Can angels have sex with human being?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anhphan

Guest
And can angels make women pregnant? Because Genesis 6:1-4 says sons of God can have sex with the daughters of human.
 
No.

The Sons of God were the descendants of Seth and Enos. They were human.
 
Last edited:
There was a lot of popular concern and belief in the middle ages about whether demons/angels could impregnate someone, so this is actually something Thomas Aquinas responded to.

An angel has no body, no sex, no genitalia or gametes. They cannot reproduce.

From Bishop Haydock’s commentary
Ver. 2. The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. Ch. — See S. Chrys. hom. 22, &c. Some copies of the Sept. having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nice response! I’d also say that Jesus makes it clear too when he says that at the resurrection we will be like the angels neither giving nor receiving in marriage.

Genesis is in no way meant to be taken literally. It’s a classic Jewish myth that teaches infallible spiritual truths. We are to take the truths, and leave the details as it was: people trying to explain things they couldn’t understand at the time with their current understanding of theology and science.

Just like you don’t get striped goats by making them breed facing a white tree. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Yes, they can. I have the New American Bible St. Joseph Medium Sized Edition (that’s important because of the footnotes) and the star by the phrase “sons of God” is explained in the footnotes as “other heavenly beings” and references Genesis 1:26, more specifically, the phrase “Let us make…” where there is another footnote that refers back to Genesis 6:1.

Jude 1:6-7 also states as follows:

6The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day.
7Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice,* serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

*Practiced unnatural vice: lit., “went after alien flesh.” This example derives from Gn 19:1-25, especially vv. 4-11, when the townsmen of Sodom violated both hospitality and morality by demanding that Lot’s two visitors (really messengers of Yahweh) be handed over to them so they could abuse them sexually. Unnatural vice: This refers to the desire for intimacies by human beings with angels (the reverse of the example in v. 6) Sodom (whence “sodomy”) and Gomorrah became proverbial as object lessons for God’s punishment on sin (Is 1:9; Jer 50:40; Am 4:11; Mt 10:15; 2 Pt 2:6).

I copied the footnote word for word from my Bible, so you can’t tell me it doesn’t say that.
 
Delphinus said:
Genesis is in no way meant to be taken literally. It’s a classic Jewish myth that teaches infallible spiritual truths. We are to take the truths, and leave the details as it was: people trying to explain things they couldn’t understand at the time with their current understanding of theology and science.
Click to expand...
Really? Nothing in Genesis actually happened? It’s all a myth?
 
Angels cannot reproduce. However, they can love like humans can. Also, as others have pointed out, that was referring to humans.
 
You’re taking the footnotes literally and I pretty sure the translation you are referencing is not attempting to convey to you the interpretation you are making. While I prefer to take the scripture literally so that I may fully realize the spiritual message that the author is trying to get across, it is not necessary to prove all the details that seem mythical to others especially those that don’t believe.
 
Depraved humans saw some clothed angels in human form and wished to rape them. Since the angels were protected, the angels didn’t actually have sex or anything close, so the Bible passage does not prove angels can have sex. Jesus said angels do not have sex. I’ll take his word for it.
 
The angels in the verse I quoted were fallen angels, the ones that were cast out of heaven before creation. And if I’m not mistaken, Jesus said angels do not get married or can be given in marriage, which does not exempt intercourse. And as you said, they can appear in human form, so if that’s true, it very well may be possible.

In addition, in Genesis 6:1-4, the verse that the OP refers to, those verses are about giants with superhuman strength. I don’t recall God ever creating any giants when he created the universe.
 
I agree with the other person who said you take the Bible way too literally. Your interpretation is more like sola scriptura Protestant than Catholic. You might want to think about studying some Catholic Bible study resources to get a better picture.
 
Catholic Christians do not believe angels have sex with humans. Your interpretation of these passages is not in line with the prevailing theories on this subject. You are arguing against St.Thomas Aquinas and St. John Chrysostom. Very bold.
 
Last edited:
So, correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t want me to interpret the Bible literally, but you also don’t want me to cite the interpretations of theological scholars.
 
The footnotes for the New Testament were approved by the Archbishop of Washington (James A. Hickey at the time). Are you saying the Archbishop allowed someone to publish content that was inconsistent with the Catholic Church’s teachings in the name of the Catholic Church?
 
While some may theorize that the Sons of God are some sort of heavenly beings, there is also ample biblical and philosophical evidence to suggest that they were humans. Footnotes are not infallible as has been mentioned. The author of that footnote presented one of several theories as definitive when there is no basis in Catholic teaching for doing so.

It is also worth mentioning that the NABRE footnotes are known to be problematic in places. You should always cross-reference especially when something seems to not line up with the prevailing wisdom on any given subject.
 
Last edited:
Bishops (or the readers they have for such things) are not impeccable. Best where there is not a definitive teaching to look at the passage in various commentaries.
 
I remember Bishop Hickey very well. He was bishop in my diocese before he went to Washington. He was a decent man AFAIK but no Thomas Aquinas. He was mainly very interested in social justice, which is not a bad thing but he was not a big Bible scholar.

Also, there are many known issues with the NAB footnotes; they’re generally considered on this forum to be not very good. The confusion they have apparently caused you to have is just the latest example of why they are not very good.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top