Angels Do Not Have Sex

[Lewis]

Here is a even better article on this subject.

Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women?
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's Corner/Doctrines/giants.htm

 

[sojourner4Christ]

BTW, some would say that the Nephilim topic is not a salvational issue but merely an interesting topic. Rather, Noah and the conditions prevalent at the time of the flood are absolutely KEY to prophecy. And what was the hallmark of Noah’s period? It was overrun with Nephilim. And, the hallmark of the period when Christ returns will also be the same, i.e. it will be overrun with Nephilim:

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Mat. 24:37)

There are many other clues. For example, in Genesis 3:15, God pronounces that Eve's "seed" would crush the head of the serpent. Most Bible scholars generally regard this as the first Messianic prophecy in the Bible, in that we are told here that Satan's end will be at the hand of one of Eve's descendants -- i.e. a woman. Fast forward to the New Testament era, where it was widely known that the angels had once bred with the "daughters of men." Thus, the woman is told to have power (i.e. authority/headship) on her head because of the angels:

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:10 KJB)

It's far more than just an interesting topic. It will become a salvational issue for many, as the whiz-bang "power and signs and lying wonders" (2 The. 2:9) of the enemy, upon release of his Nephilim from the bottomless pit, will undoubtedly deceive the majority.

This is why we have such a conditioning push today to accept genetic experimentation (and they would have us believe they've just now begun to debate cloning -- and cloning of sheep, no less!). This is why so-called aliens (in their so-called UFO's) are always framed as experimenters via a sexual/reproduction theme. And this is why it is STILL important for (earthly) women to remain “under cover."

 

[Kathi]

There was a movie "City of Angels" with Meg Ryan and Nicholas Cage.It was playing in 1998.My daughter and I went to see it.Nicholas Cage was an angel and he fell in love with Meg Ryan.Totally unbibical movie.No angels can not have sex with humans.

 

[Lewis]

(ToS 2.7: All Bible verses and passages must be referenced (NASB, NIV, etc.) unless it is public domain like the KJV, YLT, etc. If you do not even include the chapter and verse reference it is very difficult or impossible for our members to read and verify your scripture quote for ourselves, much less comply with copyright laws. Obadiah.)


This Scripture passage plainly states that men are men, animals are animals, fish are fish, birds are birds, and angels are angels. There is not one Scriptural reference which would even remotely lead us to believe that angels and humans ever had sex. Jesus plainly stated in Mark 12:25 concerning the departed saints... "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." I think this Scripture verse is self-explanatory. Carefully notice that Genesis 6:2 states... "and they took them wives of all which they chose." Mark 12:25 says that angels cannot marry; but Genesis 6:2 says that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Clearly there would be a serious contradiction in the Scriptures here IF the sons of God were angels.

 

[Edward]

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

This Scripture passage plainly states that men are men, animals are animals, fish are fish, birds are birds, and angels are angels. There is not one Scriptural reference which would even remotely lead us to believe that angels and humans ever had sex. Jesus plainly stated in Mark 12:25 concerning the departed saints... "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." I think this Scripture verse is self-explanatory. Carefully notice that Genesis 6:2 states... "and they took them wives of all which they chose." Mark 12:25 says that angels cannot marry; but Genesis 6:2 says that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Clearly there would be a serious contradiction in the Scriptures here IF the sons of God were angels.

(Edited, Tos 2.4, personal attack. Obadiah.) This verse: All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. /

Doesn't have the word Angels in it. Yet you said This Scripture passage plainly states that men are men, animals are animals, fish are fish, birds are birds, and angels are angels., adding the Word angels at the end of it, as if you're quoting scripture, but you're not.

Then you say: There is not one Scriptural reference which would even remotely lead us to believe that angels and humans ever had sex. But that's not true either. Looky here:

Genesis 6: 4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown./

Wouldn't this at least remotely lead us to believe that they had sex? Wow brother. All throughout the bible the phrase "came in unto them" is used in reference to having sex, and you state as if fact that there are no scriptures which say this. Isn't that what your thread is all about anyway? You trying to prove that Angels do not have sex? If it were so, that there isn't any verses, then why the thread brother?! It is in there and that's the troubling thing about it.

And in Genesis 6:2, it says that the sons of God married the daughters of men. If the sons of God are not Angels, and are natural men like you attempt to state as fact, then why the unnatural offspring? Why wouldn't it say the son of men instead of it saying sons of God? If the sons of God are mere men, then would you have us to believe that men regularly went in to see God, like it says in Job?

Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them./

(Edited, Tos 2.4, personal attack. Obadiah.) You think I like the idea of Angels taking our women? That I just made this stuff up for fun? No. But that's what it says. When we have a question about something spiritual, we go to the scriptures to find the truth. (Edited, Tos 2.4, belittling comment. Obadiah.) You've been given a lot of scripture that holds up the Angel view, (Edited, Tos 2.4, personal attack. Obadiah.) That's not how we're supposed to read the bible brother. And you know it.If this stuff wasn't important enough that God thought that we should know it, then He wouldn't have put it into scriptures. So we shouldn't just wave it off or reject it. If you want to address this issue, then pull out some scriptures brother (Edited, Tos 2.4, disrespectful of others interpretation of scripture. Obadiah.)

It's not a nice scenario that scripture speaks of here. I don't like it. You say that if this stuff were true, that there'd be a serious contradiction in scriptures. Tell me brother, which scriptures is it contradicting? ;)

(Edited, Tos 2.4, belittling. Obadiah.) Let's address this in an academically honest way and see where it leads us. By scripture (Edited, Tos 2.4, belittling. Obadiah.). Okay?

 

[brother Paul]

As distasteful a subject as it may be, to reject the possibility, even the remote possibility of the Angel view being the truth, is academically wrong, as well as a spiritual blunder. When we have a spiritual question, we most certainly go to scripture for the answer, and not to a man's writing. The Sons of Seth view is easily refuted with even a modicum of honest study and research. Any intelligent reasoning man would certainly sit up and take notice at the large amount of scripture which backs the Angel view up.

In keeping with the topic of the thread, (this has been said before but is noteworthy enough to repeat...) that scripture doesn't actually say that Angels can not have sex or do not have reproductive organs...it says that they do not marry in heaven. If it is believed that Angels do not have reproductive organs, then I would politely ask for a scripture to back this up. I can't find any scripture which says that, it is opinion. Unless I have missed it! Let's see your scripture brother. Please.

I agree Ed...as we are talking of when they are manifest in the form of a man (the form of a man has sexual organs)

 

[Edward]

I agree Ed...as we are talking of when they are manifest in the form of a man (the form of a man has sexual organs)

Yes sir, brother...and they weren't in heaven anymore, so began to marry and take wives. This stuff is important to comprehend because you will understand so much more of the scriptures and the things that took place after that if you do. It brings clarity to a lot of things.

 

[Sparkey]

There is no definitive statement found. I can't help but wonder why that? Why can't one side be proven conclusively?

Those who support a certain view can certainly do so, and if pressed to bring Scripture to defend their view (this is true for BOTH sides) they can do that as well... but definitive proof? Nope. But wait. What do I mean by "definitive proof texts"?? How about something like, "according to Bible verse X, chapter Y we see, "Yes! Angels have had sex with women!" or "according to Bible verse X, chapter Y, we see, "NO! You are being silly. Angels can not have sex with women, neither in heaven nor on earth or anywhere..."

But there is no such definitive verse. Not one. There are many verses that can be used effectively to sway people to one side or another but can anyone support their view as biblical dogma? I've yet to hear it. Can we accept this? That the Bible, although clear, doesn't force a dogmatic position on the subject? It's not like we are talking, "Repentance is needed for salvation." <<=== Very difficult to argue that one, right?

Can we? Can we accept? The Bible does not explicitly answer this question. Why? Why not?

Must we fall to in-fighting just because we like to be right about stuff? I mean, "Has God said?" If so, okay. Then that is what He said. But if no? Then accept this too. Seems to me that there are mixed opinions on the subject. That's okay too, isn't it?

 

[th1b.taylor]

I absolutely agree with you Bill. I hate to see any mention of subject. I personally believe that if God wanted me to know about this matter of angels, He would have plainly told about it in His Word. At least told you and me!

 

[th1b.taylor]

There is no definitive statement found. I can't help but wonder why that? Why can't one side be proven conclusively?

Those who support a certain view can certainly do so, and if pressed to bring Scripture to defend their view (this is true for BOTH sides) they can do that as well... but definitive proof? Nope. But wait. What do I mean by "definitive proof texts"?? How about something like, "according to Bible verse X, chapter Y we see, "Yes! Angels have had sex with women!" or "according to Bible verse X, chapter Y, we see, "NO! You are being silly. Angels can not have sex with women, neither in heaven nor on earth or anywhere..."

But there is no such definitive verse. Not one. There are many verses that can be used effectively to sway people to one side or another but can anyone support their view as biblical dogma? I've yet to hear it. Can we accept this? That the Bible, although clear, doesn't force a dogmatic position on the subject? It's not like we are talking, "Repentance is needed for salvation." <<=== Very difficult to argue that one, right?

Can we? Can we accept? The Bible does not explicitly answer this question. Why? Why not?

Must we fall to in-fighting just because we like to be right about stuff? I mean, "Has God said?" If so, okay. Then that is what He said. But if no? Then accept this too. Seems to me that there are mixed opinions on the subject. That's okay too, isn't it?

SH,
Faith! Not trying to be cute, that is just the truth. God does not save us because we work to know Him or to prove Him, He saves by His Grace through His Faith awarded to us. The same faith in what He has said is the founding bastion of the Christian Life. I see this faith as the primary reason for the path and the gate Jesus spoke of being so narrow to salvation and the Holy Life. It is not easy, if it were all would be saved making Universalism correct but... it's not. The only way I found to arrive at my answer was to search, extensively, extra-biblical references until I was blue in the face and then to just pray, listen and to believe the reply from the Holy Spirit... Faith in what the scriptures do reveal and the scriptures do reveal that God has no part with sin, Angels are the model in Heaven of how we will be in Heaven, angels do nothing without God's permission and God will never violate His own attributes. Even Satan can not sift us without God agreeing.

Sounds simplistic, I admit but much truth sounds simplistic so that is not a good reason to disbelieve.

 

[Sparkey]

No, it does not sound simplistic nor simple. We are speaking of the building up of that most holy faith. It is the "bare in mind" lesson that I hear you preach. Bare it, carry it around, keep it close. What are we about? We are all called to grow into the stature of the One who calls. How can we do this? Well, we can't. But that's not gonna stop us from trusting God for all that He has for us, for trusting God for all that He has for our brothers and sisters and for learning to love in truth even as we learn to lean on Him more and more, to deny self, to submit to lawful authority and to Praise Him in all things.

Simple or Simplistic? No.
But it is simply true.

 

[Edward]

Wow, I see my post wasn't taken so well. (Edited, ToS 2.14: "Please do not use the message board to air your grievances against other fellow members. If you have observed a violation of the Terms of Service please let a Moderator or Administrator know. (This includes violations or allegations of inappropriate actions by the moderators and administration.) If the grievance is with a staff member please contact them privately. If you deem it necessary to go beyond that, you are advised to start a new thread in the ‘Talk With the Staff’ forum area. If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public." Obadiah.) My apologies if I offended anyone.

 

[Kathi]

Wow, I see my post wasn't taken so well. (edited post) My apologies if I offended anyone.

Isn't that the way alot of threads end up?They usually go way off topic.Their are so many interpretations of scripture that it blows my mind 2

 

[Count Duckula]

It's funny how the sons of god in Job are clearly angels. The same Hebrew word in Genesis for sons of god is used...yet it can't be talking about the same thing. Where else in the Bible do we do this. It's word for word. Where is this big argument coming from? Angels eat and drink in the Bible, correct? So they must be able to use the restroom, correct. If God fed humans with Angel's food, does that mean that Angel's eat food that is edible and can sustain a human. Yes. Why does Jesus feel the need to emphasize that only the Angels in Heaven do not marry? Why didn't he just say Angels? In Jude is in not obvious that this exact thing is being talked about? That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

It's funny how the sons of god in Job are clearly angels. The same Hebrew word in Genesis for sons of god is used...yet it can't be talking about the same thing.

Of course it’s talking about the same thing -- that’s why the word is identical in both usages -- because Satan was already present when man was created from the dust. Satan and his boys witnessed the whole of man’s creation by God.

Where else in the Bible do we do this. It's word for word. Where is this big argument coming from? Angels eat and drink in the Bible, correct? So they must be able to use the restroom, correct. If God fed humans with Angel's food, does that mean that Angel's eat food that is edible and can sustain a human. Yes.

Yep. And *I* can use the restroom too, as well as fornicate, but while I habitually CHOOSE to use the restroom, I also habitually CHOOSE to not fornicate. Like angels, we have the choice to either obey God i.e. not have unlawful sexual relations, or disobey God...

Why does Jesus feel the need to emphasize that only the Angels in Heaven do not marry? Why didn't he just say Angels?

Good point. The angels in heaven are obedient to their Master, while angels cast to earth are obedient to their master (who is in rebellion). Angels in heaven have no need to procreate, and thus no need to have sexual relations i.e. reproduce, because NOTHING DIES IN HEAVEN. With certain angels on earth, however, their master has a different agenda...

In Jude is in not obvious that this exact thing is being talked about? That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Yep. Evidently, wicked angels still find earthly women “attractive” (for lack of a better word).

 

[Lewis]

It's funny how the sons of god in Job are clearly angels. The same Hebrew word in Genesis for sons of god is used...yet it can't be talking about the same thing. Where else in the Bible do we do this. It's word for word. Where is this big argument coming from? Angels eat and drink in the Bible, correct? So they must be able to use the restroom, correct. If God fed humans with Angel's food, does that mean that Angel's eat food that is edible and can sustain a human. Yes. Why does Jesus feel the need to emphasize that only the Angels in Heaven do not marry? Why didn't he just say Angels? In Jude is in not obvious that this exact thing is being talked about? That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Why Do the Angels Eat?
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/sms/68259632.html

 

[Kathi]

Why Do the Angels Eat?
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/sms/68259632.html

How do you know that angels eat?Show me scripture that angels eat.

 

[Edward]

Isn't that the way alot of threads end up?They usually go way off topic.Their are so many interpretations of scripture that it blows my mind 2

Yeah, that's usually the way they end up eh sister? Personally I feel as if it speaks pretty plainly about the subject, especially with the consideration of other scriptures along the same lines. Plus, there are other details about it in the book of Enoch, but since the book of Enoch is not canon (anymore!) it is not well received here. All of this stuff really blows my mind, it like a sci-fi movie or something, wow.

 

[Edward]

How do you know that angels eat?Show me scripture that angels eat.

Psalm 78:23-29
23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,
24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.
26 He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind.
27 He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea:
28 And he let it fall in the midst of their camp, round about their habitations.
29 So they did eat, and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire;/(KJV)

There you go sister.

 

[Kathi]

Psalm 78:23-29
23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,
24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.
26 He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind.
27 He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea:
28 And he let it fall in the midst of their camp, round about their habitations.
29 So they did eat, and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire;/(KJV)

There you go sister.

It says it is angel's food which could mean perfect food.It does not say that the angels ate the food.