- Mar 12, 2007
- 4,707
- 560
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Labor
Personally I don't take to the non canon books and I think hypothetically if there were cross breeds that they would have a super sinful nature but still have a chance. Especially after Jesus sacrifice. My interpretation is that they were the worst sinners and Jesus preached to them between death and resurrection.Greetings GoldenKingGaze. Hope and peace to you and yours.
It doesn't explicitly speak to what Peter is talking about in the Book of Enoch. It is simply deductive reasoning from 1Enoch 15:8-12 and 16:1 and others.
Angel Advocates believe, because of the Book of Enoch, that fallen angels procreated with human women and bore Nephilim. Nephilim, according to the Book of Enoch are a cross breed, neither angel nor human, creature that are born both "evil spirit" and flesh. When they are said to have died, their evil spirits remained on earth and became what they, the Angel Advocate, would call spirits/demons (those that posses humans found in the NT). In other words, when the flood killed their fleshly bodies their evil spirits now just roam the earth (see reference verses above).
So if Nephilim don't go where humans go after death and it explicitly states in the Book of Enoch that the Nephilim spirits stay on earth after death to roam and cause problems...then it follows they did not go to tartaroō. Therefore, they are not the "spirits in prison" in which Peter speaks.
Some people think, even some that don't believe in angels procreating with humans, that the "spirits in prison" (1Pet 3:19) are the fall angels that were chained. Those angels are clearly "in prison". Although this could be a possibility, where the Nephilim theory is clearly wrong, I don't hold that they are even the fallen angels that are chained. But thats another discussion.
It didn't bother me. I'm just a "let's get to the truth of the matter" kind of guy.
This appears to be a lot of trivia with little applicable evidence.
First you say, "So...". Im taking that your "So" means, given the evidence I just presented. If that is the case, then what I previously wrote applies, that is, what you gave wasn't evidence that was of any value toward drawing your conclusion (imo).
In regard to the question you appear to be answering, "would a human woman be a willing participant in any sexual experience outside the human race?". The answer to that question appears to be a clear, yes. Isn't there a thing called bestiality? There would seem to be all sorts of things, animate and inanimate, that human beings engage with.
But that truth aside, that doesn't then mean fallen angels procreated with human women.
Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2:1-6)
Upvote
0
