Angels Do Not Have Sex

[brother Paul]

Greetings and welcome, brother Paul. To reply in kind:

Sons of God = Angels! (and can not possibly mean humans)
Where?

I think that both sides have made some assumptions. Neither have proven their thoughts to be the incontrovertible truth according to the Word of Truth. It's possible both ways. My opinion (for what it is worth) is that angels can not fornicate. They don't die. They don't marry. Others disagree.

You are correct when you sate that the verse cited does not mention Seth.

I did not say it could not mean humans...according to the word the sons of God are those God has chosen and are filled with his Spirit...I said it does not say anywhere these were the sons of Seth...and the word SAYS daughters of Adam not daughters of Cain (Edited, ToS 2.4, derogatory comment. Obadiah.) But I agree we may never know and that the three different sides have their assumptions...for example I see no problem in assuming that when in human form they cannot function as any human if they chose to but most would not...nothing in the Bible says that their human forms are not entirely functional...but this is entirely an assumption for to me if it were not functional it was not the form of a man (a mans form is functional...and God FORMED him) and thus if not really a mans form, the word of God is misleading (God forbid). When the Lord came in the form of a man He could eat and drink and touch and be touched and do all that a man could do...so why not angels when they come in the form of a man? But assumption? Yes...

 

[Sparkey]

Another argument from silence? The bible does not directly speak of "human forms" at all. Angels can manifest (show) themselves to humans. You are correct to say that the Bible does not speak about every body function. Do angels go to the bathroom? We don't know. I sincerely doubt it.

We are told to be aware of things outside of our physical experience. Admonished to entertain strangers because some have entertained angels unawares. Paul spoke of this under the topic of “Let brotherly love continue.” We do well when we keep track of the subject being spoken of. Fornicators will not inherit anything from God.

 

[JLB]

JLB,



Thanks for your input to the conversation. I was trying to pin Edward down because he seems to have said that angels left their habitation (bodies) and who knows what, where to, or what was possible after that.

I didn't say that angels can not properly be termed 'Sons of God,' only that they are not the only ones qualified for that appellation. Your quote further establishes my point: that angels are not the only creatures that may be called 'Sons of God'. Let's read the whole passage with this in mind, shall we?

The Sadducees had questioned Jesus about the resurrection (believing that it would not happen). They tried to convince that there was no resurrection and gave their conundrum about the 7 brothers and their offspring to Jesus. But Jesus corrected them saying that the point they used to challenge him did not apply at all because:


Jesus clearly mentions non-angelic beings (those humans who are resurrected) and calls them 'sons of God'. My point is that those who insist that the term is limited and can only be applied to angels are wrong.

Yes sir. Agreed.

 

[JLB]

People are referred to as son of man.

3 Do not put your trust in princes, Nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3

1 And He said to me, "Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak to you." Ezekiel 2:1

17 So he came near where I stood, and when he came I was afraid and fell on my face; but he said to me, "Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end."
Daniel 8:17

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. Genesis 11:5


When scripture use the term son of man or daughter of man it is a reference to the natural order of mankind.

JLB

 

[Sparkey]

...nothing in the Bible says that their human forms are not entirely functional...but this is entirely an assumption for to me if it were not functional it was not the form of a man (a mans form is functional...and God FORMED him) and thus if not really a mans form, the word of God is misleading (God forbid). When the Lord came in the form of a man He could eat and drink and touch and be touched and do all that a man could do...so why not angels when they come in the form of a man? But assumption? Yes...

Thank you for considering my reply and for leaving room for other possibilities. It's just the dogmatic position that I oppose, not the opinion.

You do raise an interesting question though when you mention the fact that Jesus became lower than the angels. He became man in truth and was tempted like as we. He also was subject to death. Angels do not die.

 

[agua.]

agua. Edward

So from those two verses can we then say that the Nephilim were the sons of "the sons of God" per Genesis 6 AND the Nephilim were the sons of Anak per Numbers 13 ?

If so, then who was Anak? Doing a word search I found these scriptures referring to Anak.
Numbers 13:22, 28, 33 Deut 9:2 Joshua 15:13,14 11:22 and 21:11 Judges 1:20 in the KJV and the NASB

Doing another search for 'Anakim' the tribe of the Anaks I found these scriptures again in both the KJV and the NASB.
Deut. 1:28, 2:10,11,21

Num 13:22 And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)
Jdg 1:10 And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron: (now the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba and they slew Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai.
Jos 11:22 There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.

Num 13:28 only, surely the people which is dwelling in the land is strong; and the cities are fenced, very great; and also children of Anak we have seen there.
Num 13:29 Amalek is dwelling in the land of the south, and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite is dwelling in the hill country, and the Canaanite is dwelling by the sea, and by the side of the Jordan.'
Num 13:32 and they bring out an evil account of the land which they have spied unto the sons of Israel, saying, `The land into which we passed over to spy it, is a land eating up its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in its midst are men of stature;
Num 13:33 and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes.'
stature
H4060 -
middâh
mid-daw'
Feminine of H4055; properly extension, that is, height or breadth; also a measure (including its standard); hence a portion (as measured) or a vestment; specifically tribute (as measured): - garment, measure (-ing, meteyard, piece, size, (great) stature, tribute, wide.

So from these scriptures I think it is clear that all the different tribes were of great size not just the Anak. We know that Og was an Amorite and Goliath was a Philistine.


Jos 15:13 And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron.
Jos 14:15 And the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.

Arba was the father of Anak. Who was Arba? This is it. There is no further information that I can find about the Anakims, that were identified as the Nephilim in Numbers 13.

So what about identifying the Nephilim as people with six fingers?
I can't find this in scripture anywhere pertaining to the Nephilim. Does anyone have scripture that says the Nephilim had these?

Cool Deb nice expose. I don't know of any scripture that says the Nephilim had 6 fingers.

 

[agua.]

Thank you Edward, I do appreciate your direct responses!
agua. JLB

2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
2Sa 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
2Sa 21:21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him.
2Sa 21:22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
1Ch_20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

What I see here is that there was "a man" singular who had six fingers. This man is identified as being the son of a giant in Gath.
"These four were born to the giant in Gath". All were slain but only one is identified as having six fingers, correct?
H7498 - giant in these verses
Probably the same as H7497; giant; Rapha or Raphah, the name of two Israelites: - Rapha.
H7497
râphâ' râphâh
raw-faw', raw-faw'
From H7495 in the sense of invigorating; a giant: - giant, Rapha, Rephaim (-s). See also H1051.
1. giants, Rephaim
2. a tribe of giants

So the giants in these verses are not referred to, directly at least, the Nephilim but are spoken of as being Rephaim, correct?

So can we agree that there is one man mentioned with six fingers?
And can we agree that the 'giants' spoke of here are the Rephaim?

Yes agree.

 

[agua.]

But nowhere does it say that angels were created with physical bodies, only that they left their own habitation, something they should not have done.

Yeah Sparrow it says only that they left their own habitation ( oikētērion ). This is interesting because our current habitation ( oikētērion ) is described as our physical body in 2Cor 5:2.

Edward, just as we do not know what we shall be, but only know that we shall be like Him (Jesus) -- so also, we may not pretend to know all things about what our 'new habitation' is like. We are assured of somethings though, for instance, we will no longer be subject to death. Also, and perhaps more to the point, we will not marry. Our new habitation will not include sexual activity.

I see. You have equated "habitation" to body. Okay. I don't see it that way.

We know there are 2 types of habitation that Paul talks about for us. Our current one, which we know is flesh and blood, and our heavenly one which we don't know what the substance is. Sparrow do you accept that in 2Cor 5 the habitation ( oikētērion ) is referring to our present and future physical body ?

We see in 1Cor how Paul thinks about our current physical body and our future spiritual one.

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Angels are spiritual beings. Not physical. Angels are an entirely different order of being than humans. Human beings do not become angels after they die. Angels will never become, and never were, human beings. God created the angels, just as He created humanity. The Bible nowhere states that angels are created in the image and likeness of God, as humans are (Genesis 1:26). Angels are spiritual beings that can, to a certain degree, take on physical form. Humans are primarily physical beings, but with a spiritual aspect.

If Angels can, to a certain degree, take on physical form and eat etc is it impossible that they can do other things we do ? I'm not sure how Angels not being created in God's image negates them from taking human form and procreating can you explain Sparrow ?

Men have seen the glorified body of Jesus (after His resurrection). Jesus came to Thomas and specifically showed his body to prove his resurrection. This does not mean that angels were created with bodies like as we. The second birth does not mean that we need to crawl back into the womb to be born again like Nicodemus asked. We are born again, promised new bodies and our rebirth happens here and now as we join ourselves and continue with Christ making Him to be our Lord in truth.

I'm not sure how this relates to angels taking human form Sparrow ? We can use the same reasoning to show that the Angels at Mamre left their heavenly form, in the same way Jesus did, and took the form of man.

Actually, I quoted your statement that nobody knows what could be possible. You declare that angels left their bodies and conclude: "so who knows what where to or what was possible after that."

We know there are spiritual bodies and fleshly bodies so I suppose Ed might suggest if we can be clothed with a spiritual body why can't we assume an Angel be clothed with a flesh one.

Jude gave a clear warning to MEN who gave themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh. His example is similar to other warnings that say that God is to be feared and that he did not withhold judgment but instead destroyed both Sodom and Gomorrah as well as other examples of His righteous judgment such as the flood.

[Jde 1:5 KJV] I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.​

Who was Jude admonishing? Men or angels?

[Jde 1:7 KJV] Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.​

Question: Who committed fornication and went after strange flesh?
Answer: Sodomites. Those men found in those cities and in the cities around them.

What was Jude talking about? He spoke of men "who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." He warned in no uncertain terms of men, certain men, that had crept in unawares.

Yeah that's correct Sparrow Jude was talking about men but he equivocated what these men did with the Angels by using "even as" and "in like manner" . imo

Jud 1:6-7 KJV And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

It's def interesting mate.

 

[JLB]

Cool Deb nice expose. I don't know of any scripture that says the Nephilim had 6 fingers.

33 There we saw the giants and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." Numbers13:33

 

[agua.]

33 There we saw the giants and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." Numbers13:33

JLB I think Deb showed that the 6 fingered giant ( only one mentioned ) in post # 360 was a Rephaim. Do you have any link that this particular giant was Nephilim ?

 

[turnorburn]

The only ones told to be fruitful and multiply were the inhabitants of the earth.. they were/are all part of Gods 6 day creation no angels are/were mentioned.. an angel is a messenger the way Gods word spells it out..

tob

 

[JLB]

JLB I think Deb showed that the 6 fingered giant ( only one mentioned ) in post # 360 was a Rephaim. Do you have any link that this particular giant was Nephilim ?

The scriptures don't define all the abnormalities of the Nephilim other than they were tall and abnormally large.

The scriptures also don't mention that the Nephilim didn't have six fingers.

The answer would be no.

JLB

 

[agua.]

The only ones told to be fruitful and multiply were the inhabitants of the earth.. they were/are all part of Gods 6 day creation no angels are/were mentioned.. an angel is a messenger the way Gods word spells it out..

tob

The postman always rings twice ? :D

 

[Edward]

I had an epiphany last night. wow. It wasn't about this subject though, although I did have a new thought about this which hasn't been mentioned. Sorta simple really. Angels dont marry in heaven. When have we ever even heard of a female Angel anyway?

 

[Sparkey]

Angels don't make deposits at the Bank of America while in heaven either. Right?

 

[Edward]

Angels don't make deposits at the Bank of America while in heaven either. Right?

Do you have any scriptures, brother? Seriously, anything beside cute quips?

Jude 6-7
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jude is using the sin of Sodom and its surrounding area as a representation of the sin of the angels going after strange flesh by the means of unlawful sexuality; fornication, i.e. breeding with human women, to warn Christianity not to follow this pattern (physically or spiritually) but rather contend earnestly for the faith as it was originally given and not as it is prostituted today (Jude 3). This cannot be reasonably skewed to mean anything else! II Corinthians 5:1-3 confirms this interpretation of Jude and helps us comprehend that the habitation the angels left is the same house that we aspire to obtain:

5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked..

Everything has to stand on scripture. The Angel view has plenty to back it up. If I am misunderstanding these scriptures, then perhaps my good brother could give his interpretation and set the poor lost soul straight?

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

Angels don't make deposits at the Bank of America while in heaven either. Right?

concerning angels, who knows? (that's what this thread is for)
concerning banks, there's no financial banks in heaven - nothing evil, wicked, perverse or oppressive is in heaven.(perhaps a thread to another thread as it's not about angels)

 

[Deborah13]

Do you have any scriptures, brother? Seriously, anything beside cute quips?

Jude 6-7
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jude is using the sin of Sodom and its surrounding area as a representation of the sin of the angels going after strange flesh by the means of unlawful sexuality; fornication, i.e. breeding with human women, to warn Christianity not to follow this pattern (physically or spiritually) but rather contend earnestly for the faith as it was originally given and not as it is prostituted today (Jude 3). This cannot be reasonably skewed to mean anything else! II Corinthians 5:1-3 confirms this interpretation of Jude and helps us comprehend that the habitation the angels left is the same house that we aspire to obtain:

5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked..

Everything has to stand on scripture. The Angel view has plenty to back it up. If I am misunderstanding these scriptures, then perhaps my good brother could give his interpretation and set the poor lost soul straight?

So are you still interested in following the other scriptures that I have presented through to their conclusion by answering the questions as a Yay or Nay? If we get a Nay, we stop and discuss that scripture.

There are two posts that you have not responded to yet. #356, was to you specifically just one short question. The other #360, agua and JLB have responded to with JLB giving a clarification in post # 372 which I agree with.
Could you give your response before I make another post in which the content is determined by the answers received in the previous posts.
Thanks Deb

 

[Edward]

Anyone else beside me notice a trend in this thread? The lack of scripture or even cogent information which would oppose the Angel view. A plethora of scripture and cogent presentation for the Angel view? I wonder why this is? Could it be an indicator that truth is hard or impossible to debunk?

The Angel view is not in question by serious researchers that are not afraid to simply accept what is plainly and obviously declared by the Word of God… weird as it may seem. Interesting.

 

[Deborah13]

The scriptures don't define all the abnormalities of the Nephilim other than they were tall and abnormally large.

The scriptures also don't mention that the Nephilim didn't have six fingers.

The answer would be no.

JLB

I agree with you, the scriptures do not say whether six fingers were seen or not seen in the Nephilim or even were seen in anyway consistently in any tribes that were physically large people.