To Laika: What I said to Laplace goes for you too. If I’ve come across as condescending or disrespectful I apologize. I have enjoyed our exchanges and I appreciate the fact that you tend to respond with scriptural arguments, even if I don’t agree with them. At this point, I am in agreement with Laplace on Gen 6, and I’m in agreement with you on the possibility of Jesus sinning.

Onward!

Edited by - Hobbes on 07/12/2003 03:07:59 AM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:38 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual