you are interpreting St. Irenaeus writings just to suit your point of view
Dear Sordoeht
Are you not doing the same?
St. Irenaus never said that the angles married. He did say that they linked themselves to the offspring, after the union with the women had taken place.
As promised, I will continue with your other quotes.
you are interpreting St. Irenaeus writings just to suit your point of view
Dear Sordoeht
Are you not doing the same?
St. Irenaus never said that the angles married. He did say that they linked themselves to the offspring, after the union with the women had taken place.
As promised, I will continue with your other quotes.
Dear imikhail,
I agree with you that I don't believe angels married. But your interpretation of St. Ireneaus' quotes are intellectually dishonest. Because of the culture at the time, it makes sense that when he says "commingled," it means sexual intercourse. And this isn't just him, but the saints before him and after him.
Don't be shocked or surprised that these saints believed these things. They lived at a time where their metaphysical/philosophical understandings were not as advanced as later centuries. That doesn't take away the message of the gospel. You need to not worry about trying to keep consistent teachings of today's fathers on the Nephilim with the earlier centuries. The more you do this, the more you make a fool of yourself, especially since both scholars and theologians do not dispute this simple fact that St. Irenaeus did believe that angels copulated with women and gave birth to Nephilim. Sometimes we believe differently from the fathers on negligible matters. It's okay! As long as we don't mock them for their beliefs or make a mockery of ourselves for twisting their beliefs to conform to today's.
[quote author=sordoeht link=topic=9472.msg159944#msg159944 date=1347822220] Sherene_maria, I think sons of Seth approach has minute evidence compared to the angles of God theory in Genesis 6 and let me ask you one question, do you know the reason, why it is not either sons of Enos or Sons of Cainan? and finally you are interpreting St. Irenaeus writings just to suit your point of view and that is not a contextual approach you are following and have you also checked the other fathers I quoted.
The daughters of men were the descendants of the line of Cain, while the sons of God were the descendants of the line of Seth which included Enos and his offspring. "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
Can I ask you, why you have not included in your list of Patristic writing the opinion of great fathers as St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Severs, St John Chrysostom and the others. Huge dogma like angles marrying women would have called the attention of giants like those fathers.
The point is not to ignore those Church fathers. The point was to show that from the 1st to the 3rd centuries, and part of the 4th Century, there was a relatively unanimous belief that the Nephilim were offspring of a mix of angels and women. After that, there was a shift in Patristic opinion. It is not about "giants" vs "irrelevant" fathers. it just comes to show that we do have the first 300 years of Christians, and maybe Jews as well, who believed this, whereas afterwards, at least with St. Augustine and ST. John Cassian, we see a different interpretation FOR THE FIRST TIME in patristic exegesis. The Nephilim story makes for a great discussion, but it's not do-or-die theology. Sure, I'd also like to see St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, and St. John Chrysostom quotes, but these are also 4th Century fathers and afterwards, when the tide of patristic exegesis on the Nephilim was changing.
Again, the fact that this is a big deal for many of you is sad and troubling. You need to discern what is important in dogma, and what is negligent in dogma. There's no need to discuss this any further. If you feel the need to continue discussing this as if this means your whole life, then I'm sorry to say, you need to reassess your own faith.
I do not understand it that way. No translation conveys what what you are suggesting.
Neither the fathers convey what you are suggesting.
This is about what you really want to believe.
I will leave it to the audience to judge, specially as I was not that involved in this topic.
The biblical references and patristic quotes are listed in this topic, and we can let every one decide for himself / herself.
When you get into one of those denial modes, it is hard to make you snap out of it.
It is not about "giants" vs "irrelevant" fathers. it just comes to show that we do have the first 300 years of Christians, and maybe Jews as well, who believed this, whereas afterwards, at least with St. Augustine and ST. John Cassian, we see a different interpretation FOR THE FIRST TIME in patristic exegesis. The Nephilim story makes for a great discussion, but it's not do-or-die theology.
I agree. It is not do or die dogma.
It is acceptable to believe that Genesis 6:4 refers to sons of Seth. I find it to be not sufficiently supported by the Fathers or Scripture but I cannot deny it is an orthodox interpretation that has been believed by few, yet recognizable, Fathers. I stated this in my first or second post in this topic.
One might believe that Shaq is a one of the Nephilim for all I care. Does not have much influence on salvation.
Yet, the apporach to the Faith demonstrated here is very dangerous and we have experienced its bitter fruits many times. To insist that there is one position and one position only that defines the Faith, when there are clearly other very valid positions, leads to disasters.
There are instances when there has to be definitive yes or no regarding the definition of dogma. In such instances, the orthodox position is clear by the consensus of the Fathers, even if there is one or two exceptions. Universalism is one of these cases, in my opinions.
There are other instances when there are parallel traditions. Genesis 6:4 was an easy task, because the patristic quotes are abundant in favor of the Angels interpretation. Not so with other subjects like communion of Judas, the date of the Passover day in the year the Lord was crucified, The Assumption of Mary, etc....
To eliminate one tradition and call it heretical or absurd, and begin to question its validity using open ended questions just like in Genesis 3, and attack it using irrelevant biblical references, is dangerous.
If we apply this approach to the insignificant matters, we will end up denying the foundation of the Faith using the same approach.
I do not understand it that way. No translation conveys what what you are suggesting.
Neither the fathers convey what you are suggesting.
This is about what you really want to believe.
I will leave it to the audience to judge, specially as I was not that involved in this topic.
The biblical references and patristic quotes are listed in this topic, and we can let every one decide for himself / herself.
When you get into one of those denial modes, it is hard to make you snap out of it.
It is not about "giants" vs "irrelevant" fathers. it just comes to show that we do have the first 300 years of Christians, and maybe Jews as well, who believed this, whereas afterwards, at least with St. Augustine and ST. John Cassian, we see a different interpretation FOR THE FIRST TIME in patristic exegesis. The Nephilim story makes for a great discussion, but it's not do-or-die theology.
I agree. It is not do or die dogma.
It is acceptable to believe that Genesis 6:4 refers to sons of Seth. I find it to be not sufficiently supported by the Fathers or Scripture but I cannot deny it is an orthodox interpretation that has been believed by few, yet recognizable, Fathers. I stated this in my first or second post in this topic.
One might believe that Shaq is a one of the Nephilim for all I care. Does not have much influence on salvation.
Yet, the apporach to the Faith demonstrated here is very dangerous and we have experienced its bitter fruits many times. To insist that there is one position and one position only that defines the Faith, when there are clearly other very valid positions, leads to disasters.
There are instances when there has to be definitive yes or no regarding the definition of dogma. In such instances, the orthodox position is clear by the consensus of the Fathers, even if there is one or two exceptions. Universalism is one of these cases, in my opinions.
There are other instances when there are parallel traditions. Genesis 6:4 was an easy task, because the patristic quotes are abundant in favor of the Angels interpretation. Not so with other subjects like communion of Judas, the date of the Passover day in the year the Lord was crucified, The Assumption of Mary, etc....
To eliminate one tradition and call it heretical or absurd, and begin to question its validity using open ended questions just like in Genesis 3, and attack it using irrelevant biblical references, is dangerous.
If we apply this approach to the insignificant matters, we will end up denying the foundation of the Faith using the same approach. Excellent post! *Thumbs up*
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159954#msg159954 date=1347834021] Can I ask you, why you have not included in your list of Patristic writing the opinion of great fathers as St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Severs, St John Chrysostom and the others. Huge dogma like angles marrying women would have called the attention of giants like those fathers.
I personally checked. I couldn't find anything from St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Severus, or anyone else. Some have claimed St John Chyrsostom subscribes to the Sethite hypothesis but I couldn't find any specific references. Maybe they exist. Maybe these father specifically endorsed the Sethite hypothesis. As I said before, the Sethite hypothesis as St Augustine explains is quite convincing. But this is not relevant to the discussion. The point we have been making from the beginning is that the Angel hypothesis, no matter how much we disapprove of it, is the exclusive theory for the first 4 centuries. We can't dismiss it and sweep it under the rug. We can't claim it is heretical. And we also can't consider it "a huge dogma", especially since there are so few patristic references from post-Augustine fathers and no references in the Scripture or pre-Augustinian fathers.
I literally LOL'ed at the Shaq comment, but otherwise, I don't disagree with your post in general.
Remnkemi,
I found the Fr. Seraphim Rose quote that seems to want to support the Sethite view. Fr. Seraphim Rose here implied that the Angel view is erroneous, but obviously, he did not give an objective perspective of the interpretation. Nevertheless, I think this quote might help in locating some of the claims he made, as he references where in each of the fathers one might find these views pro-Sethite views:
"Some have speculated that the 'sons of God' were heavenly beings or angels. The Holy Fathers were aware of this interpretation and they refuted it, saying that angels cannot beget men." [Here a footnote adds the following: "The identification of the 'sons of God' as angels or heavenly beings was based in part on the apocryphal book of Enoch....Some of the early Christian writers mistakenly accepted this interpretation....The first extant Christian reference to the 'sons of God' as descendants of Seth is in the Five Books of Chronology by the early Christian writer Julius Africanus (A.D. 200-245) (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 131). This interpretation became the consistent teaching of the Church, being set forth on theological grounds by St. John Chrysostom (Commentary on Genesis 22:6-7), St. Ephraim the Syrian (Commentary on Genesis 6:3, Hymns on the Nativity 1:48, Hymns on Faith 46:9, Hymns against Heresies 19:1-8, and Hymns on Paradise 1:11), St. John Cassian (Conferences 8:20-21), Blessed Augustine (City of God 15:23), St. Gregory Palamas ('Topics of Natural and Theological Science' 62), St. Athanasius (Four Discourses against the Arians 4:22), St. Cyril of Alexandria, and others."] (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: page 244).
[quote author=sordoeht link=topic=9472.msg159944#msg159944 date=1347822220] Sherene_maria, I think sons of Seth approach has minute evidence compared to the angles of God theory in Genesis 6 and let me ask you one question, do you know the reason, why it is not either sons of Enos or Sons of Cainan? and finally you are interpreting St. Irenaeus writings just to suit your point of view and that is not a contextual approach you are following and have you also checked the other fathers I quoted.
Purity 2, I didn't understand, How you related my post and then went to Goliath? can you elaborate it more?, but for your tip, In Genesis 6, During the union between the Sons of God and daughters of men, the result was they gave birth to "Nephilim" directly translated in the Masoretic text and "Giants" in the Septuagint text. The Greek translation is that the offspring between the two were Giants ( "γίγαντες" or gigantes), which comes from the word "γίγας" or gigas which means " Earth-born", so the meaning is clear that the result of the offsprings were born on earth instead of heaven, denoting the fact that one of their parent were non human and the other human.
sordoeht,
Was just saying that Goliath was one of those giants being spoken about. Giant, nephilim, Goliath was one. Do not understand how some of them survived the flood though. Was thinking maybe their non human 'fathers' kept them safe till after the flood.
Most of the quotes mentioned in this thread are just commentaries by various authors and not actual quotes.
The rest of the quotes do not explicitly say that angels married. Some use the term "sons of God" which does not add to the discussion any clarity. Others use the word "commingle" which means blend and not necessarily sexual intercourse.
Some want to believe that angels can marry .. this in itself is problematic for the offspring would be half human and half devilish. One half would be saved and the other half not. One half would be in heaven and the other in hell.
May be aliens do exist after all. May be the movie Fallen Angel has some truth to it.
Mina, Fr Seraphim's foot note is misleading. It implied all those fathers believed in the Sethite hypothesis. I looked at St Athanasius' quote. When time permits, I look at the other references. [quote author=minasoliman link=topic=9472.msg159978#msg159978 date=1347918362] St. Athanasius (Four Discourses against the Arians 4:22),
Here is what St Athanasius actually says: "Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us; for ‘I begat sons,’ saith Scripture; and in the time of Noah, ‘When the sons of God saw,’ and in the Song, ‘Is not He thy Father?’ Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. ""
First of all, it's a bit of a stretch to imply that St Athansius believed or advocated the Sethite hypothesis through this quote. It implies that the title "sons of God" cannot be given to the fallen angels because angels are not the same nature as the Word and consequently God is not their father. It talks about titles and natures, not genealogies. If anything it implies the title in Genesis 6:2 reveals the First and Second Persons of the Trinity, not angels or humans.
I understand this quote by St Athanasius having nothing to do with the Sethite or Angel hypotheses but rather a refocus on the nature of the Logos. Could this be a third hypothesis overlooked by everyone?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159987#msg159987 date=1347934310] Most of the quotes mentioned in this thread are just commentaries by various authors and not actual quotes.
The rest of the quotes do not explicitly say that angels married. Some use the term "sons of God" which does not add to the discussion any clarity. Others use the word "commingle" which means blend and not necessarily sexual intercourse.
Some want to believe that angels can marry .. this in itself is problematic for the offspring would be half human and half devilish. One half would be saved and the other half not. One half would be in heaven and the other in hell.
May be aliens do exist after all. May be the movie Fallen Angel has some truth to it. You're misleading the texts to fit your own preconceived notions. You think this is something we wanted or came up on our own. No one here really "wants" to believe angels can marry. We simply accept the fact that it was believed unanimously at a certain point in time. But the fact that you can't accept that out of preconceived notions that the fathers had to have gotten everything right that has nothing to do with dogma is, well, going to bite you later on.
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=9472.msg160000#msg160000 date=1347962180] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159987#msg159987 date=1347934310] Most of the quotes mentioned in this thread are just commentaries by various authors and not actual quotes.
The rest of the quotes do not explicitly say that angels married. Some use the term "sons of God" which does not add to the discussion any clarity. Others use the word "commingle" which means blend and not necessarily sexual intercourse.
Some want to believe that angels can marry .. this in itself is problematic for the offspring would be half human and half devilish. One half would be saved and the other half not. One half would be in heaven and the other in hell.
May be aliens do exist after all. May be the movie Fallen Angel has some truth to it. You're misleading the texts to fit your own preconceived notions. You think this is something we wanted or came up on our own. No one here really "wants" to believe angels can marry. We simply accept the fact that it was believed unanimously at a certain point in time. But the fact that you can't accept that out of preconceived notions that the fathers had to have gotten everything right that has nothing to do with dogma is, well, going to bite you later on.
Most of the quotes you provided are commentaries not actual quotes.
Commentaries are biased. Two people can read the same thing and draw two different conclusions.
In addition, some the people you quoted are not considered fathers of the Church, so even if you quoted them, their opinion are irrelevant.
Here is the list you provided:
Philo: Not a father of the Church
Josephus: Not a father of the Church
Turtellian: A scholar and not considered a father of the Church
Athenagorus: A Christian philosopher and a father of the Church.
Archelaus: Christian writer and not a father of the Church
Commodianus: Not a father of the Church
Lactantius: Not a father of the Church
St. Methodius: You provided a commentary
Eusebius: Not a father of the Church. The quote you provided is his opinion on some tales he heard.
St. Hilary of Poitiers: A highly regarded father of the Church. However, you provided a commentary.
St Ambrose: A highly regarded father of the Church. The quote you provided has nothing to do with angels getting married.
Nemesius of Emesa: A Christian philosopher. Not a father of the Church. The quote you provided has nothing to do with angels getting married.
St. Jerome: A father of the Church. The quote does not indicate that angels got married.
Sulpitius Severus: A historian not a father of the Church.
Julius Africanus: Not a father of the Church
Origen: A scholar. He believes in the metaphorical language of the Scriptures. Specifically, he believed Genesia 6:4 to be in metaphorical language.
Alexander of Lycopolis: Not a father of the Church.
The only ones left are St Justin, St Clement and St Irinaues.
St Justin says that the demons are the offspring of humans. Not acceptable and contradictory to the Scriptures as I explained before.
St Irinaeus never said that angels got married. You want to believe that the word commingle carries the connotation of sexual intercourse. I do not. A translation is an interpretation of the translator at the time of translation. Does the word commingle carries the meaning of sexual intercourse at the time of translation?
We must be careful at whom we call a father of the Church and read what they wrote in context.
I will give you this that many Christian authors of the first three centuries believed in the Jewish idea that fallen angels got married.
No one ever claimed Philo and Josephus were father of the church. It's riduculous to imply anyone did. They represent a Jewish or Rabbinic view of Genesis 6. Jewish theology greatly influenced the Apostles and early fathers.
Tertullian not a father? Tertullian is considered the father of Latin Christianity. Julius Africanus is also highly regarded as an early father of North Africa. You should rewrite your post as "Not a father according to some in the Coptic Church." I'm not going to reopen the other thread. But this definitely seems like cherry-picking fathers.
No one said Sulpitius Severus was a father. As a contemporary historian he gives us historical authority of early Christian theologies, dogmas and heresies, not theological authority. There's a difference.
Then there's Origen. Yes he is not considered a father, like the others. However, he is the most influential father there was in Alexandria. We can find similarities in his Biblical exegeses seen in Alexandrian writings ever since. "The Alexandrian School" vs the "Antiochian School" as Minasoliman described in another thread is the foundation of Alexandrian theology. It all started with Origen and many fathers (most of the time without knowing it) corroborate Origen's Biblical commentaries. This obviously excludes the controversial points in Origen's theology.
What is most upsetting is you are claiming all of these quotes are only commentaries. A commentary is a third person summary of a primary source. All the sources that Minasoliman and I presented are primary sources from their own writings, not modern or third party commentaries. The implication of calling these quotes commentaries is you believe we are being intellectually dishonest, giving a summary instead of the original language (albeit not Greek).
Finally, since you concluded "many Christian authors of the first three centuries believed in the Jewish idea that fallen angels got married.", which is exactly what we were trying to say from the beginning...Why are you arguing then? We never said the angel theory doesn't have problems. We have been saying the angel theory has precedence. And you agree.
Regardless of what people think Church Fathers say or what Jewish and Christian historians claimed about their interpretations of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men, I think what matters is the worldview through which we interpret this piece of Scripture.
If we interpret the Scripture using a Neo-Platonic worldview, or one heavily influenced by the ancient mythologies of gods mating with women and giving birth to demi-gods, then those Fathers coming from those backgrounds, or who are preaching to people with those backgrounds, would subscribe to the interpretation that the Nephilim are begotten of angels and human women.
The problem with that view, though, is our contemporary scientific worldview. Angels are not earth creatures, and as such do not reproduce in the same way that life has evolved to reproduce on earth. As non-earthly beings, angels do not have DNA that replicate and are given to offspring. The question would then be: how would angels provide the seed and the DNA to create offspring through human women?
It should be noted that angels, like us, are creatures. They cannot provide the seed to reproduce, since it is not their nature to reproduce as we humans and other animals on earth reproduce. As creatures, they cannot create matter out of nothing -- so they could not create the seed and the DNA from non-existent material (which they do not have, so it would be non-existent). The only one who can create out of nothing is God, and that's why it is God himself, through the Holy Spirit, who was incarnate without any seed -- the incarnation was the only exception, because God can create out of nothing.
So, to suggest that the angels could do the same as God -- create out of nothing and use that material to reproduce -- would be to get into a contradiction in the roles of the divine and the roles of creatures.
That's why the best interpretation for this Scripture is that provided by St. Augustine, who reasoned that the sons of God refer to the people in the lineage of Seth, and the daughters of men refer to people in the lineage of Cain.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=9472.msg159989#msg159989 date=1347935756] Mina, Fr Seraphim's foot note is misleading. It implied all those fathers believed in the Sethite hypothesis. I looked at St Athanasius' quote. When time permits, I look at the other references. [quote author=minasoliman link=topic=9472.msg159978#msg159978 date=1347918362] St. Athanasius (Four Discourses against the Arians 4:22),
Here is what St Athanasius actually says: "Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us; for ‘I begat sons,’ saith Scripture; and in the time of Noah, ‘When the sons of God saw,’ and in the Song, ‘Is not He thy Father?’ Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. ""
First of all, it's a bit of a stretch to imply that St Athansius believed or advocated the Sethite hypothesis through this quote. It implies that the title "sons of God" cannot be given to the fallen angels because angels are not the same nature as the Word and consequently God is not their father. It talks about titles and natures, not genealogies. If anything it implies the title in Genesis 6:2 reveals the First and Second Persons of the Trinity, not angels or humans.
I understand this quote by St Athanasius having nothing to do with the Sethite or Angel hypotheses but rather a refocus on the nature of the Logos. Could this be a third hypothesis overlooked by everyone? That's a good point. Fr. Seraphim was controversial an his research sometimes lead to a skewing of the Fathers' beliefs.
Nevertheless, not sure if it has to do with this, but to St. Athanasius, angels are not in the Image of God. Perhaps, being Sons only referred to humans in this case, but of course it is a stretch.
You should rewrite your post as "Not a father according to some in the Coptic Church." I'm not going to reopen the other thread. But this definitely seems like cherry-picking fathers.
A better title:
"Fathers of the Church According to St. Reminkimi"
Regardless of what people think Church Fathers say or what Jewish and Christian historians claimed about their interpretations of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men, I think what matters is the worldview through which we interpret this piece of Scripture.
If we interpret the Scripture using a Neo-Platonic worldview, or one heavily influenced by the ancient mythologies of gods mating with women and giving birth to demi-gods, then those Fathers coming from those backgrounds, or who are preaching to people with those backgrounds, would subscribe to the interpretation that the Nephilim are begotten of angels and human women.
The problem with that view, though, is our contemporary scientific worldview. Angels are not earth creatures, and as such do not reproduce in the same way that life has evolved to reproduce on earth. As non-earthly beings, angels do not have DNA that replicate and are given to offspring. The question would then be: how would angels provide the seed and the DNA to create offspring through human women?
It should be noted that angels, like us, are creatures. They cannot provide the seed to reproduce, since it is not their nature to reproduce as we humans and other animals on earth reproduce. As creatures, they cannot create matter out of nothing -- so they could not create the seed and the DNA from non-existent material (which they do not have, so it would be non-existent). The only one who can create out of nothing is God, and that's why it is God himself, through the Holy Spirit, who was incarnate without any seed -- the incarnation was the only exception, because God can create out of nothing.
So, to suggest that the angels could do the same as God -- create out of nothing and use that material to reproduce -- would be to get into a contradiction in the roles of the divine and the roles of creatures.
That's why the best interpretation for this Scripture is that provided by St. Augustine, who reasoned that the sons of God refer to the people in the lineage of Seth, and the daughters of men refer to people in the lineage of Cain. I don't disagree with you in general. The only difference I would mention is like you said, angels are creatures and they don't make things out of non-existence. Therefore, I don't think the idea of angels copulating with women denies that principle. Somehow, their alleged "lust" lead to a procreation that might be similar to the man's seed-giving capabilities.
Of course, I'm not advocating the idea that angels can copulate with women. What I am saying is that no one claims that in doing so they create a seed out of nothing.
In addition, I'm not sure if you're implying anything concerning the ability for angels to reproduce, but I wanted to add this tidbit. Given the history of angel theology, it seems clear there really is a lot of mystery to understanding what angels are. Perhaps they can reproduce in their own non-material ways. Perhaps they don't. So while in today's world view, I agree with you that angels being immaterial cannot copulate with humans, that doesn't mean they don't reproduce.
Otherwise, you make excellent points and I agree with you a lot. The point of this argument was not to proclaim what we believe, but to discuss what ancient figures in history believed, which indicates the degree of what ancient Christians around them might have believed, which makes sense since Platonism was the dominant "scientific" understanding at the time.
Mina, the lead up question would be: what did the Church Fathers say about the Angels. Do they reproduce? If yes, then by what means are they reproducing? After all, there's Quite a lot that has been said about the possibility of Adam and Eve reproducing without sexual intercourse had they not sinned in Eden. If non-sexual reproduction was the ideal for the human life in Eden, and assuming that the Angels are in need to multiply and reproduce like all other creatures, then what warrants the argument that Angels could produce the seed necessary for reproduction?
I'm just mentioning this as a speculative argument and not as some kind of doctrine.
Furthermore, if we are speaking of fallen angels, then what kind of power do they have such that they can produce something outside of their own natures? Have they taken on a human body, just as Adam and Eve put on the "garments of skin" and reproduced through sexual intercourse? If these fallen angela put on a human body to have intercourse with the daughters of men, in this case it would be a demonic possession of a human man, causing those men to have intercourse with those women, without the loving consent of marriage (hence making it a sin). Perhaps what we're reading here is about demonic possessions of men by these fallen angels, and what it may lead to in terms of a lack of loving relationships (contrasted with Noah).
So what I'm suggesting is that It's difficult to find consistency with saying the Fathers believed that angels had intercourse with women, when those same fathers also spoke of the angel-like life of Adam and Eve in Eden, when it may have been possible for them to reproduce without sexual intercourse.
There are two more facts to consider in your synopsis. First, one could easily argue using Origen's framework that humans and angels "fell" before time, but to different levels. If angels and humans can fall once, they can fall again. This falling may be allegorical. For example Lucifer fell by his pride. Yet even allegorical falling doesn't negate the existence of fallen angels. We certainly believe Satan exists. With this framework, it makes sense that angels fell, married women and engaged in sin, making it easy for all normal humans to follow in that perversion until the flood. So one could say some angels fell again into the domain of humanity and took on human flesh, like human souls did the first time they fell. Is this true? Probably not. I only say this to show that a neo-platonic Origenistic hypothesis allows for angels taking on human flesh.
Secondly, while angels and humans are different creatures, one could argue that part of the angelic nature (or more accurately, in the nature of spirits), spirits can take flesh. Sometimes temporarily, like the angels Abraham waited on and the angel in the fiery furnace of the Three youth and the angels at Christ's empty tomb. Sometimes spirits can take flesh permanently. After all, the Logos took flesh and was perfect human except sin. Now the divine nature is different than the angelic nature. So we have to be careful with comparisons. I only want to say that one will have difficulty stating the nature of spirits cannot allow taking flesh, since we have examples in the Old Testament of this happening.
Regardless, I said from the beginning Augustine's argument is convincing and the Sethite hypothesis makes sense. But the angel hypothesis, being strange to begin with, doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of angels taking flesh and engaging in sexual reproduction.
Both the oldest full edition of the Bible which are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus used Angels instead of “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 [ David R. Jackson Enochic Judaism: three defining paradigm exemplars 2004 p75], How will one explain this fact?
We shouldn't under estimate the 'power' of the fallen angels. After all Satan has deceived the whole world; he and his minions. They can take on many forms and possess peoples minds and make there bodies do crazy things so why think they can not (shudder to think) take the form of men and mate with women? In the book of Tobit it talks of an evil demon Asmodeus that wanted Sarah of Raguel for himself and this evil demon killed every man she married (7) before they could consumate the marriage. Now why do you think that evil demon wanted her for himself?? Don't think it was just to look at her. I understand why Pope Shenouda III didn't wish this book to be common knowledge.....it's kinda creepy when it's picked apart and discussed indetail. But our Abuna gave a sermon on which he spoke briefly about the subject of Giants. To me it seemed like the 'freaks of nature' we see in the movies....too unnatural to be supported by this Gods green earth. I am thankful to the Holy Trinity for the protection of the Holy Cross!!!
I am not trying to create controversy, deceive people or revive an old topic, but I have found some fascinating facts and I wanted to share it in this trend and I also wanted an opinion and good explanation from the people who don't believe in the divine inspiration of the book of Enoch on the next allusions of the book of Enoch and the New testament.
1. 1 Enoch 91:16 RCV, Enoch 35:7 EV, “And the first heaven shall depart and pass away, And a new heaven shall appear,” Revelation 21:1, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea”
2. 1 Enoch 9:4 RCV, Enoch 2:31 EV, “And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages” Revelation 17:14, “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful”
3. . 1 Enoch 69:27 RCV, Enoch 20:19 EV, “And he sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man,” John 5:22, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:”
- RCV = RH Charles version and EV and Ethiopic version
[quote author=sordoeht link=topic=9472.msg160334#msg160334 date=1349561399] I am not trying to create controversy, deceive people or revive an old topic, but I have found some fascinating facts and I wanted to share it in this trend and I also wanted an opinion and good explanation from the people who don't believe in the divine inspiration of the book of Enoch on the next allusions of the book of Enoch and the New testament.
1. 1 Enoch 91:16 RCV, Enoch 35:7 EV, “And the first heaven shall depart and pass away, And a new heaven shall appear,” Revelation 21:1, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea”
2. 1 Enoch 9:4 RCV, Enoch 2:31 EV, “And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages” Revelation 17:14, “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful”
3. . 1 Enoch 69:27 RCV, Enoch 20:19 EV, “And he sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man,” John 5:22, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:”
- RCV = RH Charles version and EV and Ethiopic version
So there is similarity between the book of Enoch and Revelation or any other book with the books of the bible. Dos this make the other books inspired?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=9472.msg160344#msg160344 date=1349661504] Even if it were not inspired, that does not mean it is un-authoritative (take the Didache, for example). Plus, the EOTC considers it Scripture.
There is a huge difference between a authoritative book and and an inspired book. An inspired book is a revelation of God to man. An authoritative book, in the Church, is one that is based on Scriptures.
Can any one please tell us how the book of Enoch is used in the Ethiopian or the Eritrean sister church?
Imikahil, I didn't understand when you said, "Does this make the other books inspired?" I thought all the books of the bible are considered to be the inspired word of God. If this is not the case, what is the measure of the standards being inspired and authoritative? and which books are inspired and authoritative in your opinion?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg160347#msg160347 date=1349697403] There is a huge difference between a authoritative book and and an inspired book. An inspired book is a revelation of God to man. An authoritative book, in the Church, is one that is based on Scriptures.Agreed.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg160347#msg160347 date=1349697403] Can any one please tell us how the book of Enoch is used in the Ethiopian or the Eritrean sister church?Not 100% sure. I heard from an Ethiopian poster on another forum that in the EOTC's hagiography the "sons of God" are considered to be the "sons of Seth," contradicting the book of Enoch. So maybe that shows that the EOTC does not fully embrace all of the book of Enoch's teachings? ???
Comments
Are you not doing the same?
St. Irenaus never said that the angles married. He did say that they linked themselves to the offspring, after the union with the women had taken place.
As promised, I will continue with your other quotes.
Are you not doing the same?
St. Irenaus never said that the angles married. He did say that they linked themselves to the offspring, after the union with the women had taken place.
As promised, I will continue with your other quotes.
Dear imikhail,
I agree with you that I don't believe angels married. But your interpretation of St. Ireneaus' quotes are intellectually dishonest. Because of the culture at the time, it makes sense that when he says "commingled," it means sexual intercourse. And this isn't just him, but the saints before him and after him.
Don't be shocked or surprised that these saints believed these things. They lived at a time where their metaphysical/philosophical understandings were not as advanced as later centuries. That doesn't take away the message of the gospel. You need to not worry about trying to keep consistent teachings of today's fathers on the Nephilim with the earlier centuries. The more you do this, the more you make a fool of yourself, especially since both scholars and theologians do not dispute this simple fact that St. Irenaeus did believe that angels copulated with women and gave birth to Nephilim. Sometimes we believe differently from the fathers on negligible matters. It's okay! As long as we don't mock them for their beliefs or make a mockery of ourselves for twisting their beliefs to conform to today's.
Sherene_maria, I think sons of Seth approach has minute evidence compared to the angles of God theory in Genesis 6 and let me ask you one question, do you know the reason, why it is not either sons of Enos or Sons of Cainan? and finally you are interpreting St. Irenaeus writings just to suit your point of view and that is not a contextual approach you are following and have you also checked the other fathers I quoted.
The daughters of men were the descendants of the line of Cain, while the sons of God were the descendants of the line of Seth which included Enos and his offspring. "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
Can I ask you, why you have not included in your list of Patristic writing the opinion of great fathers as St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Severs, St John Chrysostom and the others. Huge dogma like angles marrying women would have called the attention of giants like those fathers.
The point is not to ignore those Church fathers. The point was to show that from the 1st to the 3rd centuries, and part of the 4th Century, there was a relatively unanimous belief that the Nephilim were offspring of a mix of angels and women. After that, there was a shift in Patristic opinion. It is not about "giants" vs "irrelevant" fathers. it just comes to show that we do have the first 300 years of Christians, and maybe Jews as well, who believed this, whereas afterwards, at least with St. Augustine and ST. John Cassian, we see a different interpretation FOR THE FIRST TIME in patristic exegesis. The Nephilim story makes for a great discussion, but it's not do-or-die theology. Sure, I'd also like to see St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, and St. John Chrysostom quotes, but these are also 4th Century fathers and afterwards, when the tide of patristic exegesis on the Nephilim was changing.
Again, the fact that this is a big deal for many of you is sad and troubling. You need to discern what is important in dogma, and what is negligent in dogma. There's no need to discuss this any further. If you feel the need to continue discussing this as if this means your whole life, then I'm sorry to say, you need to reassess your own faith.
The biblical references and patristic quotes are listed in this topic, and we can let every one decide for himself / herself.
When you get into one of those denial modes, it is hard to make you snap out of it. I agree. It is not do or die dogma.
It is acceptable to believe that Genesis 6:4 refers to sons of Seth. I find it to be not sufficiently supported by the Fathers or Scripture but I cannot deny it is an orthodox interpretation that has been believed by few, yet recognizable, Fathers. I stated this in my first or second post in this topic.
One might believe that Shaq is a one of the Nephilim for all I care. Does not have much influence on salvation.
Yet, the apporach to the Faith demonstrated here is very dangerous and we have experienced its bitter fruits many times. To insist that there is one position and one position only that defines the Faith, when there are clearly other very valid positions, leads to disasters.
There are instances when there has to be definitive yes or no regarding the definition of dogma. In such instances, the orthodox position is clear by the consensus of the Fathers, even if there is one or two exceptions. Universalism is one of these cases, in my opinions.
There are other instances when there are parallel traditions. Genesis 6:4 was an easy task, because the patristic quotes are abundant in favor of the Angels interpretation. Not so with other subjects like communion of Judas, the date of the Passover day in the year the Lord was crucified, The Assumption of Mary, etc....
To eliminate one tradition and call it heretical or absurd, and begin to question its validity using open ended questions just like in Genesis 3, and attack it using irrelevant biblical references, is dangerous.
If we apply this approach to the insignificant matters, we will end up denying the foundation of the Faith using the same approach.
The biblical references and patristic quotes are listed in this topic, and we can let every one decide for himself / herself.
When you get into one of those denial modes, it is hard to make you snap out of it. I agree. It is not do or die dogma.
It is acceptable to believe that Genesis 6:4 refers to sons of Seth. I find it to be not sufficiently supported by the Fathers or Scripture but I cannot deny it is an orthodox interpretation that has been believed by few, yet recognizable, Fathers. I stated this in my first or second post in this topic.
One might believe that Shaq is a one of the Nephilim for all I care. Does not have much influence on salvation.
Yet, the apporach to the Faith demonstrated here is very dangerous and we have experienced its bitter fruits many times. To insist that there is one position and one position only that defines the Faith, when there are clearly other very valid positions, leads to disasters.
There are instances when there has to be definitive yes or no regarding the definition of dogma. In such instances, the orthodox position is clear by the consensus of the Fathers, even if there is one or two exceptions. Universalism is one of these cases, in my opinions.
There are other instances when there are parallel traditions. Genesis 6:4 was an easy task, because the patristic quotes are abundant in favor of the Angels interpretation. Not so with other subjects like communion of Judas, the date of the Passover day in the year the Lord was crucified, The Assumption of Mary, etc....
To eliminate one tradition and call it heretical or absurd, and begin to question its validity using open ended questions just like in Genesis 3, and attack it using irrelevant biblical references, is dangerous.
If we apply this approach to the insignificant matters, we will end up denying the foundation of the Faith using the same approach.
Excellent post! *Thumbs up*
Can I ask you, why you have not included in your list of Patristic writing the opinion of great fathers as St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Severs, St John Chrysostom and the others. Huge dogma like angles marrying women would have called the attention of giants like those fathers.
I personally checked. I couldn't find anything from St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Severus, or anyone else. Some have claimed St John Chyrsostom subscribes to the Sethite hypothesis but I couldn't find any specific references. Maybe they exist. Maybe these father specifically endorsed the Sethite hypothesis. As I said before, the Sethite hypothesis as St Augustine explains is quite convincing. But this is not relevant to the discussion. The point we have been making from the beginning is that the Angel hypothesis, no matter how much we disapprove of it, is the exclusive theory for the first 4 centuries. We can't dismiss it and sweep it under the rug. We can't claim it is heretical. And we also can't consider it "a huge dogma", especially since there are so few patristic references from post-Augustine fathers and no references in the Scripture or pre-Augustinian fathers.
I literally LOL'ed at the Shaq comment, but otherwise, I don't disagree with your post in general.
Remnkemi,
I found the Fr. Seraphim Rose quote that seems to want to support the Sethite view. Fr. Seraphim Rose here implied that the Angel view is erroneous, but obviously, he did not give an objective perspective of the interpretation. Nevertheless, I think this quote might help in locating some of the claims he made, as he references where in each of the fathers one might find these views pro-Sethite views:
"Some have speculated that the 'sons of God' were heavenly beings or angels. The Holy Fathers were aware of this interpretation and they refuted it, saying that angels cannot beget men." [Here a footnote adds the following: "The identification of the 'sons of God' as angels or heavenly beings was based in part on the apocryphal book of Enoch....Some of the early Christian writers mistakenly accepted this interpretation....The first extant Christian reference to the 'sons of God' as descendants of Seth is in the Five Books of Chronology by the early Christian writer Julius Africanus (A.D. 200-245) (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 131). This interpretation became the consistent teaching of the Church, being set forth on theological grounds by St. John Chrysostom (Commentary on Genesis 22:6-7), St. Ephraim the Syrian (Commentary on Genesis 6:3, Hymns on the Nativity 1:48, Hymns on Faith 46:9, Hymns against Heresies 19:1-8, and Hymns on Paradise 1:11), St. John Cassian (Conferences 8:20-21), Blessed Augustine (City of God 15:23), St. Gregory Palamas ('Topics of Natural and Theological Science' 62), St. Athanasius (Four Discourses against the Arians 4:22), St. Cyril of Alexandria, and others."] (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: page 244).
Sherene_maria, I think sons of Seth approach has minute evidence compared to the angles of God theory in Genesis 6 and let me ask you one question, do you know the reason, why it is not either sons of Enos or Sons of Cainan? and finally you are interpreting St. Irenaeus writings just to suit your point of view and that is not a contextual approach you are following and have you also checked the other fathers I quoted.
Purity 2, I didn't understand, How you related my post and then went to Goliath? can you elaborate it more?, but for your tip, In Genesis 6, During the union between the Sons of God and daughters of men, the result was they gave birth to "Nephilim" directly translated in the Masoretic text and "Giants" in the Septuagint text. The Greek translation is that the offspring between the two were Giants ( "γίγαντες" or gigantes), which comes from the word "γίγας" or gigas which means " Earth-born", so the meaning is clear that the result of the offsprings were born on earth instead of heaven, denoting the fact that one of their parent were non human and the other human.
sordoeht,
Was just saying that Goliath was one of those giants being spoken about. Giant, nephilim, Goliath was one. Do not understand how some of them survived the flood though. Was thinking maybe their non human 'fathers' kept them safe till after the flood.
The rest of the quotes do not explicitly say that angels married. Some use the term "sons of God" which does not add to the discussion any clarity. Others use the word "commingle" which means blend and not necessarily sexual intercourse.
Some want to believe that angels can marry .. this in itself is problematic for the offspring would be half human and half devilish. One half would be saved and the other half not. One half would be in heaven and the other in hell.
May be aliens do exist after all. May be the movie Fallen Angel has some truth to it.
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=9472.msg159978#msg159978 date=1347918362]
St. Athanasius (Four Discourses against the Arians 4:22),
Here is what St Athanasius actually says: "Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us; for ‘I begat sons,’ saith Scripture; and in
the time of Noah, ‘When the sons of God saw,’ and in the Song, ‘Is not He thy Father?’ Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. ""
First of all, it's a bit of a stretch to imply that St Athansius believed or advocated the Sethite hypothesis through this quote. It implies that the title "sons of God" cannot be given to the fallen angels because angels are not the same nature as the Word and consequently God is not their father. It talks about titles and natures, not genealogies. If anything it implies the title in Genesis 6:2 reveals the First and Second Persons of the Trinity, not angels or humans.
I understand this quote by St Athanasius having nothing to do with the Sethite or Angel hypotheses but rather a refocus on the nature of the Logos. Could this be a third hypothesis overlooked by everyone?
Most of the quotes mentioned in this thread are just commentaries by various authors and not actual quotes.
The rest of the quotes do not explicitly say that angels married. Some use the term "sons of God" which does not add to the discussion any clarity. Others use the word "commingle" which means blend and not necessarily sexual intercourse.
Some want to believe that angels can marry .. this in itself is problematic for the offspring would be half human and half devilish. One half would be saved and the other half not. One half would be in heaven and the other in hell.
May be aliens do exist after all. May be the movie Fallen Angel has some truth to it.
You're misleading the texts to fit your own preconceived notions. You think this is something we wanted or came up on our own. No one here really "wants" to believe angels can marry. We simply accept the fact that it was believed unanimously at a certain point in time. But the fact that you can't accept that out of preconceived notions that the fathers had to have gotten everything right that has nothing to do with dogma is, well, going to bite you later on.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159987#msg159987 date=1347934310]
Most of the quotes mentioned in this thread are just commentaries by various authors and not actual quotes.
The rest of the quotes do not explicitly say that angels married. Some use the term "sons of God" which does not add to the discussion any clarity. Others use the word "commingle" which means blend and not necessarily sexual intercourse.
Some want to believe that angels can marry .. this in itself is problematic for the offspring would be half human and half devilish. One half would be saved and the other half not. One half would be in heaven and the other in hell.
May be aliens do exist after all. May be the movie Fallen Angel has some truth to it.
You're misleading the texts to fit your own preconceived notions. You think this is something we wanted or came up on our own. No one here really "wants" to believe angels can marry. We simply accept the fact that it was believed unanimously at a certain point in time. But the fact that you can't accept that out of preconceived notions that the fathers had to have gotten everything right that has nothing to do with dogma is, well, going to bite you later on.
Most of the quotes you provided are commentaries not actual quotes.
Commentaries are biased. Two people can read the same thing and draw two different conclusions.
In addition, some the people you quoted are not considered fathers of the Church, so even if you quoted them, their opinion are irrelevant.
Here is the list you provided:
Philo: Not a father of the Church
Josephus: Not a father of the Church
Turtellian: A scholar and not considered a father of the Church
Athenagorus: A Christian philosopher and a father of the Church.
Archelaus: Christian writer and not a father of the Church
Commodianus: Not a father of the Church
Lactantius: Not a father of the Church
St. Methodius: You provided a commentary
Eusebius: Not a father of the Church. The quote you provided is his opinion on some tales he heard.
St. Hilary of Poitiers: A highly regarded father of the Church. However, you provided a commentary.
St Ambrose: A highly regarded father of the Church. The quote you provided has nothing to do with angels getting married.
Nemesius of Emesa: A Christian philosopher. Not a father of the Church. The quote you provided has nothing to do with angels getting married.
St. Jerome: A father of the Church. The quote does not indicate that angels got married.
Sulpitius Severus: A historian not a father of the Church.
Julius Africanus: Not a father of the Church
Origen: A scholar. He believes in the metaphorical language of the Scriptures. Specifically, he believed Genesia 6:4 to be in metaphorical language.
Alexander of Lycopolis: Not a father of the Church.
The only ones left are St Justin, St Clement and St Irinaues.
St Justin says that the demons are the offspring of humans. Not acceptable and contradictory to the Scriptures as I explained before.
St Irinaeus never said that angels got married. You want to believe that the word commingle carries the connotation of sexual intercourse. I do not. A translation is an interpretation of the translator at the time of translation. Does the word commingle carries the meaning of sexual intercourse at the time of translation?
We must be careful at whom we call a father of the Church and read what they wrote in context.
I will give you this that many Christian authors of the first three centuries believed in the Jewish idea that fallen angels got married.
Tertullian not a father? Tertullian is considered the father of Latin Christianity. Julius Africanus is also highly regarded as an early father of North Africa. You should rewrite your post as "Not a father according to some in the Coptic Church." I'm not going to reopen the other thread. But this definitely seems like cherry-picking fathers.
No one said Sulpitius Severus was a father. As a contemporary historian he gives us historical authority of early Christian theologies, dogmas and heresies, not theological authority. There's a difference.
Then there's Origen. Yes he is not considered a father, like the others. However, he is the most influential father there was in Alexandria. We can find similarities in his Biblical exegeses seen in Alexandrian writings ever since. "The Alexandrian School" vs the "Antiochian School" as Minasoliman described in another thread is the foundation of Alexandrian theology. It all started with Origen and many fathers (most of the time without knowing it) corroborate Origen's Biblical commentaries. This obviously excludes the controversial points in Origen's theology.
What is most upsetting is you are claiming all of these quotes are only commentaries. A commentary is a third person summary of a primary source. All the sources that Minasoliman and I presented are primary sources from their own writings, not modern or third party commentaries. The implication of calling these quotes commentaries is you believe we are being intellectually dishonest, giving a summary instead of the original language (albeit not Greek).
Finally, since you concluded "many Christian authors of the first three centuries believed in the Jewish idea that fallen angels got married.", which is exactly what we were trying to say from the beginning...Why are you arguing then? We never said the angel theory doesn't have problems. We have been saying the angel theory has precedence. And you agree.
Regardless of what people think Church Fathers say or what Jewish and Christian historians claimed about their interpretations of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men, I think what matters is the worldview through which we interpret this piece of Scripture.
If we interpret the Scripture using a Neo-Platonic worldview, or one heavily influenced by the ancient mythologies of gods mating with women and giving birth to demi-gods, then those Fathers coming from those backgrounds, or who are preaching to people with those backgrounds, would subscribe to the interpretation that the Nephilim are begotten of angels and human women.
The problem with that view, though, is our contemporary scientific worldview. Angels are not earth creatures, and as such do not reproduce in the same way that life has evolved to reproduce on earth. As non-earthly beings, angels do not have DNA that replicate and are given to offspring. The question would then be: how would angels provide the seed and the DNA to create offspring through human women?
It should be noted that angels, like us, are creatures. They cannot provide the seed to reproduce, since it is not their nature to reproduce as we humans and other animals on earth reproduce. As creatures, they cannot create matter out of nothing -- so they could not create the seed and the DNA from non-existent material (which they do not have, so it would be non-existent). The only one who can create out of nothing is God, and that's why it is God himself, through the Holy Spirit, who was incarnate without any seed -- the incarnation was the only exception, because God can create out of nothing.
So, to suggest that the angels could do the same as God -- create out of nothing and use that material to reproduce -- would be to get into a contradiction in the roles of the divine and the roles of creatures.
That's why the best interpretation for this Scripture is that provided by St. Augustine, who reasoned that the sons of God refer to the people in the lineage of Seth, and the daughters of men refer to people in the lineage of Cain.
Mina, Fr Seraphim's foot note is misleading. It implied all those fathers believed in the Sethite hypothesis. I looked at St Athanasius' quote. When time permits, I look at the other references.
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=9472.msg159978#msg159978 date=1347918362]
St. Athanasius (Four Discourses against the Arians 4:22),
Here is what St Athanasius actually says: "Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us; for ‘I begat sons,’ saith Scripture; and in
the time of Noah, ‘When the sons of God saw,’ and in the Song, ‘Is not He thy Father?’ Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. ""
First of all, it's a bit of a stretch to imply that St Athansius believed or advocated the Sethite hypothesis through this quote. It implies that the title "sons of God" cannot be given to the fallen angels because angels are not the same nature as the Word and consequently God is not their father. It talks about titles and natures, not genealogies. If anything it implies the title in Genesis 6:2 reveals the First and Second Persons of the Trinity, not angels or humans.
I understand this quote by St Athanasius having nothing to do with the Sethite or Angel hypotheses but rather a refocus on the nature of the Logos. Could this be a third hypothesis overlooked by everyone?
That's a good point. Fr. Seraphim was controversial an his research sometimes lead to a skewing of the Fathers' beliefs.
Nevertheless, not sure if it has to do with this, but to St. Athanasius, angels are not in the Image of God. Perhaps, being Sons only referred to humans in this case, but of course it is a stretch.
He is a scholar. He fell into the Montanism.
"Fathers of the Church According to St. Reminkimi"
:):):)
Agape,
Regardless of what people think Church Fathers say or what Jewish and Christian historians claimed about their interpretations of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men, I think what matters is the worldview through which we interpret this piece of Scripture.
If we interpret the Scripture using a Neo-Platonic worldview, or one heavily influenced by the ancient mythologies of gods mating with women and giving birth to demi-gods, then those Fathers coming from those backgrounds, or who are preaching to people with those backgrounds, would subscribe to the interpretation that the Nephilim are begotten of angels and human women.
The problem with that view, though, is our contemporary scientific worldview. Angels are not earth creatures, and as such do not reproduce in the same way that life has evolved to reproduce on earth. As non-earthly beings, angels do not have DNA that replicate and are given to offspring. The question would then be: how would angels provide the seed and the DNA to create offspring through human women?
It should be noted that angels, like us, are creatures. They cannot provide the seed to reproduce, since it is not their nature to reproduce as we humans and other animals on earth reproduce. As creatures, they cannot create matter out of nothing -- so they could not create the seed and the DNA from non-existent material (which they do not have, so it would be non-existent). The only one who can create out of nothing is God, and that's why it is God himself, through the Holy Spirit, who was incarnate without any seed -- the incarnation was the only exception, because God can create out of nothing.
So, to suggest that the angels could do the same as God -- create out of nothing and use that material to reproduce -- would be to get into a contradiction in the roles of the divine and the roles of creatures.
That's why the best interpretation for this Scripture is that provided by St. Augustine, who reasoned that the sons of God refer to the people in the lineage of Seth, and the daughters of men refer to people in the lineage of Cain.
I don't disagree with you in general. The only difference I would mention is like you said, angels are creatures and they don't make things out of non-existence. Therefore, I don't think the idea of angels copulating with women denies that principle. Somehow, their alleged "lust" lead to a procreation that might be similar to the man's seed-giving capabilities.
Of course, I'm not advocating the idea that angels can copulate with women. What I am saying is that no one claims that in doing so they create a seed out of nothing.
In addition, I'm not sure if you're implying anything concerning the ability for angels to reproduce, but I wanted to add this tidbit. Given the history of angel theology, it seems clear there really is a lot of mystery to understanding what angels are. Perhaps they can reproduce in their own non-material ways. Perhaps they don't. So while in today's world view, I agree with you that angels being immaterial cannot copulate with humans, that doesn't mean they don't reproduce.
Otherwise, you make excellent points and I agree with you a lot. The point of this argument was not to proclaim what we believe, but to discuss what ancient figures in history believed, which indicates the degree of what ancient Christians around them might have believed, which makes sense since Platonism was the dominant "scientific" understanding at the time.
Mina, the lead up question would be: what did the Church Fathers say about the Angels. Do they reproduce? If yes, then by what means are they reproducing? After all, there's Quite a lot that has been said about the possibility of Adam and Eve reproducing without sexual intercourse had they not sinned in Eden. If non-sexual reproduction was the ideal for the human life in Eden, and assuming that the Angels are in need to multiply and reproduce like all other creatures, then what warrants the argument that Angels could produce the seed necessary for reproduction?
I'm just mentioning this as a speculative argument and not as some kind of doctrine.
Furthermore, if we are speaking of fallen angels, then what kind of power do they have such that they can produce something outside of their own natures? Have they taken on a human body, just as Adam and Eve put on the "garments of skin" and reproduced through sexual intercourse? If these fallen angela put on a human body to have intercourse with the daughters of men, in this case it would be a demonic possession of a human man, causing those men to have intercourse with those women, without the loving consent of marriage (hence making it a sin). Perhaps what we're reading here is about demonic possessions of men by these fallen angels, and what it may lead to in terms of a lack of loving relationships (contrasted with Noah).
So what I'm suggesting is that It's difficult to find consistency with saying the Fathers believed that angels had intercourse with women, when those same fathers also spoke of the angel-like life of Adam and Eve in Eden, when it may have been possible for them to reproduce without sexual intercourse.
There are two more facts to consider in your synopsis. First, one could easily argue using Origen's framework that humans and angels "fell" before time, but to different levels. If angels and humans can fall once, they can fall again. This falling may be allegorical. For example Lucifer fell by his pride. Yet even allegorical falling doesn't negate the existence of fallen angels. We certainly believe Satan exists. With this framework, it makes sense that angels fell, married women and engaged in sin, making it easy for all normal humans to follow in that perversion until the flood. So one could say some angels fell again into the domain of humanity and took on human flesh, like human souls did the first time they fell. Is this true? Probably not. I only say this to show that a neo-platonic Origenistic hypothesis allows for angels taking on human flesh.
Secondly, while angels and humans are different creatures, one could argue that part of the angelic nature (or more accurately, in the nature of spirits), spirits can take flesh. Sometimes temporarily, like the angels Abraham waited on and the angel in the fiery furnace of the Three youth and the angels at Christ's empty tomb. Sometimes spirits can take flesh permanently. After all, the Logos took flesh and was perfect human except sin. Now the divine nature is different than the angelic nature. So we have to be careful with comparisons. I only want to say that one will have difficulty stating the nature of spirits cannot allow taking flesh, since we have examples in the Old Testament of this happening.
Regardless, I said from the beginning Augustine's argument is convincing and the Sethite hypothesis makes sense. But the angel hypothesis, being strange to begin with, doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of angels taking flesh and engaging in sexual reproduction.
In the book of Tobit it talks of an evil demon Asmodeus that wanted Sarah of Raguel for himself and this evil demon killed every man she married (7) before they could consumate the marriage. Now why do you think that evil demon wanted her for himself?? Don't think it was just to look at her.
I understand why Pope Shenouda III didn't wish this book to be common knowledge.....it's kinda creepy when it's picked apart and discussed indetail.
But our Abuna gave a sermon on which he spoke briefly about the subject of Giants.
To me it seemed like the 'freaks of nature' we see in the movies....too unnatural to be supported by this Gods green earth.
I am thankful to the Holy Trinity for the protection of the Holy Cross!!!
1. 1 Enoch 91:16 RCV, Enoch 35:7 EV, “And the first heaven shall depart and pass away, And a new heaven shall appear,”
Revelation 21:1, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea”
2. 1 Enoch 9:4 RCV, Enoch 2:31 EV, “And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages”
Revelation 17:14, “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful”
3. . 1 Enoch 69:27 RCV, Enoch 20:19 EV, “And he sat on the throne of his glory,
And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man,”
John 5:22, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:”
- RCV = RH Charles version and EV and Ethiopic version
I am not trying to create controversy, deceive people or revive an old topic, but I have found some fascinating facts and I wanted to share it in this trend and I also wanted an opinion and good explanation from the people who don't believe in the divine inspiration of the book of Enoch on the next allusions of the book of Enoch and the New testament.
1. 1 Enoch 91:16 RCV, Enoch 35:7 EV, “And the first heaven shall depart and pass away, And a new heaven shall appear,”
Revelation 21:1, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea”
2. 1 Enoch 9:4 RCV, Enoch 2:31 EV, “And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages”
Revelation 17:14, “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful”
3. . 1 Enoch 69:27 RCV, Enoch 20:19 EV, “And he sat on the throne of his glory,
And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man,”
John 5:22, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:”
- RCV = RH Charles version and EV and Ethiopic version
So there is similarity between the book of Enoch and Revelation or any other book with the books of the bible. Dos this make the other books inspired?
Even if it were not inspired, that does not mean it is un-authoritative (take the Didache, for example). Plus, the EOTC considers it Scripture.
There is a huge difference between a authoritative book and and an inspired book. An inspired book is a revelation of God to man. An authoritative book, in the Church, is one that is based on Scriptures.
Can any one please tell us how the book of Enoch is used in the Ethiopian or the Eritrean sister church?
There is a huge difference between a authoritative book and and an inspired book. An inspired book is a revelation of God to man. An authoritative book, in the Church, is one that is based on Scriptures.Agreed.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg160347#msg160347 date=1349697403]
Can any one please tell us how the book of Enoch is used in the Ethiopian or the Eritrean sister church?Not 100% sure. I heard from an Ethiopian poster on another forum that in the EOTC's hagiography the "sons of God" are considered to be the "sons of Seth," contradicting the book of Enoch. So maybe that shows that the EOTC does not fully embrace all of the book of Enoch's teachings? ???