Orthodox view on the "Nephilim"

[1stcenturylady]

except how you are defining until is not correct. Christ says He is with us even until the end of the Age at the Great Commission. by your logic, He should leave us after that.

plus, the word "until" in that context is not an accurate translation from the Greek.

Then you misunderstand my post.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You are, unintentionally, distorting tradition in which the Bible exists. Nowhere does it say that the Virgin Mother had carnal relations. As I pointed out, the Lord conferred her motherhood to us all via the Apostle St. John. Look at the exalted woman of Revelation 12, this is from the Apostle John also, who else do you think he exalts other than our blessed Virgin Mother?

Revelation 12 is not Mary. LOL She is Sarah, thus Israel. The depiction of the stars shows the prophecy of Joseph. Remember him with his coat of many colors?

 

[TheLostCoin]

Revelation 12 is not Mary. LOL She is Sarah, thus Israel. The depiction of the stars shows the prophecy of Joseph. Remember him with his coat of many colors?

While I could understand some of your confusion up "until" this point, it's very obviously a reference to the Virgin Mary - the Woman she gives birth to is a King who rules all nations, and then she's chased into the Desert by Satan who wants to devour the Child as soon as He is born.

It directly and intentionally parallels Mary's flight into Egypt, where she gives birth to the King who rules all nations, and Herod wants Him dead feeling threatened, and she and Joseph have to "flee into the desert" - that is, Egypt - until Herod dies.

It's a symbolism of the Church, undoubtedly, about the Persecution of the Church - but it's using the story of the Virgin Mary to convey a point about the Church.

In much the same way that the Virgin Mary had Jesus in her womb, the Church today contains Christ within her.

 

[1stcenturylady]

While I could understand some of your confusion up "until" this point, it's very obviously a reference to the Virgin Mary - the Woman she gives birth to is a King who rules all nations, and then she's chased into the Desert by Satan who wants to devour the Child as soon as He is born.

It directly and intentionally parallels Mary's flight into Egypt, where she gives birth to the King who rules all nations, and Herod wants Him dead feeling threatened, and she and Joseph have to "flee into the desert" - that is, Egypt - until Herod dies.

It's a symbolism of the Church, undoubtedly, about the Persecution of the Church - but it's using the story of the Virgin Mary to convey a point about the Church.

In much the same way that the Virgin Mary had Jesus in her womb, the Church today contains Christ within her.

Look at Jesus' lineage. He was a direct descendant from David's throne. Revelation 12 is talking about Israel.

14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.

That is not talking about Mary, but about Israel in the Great Tribulation to come.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Look at Jesus' lineage. He was a direct descendant from David's throne. Revelation 12 is talking about Israel.

14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.

That is not talking about Mary, but about Israel in the Great Tribulation to come.

Is Jesus not currently the King of the Universe?
Yeah, the world we inhabit is consistently subverted by Satan, but Christ is Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, and is the High Priest in Heaven.

If you mean "the Church" in terms of Israel (because the Church is the New Israel, with Christ being the permanent King), then yes - but it's metaphorical (the more correct term is typological, but I doubt you would know what that means) by explaining the future through the story of Christ's Birth.

Also, remember that you are on TAW, and there's a whole separate thread for debating what the Orthodox Church believes in - if you want to debate this in further detail, start a new thread there.

 

[Kaon]

angels can't coppulate because they are immaterial. Christ Himself says that the angels are not married or given in marriage.

The Word of God never said that angels cannot marry, He said they just don't - the implication being that they are complete (like Adam before he was Adam and Eve); they have no point in marriage since marriage is when humans cleave to another (through sex) and become one flesh.

That is why angels choosing to become material and copulating with creation (as if they were not complete) is an abomination by definition and consequence.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Word of God never said that angels cannot marry, He said they just don't - the implication being that they are complete (like Adam before he was Adam and Eve); they have no point in marriage since marriage is when humans cleave to another (through sex) and become one flesh.

That is why angels choosing to become material and copulating with creation (as if they were not complete) is an abomination by definition and consequence.

except that angels cannot will to be something they are not. it doesn't say angels can become material and copulate with man.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The giants were simply tall people, basketball players would have been considered giants as the average height of man during that time was only like 5'6. The book of Enoch claims they were 450 feet tall. Ironically how Irenaeous who borrowed his understanding from Enoch interprets these giants, it's possible to not interpret them as literal offspring from fallen Angel's. Instead they possessed women and lead them into the occult and into witchcraft and techniques of seduction. Thus men were mating with these women who were under the control of fallen angels.
According to Enoch these Angel's also taught the men on how to use metal and make swords, and other tools etc.
Using the above interpretation Genesis 6 can imply that these giants were already on the earth as the controlled women were mating for decades and finally Seth's lineage decided to join in on the action. At that point God decided to flood the world as the last remaining godly human race also fell to these seductive women (who were possessed by the fallen angels) and finally defiled themselves as well. These women took direction not from their human husbands but from these fallen angels who taught them to make and take potions and medicines.

This makes a lot of sense ...

 

[Kaon]

except that angels cannot will to be something they are not. it doesn't say angels can become material and copulate with man.

There is nothing that excludes angles from doing this (copulating with creation), much less fallen angels - those who choose to leave their first estate. Holy angels wouldn't even think of doing it just like an Hebrew wouldn't think of touching the carcass of a swine. It is abominable. But, entities do abominable things all of the time.

We don't know the powers of the archons, principalities, powers or angels. We make lots of assumptions and postulates based on our own [in]security, and fear of the implications.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There is nothing that excludes angles from doing this (copulating with creation), much less fallen angels - those who choose to leave their first estate. Holy angels wouldn't even think of doing it just like an Hebrew wouldn't think of touching the carcass of a swine. It is abominable. But, entities do abominable things all of the time.

We don't know the powers of the archons, principalities, powers or angels. We make lots of assumptions and postulates based on our own [in]security, and fear of the implications.

what evidence is there anywhere that supports this?

 

[Kaon]

what evidence is there anywhere that supports this?

Besides Enoch and the Gnostics, or do you mean in the canon?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Besides Enoch and the Gnostics, or do you mean in the canon?

I mean from legit Christian sources. not from stuff that was never accepted or from known heretics.

 

[Kaon]

I mean from legit Christian sources. not from stuff that was never accepted or from known heretics.

Does Orthodoxy accept Enoch?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Does Orthodoxy accept Enoch?

not as canon, no.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I'm sorry, I didn't notice which forum I was in on this subject, so I will leave you to your traditions, whether I agree with them or not.

 

[Kaon]

not as canon, no.

Ok, well in the canon - as said - there is no time the Word of God has ever put the restriction on angels. Humans have done that; that has been doctrine to substantiate that Gen 6 is about human-human interaction, not human-angel interaction.

The doctrine needs The Word of God to have said, "Angels cant marry", as opposed to "Angels will neither give, nor take in marriage". That is because holy creatures' will is the will of the Most High God. It says nothing, however, about the abilities of angels - least of all the abilities of a fallen angel to forsake the will of the Most High God and do something unnatural.

The context is holy angels, not the ones who got kicked out of heaven and decided to defile the creation of the Most High God.


If you considered Enoch even, I could point you toward specific verses that list those angels' abominations, as well as their names and designations. The gnostics go into even more detail.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok, well in the canon - as said - there is no time the Word of God has ever put the restriction on angels. Humans have done that; that has been doctrine to substantiate that Gen 6 is about human-human interaction, not human-angel interaction.

The doctrine needs The Word of God to have said, "Angels cant marry", as opposed to "Angels will neither give, nor take in marriage". That is because holy creatures' will is the will of the Most High God. It says nothing, however, about the abilities of angels - least of all the abilities of a fallen angel to forsake the will of the Most High God and do something unnatural.

The context is holy angels, not the ones who got kicked out of heaven and decided to defile the creation of the Most High God.


If you considered Enoch even, I could point you toward specific verses that list those angels' abominations, as well as their names and designations. The gnostics go into even more detail.

again, this is a lot of you and not a lot of evidence to back this up. plus, according to your logic, the Word of God would have NEEDED to have used the word Trinity, and it doesn't.

 

[Kaon]

again, this is a lot of you and not a lot of evidence to back this up. plus, according to your logic, the Word of God would have NEEDED to have used the word Trinity, and it doesn't.

I cannot prove against what the Word of God did not say.

Where does the Word of God say that [fallen] angels cannot mate with humans?

Where is the implication? I have worked in your bounds - rejecting Enoch and only dealing with canonical texts (which were chosen by ecumenical powers no less).

What do you want?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I cannot prove against what the Word of God did not say.

Where does the Word of God say that angels cannot mate with humans?

that's not evidence that they can. Christ told the Apostles that the Spirit would lead them into all Truth, so it's gotta be out there in the 2000 years since Pentecost.

 

[Kaon]

that's not evidence that they can. Christ told the Apostles that the Spirit would lead them into all Truth, so it's gotta be out there in the 2000 years since Pentecost.

Where does the Most High God ever say angels cannot mate with humans? He is the arbiter of possibilities, not man.

Edit: The Most High God, or the Word of God Himself.