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.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Of course it is in conflict with it to say that demons are the sons of Adam.
If that is true then, the demons are of the same nature as the humans. However, Jesus said that this kind, referring to the demons, cannot go out except by prayer and fasting. (Matt 17:21, Mark 9:29)
When a dogma is not scripturally supported , then it is not dogma.
If that is true then, the demons are of the same nature as the humans. However, Jesus said that this kind, referring to the demons, cannot go out except by prayer and fasting.
I'm not sure I follow. Do you mind helping me out a little bit? How does the one conflict the other?
If that is true then, the demons are of the same nature as the humans. However, Jesus said that this kind, referring to the demons, cannot go out except by prayer and fasting.
I'm not sure I follow. Do you mind helping me out a little bit? How does the one conflict the other?
ReturnOrthodoxy
Kind = substance
Jesus was referring to the demons to be of a different substance than the humans. And that is the way his disciples understood the nature of the demons; that they are of a different nature.
I think it is the weakness of our human nature that the demons enter it. So imikhail is right when he quotes Jesus saying it is by prayer and fasting that they go out. That is out of our human nature and letting our spiritual nature dominate.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159820#msg159820 date=1347493550] [quote author=Severian link=topic=9472.msg159815#msg159815 date=1347490215] ^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.
Thanks imikhail
returnorthodox and Severian, though they have acknowledge that they do not believe in the theory of demons copulating with humans, they are still debating and arguing using insult language and sometimes childish behavior. That is OK for me as long as I restrain myself from doing the same. I already have enough sins and I do not want to add more. May The Lord have mercy on all of us!!
Let me try this again. Shere, I am sorry you feel victimized, but with your sort of ignorance, my response (although rude, and harsh) is certainly warranted. When you clop around bashing other Orthodox churches, disregarding fathers to suit your fancy and do not even have the decency to listen and not go into circular reasoning, people get mad. I get mad. I apologize for being rude, and you know what, it is my vice, I'll work it out. But you have some problems that I hope you get to figure out on your own.
imikhail,
Thank you for your response, I am going to try to be more civil, but please, open your mind, and humor me for a bit. I want to actually get something across here. Please, for the Love of all that is holy, follow me to the end.
Firstly, I do not mean to say that the fathers are above the Bible. For example, the reason Arius is not our fathers, is because he was against the teachings of the Bible. The Bible certainly comes first. What I am saying is that they don't necessarily conflict. Shere, if you had read through the whole post you would have noticed that instead of making your past remark. Let me analyze the past proof that you have given, imikhail, and lets see where it leads us.
If that is true then, the demons are of the same nature as the humans. However, Jesus said that this kind, referring to the demons, cannot go out except by prayer and fasting.
You then went on to say that kind=substance.
I have a few problems with this. First, the idea that kind=substance is your own logic, and is not based on the Bible. Thus, the fathers, like I said, contradict your logic, and not the Bible. Also, kind does not = substance. I am not of the same kind as a horse, but I am the same substance. Natural.
Furthermore, the part of the quote which I bolded does not make absolute sense. Firstly, it is your conclusion that it would be so. This is your logic again, and not a direct statement by the father. Thus, it is your understanding of this father, which conflicts your understanding of the scripture. It is not that one father said "God is hate" and the Bible said "God is love." To say that St. Justin wants to imply that demons are of the same nature as humans is a huge claim, which you cannot support. just look at their lineage. Lineage, and nature is dependent on who gave life to you. The demons and the humans are differentiated, and so they are not of the same kind.
My point is that the conflict you are talking about is not a conflict of scripture vs. father, but rather of your understanding of scripture (along with your inferences) vs. your understanding of the father (along with those inferences.)
And it shouldn't matter that i don't support this theory, I am only showing that we will never know, and it is not important to do so. It is important to respect the father's opinion. Otherwise, we have sola scriptura. We don't go with the Bible alone, nor with the fathers alone, but we interpret the Bible through the fathers. We do not put them in conflict and use the Bible to show that the fathers are wrong, especially when there is a plethora of early fathers who agree with it.
You would be saying that all those early fathers contradicted the bible, and you know the truth. I love you imikhail, but that is a HUGE claim that I hope you know the effects of.
Shere, may the good Lors endow you with an opinion of your own, which you can defend without a feeling of being victimized. And may he grant me patience.
RO
I do not believe in good Lors!!!! ??? By the way my name is not shere, my user name is sherene_ maria
Shere, may the good Lors endow you with an opinion of your own, which you can defend without a feeling of being victimized. And may he grant me patience.
RO
I do not believe in good Lors!!!! ??? By the way my name is not shere, my user name is sherene_ maria
LOL. I actually edited the Lord, then I removed and tried again. I would make it sherene_maria, but come on now, it is way to long. Shorter names are used here.
I just want to ask a question, if Pope St Athanasius is the one who compiled the canonical Holy Bible that the COC adhere to it, and it did not contain the Book of Enoch, why should we follow some un-canonical Patristic writing. St Athanasius, the Protector of Faith and the Thirteenth Apostles, in his inspired wisdom saw that a book that mentioned fable story about demons having sexual relation with women is not worthy to be with the rest of the inspired books.
I have my own interpretation why the neo-theologians are interested in posts like these. May be in order to gain an upper hand against His Thrice blessed Memory Pop Shenouda III, they are now challenging every saying that His holiness have mentioned.
I just want to ask a question, if Pope St Athanasius is the one who compiled the canonical Holy Bible that the COC adhere to it, and it did not contain the Book of Enoch, why should we follow some un-canonical Patristic writing. St Athanasius, the Protector of Faith and the Thirteenth Apostles, in his inspired wisdom saw that a book that mentioned fable story about demons having sexual relation with women is not worthy to be with the rest of the inspired books.
The "sons of god" are in genesis. We are in communion with the Ethiopian Orthodox. They are our brothers. Whatch what you say about Orthodox churches and their fathers.
I have my own interpretation why the neo-theologians are interested in posts like these. May be in order to gain an upper hand against His Thrice blessed Memory Pop Shenouda III, they are now challenging every saying that His holiness have mentioned.
Neo theologians again. good. With no proof, because you feel that I have insulted the Pope Shenouda by disagreeing with him. People don't even worship God with that intensity. One cannot contradict the Pope? I disagree with HHPS3 on many levels, and I am open about them, and I call them as I see them. I am not into calling names that are not evident. I'm sorry if my disagreement with your God (Pope Shenouda) causes you discomfort.
And it is not every saying which I disagree with. I listen to many of his sermons and enjoy them. I am against when he is wrong, or when I disagree. When I feel he is in contradiction with the fathers, I speak out.
You don't like that? I'm sorry. I'll go build a shrine for HHPS3 in my house and worship there, and give my unquestioning obedience to him.
I just want to ask a question, if Pope St Athanasius is the one who compiled the canonical Holy Bible that the COC adhere to it, and it did not contain the Book of Enoch, why should we follow some un-canonical Patristic writing. St Athanasius, the Protector of Faith and the Thirteenth Apostles, in his inspired wisdom saw that a book that mentioned fable story about demons having sexual relation with women is not worthy to be with the rest of the inspired books.
I have my own interpretation why the neo-theologians are interested in posts like these. May be in order to gain an upper hand against His Thrice blessed Memory Pop Shenouda III, they are now challenging every saying that His holiness have mentioned.
As RO said, the contention here is on Genesis 6:1 and 6:4. The interpretation, even if it is a church father, that these sons of God are angels is absurd.
It goes against the the scripture teaching on who the angels are, their nature, how some of them fell from their rank, how do they interact with humans either good or bad.
It is critical that when we read the fathers to be aware of the culture they lived and take their writings in context.
If their opinions conflict with the Scripture and what we have received, then their opinions just remain as such.
a) It is canonized by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church b) It is quoted word by word by St. Jude c) It is inspired implicitly referenced by St. Paul and St. Peter. d) The Fathers used it.
Let us examine Jude 6-7.
I consulted two professors of Greek Language on Jude 6-7.
The text in Koine Greek is clear about the fact that the Sodom and Gammorah people were following the example of the fallen Angels when they engaged in sexual immorality.
No way to go, unless St. Jude is not authoritive as well.
It goes against the the scripture teaching on who the angels are, their nature, how some of them fell from their rank, how do they interact with humans either good or bad.
Do you mind exhibiting FROM SCRIPTURE how they disagree. Exact references please.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159842#msg159842 date=1347561819] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159820#msg159820 date=1347493550] [quote author=Severian link=topic=9472.msg159815#msg159815 date=1347490215] ^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.
Thanks imikhail
returnorthodox and Severian, though they have acknowledge that they do not believe in the theory of demons copulating with humans, they are still debating and arguing using insult language and sometimes childish behavior. That is OK for me as long as I restrain myself from doing the same. I already have enough sins and I do not want to add more. May The Lord have mercy on all of us!! I am sorry if I have offended you. I did not intend to. Still though, you use insulting and rude behavior all the time, so I think you are being very uncharitable.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=9472.msg159854#msg159854 date=1347568925] Let us leave the book of Enoch aside, although:
a) It is canonized by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church b) It is quoted word by word by St. Jude c) It is inspired implicitly referenced by St. Paul and St. Peter. d) The Fathers used it.
Let us examine Jude 6-7.
I consulted two professors of Greek Language on Jude 6-7.
The text in Koine Greek is clear about the fact that the Sodom and Gammorah people were following the example of the fallen Angels when they engaged in sexual immorality.
No way to go, unless St. Jude is not authoritive as well.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean, you are saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually engaging with fallen angles. Thank you
The word genos does not (as far as I am aware) imply substance. It means kind, genus, race, etc. but not substance. In any case, the race of humans is different than the race of angels. Those born of half an half are of a different race. The point still stands.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9472.msg159859#msg159859 date=1347575784] I know Coptic.
The word genos does not (as far as I am aware) imply substance. It means kind, genus, race, etc. but not substance. In any case, the race of humans is different than the race of angels. Those born of half an half are of a different race. The point still stands.
ReturnOrthodoxy
No it does not.
Because when the people who were possessed with evil spirits were not being possessed with half and half.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159857#msg159857 date=1347575225] Could you please elaborate on what you mean, you are saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually engaging with fallen angles. Thank you
No.
Considering the original Greek syntax and grammer, St. Jude, in his inspired epistle, teaches us that the people of Sodom followed the pattern of the fallen angels in transgressing into sexual immorality. The people of Sodom, in their sexual perversions, were following the example of the fallen angels.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=9472.msg159862#msg159862 date=1347582568] [quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159857#msg159857 date=1347575225] Could you please elaborate on what you mean, you are saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually engaging with fallen angles. Thank you
No.
Considering the original Greek syntax and grammer, St. Jude, in his inspired epistle, teaches us that the people of Sodom followed the pattern of the fallen angels in transgressing into sexual immorality. The people of Sodom, in their sexual perversions, were following the example of the fallen angels.
I do not agree with this interpretation.
St Jude started his epistle speaking of those who deny the Lord and gave three examples
St. Jude in verse 5 is speaking about believing in the salvation God prepared for the Israelites and destroyed those who did not believe.
In verse 6 he talked about the fallen angels who did not keep their rank and were destroyed.
In verse 7 he gave another example of Sodom and Gemorrah for their strange behavior.
then he continues with his argument of those people he referred to in the beginning of his epistle.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159863#msg159863 date=1347584946] [quote author=Stavro link=topic=9472.msg159862#msg159862 date=1347582568] [quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159857#msg159857 date=1347575225] Could you please elaborate on what you mean, you are saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually engaging with fallen angles. Thank you
No.
Considering the original Greek syntax and grammer, St. Jude, in his inspired epistle, teaches us that the people of Sodom followed the pattern of the fallen angels in transgressing into sexual immorality. The people of Sodom, in their sexual perversions, were following the example of the fallen angels.
I do not agree with this interpretation.
St Jude started his epistle speaking of those who deny the Lord and gave three examples
St. Jude in verse 5 is speaking about believing in the salvation God prepared for the Israelites and destroyed those who did not believe.
In verse 6 he talked about the fallen angels who did not keep their rank and were destroyed.
In verse 7 he gave another example of Sodom and Gemorrah for their strange behavior.
then he continues with his argument of those people he referred to in the beginning of his epistle.
The three examples are distinct.
I provided the meaning of the original Greek text and not an interpretation.
The Septuagint is clear also with regard to Genesis 6:4.
Appealing to scripture backfired. You should not have appealed to Scripture.
As for the Fathers, it is not just one Father or a couple who came up with a personal interpretation that can be rejected as you claimed in previous posts.
On what basis should we ignore the consensus of the Alexandrian Fathers, the near consensus of the Latin Fathers (Great Augustine being the exception) and the opinion of the majority of the Antiochan Fathers?
The argument about the alleged contradiction of scripture is now refuted, for the Scripture supports the consensus of the Fathers as it always does.
Now what?
On a side note, whenever anyone claims that the scriptures contradicts the consensus of the Fathers, they are claiming one of the following:
a) The Fathers did not know the Bible b) The Fathers knew the verses that contradict their interpretation and choose to ignore them
I provided the meaning of the original Greek text and not an interpretation.
Clear to whom? You?
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.
The Septuagint is clear also with regard to Genesis 6:4.
As to what? It clearly says the sons of God and angels.
Appealing to scripture backfired. You should not have appealed to Scripture.
You sound like you are in feud you are trying to win. This is not about winning an argument but the correct interpretation and the correct teaching of the Scriptures.
As for the Fathers, it is not just one Father or a couple who came up with a personal interpretation that can be rejected as you claimed in previous posts.
None of the fathers quoted here suggest that the angels of God married to women (except for St Justin whose opinion is way off base with regards to the origin of the demons)
On a side note, whenever anyone claims that the scriptures contradicts the consensus of the Fathers, they are claiming one of the following:
a) The Fathers did not know the Bible b) The Fathers knew the verses that contradict their interpretation and choose to ignore them
Both claims are ridiculous.
I agree with you 100%.
The key word here is consensus and you failed to show it.
As for the Fathers, it is not just one Father or a couple who came up with a personal interpretation that can be rejected as you claimed in previous posts.
None of the fathers quoted here suggest that the angels of God married to women (except for St Justin whose opinion is way off base with regards to the origin of the demons)
Actually you are wrong imikhail, there are a lot of fathers who believed the angels of God married to women
1. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century AD – c. 202), “And wickedness very long-continued and widespread pervaded all the races of men, until very little seed of justice was in them. For unlawful unions came about on earth, as angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men, who bore to them sons, who on account of their exceeding great were called Giants. The angels, then, brought to their wives as gifts teachings of evil, for they taught them the virtues of roots and herbs, and dyeing and cosmetics and discoveries of precious materials, love-philtes, hatreds, amours, passions, constraints of love, the bonds of witchcraft, every sorcery and idolatry, hateful to God; and when this was come into the world, the affairs of wickedness were propagated to overflowing, and those of justice dwindled to very little. [Source: Irenaeus, Demonstration of the apostolic preaching, 18]
2. St.Tatian the Assyrian (c. 120–180),"God... 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 the love of women, and begat children who are those who are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness.” [Source: Tatian, 2 Apology, 5]
3. Athenagoras of Athens (ca. 133-190), “God may have the universal and general providence of the whole, while the particular parts are provided for by the angels appointed over them.(2) Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants.(3) And if something has been said by the poets, too, about the giants, be not surprised at this: worldly Wisdom and divine differ as much from each other as truth and plausibility: the one is of heaven and the other of earth; and indeed, according to the prince of matter,” [Source: Athenagoras,A plea for Christians, Chapter 24]
4. St. Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c. 215), “Heaven delights in two charioteers, by whom alone the chariot of fire is guided. For the mind is carried away by pleasure; and the unsullied principle of reason, when not instructed by the Word, slides down into licentiousness, and gets a fall as the due reward of its transgression. An example of this are the angels, who renounced the beauty of God for a beauty which fades, and so fell from heaven to earth.” [Source: Clement of Alexanderia, The instructor ( pedagogus), Book 3, Chapter 2]
5. Commodianus (Around 250 AD), “When Almighty God, to beautify the nature of the world, willed that that earth should be visited by angels, when they were sent down they despised His laws. Such was the beauty of women, that it turned them aside; so that, being contaminated, they could not return to heaven. Rebels from God, they uttered words against Him. Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them; and from their seed giants are said to have been born. By them arts were made known in the earth, and they taught the dyeing of wool, and everything which is done; and to them, when they died, men erected images. But the Almighty, because they were of an evil seed, did not approve that, when dead, they should be brought back from death. Whence wandering they now subvert many bodies, and it is such as these especially that ye this day worship and pray to as gods.” [Source: Commodianus, Instructions in favor of Christian discipline, against the gods of the heathens, 3]
6. Methodius of Olympus (Died at 311), “the angels appointed for this purpose take charge of particulars. Now the rest of them remained in the positions for which God made and appointed them; but the devil was insolent, and having conceived envy of us, behaved wickedly in the charge committed to him; as also did those who subsequently were enamoured of fleshly charms, and bad illicit intercourse with the daughters of men.(1) For to them also, as was the case with men, God granted the possession of their own choice. And how is this to be taken? [Source: Methodius, from the discourse on the resurrection, part 3]
7. Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320), “God in His forethought, lest the devil, to whom from the beginning He had given power over the earth, should by his subtilty either corrupt or destroy men, as he had done at first, sent angels for the protection and improvement(1) of the human race; and inasmuch as He had given these a free will, He enjoined them above all things not to defile themselves with contamination from the earth, and thus lose the dignity of their heavenly nature.(2) He plainly prohibited them from doing that which He knew that they would do, that they might entertain no hope of pardon. Therefore, while they abode among men, that most deceitful ruler(3) of the earth, by his very association, gradually enticed them to vices, and polluted them by intercourse with women. [Source: Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book 2 of the origin of error, Chapter 15]
8. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263–339 AD), “Of this kind then perhaps were the statements in the Sacred Scripture concerning the giants before the Mood, and those concerning their progenitors, of whom it is said, 'And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, they took unto them wives of all that they chose,' and of these were born 'the giants the men of renown which were of old.' For one might say that these daemons are those giants, and that their spirits have been deified by the subsequent generations of men, and that their battles, and their quarrels among themselves, and their wars are the subjects of these legends that are told as of gods. Plutarch indeed, in the discourse which he composed On Isis and the gods of the Egyptians, speaks as follows word for word” [Source: Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, Book 5, Chapter 4]
9. St. Ambrose of Milan (c. between 337 and 340 – 4 April 397), “What shall I say of the resurrection of which you already hold the rewards: "For in the resurrection they will neither be given in marriage, nor marry, but shall be," He says, "as the angels in heaven."That which is promised to us is already present with you, and the object of your prayers is with you; ye are of this world, and yet not in this world. This age has held you, but has not been able to retain you. But what a great thing it is that angels because of incontinence fell from heaven into this world, that virgins because of chastity passed from the world into heaven. Blessed virgins, whom the delights of the flesh do not allure, nor the defilement of pleasures cast down. [Source: Ambrose, Concerning Virgins to Marcellina, Book 1, Chapter 8,51-3]
10. Sulpicius Severus (363 – c. 425), “When by this time the human race had increased to a great multitude, certain angels, whose habitation was in heaven, were captivated by the appearance of some beautiful virgins, and cherished illicit desires after them, so much so, that filling beneath their own proper nature and origin, they left the higher regions of which they were inhabitants, and allied themselves in earthly marriages. These angels gradually spreading wicked habits, corrupted the human family, and from their alliance giants are said to have sprung, for the mixture with them of beings of a different nature, as a matter of course, gave birth to monsters.” [Source: Sulpicius Severus, The sacred history, Book 1, Chapter 2]
There were also other fathers who refereed to the Book of Enoch both directly from the book or indirectly from the contents inside it such as Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Minucius Felix, Anatolius of Alexandria and imikhail not being biased from your point of view, I want your opinion based on the above facts.
1. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century AD – c. 202), “And wickedness very long-continued and widespread pervaded all the races of men, until very little seed of justice was in them. For unlawful unions came about on earth, as angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men, who bore to them sons, who on account of their exceeding great were called Giants. The angels, then, brought to their wives as gifts teachings of evil, for they taught them the virtues of roots and herbs, and dyeing and cosmetics and discoveries of precious materials, love-philtes, hatreds, amours, passions, constraints of love, the bonds of witchcraft, every sorcery and idolatry, hateful to God; and when this was come into the world, the affairs of wickedness were propagated to overflowing, and those of justice dwindled to very little. [Source: Irenaeus, Demonstration of the apostolic preaching, 18]
I guess you believe that the bolded text is a proof that the St Irenaeous believes that angels married women.
I do not read it that way at all.
St. Irenaeus started by saying that evil spread and those who were born, were born with wickedness "And wickedness very long-continued and widespread pervaded all the races of men"
This was to the extent that there was hardly any offspring that was righteous"until very little seed of justice was in them"
How did this take place? Unlawful unions took place .. but St Ireneaus did not say that these unions were between angels and the daughters of men. He is saying that the [fallen] angels linked themselves to the offspring of those unlawful unions. The result was the spread of evil on the earth.
The offspring of these unions were called the Giants and their wives were taught witchcraft and every evil thing imaginable.
This agrees with Genesis 6:4 which explains how these unlawful unions came about.
Having the evil spirits linked to the offspring is not unique. The Church prays, in the liturgy of baptism, to have the evil spirits expelled from the newborn.
I shall continue with the other quotes you presented.
If we can look at part of his quote , "For unlawful unions came about on earth, as angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men, who bore to them sons, who on account of their exceeding great were called Giants.
He said, "who bore to them sons", Who do you think is he referring to, when He said them? He was talking about the angels and " them " shouldn't represent any other race except the angels
[quote author=sordoeht link=topic=9472.msg159941#msg159941 date=1347810481] If we can look at part of his quote , "For unlawful unions came about on earth, as angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men, who bore to them sons, who on account of their exceeding great were called Giants.
He said, "who bore to them sons", Who do you think is he referring to, when He said them? He was talking about the angels and " them " shouldn't represent any other race except the angels
1- For unlawful unions came about on earth = the union between the sons of Seth and the daughter of men. 2- As angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men = the offspring that resulted from the union that was mentioned in # 1 had been POSSESSED with demons. 3- bore to them sons = the offspring possessed with demons after they had grown up and married bore what was called great to them = their parent who started the forbidden union, or them = daughter of men.
[quote author=sordoeht link=topic=9472.msg159941#msg159941 date=1347810481] If we can look at part of his quote , "For unlawful unions came about on earth, as angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men, who bore to them sons, who on account of their exceeding great were called Giants.
He said, "who bore to them sons", Who do you think is he referring to, when He said them? He was talking about the angels and " them " shouldn't represent any other race except the angels
Goliath, who was defeated at the hands of Little King David; with a sling and a stone, was one of those giants. Goliath was one of the last, if not the last of those giants. The giant lineage did not last long because they were so huge and had such voracious appetites, there was not enough food and drink on earth to support their 'life'.
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.
Comments
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.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Of course it is in conflict with it to say that demons are the sons of Adam.
If that is true then, the demons are of the same nature as the humans. However, Jesus said that this kind, referring to the demons, cannot go out except by prayer and fasting. (Matt 17:21, Mark 9:29)
When a dogma is not scripturally supported , then it is not dogma.
ReturnOrthodoxy
ReturnOrthodoxy
Kind = substance
Jesus was referring to the demons to be of a different substance than the humans. And that is the way his disciples understood the nature of the demons; that they are of a different nature.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=9472.msg159815#msg159815 date=1347490215]
^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.
Thanks imikhail
returnorthodox and Severian, though they have acknowledge that they do not believe in the theory of demons copulating with humans, they are still debating and arguing using insult language and sometimes childish behavior. That is OK for me as long as I restrain myself from doing the same. I already have enough sins and I do not want to add more. May The Lord have mercy on all of us!!
Let me try this again. Shere, I am sorry you feel victimized, but with your sort of ignorance, my response (although rude, and harsh) is certainly warranted. When you clop around bashing other Orthodox churches, disregarding fathers to suit your fancy and do not even have the decency to listen and not go into circular reasoning, people get mad. I get mad. I apologize for being rude, and you know what, it is my vice, I'll work it out. But you have some problems that I hope you get to figure out on your own.
imikhail,
Thank you for your response, I am going to try to be more civil, but please, open your mind, and humor me for a bit. I want to actually get something across here. Please, for the Love of all that is holy, follow me to the end.
Firstly, I do not mean to say that the fathers are above the Bible. For example, the reason Arius is not our fathers, is because he was against the teachings of the Bible. The Bible certainly comes first. What I am saying is that they don't necessarily conflict. Shere, if you had read through the whole post you would have noticed that instead of making your past remark. Let me analyze the past proof that you have given, imikhail, and lets see where it leads us. You then went on to say that kind=substance.
I have a few problems with this. First, the idea that kind=substance is your own logic, and is not based on the Bible. Thus, the fathers, like I said, contradict your logic, and not the Bible. Also, kind does not = substance. I am not of the same kind as a horse, but I am the same substance. Natural.
Furthermore, the part of the quote which I bolded does not make absolute sense. Firstly, it is your conclusion that it would be so. This is your logic again, and not a direct statement by the father. Thus, it is your understanding of this father, which conflicts your understanding of the scripture. It is not that one father said "God is hate" and the Bible said "God is love." To say that St. Justin wants to imply that demons are of the same nature as humans is a huge claim, which you cannot support. just look at their lineage. Lineage, and nature is dependent on who gave life to you. The demons and the humans are differentiated, and so they are not of the same kind.
My point is that the conflict you are talking about is not a conflict of scripture vs. father, but rather of your understanding of scripture (along with your inferences) vs. your understanding of the father (along with those inferences.)
And it shouldn't matter that i don't support this theory, I am only showing that we will never know, and it is not important to do so. It is important to respect the father's opinion. Otherwise, we have sola scriptura. We don't go with the Bible alone, nor with the fathers alone, but we interpret the Bible through the fathers. We do not put them in conflict and use the Bible to show that the fathers are wrong, especially when there is a plethora of early fathers who agree with it.
You would be saying that all those early fathers contradicted the bible, and you know the truth. I love you imikhail, but that is a HUGE claim that I hope you know the effects of.
Pray for me,
ReturnOrthodoxy
ReturnOrthodoxy
Deleted.
Shere, may the good Lors endow you with an opinion of your own, which you can defend without a feeling of being victimized. And may he grant me patience.
RO
I do not believe in good Lors!!!! ???
By the way my name is not shere, my user name is sherene_ maria
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9472.msg159845#msg159845 date=1347564033]
Deleted.
Shere, may the good Lors endow you with an opinion of your own, which you can defend without a feeling of being victimized. And may he grant me patience.
RO
I do not believe in good Lors!!!! ???
By the way my name is not shere, my user name is sherene_ maria
LOL. I actually edited the Lord, then I removed and tried again. I would make it sherene_maria, but come on now, it is way to long. Shorter names are used here.
R.O
I just want to ask a question, if Pope St Athanasius is the one who compiled the canonical Holy Bible that the COC adhere to it, and it did not contain the Book of Enoch, why should we follow some un-canonical Patristic writing. St Athanasius, the Protector of Faith and the Thirteenth Apostles, in his inspired wisdom saw that a book that mentioned fable story about demons having sexual relation with women is not worthy to be with the rest of the inspired books.
I have my own interpretation why the neo-theologians are interested in posts like these. May be in order to gain an upper hand against His Thrice blessed Memory Pop Shenouda III, they are now challenging every saying that His holiness have mentioned.
ReturnOrthodoxy
You don't like that? I'm sorry. I'll go build a shrine for HHPS3 in my house and worship there, and give my unquestioning obedience to him.
RO
Dear imikhail,
I just want to ask a question, if Pope St Athanasius is the one who compiled the canonical Holy Bible that the COC adhere to it, and it did not contain the Book of Enoch, why should we follow some un-canonical Patristic writing. St Athanasius, the Protector of Faith and the Thirteenth Apostles, in his inspired wisdom saw that a book that mentioned fable story about demons having sexual relation with women is not worthy to be with the rest of the inspired books.
I have my own interpretation why the neo-theologians are interested in posts like these. May be in order to gain an upper hand against His Thrice blessed Memory Pop Shenouda III, they are now challenging every saying that His holiness have mentioned.
As RO said, the contention here is on Genesis 6:1 and 6:4. The interpretation, even if it is a church father, that these sons of God are angels is absurd.
It goes against the the scripture teaching on who the angels are, their nature, how some of them fell from their rank, how do they interact with humans either good or bad.
It is critical that when we read the fathers to be aware of the culture they lived and take their writings in context.
If their opinions conflict with the Scripture and what we have received, then their opinions just remain as such.
a) It is canonized by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church
b) It is quoted word by word by St. Jude
c) It is inspired implicitly referenced by St. Paul and St. Peter.
d) The Fathers used it.
Let us examine Jude 6-7.
I consulted two professors of Greek Language on Jude 6-7.
The text in Koine Greek is clear about the fact that the Sodom and Gammorah people were following the example of the fallen Angels when they engaged in sexual immorality.
No way to go, unless St. Jude is not authoritive as well.
Thanks for your response: Do you mind exhibiting FROM SCRIPTURE how they disagree. Exact references please.
Thanks
RO
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159820#msg159820 date=1347493550]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=9472.msg159815#msg159815 date=1347490215]
^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.
Thanks imikhail
returnorthodox and Severian, though they have acknowledge that they do not believe in the theory of demons copulating with humans, they are still debating and arguing using insult language and sometimes childish behavior. That is OK for me as long as I restrain myself from doing the same. I already have enough sins and I do not want to add more. May The Lord have mercy on all of us!!
I am sorry if I have offended you. I did not intend to. Still though, you use insulting and rude behavior all the time, so I think you are being very uncharitable.
Let us leave the book of Enoch aside, although:
a) It is canonized by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church
b) It is quoted word by word by St. Jude
c) It is inspired implicitly referenced by St. Paul and St. Peter.
d) The Fathers used it.
Let us examine Jude 6-7.
I consulted two professors of Greek Language on Jude 6-7.
The text in Koine Greek is clear about the fact that the Sodom and Gammorah people were following the example of the fallen Angels when they engaged in sexual immorality.
No way to go, unless St. Jude is not authoritive as well.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean, you are saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually engaging with fallen angles.
Thank you
If you know Coptic or Greek, you would understand what I mean
ouoh paigenoc `mpaf`i `ebol qen `hli `ebyl `nou`proceu,y nem ounycti`a.
The bolded word means nature or substance. It is also used in Genesis 1 to denote the different types of creatures God had made (verses 11,20,24)
The word genos does not (as far as I am aware) imply substance. It means kind, genus, race, etc. but not substance. In any case, the race of humans is different than the race of angels. Those born of half an half are of a different race. The point still stands.
ReturnOrthodoxy
I know Coptic.
The word genos does not (as far as I am aware) imply substance. It means kind, genus, race, etc. but not substance. In any case, the race of humans is different than the race of angels. Those born of half an half are of a different race. The point still stands.
ReturnOrthodoxy
No it does not.
Because when the people who were possessed with evil spirits were not being possessed with half and half.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean, you are saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually engaging with fallen angles.
Thank you
No.
Considering the original Greek syntax and grammer, St. Jude, in his inspired epistle, teaches us that the people of Sodom followed the pattern of the fallen angels in transgressing into sexual immorality. The people of Sodom, in their sexual perversions, were following the example of the fallen angels.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159857#msg159857 date=1347575225]
Could you please elaborate on what you mean, you are saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually engaging with fallen angles.
Thank you
No.
Considering the original Greek syntax and grammer, St. Jude, in his inspired epistle, teaches us that the people of Sodom followed the pattern of the fallen angels in transgressing into sexual immorality. The people of Sodom, in their sexual perversions, were following the example of the fallen angels.
I do not agree with this interpretation.
St Jude started his epistle speaking of those who deny the Lord and gave three examples
St. Jude in verse 5 is speaking about believing in the salvation God prepared for the Israelites and destroyed those who did not believe.
In verse 6 he talked about the fallen angels who did not keep their rank and were destroyed.
In verse 7 he gave another example of Sodom and Gemorrah for their strange behavior.
then he continues with his argument of those people he referred to in the beginning of his epistle.
The three examples are distinct.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=9472.msg159862#msg159862 date=1347582568]
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159857#msg159857 date=1347575225]
Could you please elaborate on what you mean, you are saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually engaging with fallen angles.
Thank you
No.
Considering the original Greek syntax and grammer, St. Jude, in his inspired epistle, teaches us that the people of Sodom followed the pattern of the fallen angels in transgressing into sexual immorality. The people of Sodom, in their sexual perversions, were following the example of the fallen angels.
I do not agree with this interpretation.
St Jude started his epistle speaking of those who deny the Lord and gave three examples
St. Jude in verse 5 is speaking about believing in the salvation God prepared for the Israelites and destroyed those who did not believe.
In verse 6 he talked about the fallen angels who did not keep their rank and were destroyed.
In verse 7 he gave another example of Sodom and Gemorrah for their strange behavior.
then he continues with his argument of those people he referred to in the beginning of his epistle.
The three examples are distinct.
I provided the meaning of the original Greek text and not an interpretation.
The Septuagint is clear also with regard to Genesis 6:4.
Appealing to scripture backfired. You should not have appealed to Scripture.
As for the Fathers, it is not just one Father or a couple who came up with a personal interpretation that can be rejected as you claimed in previous posts.
On what basis should we ignore the consensus of the Alexandrian Fathers, the near consensus of the Latin Fathers (Great Augustine being the exception) and the opinion of the majority of the Antiochan Fathers?
The argument about the alleged contradiction of scripture is now refuted, for the Scripture supports the consensus of the Fathers as it always does.
Now what?
On a side note, whenever anyone claims that the scriptures contradicts the consensus of the Fathers, they are claiming one of the following:
a) The Fathers did not know the Bible
b) The Fathers knew the verses that contradict their interpretation and choose to ignore them
Both claims are ridiculous.
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. As to what? It clearly says the sons of God and angels. You sound like you are in feud you are trying to win. This is not about winning an argument but the correct interpretation and the correct teaching of the Scriptures.
The key word here is consensus and you failed to show it.
Actually you are wrong imikhail, there are a lot of fathers who believed the angels of God married to women
1. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century AD – c. 202), “And wickedness very long-continued and widespread pervaded all the races of men, until very little seed of justice was in them. For unlawful unions came about on earth, as angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men, who bore to them sons, who on account of their exceeding great were called Giants. The angels, then, brought to their wives as gifts teachings of evil, for they taught them the virtues of roots and herbs, and dyeing and cosmetics and discoveries of precious materials, love-philtes, hatreds, amours, passions, constraints of love, the bonds of witchcraft, every sorcery and idolatry, hateful to God; and when this was come into the world, the affairs of wickedness were propagated to overflowing, and those of justice dwindled to very little.
[Source: Irenaeus, Demonstration of the apostolic preaching, 18]
2. St.Tatian the Assyrian (c. 120–180),"God... 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 the love of women, and begat children who are those who are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness.”
[Source: Tatian, 2 Apology, 5]
3. Athenagoras of Athens (ca. 133-190), “God may have the universal and general providence of the whole, while the particular parts are provided for by the angels appointed over them.(2) Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants.(3) And if something has been said by the poets, too, about the giants, be not surprised at this: worldly Wisdom and divine differ as much from each other as truth and plausibility: the one is of heaven and the other of earth; and indeed, according to the prince of matter,”
[Source: Athenagoras,A plea for Christians, Chapter 24]
4. St. Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c. 215), “Heaven delights in two charioteers, by whom alone the chariot of fire is guided. For the mind is carried away by pleasure; and the unsullied principle of reason, when not instructed by the Word, slides down into licentiousness, and gets a fall as the due reward of its transgression. An example of this are the angels, who renounced the beauty of God for a beauty which fades, and so fell from heaven to earth.”
[Source: Clement of Alexanderia, The instructor ( pedagogus), Book 3, Chapter 2]
5. Commodianus (Around 250 AD), “When Almighty God, to beautify the nature of the world, willed that that earth should be visited by angels, when they were sent down they despised His laws. Such was the beauty of women, that it turned them aside; so that, being contaminated, they could not return to heaven. Rebels from God, they uttered words against Him. Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them; and from their seed giants are said to have been born. By them arts were made known in the earth, and they taught the dyeing of wool, and everything which is done; and to them, when they died, men erected images. But the Almighty, because they were of an evil seed, did not approve that, when dead, they should be brought back from death. Whence wandering they now subvert many bodies, and it is such as these especially that ye this day worship and pray to as gods.”
[Source: Commodianus, Instructions in favor of Christian discipline, against the gods of the heathens, 3]
6. Methodius of Olympus (Died at 311), “the angels appointed for this purpose take charge of particulars. Now the rest of them remained in the positions for which God made and appointed them; but the devil was insolent, and having conceived envy of us, behaved wickedly in the charge committed to him; as also did those who subsequently were enamoured of fleshly charms, and bad illicit intercourse with the daughters of men.(1) For to them also, as was the case with men, God granted the possession of their own choice. And how is this to be taken?
[Source: Methodius, from the discourse on the resurrection, part 3]
7. Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320), “God in His forethought, lest the devil, to whom from the beginning He had given power over the earth, should by his subtilty either corrupt or destroy men, as he had done at first, sent angels for the protection and improvement(1) of the human race; and inasmuch as He had given these a free will, He enjoined them above all things not to defile themselves with contamination from the earth, and thus lose the dignity of their heavenly nature.(2) He plainly prohibited them from doing that which He knew that they would do, that they might entertain no hope of pardon. Therefore, while they abode among men, that most deceitful ruler(3) of the earth, by his very association, gradually enticed them to vices, and polluted them by intercourse with women.
[Source: Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book 2 of the origin of error, Chapter 15]
8. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263–339 AD), “Of this kind then perhaps were the statements in the Sacred Scripture concerning the giants before the Mood, and those concerning their progenitors, of whom it is said, 'And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, they took unto them wives of all that they chose,' and of these were born 'the giants the men of renown which were of old.' For one might say that these daemons are those giants, and that their spirits have been deified by the subsequent generations of men, and that their battles, and their quarrels among themselves, and their wars are the subjects of these legends that are told as of gods. Plutarch indeed, in the discourse which he composed On Isis and the gods of the Egyptians, speaks as follows word for word”
[Source: Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, Book 5, Chapter 4]
9. St. Ambrose of Milan (c. between 337 and 340 – 4 April 397), “What shall I say of the resurrection of which you already hold the rewards: "For in the resurrection they will neither be given in marriage, nor marry, but shall be," He says, "as the angels in heaven."That which is promised to us is already present with you, and the object of your prayers is with you; ye are of this world, and yet not in this world. This age has held you, but has not been able to retain you. But what a great thing it is that angels because of incontinence fell from heaven into this world, that virgins because of chastity passed from the world into heaven. Blessed virgins, whom the delights of the flesh do not allure, nor the defilement of pleasures cast down.
[Source: Ambrose, Concerning Virgins to Marcellina, Book 1, Chapter 8,51-3]
10. Sulpicius Severus (363 – c. 425), “When by this time the human race had increased to a great multitude, certain angels, whose habitation was in heaven, were captivated by the appearance of some beautiful virgins, and cherished illicit desires after them, so much so, that filling beneath their own proper nature and origin, they left the higher regions of which they were inhabitants, and allied themselves in earthly marriages. These angels gradually spreading wicked habits, corrupted the human family, and from their alliance giants are said to have sprung, for the mixture with them of beings of a different nature, as a matter of course, gave birth to monsters.”
[Source: Sulpicius Severus, The sacred history, Book 1, Chapter 2]
There were also other fathers who refereed to the Book of Enoch both directly from the book or indirectly from the contents inside it such as Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Minucius Felix, Anatolius of Alexandria and imikhail not being biased from your point of view, I want your opinion based on the above facts.
I still disagree.
I will take quote by quote .... I guess you believe that the bolded text is a proof that the St Irenaeous believes that angels married women.
I do not read it that way at all.
St. Irenaeus started by saying that evil spread and those who were born, were born with wickedness "And wickedness very long-continued and widespread pervaded all the races of men"
This was to the extent that there was hardly any offspring that was righteous"until very little seed of justice was in them"
How did this take place?
Unlawful unions took place .. but St Ireneaus did not say that these unions were between angels and the daughters of men. He is saying that the [fallen] angels linked themselves to the offspring of those unlawful unions. The result was the spread of evil on the earth.
The offspring of these unions were called the Giants and their wives were taught witchcraft and every evil thing imaginable.
This agrees with Genesis 6:4 which explains how these unlawful unions came about.
Having the evil spirits linked to the offspring is not unique. The Church prays, in the liturgy of baptism, to have the evil spirits expelled from the newborn.
I shall continue with the other quotes you presented.
He said, "who bore to them sons", Who do you think is he referring to, when He said them? He was talking about the angels and " them " shouldn't represent any other race except the angels
If we can look at part of his quote , "For unlawful unions came about on earth, as angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men, who bore to them sons, who on account of their exceeding great were called Giants.
He said, "who bore to them sons", Who do you think is he referring to, when He said them? He was talking about the angels and " them " shouldn't represent any other race except the angels
1- For unlawful unions came about on earth = the union between the sons of Seth and the daughter of men.
2- As angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men = the offspring that resulted from the union that was mentioned in # 1 had been POSSESSED with demons.
3- bore to them sons = the offspring possessed with demons after they had grown up and married bore what was called great to them = their parent who started the forbidden union, or them = daughter of men.
If we can look at part of his quote , "For unlawful unions came about on earth, as angels linked themselves with offspring of the daughters of men, who bore to them sons, who on account of their exceeding great were called Giants.
He said, "who bore to them sons", Who do you think is he referring to, when He said them? He was talking about the angels and " them " shouldn't represent any other race except the angels
Goliath, who was defeated at the hands of Little King David; with a sling and a stone, was one of those giants. Goliath was one of the last, if not the last of those giants. The giant lineage did not last long because they were so huge and had such voracious appetites, there was not enough food and drink on earth to support their 'life'.
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.