Who Were the Nephilim?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DominvsVobiscvm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Why did all the pre-Nicene Fathers teach it, then?
Click to expand...
Any chance you can provide a reference list? It would be interesting to see how much of that “teaching” is really speculative.

True mating of angels and humans is not possible, but I suppose the illusion of such mating is.

However, from the overall context in scripture, the interpretation given by given by St Augustine, St John Chrysostom, and St Cyril seems to make the most sense.
 
Any chance you can provide a reference list? It would be interesting to see how much of that “teaching” is really speculative.
Click to expand...
Ludwig Ott mentions: Saint Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Saint Clement of Alexandria, and Saint Ambrose.
 
Could it be possible that these Nephilim were the products of illicit human relations, partially brought about by demonic posession? That is, can we postulate a compromise between St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, that before the flood Man opened himself up to posession through sin, and this had a physical manifestation that included illicit relationships that generated offspring?
 
That has been suggested by some Protestants. But I thought that, during posession, demons have limitations to what they can and cannot do. Do you really think they can have sex?

Then again, I know plenty of girls who would find the idea of rough demon-sex quite appealing . . . :bounce:

My God, its getting late . . .
 
I think it is the case that the demons can not inflict physical harm, but I’m not sure sex falls into this category.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to spend some time discussing other aspects of antedeluvian civilization. Unless we can come to a good understanding of that era in its entirety, this discussion of the Nephilim lacks grounding.
 
First-impression thoughts:
  1. Angels, whether unfallen or fallen, are pure spirits. They do not have bodies.
  2. Angels, though more powerful than man, do not have the power to create. Only God can create.
  3. If an angel were to acquire a body, he either would have to get it from somewhere else or create it. Not having the power to create, he could not create it. On the other hand, where would he get a body? Steal it from a pre-existing man? (I’ll rule that out.)
  4. Angels have the power to manifest themselves to men in various forms. They can appear as men (that is, they can appear to have human bodies) while not really being men.
  5. Appearing to have a body is not the same as having a body. Only someone with a body can procreate. If angels at best only appear to have a body, they cannot procreate.
  6. If angels cannot procreate, then “angels,” in the sense we commonly use the term, could not have fathered children in ancient times.
  7. But Scripture refers to “angels” doing just that. This implies the scriptural use is to be taken to refer to something other than the pure spirits that we call “angels”–that is, “angels” in the passage in question would be a metaphor for some group of men.
 
  1. If an angel were to acquire a body, he either would have to get it from somewhere else or create it. Not having the power to create, he could not create it. On the other hand, where would he get a body? Steal it from a pre-existing man? (I’ll rule that out.)
Click to expand...
Why isn’t it possible that God has given angels the ability to materialize and assume real bodies?

Also, how do we know that, when angels appeared to men in Scripture, they didn’t actually assume a real body for a given period of time? There’s one verse in Tobit that seems to suggest otherwise, but what answer can one give to a Protestant or JW?
 
Karl Keating:
First-impression thoughts:
7. But Scripture refers to “angels” doing just that. This implies the scriptural use is to be taken to refer to something other than the pure spirits that we call “angels”–that is, “angels” in the passage in question would be a metaphor for some group of men.
Click to expand...
That seems like a straightforward explanation of the Genesis reference. I think a lot of the speculation seems to fall out of the Letter of Jude.
 
Another relevant question: Assume that the Nephilim are some group of men, decended from man and woman, with their conception resulting from an illicit relationship. These illicit relationships are of such an egregious nature that they merit representation by the fallen angels analogy.

What is it about this particular culture of sin that merits such a strong analogy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top