I have wondered if the Nephilim could have been the Denisovans.
- Status
D
De_Maria
Guest
That depends on who is doing the doubting. Atheists doubt theDe_Maria:
In other words, “doubtful authenticity.”
entire Bible.
Protestants doubt the authenticity of all the Deuterocanonicals.
The Catholic Church has not denied the authenticity of any of the
books which the Orthodox hold but the Vulgate does not.
Nor do the Orthodox deny the authenticity of those books. That is obvious,
since they use them in their canon.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Huh? Where’d you get that from?
The Deuterocanon is part of Scripture. Catholics don’t call it “the Apocrypha” – others do, and that’s on them.
Red herring. What their status used to be isn’t in play; after all, the Church already has declared (definitively, I might add) what books are in the Canon (and therefore, what books are not).
Another red herring. Now you’re bringing the question of “internal evidence for authorship” into the discussion, and again, that’s not the topic at hand.
LOL!
So, just in case you’ve forgotten whose perspective we’re debating, it’s The Catholic Church (and her pronouncements on canon). Not atheists; not Protestants; and (for the umpteenth time) not the Orthodox.
I guess we just call them “Apocrypha” for giggles, then?
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
From what I’ve read from Biblical commentaries & from extra-biblical writings, like 1 Enoch & Jubilees, they were the offspring of fallen angels (demons) who either married human females & had children with them, or offspring of fallen angels who possessed human males & married human females and had children with them. The term “sons of God” does seem to refer to fallen angels, like in Job, who some Bible commentaries believe Moses was the author of Job as well as Genesis. I’ve also read that the “the Nephilim (Giants)” & the “mighty men of old, men of renown” are not the same group of individuals from the pre-Flood era, but merely existed at the same time. This seems to defer from 1 Enoch & Jubilees which seem to imply they are synonymous. Although Jesus said that angels in Heaven cannot marry nor are given to marriage, this “rule” does not seem to imply to demons…or at least not at that time when they defied God’s natural order, which resulted in their permanent banishment to Tartarus.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
I didn’t. Would you mind pointing it out to me?
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
The Bible tends to elaborate upon itself. To look forward in the Bible or outside of it is typically misplaced: the word of God builds upon itself.
The word Nephilim has the sense of ‘fallen.’ They are linked to sons (men) and daughters (women) and the context is marriage. The motivating cause is ‘fairness,’ i.e. appealing, presumably in beholding and thus becoming an object of desire. Where before Gen 6 do these ideas appear? Ah yes, Adam (the “son of God”) listening to his now fallen, faithless and adulterous wife as she suggested the ‘fair’ (but forbidden) fruit of Eden to him ‘to eat of it’ (i.e. ‘to know’ it) and his subsequent fall into disgrace (making shoddy loincloths for himself to conceal his nakedness and trying to hide from the sight of God in a bush): Man, who had been punished for ‘heeding the voice of his wife’ once again abandons God under temptation: the ‘fruit’ of this adultery are ‘the fallen ones,’ the ‘giants:’ i.e. faithless, violent, sensual, bestial and unnatural men, causing all flesh to become corrupted and violence to fill the earth. Cain - himself both faithless and violent - is arguably the prototype of these men, he being similarly ‘the first-fruits’ of a ‘fallen union.’
The word Nephilim has the sense of ‘fallen.’ They are linked to sons (men) and daughters (women) and the context is marriage. The motivating cause is ‘fairness,’ i.e. appealing, presumably in beholding and thus becoming an object of desire. Where before Gen 6 do these ideas appear? Ah yes, Adam (the “son of God”) listening to his now fallen, faithless and adulterous wife as she suggested the ‘fair’ (but forbidden) fruit of Eden to him ‘to eat of it’ (i.e. ‘to know’ it) and his subsequent fall into disgrace (making shoddy loincloths for himself to conceal his nakedness and trying to hide from the sight of God in a bush): Man, who had been punished for ‘heeding the voice of his wife’ once again abandons God under temptation: the ‘fruit’ of this adultery are ‘the fallen ones,’ the ‘giants:’ i.e. faithless, violent, sensual, bestial and unnatural men, causing all flesh to become corrupted and violence to fill the earth. Cain - himself both faithless and violent - is arguably the prototype of these men, he being similarly ‘the first-fruits’ of a ‘fallen union.’
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
@Gorgias
See "Prodigal1984, post:55, topic:553285
See "Prodigal1984, post:55, topic:553285
G
Gorgias
Guest
And this from you, who disregards my arguments because they don’t come from magisterial sources! Exactly which diocese is Jimmy Akin the bishop of, again…?
(BTW – the whole point Akin is making is that, if you want to look at the extra-canonical books as “private revelation”, have at it, but don’t consider them canonical – which is what the argument has been all along!)
As far as his argument that the canon isn’t closed… what was your statement about personal opinions and their value, again? Just curious…
Y
YoungCatholicGuy
Guest
They have an imprimatur 
I never said they were accurate or fraudulent,
I simply said that is what she supposedly dictated to her writer, to write.
There are a number of saints who were illiterate, but who dictated books to scribes to write for them.
If it has an imprimatur it means it does not contradict the faith, and is allowed to be read by the faithful. And yes the Catholic Church teaches private revelation, until completely approved, can be prone to error,
Some saints predicted the end of the world during their lifetimes and were wrong,
I never said they were accurate or fraudulent,
I simply said that is what she supposedly dictated to her writer, to write.
There are a number of saints who were illiterate, but who dictated books to scribes to write for them.
If it has an imprimatur it means it does not contradict the faith, and is allowed to be read by the faithful. And yes the Catholic Church teaches private revelation, until completely approved, can be prone to error,
Some saints predicted the end of the world during their lifetimes and were wrong,
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
Actually you didn’t.They have an imprimatur
I never said they were accurate or fraudulent,
I simply said that is what she supposedly dictated to her writer, to write.
There are a number of saints who were illiterate, but who dictated books to scribes to write for them.
If it has an imprimatur it means it does not contradict the faith, and is allowed to be read by the faithful. And yes the Catholic Church teaches private revelation, until completely approved, can be prone to error,
Some saints predicted the end of the world during their lifetimes and were wrong,
You said “Catherine Emmerich stated that the fallen angels were trying to mess up the human bloodline/ dna, in order to disrupt the coming of the Messiah.”
I was pointing out to you that her revelations cannot be used as support for anything as they are NOT approved by the Church.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Methinks, she laughs too much.De_Maria:
You posted Catholic Answers for your evidence. Someone else posted Catholic Answers to debunk your posting.
The funny thing, is that you keep arguing when you’ve obviously been proven wrong.
What you need in order to have any semblance of validity in your argument,
is an express statement from the CHURCH stating that the canon is closed.
You haven’t produced it.
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
I might be crazy but I’m pretty sure the world ends for each of us at death.
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
There’s no contradiction, however. Your attempted rebuttal therefore makes no sense.
Fallen angels were and are always trying to ‘make a mess’ of God’s redemptive work. In the Western/Latin tradition, Saint Augustine’s interpretation is usually followed - and I think with good reason; however, his own greatest literary work (his unwritten pastoral acts are easily his actually greatest work) claims that the fallen city of men is ruled by demons. So even in Father Augustine’s ‘Sethite’ interpretation of Gen 6’s “Nephilim,” it’s difficult to ‘divorce,’ as it were, the influence of fallen angels.
T
thistle
Guest
You did not say she allegedly said… You said “she stated”.
You are also still missing the point I am trying to make. Even approved private revelations are not evidence to support claims so why would anyone then use revelations that are NOT approved to try to support a claim.
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Please take a breather, friend.
G
Gorgias
Guest
And you, who keep claiming that the only evidence is magisterial, pointed me to that video. Consistency much?
I did. It’s from the catechism.
(Edited to add: @De_Maria, you seem fond of talking about ‘infallibility’ and ‘Trent’ and magisterial statements. Let me ask you a question: did Trent speak infallibly?)
Last edited:
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Trent spoke infallibility with what it did say. But I’m not sure how you can argue that it was infallible of what it didn’t say. It listed all the books the Church receives and said anyone who does not accept let them be anathema . That’s infallible. Nowhere does it say nothing else is though. I guess that is infallible too.
R
Rasoleil
Guest
“Childs, happens all the time man. They’re falling out of the skies like flies”…Childs, Childs, ‘Chariots of the Gods’, man. They practically own South America… I mean, they taught the Incas everything they know." 
The Thing 1982
The Thing 1982
D
De_Maria
Guest
You posted something that wasn’t related to the subject matter and claimed that it said something that it did not remotely say. I posted exactly what the Church said concerning the canon. And She doesn’t say anything remotely about closing the canon. If you want to claim the Church has closed the canon, you need to post something explicit. Not your opinions.
Yes. I posted the infallible Teaching. And it says nothing about closing the canon.
Let me put it like this. The Catholic Church approved a set of books. But did not disapprove of any other books which might be contained in a different canonical set.
You’re trying to claim that approving of one set means automatic disapproval of another. That is simply false.
Last edited:
- Status