A
abcdefg
Guest
what does “sons of God” mean? Who are they?
- Status
L
Luke1_48
Guest
I heard someone say they were angels, peace-out!
S
stillsmallvoice
Guest
Hi all!
Please allow me to add a[n orthodox] Jewish point-of-view. First, there is no tradition whatsoever in Judaism of angels mating en masse with human beings; this is not a Jewish perspective.
The (original Hebrew) word for “God” (as in “sons of God”) used in Genesis 6:1-4 is Elokim; in our traditions, Elokim is not so much a name of God as it is a title denoting His might and power.
Elokim is used in Exodus 21:6, 22:8 and 22:28 in reference to human beings, i.e. judges. In each of these instances, we believe that the correct translation/understanding of the Hebrew elokim is “judges.” Here it is used to denote mighty & powerful people, in these 3 cases, judges.
We understand the usage of *bnei *(“sons of”) *elokim *in Genesis 6:1-4 as also referring to the sons of mighty & powerful people, i.e. rulers, aristocrats, lords, etc., and understand the passage to mean that the sons of wealthy & powerful families were arrogantly & violently seizing women from the lower classes according to their whims & urges.
Howzat?
Be well!
ssv
Please allow me to add a[n orthodox] Jewish point-of-view. First, there is no tradition whatsoever in Judaism of angels mating en masse with human beings; this is not a Jewish perspective.
The (original Hebrew) word for “God” (as in “sons of God”) used in Genesis 6:1-4 is Elokim; in our traditions, Elokim is not so much a name of God as it is a title denoting His might and power.
Elokim is used in Exodus 21:6, 22:8 and 22:28 in reference to human beings, i.e. judges. In each of these instances, we believe that the correct translation/understanding of the Hebrew elokim is “judges.” Here it is used to denote mighty & powerful people, in these 3 cases, judges.
We understand the usage of *bnei *(“sons of”) *elokim *in Genesis 6:1-4 as also referring to the sons of mighty & powerful people, i.e. rulers, aristocrats, lords, etc., and understand the passage to mean that the sons of wealthy & powerful families were arrogantly & violently seizing women from the lower classes according to their whims & urges.
Howzat?
Be well!
ssv
F
Fidelis
Guest
What is clear is who they were not. They were not angels since angels, by definition, are non-corporeal, purely spiritual beings that are incapable of mating with humans.
From the Catechism:
From the Catechism:
T
Trelow
Guest
C
chrisb
Guest
Peace be with you SSV,Hi all!
Please allow me to add a[n orthodox] Jewish point-of-view. First, there is no tradition whatsoever in Judaism of angels mating en masse with human beings; this is not a Jewish perspective.
The (original Hebrew) word for “God” (as in “sons of God”) used in Genesis 6:1-4 is Elokim; in our traditions, Elokim is not so much a name of God as it is a title denoting His might and power.
Elokim is used in Exodus 21:6, 22:8 and 22:28 in reference to human beings, i.e. judges. In each of these instances, we believe that the correct translation/understanding of the Hebrew elokim is “judges.” Here it is used to denote mighty & powerful people, in these 3 cases, judges.
We understand the usage of *bnei *(“sons of”) *elokim *in Genesis 6:1-4 as also referring to the sons of mighty & powerful people, i.e. rulers, aristocrats, lords, etc., and understand the passage to mean that the sons of wealthy & powerful families were arrogantly & violently seizing women from the lower classes according to their whims & urges.
Howzat?
Be well!
ssv
This is why it is important to keep the dialog “open” with our Jewish Brothers and Sisters. I have been in Bible Studies with my Evangelican Brethren who interpreted this is wild and fantasical ways which drew them to some very strange conclusions.
Thank you for offering us a Jewish understanding of this verse.
May the Blessings of He is is unspeakable be with you and your family. Amen.
Peace, Love and Blessings,
G
Ghosty
Guest
The Book of Enoch, which is referenced twice in the New Testament, says that they were angels. This is non-Scriptural, but it was the popular view at some point.
We honestly don’t know exactly what is being portrayed in that passage, but the only account of it outside of Genesis has them as angels, and their children as monsters and giants.
reluctant-messenger.com/1enoch01-60.htm
We honestly don’t know exactly what is being portrayed in that passage, but the only account of it outside of Genesis has them as angels, and their children as monsters and giants.
reluctant-messenger.com/1enoch01-60.htm
C
chrisb
Guest
Peace be with you all,
Do we all agree that Demons are Spirits without physical bodies? If so, can’t we determine that Angles are also Spirits without physical bodies? I mean aren’t Demons simply fallen angels?
Peace.
Do we all agree that Demons are Spirits without physical bodies? If so, can’t we determine that Angles are also Spirits without physical bodies? I mean aren’t Demons simply fallen angels?
Peace.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Yes, angels and demons do not have physical bodies, but remember that this has little to do with reproduction. The Holy Spirit does not have a physical body, but was able to conceive the physical Jesus in the physical Mary.
A
amarkich
Guest
Okay, there are a couple issues here. I will address the issue at hand (the actual text from Scripture) first:
1 And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. 3 And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4 Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. 5 And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,
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 their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.
3 “His days shall be”… The meaning is, that man’s days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge.
4 “Giants”… It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust.
That is from the Douay Bible (commentary included). I think that is sufficient to show the Catholic teaching on the matter. Now, for the second issue. Chrisb, while you probably have good intentions you need to realize a few things: 1) the Church does not need any other “perspective” when considering the meaning of Scripture; we have the “perspective” of the Holy Ghost; that is enough for us, and 2) the Church has plenty of wisdom in all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, etc, who have written and spoken and taught concerning the meaning of Scripture; we do not need the interpretation of non-Catholic sources. Also, there is a problem in taking a Jewish source because they have a misunderstanding of Scripture (they do not have the New Testament) and of God (they do not believe in the Trinity).
The last thing is this: we cannot throw around the words “Peace be with you” or “brothers and sisters”. There is no true peace apart from Our Lord: “Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it repose in Thee” (St. Augustine). Further, the holy Apostle, Saint John has written:
“Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” (Cf., II St. John i. 9-11)
(Continued on next post)
1 And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. 3 And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4 Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. 5 And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,
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 their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.
3 “His days shall be”… The meaning is, that man’s days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge.
4 “Giants”… It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust.
That is from the Douay Bible (commentary included). I think that is sufficient to show the Catholic teaching on the matter. Now, for the second issue. Chrisb, while you probably have good intentions you need to realize a few things: 1) the Church does not need any other “perspective” when considering the meaning of Scripture; we have the “perspective” of the Holy Ghost; that is enough for us, and 2) the Church has plenty of wisdom in all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, etc, who have written and spoken and taught concerning the meaning of Scripture; we do not need the interpretation of non-Catholic sources. Also, there is a problem in taking a Jewish source because they have a misunderstanding of Scripture (they do not have the New Testament) and of God (they do not believe in the Trinity).
The last thing is this: we cannot throw around the words “Peace be with you” or “brothers and sisters”. There is no true peace apart from Our Lord: “Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it repose in Thee” (St. Augustine). Further, the holy Apostle, Saint John has written:
“Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” (Cf., II St. John i. 9-11)
(Continued on next post)
A
amarkich
Guest
(Continued from above)
The Fathers of the Church give the same admonition, regarding who is truly a brother. No one can be our brother who is not the brother of Christ, for, as God is our Father, so also Christ is our Brother (this also is in a prayer; I cannot remember which). Also, if we say that we have “brothers in Christ”, how can someone who does not acknowledge Christ then also become a brother to us? This is ludicrous. He who shall not have the Church for his Mother shall not have God for his Father, as Saint Cyprian says: “You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother.” This means that not only Jews are not our brothers, but the same for all non-Catholics; if God is Father, Our Lord Brother, and the Church (as well as Our Lady) Mother, then how can we say that Protestants, Jews, even Muslims (and anyone else alive) is our “brother”. Surely they are not. This is more Modernism that has permeated the Church today. To say such a thing (even 50 years ago) would be considered outrageous and how much more ridiculous 500 years ago or 1000 years ago or at the beginning of the Church?! There is no defense for such claims, and it should be known by all (especially those of good intentions) that the Church cannot and does not consider non-Catholics to be brothers. Remember the Church’s teaching from the Council of Florence:
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Further, you need to recognize that the word “dialogue” is often used to promote false ideas, not true Catholic evangelism. These false prophets will say that we should “dialogue” with others to foster “mutual respect” as if the those existing outside the Church are completely fine in their error or that the Church is merely a One World Church, composed of a “lowest common denominator” of religions, encompassing every human being. We must be ever mindful of the words of Saint Peter Canisius: “Outside of this communion - as outside the ark on Noah - there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having received it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.”
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Cf., St. Matthew vii.15), “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” (Cf., St. Matthew xxiv.24). There are many within the Church, the elect, who are being deceived by these ravening wolves, but remember the words of Our Lord: “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (Cf., St. Matthew vii.13,14)
The Fathers of the Church give the same admonition, regarding who is truly a brother. No one can be our brother who is not the brother of Christ, for, as God is our Father, so also Christ is our Brother (this also is in a prayer; I cannot remember which). Also, if we say that we have “brothers in Christ”, how can someone who does not acknowledge Christ then also become a brother to us? This is ludicrous. He who shall not have the Church for his Mother shall not have God for his Father, as Saint Cyprian says: “You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother.” This means that not only Jews are not our brothers, but the same for all non-Catholics; if God is Father, Our Lord Brother, and the Church (as well as Our Lady) Mother, then how can we say that Protestants, Jews, even Muslims (and anyone else alive) is our “brother”. Surely they are not. This is more Modernism that has permeated the Church today. To say such a thing (even 50 years ago) would be considered outrageous and how much more ridiculous 500 years ago or 1000 years ago or at the beginning of the Church?! There is no defense for such claims, and it should be known by all (especially those of good intentions) that the Church cannot and does not consider non-Catholics to be brothers. Remember the Church’s teaching from the Council of Florence:
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Further, you need to recognize that the word “dialogue” is often used to promote false ideas, not true Catholic evangelism. These false prophets will say that we should “dialogue” with others to foster “mutual respect” as if the those existing outside the Church are completely fine in their error or that the Church is merely a One World Church, composed of a “lowest common denominator” of religions, encompassing every human being. We must be ever mindful of the words of Saint Peter Canisius: “Outside of this communion - as outside the ark on Noah - there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having received it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.”
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Cf., St. Matthew vii.15), “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” (Cf., St. Matthew xxiv.24). There are many within the Church, the elect, who are being deceived by these ravening wolves, but remember the words of Our Lord: “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (Cf., St. Matthew vii.13,14)
C
chrisb
Guest
Peace be with you Ghosty,
Need I mention that the Holy Ghost “is” God and “He” has the ability to create. I am not sure but I dare to say that no other Spiritual being has that ability, at least, not demonstrated in Scripture.
Peace.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
“Angels” is on the right track, I think - and preferable to the explanation that they are descendants of Seth “going in to” the daughters of Cain.
However, a better explanation yet (ISTM) is that which sees in the “bene [ha-]Elohim” - “sons of God/god/gods” - an idea like that in Job 38, in which the “sons of God” are members of the heavenly court - not angels, or not exactly: but beings later interpreted as angels.The whole subject of angelology is rather tangled, because the organised hierarchies and choirs of popular teaching as we are familiar with it, with its ranks upon ranks of Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Principalities, Powers, Archangels, Angels (I can’t remember the seventh) has many different roots, and is the “precipitate” of ideas with a long history - and it leaves out some of the Biblical “angels”, such as the Holy Ones (if they are a distinct “choir”) or at least the Watchers (mentioned in Daniel).
That said, “angelos” can mean a human messenger, or an “angel” - IOW, a superhuman being belonging to the realm of the holy. The Hebrew word translated as angel" is “malakh” - which. again, is used for men and for superhuman beings. The problem with speaking of “angels” in the OT, is that we run the risk of reading back NT ideas or more recent ideas into the OT - whereas the NT gives us some of the later stages of thinking about ideas in the OT. And behind the OT texts, are ideas from outside Israel: ideas which Israel shared with its neighbours, and which were, under the influence of God’s grace, transformed and purified and “made safe” for the expression of revelation. And recent study of this background - that is, since 1929 - shows that the “sons of God” was a name for a group of “Canaanite” deities: the gods in general, as members of the “Assembly of the gods”, as the war-host of the supreme god El, as the holy choir praising El. And this is some of what is behind that passage in Genesis 6 and elsewhere.
In one recent commentary those four verses take up 20 pages of discussion - so obviously one can’t say all that needs saying. Hope that helps though. ##
G
Ghosty
Guest
Of course this is true, but the fact remains that the Holy Spirit did not require a physical component to create life. It is true that no other spiritual being is shown with this ability in Scripture (if you discount the traditional interpretation of the passage in Genesis that I’m supporting here), but it is definately attested to outside of Scripture, such as in the Book of Enoch. I would also point out that Paul warned of angels lusting after human women when he recommended them to wear head coverings, so there is obviously some recognition of this problem in Scripture.
I would also point out the possibility of possession. We know that spiritual beings can possess the living, so what is to say that these beings couldn’t have possessed them in the passage in Genesis? Who can say what kind of offspring such a union would produce?
T
Trelow
Guest
M
MarkAnthonyCozy
Guest
The footnotes in my New American Catholic Bible claims that this was based on “an old legend from ancient mythology” and that the “sons of God” were “the celestial beings of mythology.”
So what’s the official Catholic teaching on this again?
It’s enough to make me want to pitch all my NABs!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
There is no “official Catholic teaching” on the passage, if by that you mean, “what is the authentic interpretation of this passage by the teaching authority of the Church ?”
Most matters affecting the Bible and its interpretation are left to exegetes and to theologians - very few verses of the 35,000 or so have been given an “authentic interpretation”. Ther are some points of doctrine which are not open to discussion: such as that, these particular books are inspired and canonical; that both Testaments have God for their Author; that Mark 16.9-20 is to be regarded as canonical Scripture - that kind of thing.Matters of exegesis and of human authorship, by contrast, are open to discussion - and the use of all helps to to the interpretation of the Bible is both allowed and encouraged: which means that people are free to hold to very conservative views of authorship and other matters, such as were “in possession” 120 years ago - or, they can do what critical scholars, Christian or Jewish, do, and avail themselves of critical methods. And, of what has been discovered by archaeologists in the Near East and elsewhere. Which is why the discoveries at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) in 1929 and subsequent years have been so helpful: previously, very little was known about the religion of Canaan/Phoenicia; there were no texts, and all one had to go on were accounts and references - heavily Hellenised, and very late - by Philo of Byblos and Lucian of Samosata. But for the last 3/4 of a century, there have been texts as well, about 2400 years old - a thousand years older than Philo’s account (itself both fragmentary, & preserved at second-hand in Eusebius).
It would be absurd to not to use such texts. They have been particularly useful for the information they give on the background of the OT; before they were dug up, the usual comparison was with Mesopotamian texts (as well as Egyptian). Which are very valuable, but, they are a long way from Israel: Ugarit is on Israel’s doorstep, so, even better for comparisons with Israel. There are a lot of gaps in what is known about Syria-Palestine in the period from 1500-1100, and the Ugarit texts help to fill some of them in.
None of this weakens any doctrine - what it does do, is shed light on the ideas & institutions of the OT, and so on the human aspects of the composition of what is now the OT. To consider that the bene Elohim contributed to the history of angelology, does not in the slightest affect theological statements about angels made by the CC. The two sets of questions - of exegesis, and theology - deal with angelological matters from different POVs and under different aspects. There is no contradiction in holding:
- that there are angels;
- that the notion of angels is derived in part from Canaanite texts;
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Many of the members who responded to my thread on the siblings of Jesus would say it’s very clear. Jesus had numerous siblings throughour history. They would have also said there was nothing special at all about {Blessed}Mary since God took/choose numerous women throughout history as well to be the mothers of His children.
Barnum said there was one born every minute, I think he was right!
God bless,
Barnum said there was one born every minute, I think he was right!
God bless,
- Status