Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Comments
1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
Do angels who are created as spirits have sexual desire? How? From where did they get it?
Did they remain with them in the flesh and died? Or did they leave those women and returned to their spiritual nature?
Did the women know that they were married to angels? If so How did they handled it? If not, did they care from where did these men come from?
3 And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
According to the Church Fathers, the salvation plan was for man because he is of weak nature and was tricked into sin. Why then would God punish man because of the fallen angels' fault?
This verse says "for he is indeed flesh" this includes both men and women?
4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
The flood was a punishment for the sin committed by the sons of God. Why would God punish the world for the desire of the devil? Were the women aware that they who married we're the devils and should not have done so?
Verses 4-6 are very clear that those who were punished were men that He made and placed on earth. The sins committed were of their own free will.
Why did the evil stop having intercourse with women if it worked once and led to the destruction of humanity?
There are plenty of questions that would be hard to answer under this ridiculous interpretation.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159699#msg159699 date=1347315846]
We all, the orthodox, believe that the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I found it highly repulsive that the Holy Spirit would use the phrase “Sons of God” for fallen angles.
What you or I think is unimportant. As Orthodox, we must submit ourselves to the teachings of the Fathers. The fact is, several ancient and very important Fathers taught that this verse referred to fallen angels. We should not discard this teaching just because it does not appeal to us.
EDIT: Plus, Job 1:6 also uses the phrase 'sons of God" to refer to angels.
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." -King James Version
"And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them." -Brenton's translation of the LXX
Emphasis is mine,
Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura and they do not submit to Patristic writing. On the other hand the neo-theologians accept any patristic writings even if they are in conflict with the Holy Scripture. Extreme on both situation are wrong. A true theologian should examine the Patristic writing in the light of the Holy Bible, if it agrees with the spirit of the scripture then it is acceptable, if not then it should not be the base for a doctrine that contradict the plane of salvation.
The reference you used, differentiate between good angles, “Son of God”, and Satan. Satan was not in the group of sons of God, and it emphasizes my argument before that the Holy Scripture would not use the phrase “Sons of God” for fallen angles.
There is a difference between Satan (being Lucifer fallen) and his angels (the demons, the sons of God.) I hope you are not, by contrasting Sons of God and Satan, to say that the evils are accounted for by saying Satan. Also, remember that the demons are still angels, although fallen ones. They are still the sons of God.
Secondly, it seems that you constantly refer to these neo-theologians, while you yourself have shown no shred of knowledge regarding the words flowing out of their mouths. You merely dismiss what they say, simply because it conflicts with your views which have been instilled in your head by your Bishops and priests. I hope you understand that people on this site are a little to educated to be turned away from these gifted theologians, just because someone like you wants to throw the word "neo" in front of their title.
The Patristic commentaries pointed out DO NOT conflict with the Bible, rather, they conflict with your mode of understanding certain verses. They can only conflict the entire Bible if you claim you have a full understanding of how the Bible is to be interpreted, and you can therefor judge that they conflict. Do you claim this? What are your theological study back-grounds? Lets use syllogisms here:
Syllogism 1:
Premise 1: The devil was an angel who fell
Premise 2: Fallen angels are still angels in nature
Conclusion: The demons are Angels
Syllogism 2:
Premise 1: The demons are angels
Premise 2: The angels are called "sons of God"
Conclusion: The demons are "sons of God."
Your argument is based off only "the scripture would not call angels sons of God." So now you are in position to say what the scripture would and would not do? And you are worried about neo-theologians? How about people who restrict the word of god to their fancies?
Now I am not saying I agree with the Angel hypotheses, I am only saying that we must analyze it honesty, though, like Rem said, we need not reach an answer.
ReturnOrthodoxy
For those who believe that the sons of God are the fallen angels and that they did have intercourse with women. I urge you to read verse 2 in context:
1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
Do angels who are created as spirits have sexual desire? How? From where did they get it?
Did they remain with them in the flesh and died? Or did they leave those women and returned to their spiritual nature?
Did the women know that they were married to angels? If so How did they handled it? If not, did they care from where did these men come from?
3 And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
According to the Church Fathers, the salvation plan was for man because he is of weak nature and was tricked into sin. Why then would God punish man because of the fallen angels' fault?
This verse says "for he is indeed flesh" this includes both men and women?
4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
The flood was a punishment for the sin committed by the sons of God. Why would God punish the world for the desire of the devil? Were the women aware that they who married we're the devils and should not have done so?
Verses 4-6 are very clear that those who were punished were men that He made and placed on earth. The sins committed were of their own free will.
Why did the evil stop having intercourse with women if it worked once and led to the destruction of humanity?
There are plenty of questions that would be hard to answer under this ridiculous interpretation.
May be they returned to old good habit of copulating with humans with many stories, of the last thirty years or so, about the abduction of certain persons by extra terrestrial beings and their claiming that they are pregnant by them!!! :P
It is meant for sarcasm
Shere,
There is a difference between Satan (being Lucifer fallen) and his angels (the demons, the sons of God.) I hope you are not, by contrasting Sons of God and Satan, to say that the evils are accounted for by saying Satan. Also, remember that the demons are still angels, although fallen ones. They are still the sons of God.
Secondly, it seems that you constantly refer to these neo-theologians, while you yourself have shown no shred of knowledge regarding the words flowing out of their mouths. You merely dismiss what they say, simply because it conflicts with your views which have been instilled in your head by your Bishops and priests. I hope you understand that people on this site are a little to educated to be turned away from these gifted theologians, just because someone like you wants to throw the word "neo" in front of their title.
The Patristic commentaries pointed out DO NOT conflict with the Bible, rather, they conflict with your mode of understanding certain verses. They can only conflict the entire Bible if you claim you have a full understanding of how the Bible is to be interpreted, and you can therefor judge that they conflict. Do you claim this? What are your theological study back-grounds? Lets use syllogisms here:
Syllogism 1:
Premise 1: The devil was an angel who fell
Premise 2: Fallen angels are still angels in nature
Conclusion: The demons are Angels
Syllogism 2:
Premise 1: The demons are angels
Premise 2: The angels are called "sons of God"
Conclusion: The demons are "sons of God."
Your argument is based off only "the scripture would not call [b]angels sons of God." [/b] So now you are in position to say what the scripture would and would not do? And you are worried about neo-theologians? How about people who restrict the word of god to their fancies?
Now I am not saying I agree with the Angel hypotheses, I am only saying that we must analyze it honesty, though, like Rem said, we need not reach an answer.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Please go and read my argument again, my claim that the Holy Spirit would not use the phrase "Son of God" for FALLEN angles
Then why would it say "gods" for fallen humans.
My question is why you believe you know what the Holy Spirit would and wouldn't do. You already claim to speak for the Orthodox church when you say that the Angel theory is impossibe. You have also claimed to speak for God in deciding which church is Orthodox and not. But this one is new. You claim you know what the Holy Spirit woud and would not dictate.
Forgive my neo-theology, but I think I'll let the spirit-guided fathers tell me what the Holy Spirit would and wouldn't say. :D
ReturnOrthodoxy
I did read your response, I missed the word "fallen." Ukhtate
Then why would it say "gods" for fallen humans.
My question is why you believe you know what the Holy Spirit would and wouldn't do. You already claim to speak for the Orthodox church when you say that the Angel theory is impossibe. You have also claimed to speak for God in deciding which church is Orthodox and not. But this one is new. You claim you know what the Holy Spirit woud and would not dictate.
Forgive my neo-theology, but I think I'll let the spirit-guided fathers tell me what the Holy Spirit would and wouldn't say. :D
ReturnOrthodoxy
I agree with RO. Not only this, but several Septuagint manuscripts render this verse "Angels of God" (as has been mentioned), thus removing the ambiguity. If we automatically dismiss the Angels' theory, we are, as has been said before, rendering the Septuagint (the OT officially accepted by the Church) of questionable authority.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9472.msg159738#msg159738 date=1347389458]
I did read your response, I missed the word "fallen." Ukhtate
Then why would it say "gods" for fallen humans.
My question is why you believe you know what the Holy Spirit would and wouldn't do. You already claim to speak for the Orthodox church when you say that the Angel theory is impossibe. You have also claimed to speak for God in deciding which church is Orthodox and not. But this one is new. You claim you know what the Holy Spirit woud and would not dictate.
Forgive my neo-theology, but I think I'll let the spirit-guided fathers tell me what the Holy Spirit would and wouldn't say. :D
ReturnOrthodoxy
I agree with RO. Not only this, but several Septuagint manuscripts render this verse "Angels of God" (as has been mentioned), thus removing the ambiguity. If we automatically dismiss the Angels' theory, we are, as has been said before, rendering the Septuagint (the OT officially accepted by the Church) of questionable authority.
I would like to know which manuscripts mention the angles of God.
Also, reread the reference in John Cassian's Conference 22.
I did read your response, I missed the word "fallen." Ukhtate
Then why would it say "gods" for fallen humans.
My question is why you believe you know what the Holy Spirit would and wouldn't do. You already claim to speak for the Orthodox church when you say that the Angel theory is impossibe. You have also claimed to speak for God in deciding which church is Orthodox and not. But this one is new. You claim you know what the Holy Spirit woud and would not dictate.
Forgive my neo-theology, but I think I'll let the spirit-guided fathers tell me what the Holy Spirit would and wouldn't say. :D
ReturnOrthodoxy
Because we created in the image of God, so all humans are consider as sons of God,
"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD". Genesis 4
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. Psalm 82
As I told you in a previous post the holy bible is like a scale to measure the authenticity of any patristic writing. If it agrees with the spirit of the scripture then it is acceptable, if not then it should not be the base for a doctrine that contradicts the plane of salvation.
I like your sarcasm
ReturnOrthodoxy
Once again, in my own humble opinion, I think both the Angels and the Seth hypothesis are acceptable. But to fight dogmatically against the Angels view is to deny several *very important* Church Fathers like Sts. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement, and others. No single Father is infallible, of course. But were *all* of these Fathers wrong and only you and Pope Shenouda are right? Think about it.
Ok, as far as I can tell. Codex Alexandrinus has angels of God while Codex Sianiaticus is missing Genesis 6. Codex Vaticanus which is the oldest manuscript is missing Genesis 6. I believe Origen Hexapla had three other versions but I couldn't tell if angels of god was the text.
Also, reread the reference in John Cassian's Conference 22.
What does the verse 6:1 say in the Codex Alexandrus and what does verse 6:4 say?
This is very critical to the discussion.
I also was compiling a list a while ago on those who either interpreted the passage as referring to sons of angels, or acknowledging that such a way can be interpreted if taken literally. I'll just copy and past and reorganize into this post what I have, which for the most part corroborates with your research, but adds some more to the list:
Those who have allowed the idea that angels can copulate with humans.
Part 1
One can argue that perhaps, St. Jude as a first century Christian and disciple maybe have left us with a valuable insight to first century Christian thought, not necessarily about the Nephilim, but about the view of the Book of Enoch as acceptable Scripture, which contains in it a vivid picture of angels copulating with women.
In addition, we have the first century Jews, before St. Paul or the disciples and apostles wrote their writings:
Philo of Alexandria (1st Century):
On the Giants
It is noteworthy here that Philo's passage shows somewhat an Origenistic sense, as if some angels being fallen have become incarnate, and taken to themselves women as wives, but others have also become preoccupied with them to tempt them in sins. I will quote a large section for this interesting read:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book9.html Josephus (1st Century):
Antiquities of the Jews, book 1, chapter 3, paragraph 1:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-1.htm Then the Christian fathers:
Tertullian (2nd Century):
The Five Books Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter XVIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.vi.xviii.html On Idolatry, Chapter IX
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iv.ix.html On Prayer, Chapter XXII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.vi.iv.xxii.html St. Irenaeus (2nd Century)
Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXVI:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxvii.html#ix.vi.xxxvii-p19.2 Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XVI:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xvii.html#ix.vi.xvii-p12.1 St. Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Second Apology, Chapter V
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iii.v.html Athenagorus (2nd Century)
A Plea for the Christians, Chapter XXIV
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.v.ii.xxiv.html#v.ii.xxiv-p4.1
St. Clement of Alexandria (2nd to 3rd Century)
The Instructor, Book III, Chapter II
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.ii.html#vi.iii.iii.ii-p37.1 Archelaus (3rd Century)
The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, Chapter XXXII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.vii.iii.xxxi.html Commodianus (3rd Century)
The Instructions of Commodianus, Chapter III
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.v.ii.iv.html Lactantius (3rd to 4th Century)
The Divine Institutes, The Epitome, Chapter XXVII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.viii.xxiii.html
Part 2
St. Methodius (3rd to 4th Century)
Photios of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca, 9th Century documents a summary From the Discourse of the Resurrection, Part III
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xi.v.iii.i.html Eusebius of Caesarea (3rd to 4th Century)
Preparations, book 5, chapter 4
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_pe_05_book5.htm St. Hilary of Poitiers (4th Century)
I could not find a text by St. Hilary, but it is believed that this man, who was an ardent supporter of St. Athanasius against the Arians, believed the Nephilim to be sons of angels according to this thread I found online:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5411386-15/
Where the poster quotes from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Enoch-Commentary-Chapters-Hermeneia-Historical/dp/0800660749/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222410810&sr=1-2 St. Ambrose of Milan (4th Century)
On Noah 4.8, quoted from ACCS Genesis 1-11, p. 126
Nemesius of Emesa (4th Century)
On the Nature of Man, chapter 41(xli).58 Why We Were Given Free-Will, quoted from The Library of Christian Classics: Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa, edited by William Telfer, p. 417: St. Jerome (4th to 5th Century)
Hebrew Questions on the book of Genesis, 6.4, translated C.T.R. (Robert) Hayward, p. 37 Sulpitius Severus (4th to 5th Century)
The Sacred History of Sulpitius Severus, Book I, Chapter II
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.ii.vi.i.ii.html The following Church fathers also seemed to have allowed the idea that the Sons of God were angels, but were open to other interpretations:
Julius Africanus (2nd to 3rd Century) allows for either Sons of God or angels of men, and he also alludes to different manuscripts:
The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus, On the Mythical Chronology of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, Part II
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.v.v.ii.html Origen (3rd Century) said that if taken literally, it's essentially referring to angels, but in reality, this is an allegory to teach a lesson
Contra Celcus, Chapter LV
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.v.lv.html#vi.ix.v.lv-p3.1
Alexander of Lycopolis(5th Century), same interpretation as Origen, and even calls this a "fable"
Of the Manicheans, Chapter XXV
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.viii.iii.xxv.html I understand that these were the Church fathers used to support the idea that the Nephilim were sons of Seth, but I didn't get the chance to look them up, but these are usually the fathers listed for support in order of century, although Remnkemi added that he couldn't find any of the pro-Sethite hypotheses from any of the fathers except Sts. Augustine and John Cassian:
St. Ephraim (4th Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrysostom (4th Century)
St. Augustine (4th to 5th Century)
St. John Cassian (5th Century)
According to a post I read a while ago, it said that Fr. Seraphim Rose mentioned St. Athanasius (4th Century), St. Cyril (5th Century), Gregory Palamas (14th Century)
I find this blog interesting as well, as it lays a chart of who believed which hypothesis, in chronological order. Notable in the list is St. John Chrysostom and St. Ephraim the Syrian:
http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=458
It's clear therefore that up until the 4th Century that if taken literally, all Church fathers agreed that it can or does mean angels had intercourse with human women.
All I can say is WOW. My wife yelled at me for spending so much time looking for those patristic references. I can only imagine how long it took you. It's obvious you are a much better researcher than I will ever be.
Other biblical evidence in favor of the Angel hypthosis:
1. We also haven't discussed the Hebrew word (Beni elohim). It is used 4 times in the Old Testament. 3 in Job, 1 in Genesis 6. All 3 references in Job clearly refer to angels.
2. Nephilim in Genesis 6:5 is probably not Hebrew but Aramaic which means giant. The Septuagint translates it gigantes.
3. (In my opinion this is a very weak argument). Luke 17:26-30: “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” While Jesus doesn't specify who "they" are, he could be alluding to angels knowing his audience understood it as angels. It also argued that angels will fall and marry wives in the Second coming of the Son of Man. There is nothing in the patristic writings, as far as I can tell, that concludes Luke 17 cannot refer to angels or that angels will fall in the Second coming. But neither is there any corroborating patristic evidence.
4. 1 Corinthians 11:10: "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels". This is not past tense. It doesn't say "Women of Genesis 6 should have a symbol of authority on their heads, because of the angels". It implies not having a symbol of authority on their heads either conflicts with the angels or disturbs the order of angels and women.
5. 2 Peter 2:4: "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;". Now this could imply the judgment of Lucifer and his demons or it could imply the "sons of God" in Genesis 6. The context doesn't tell us.
6. Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" Again, the passage could be speaking of Lucifer and his demons, not Genesis 6. Verse 9 speaks about the battle of Archangel Michael and Lucifer. It is very plausible to think Verse 6 also speaks about the events of Lucifer and his demons' fall, not Genesis 6.
#1, 2, and 4 above are sufficient enough to conclude the Angel hypothesis has biblical support while the Sethite hypothesis has no biblical support anywhere. But let me reiterate, the Sethite hypothesis removes a lot of ambiguities and problems with the Angel hypothesis. This is why most post-Augustine fathers favored the Sethite hypothesis (at least they did not see the issue important enough to write anything about Genesis 6).
Whether there were authors who supported the theory of the angels is irrelevant to the reality that no humans were procreated as the result of demons.
Why not? You are going to write off all these fathers?
RO
Are you also going to write off all these Biblical verses?
You need to take the verses in context, the language used at the time it was written and the other translations available.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159793#msg159793 date=1347473605]
Whether there were authors who supported the theory of the angels is irrelevant to the reality that no humans were procreated as the result of demons. Most of the quotes presented here do not support the idea that angels procreated.
Angels are spirits of fire and cannot procreate, desire flesh, ... etc
Mina,
All I can say is WOW. My wife yelled at me for spending so much time looking for those patristic references. I can only imagine how long it took you. It's obvious you are a much better researcher than I will ever be.
Other biblical evidence in favor of the Angel hypthosis:
1. We also haven't discussed the Hebrew word (Beni elohim). It is used 4 times in the Old Testament. 3 in Job, 1 in Genesis 6. All 3 references in Job clearly refer to angels.
2. Nephilim in Genesis 6:5 is probably not Hebrew but Aramaic which means giant. The Septuagint translates it gigantes.
3. (In my opinion this is a very weak argument). Luke 17:26-30: “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” While Jesus doesn't specify who "they" are, he could be alluding to angels knowing his audience understood it as angels. It also argued that angels will fall and marry wives in the Second coming of the Son of Man. There is nothing in the patristic writings, as far as I can tell, that concludes Luke 17 cannot refer to angels or that angels will fall in the Second coming. But neither is there any corroborating patristic evidence.
4. 1 Corinthians 11:10: "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels". This is not past tense. It doesn't say "Women of Genesis 6 should have a symbol of authority on their heads, because of the angels". It implies not having a symbol of authority on their heads either conflicts with the angels or disturbs the order of angels and women.
5. 2 Peter 2:4: "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;". Now this could imply the judgment of Lucifer and his demons or it could imply the "sons of God" in Genesis 6. The context doesn't tell us.
6. Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" Again, the passage could be speaking of Lucifer and his demons, not Genesis 6. Verse 9 speaks about the battle of Archangel Michael and Lucifer. It is very plausible to think Verse 6 also speaks about the events of Lucifer and his demons' fall, not Genesis 6.
#1, 2, and 4 above are sufficient enough to conclude the Angel hypothesis has biblical support while the Sethite hypothesis has no biblical support anywhere. But let me reiterate, the Sethite hypothesis removes a lot of ambiguities and problems with the Angel hypothesis. This is why most post-Augustine fathers favored the Sethite hypothesis (at least they did not see the issue important enough to write anything about Genesis 6).
Indeed, it took me weeks to compile this list, and I'm not done :-)...now I'd like to find more pro-Sethite fathers. One thing for sure. There is no pro-Sethite before the 4th Century.
A looong time ago, when I was discussing evolution and its effect on Scripture interpretation and the "mind of the Fathers," it was brought to my attention that the "mind of the fathers" can change if the subject does not hurt central dogmatic issues. So I used the Nephilim example as an argument that no one Church father before the 4th Century had a pro-Sethite view, and that using the Church fathers on every issue of Biblical discussion is not necessarily helpful or "Orthodox". This inspired me to collect these quotes. The results were interesting indeed, but at the same time in a way edifying as I continue to struggle to believe in the harmony of my faith with the scientific theories of today. It taught me not to discredit other people's beliefs that are grounded in the Fathers, but also not to worry about the truth in today's scientific discoveries.
That is when one would be able to differentiate between important points of faith, and other points that are associated with the Scriptures and Church history that have little effect on important dogmas of the faith.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=9472.msg159790#msg159790 date=1347469380]
Mina,
All I can say is WOW. My wife yelled at me for spending so much time looking for those patristic references. I can only imagine how long it took you. It's obvious you are a much better researcher than I will ever be.
Other biblical evidence in favor of the Angel hypthosis:
1. We also haven't discussed the Hebrew word (Beni elohim). It is used 4 times in the Old Testament. 3 in Job, 1 in Genesis 6. All 3 references in Job clearly refer to angels.
2. Nephilim in Genesis 6:5 is probably not Hebrew but Aramaic which means giant. The Septuagint translates it gigantes.
3. (In my opinion this is a very weak argument). Luke 17:26-30: “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” While Jesus doesn't specify who "they" are, he could be alluding to angels knowing his audience understood it as angels. It also argued that angels will fall and marry wives in the Second coming of the Son of Man. There is nothing in the patristic writings, as far as I can tell, that concludes Luke 17 cannot refer to angels or that angels will fall in the Second coming. But neither is there any corroborating patristic evidence.
4. 1 Corinthians 11:10: "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels". This is not past tense. It doesn't say "Women of Genesis 6 should have a symbol of authority on their heads, because of the angels". It implies not having a symbol of authority on their heads either conflicts with the angels or disturbs the order of angels and women.
5. 2 Peter 2:4: "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;". Now this could imply the judgment of Lucifer and his demons or it could imply the "sons of God" in Genesis 6. The context doesn't tell us.
6. Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" Again, the passage could be speaking of Lucifer and his demons, not Genesis 6. Verse 9 speaks about the battle of Archangel Michael and Lucifer. It is very plausible to think Verse 6 also speaks about the events of Lucifer and his demons' fall, not Genesis 6.
#1, 2, and 4 above are sufficient enough to conclude the Angel hypothesis has biblical support while the Sethite hypothesis has no biblical support anywhere. But let me reiterate, the Sethite hypothesis removes a lot of ambiguities and problems with the Angel hypothesis. This is why most post-Augustine fathers favored the Sethite hypothesis (at least they did not see the issue important enough to write anything about Genesis 6).
Indeed, it took me weeks to compile this list, and I'm not done :-)...now I'd like to find more pro-Sethite fathers. One thing for sure. There is no pro-Sethite before the 4th Century.
A looong time ago, when I was discussing evolution and its effect on Scripture interpretation and the "mind of the Fathers," it was brought to my attention that the "mind of the fathers" can change if the subject does not hurt central dogmatic issues. So I used the Nephilim example as an argument that no one Church father before the 4th Century had a pro-Sethite view, and that using the Church fathers on every issue of Biblical discussion is not necessarily helpful or "Orthodox". This inspired me to collect these quotes. The results were interesting indeed, but at the same time in a way edifying as I continue to struggle to believe in the harmony of my faith with the scientific theories of today. It taught me not to discredit other people's beliefs that are grounded in the Fathers, but also not to worry about the truth in today's scientific discoveries.
That is when one would be able to differentiate between important points of faith, and other points that are associated with the Scriptures and Church history that have little effect on important dogmas of the faith.
Emphasis is mine, well written post
I mentioned before that the Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura and they do not submit to Patristic writing. On the other hand the neo-theologians accept any patristic writings even if they are in conflict with the Holy Scripture. Extreme on both situation are wrong.
EDIT: And to clarify, I do not necessarily accept the Angels hypothesis. I am only arguing against those drooling Sethite fanatics who think that holding to the Angels hypothesis is inherently erroneous or heretical. I think both theories are Orthodox.
But that's OK. People like that will just believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of what so many Fathers teach. Too bad, really.
When Shere says neo-theologian, just know that she is setting up a straw-man argument from her outdated arsenal of uneducated claims.
It is pseudo-intellectualism at best.
RO
^You are still using the same strawman argument. Here's a challenge: find Fathers prior to St. Augustine who taught the Seth hypothesis. If you cannot, and still insist the Angels theory is unacceptable, you are essentially elevating your own interpretation of Scripture above the Fathers, which is very Protestant. No one is arguing "should we follow the Fathers or the Scripture?" We are arguing "how is this passage of Holy Scripture understood in light of the Patristic witness?"
EDIT: And to clarify, I do not necessarily accept the Angels hypothesis. I am only arguing against those drooling Sethite fanatics who think that holding to the Angels hypothesis is inherently erroneous or heretical. I think both theories are Orthodox.
But that's OK. People like that will just believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of what so many Fathers teach. Too bad, really.
The scripture will always supersedes the church fathers when their opinions are in conflict with it.
Show me how they are in conflict. Just one proof. Just one.
Please. 3alashan Khatree. Ainu. Abbakih. Min Fadlak.
BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT THEY ARE IN CONFLICT.
Show me how they are in conflict. Just one proof. Just one.
Please. 3alashan Khatree. Ainu. Abbakih. Min Fadlak.
What is "Abbakih"?
Here is one for you from Justin Martyr about the origins of demons:
"for these things also He evidently made for man—committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons;"
Where in the Bible does it say that demons are the sons of Adam? If demons were truly the sons of Adam, do they qualify for the redemption by our Lord?
imikhail, it is well and good that you don't like the idea. Trust me, I don't nor do I believe it. But, I must at least admit it as a possibility. What you have shown in your last post is not that it CONTRADICTS the Bible, but rather, that the bible does not claim that demons are born of Adam. I am not saying that the Fathers are infallible either. I am saying that we must at least consider that the greater consensus of the time before the 4th century was the Angel hypothesis.
You have asked a good question, which I do not know the answer for. But I can say that your original statement was: You have not shown that the fathers are in conflict with scripture, rather, that the fathers are outside of it. You have also show that it disagrees with your understanding of God's plan of salvation. But maybe that is just your understanding (however much of genius you may be). This does not mean that it is in conflict with scripture.
Since the Fathers wrote it, and it does not contradict scripture, I think it deserves a greater look than it has been given.
Hope I made sense,
ReturnOrthodoxy