Great video lecture on the Nephilim by Lynn Marzulli

[neo-x]

I'm sure you've read, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (). If the angels are not given in marriage, it follows that they are not the type of beings to marry at all. It would be cruel of God to create a being with a propensity to/capacity for marriage and then deny it of them. Now if they are not the types of beings that marry, it seems to follow that they do not have those functions that necessitate and constitute that which makes marriage unique--the marital act. All that is to say, if angels are not given in marriage, it seems to follow that they do not have the natural capacity for reproduction. If that is the case, then they couldn't do what this interpretation of Gen 6 has them doing.

Remember in all this that these people are just assuming that angels have the capability and power of procreating, much less that they can do so with human beings. But they are not humans. So why should we assume that they can do that at all? I, frankly, don't think that we should, so as far as I'm concerned, the "nephilim-are-offspring-of-men-and-angels" people can't even get their argument off the ground.

And none of this, by the way, is coming from an anti-supernatural bias as the video suggests. I have no problem with the supernatural. What I do have a problem with is the claim that just because we say something is supernatural we somehow have the right to stop using reason and that we have the right to start positing irrational ideas. All things--including God--act in accordance with their nature. Nothing--including God--does anything beyond or outside of its nature, that is, nothing does anything it does not have the natural capacity for. Since there is no reason to believe that angels have the capacity by nature to reproduce, much less to reproduce with humans, but on the contrary there is reason to believe that they do NOT have that capacity, then it is irrational to propose that they did so.

At least, that's what the Scripture seems to imply to me.

Well reasoned!

[Stu]

The world (according to the Bible no less; giants, talking animals, burning bushes, angels, etc.) is far more strange than modern society depicts or wants us to think it is.
Christians must be careful not to conform to what society prescribes rather than what the Bible tells us to be true.

DNA Results For The Nephilim Skulls In Peru Are In And The Results Are Absolutely Shocking

How can we explain elongated skulls that are thousands of years old that contain genetic material “unknown in any human, primate or animal known so far”? For months, many of us have been eagerly awaiting the results of the first DNA tests to ever be performed on the famous Paracas skulls. The results for one of the skulls are now in, and the scientist that did the testing is declaring that this skull represents a “new human-like creature” unlike anything that has ever been discovered before. So are these actually Nephilim skulls? Do they come from a time when the world more closely resembled “the Lord of the Rings” than most people living today would ever dare to imagine? There are those who believe that extremely bizarre hybrid races once roamed the planet. With each passing year, the scientific evidence continues to pile up on the side of those that are convinced that the Nephilim actually lived among us. As the knowledge of this evidence becomes more widespread, what is that going to do to the commonly accepted version of history that all of us have been taught?

If you are not familiar with the Paracas skulls, the following is a pretty good summary from a recent article by April Holloway…

...

As I have written about previously, forensic analysis of these skulls show that they were not deformed by “cradle-boarding”. There are many examples of skulls that have been “cradle-boarded” down in South America, but the skulls that Foerster has been investigating are much different from those skulls. The following is more from April Holloway about these skulls…

The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening. They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two. The fact that the skulls’ features are not the result of cranial deformation means that the cause of the elongation is a mystery, and has been for decades.

Entire article here

[DRDS]

Hi again, earlier today I found this awesome video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUUqPaqONBk that goes well with this thread, it's on ancient technology which seems to suggest it was given to ancient men by the nephilim or was the technology that the nephilim utilized themselves, the commentary is done by Lyn Lyeaz. She not only knows her stuff on the nephilim she's very VERY pretty too! She's a cuddly widdle KITTEN! So in addition, here is the link to her youtube page. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWRlinV ... ture=watch

[PaulSacramento]

I'm sure you've read, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30). If the angels are not given in marriage, it follows that they are not the type of beings to marry at all. It would be cruel of God to create a being with a propensity to/capacity for marriage and then deny it of them. Now if they are not the types of beings that marry, it seems to follow that they do not have those functions that necessitate and constitute that which makes marriage unique--the marital act. All that is to say, if angels are not given in marriage, it seems to follow that they do not have the natural capacity for reproduction. If that is the case, then they couldn't do what this interpretation of Gen 6 has them doing.

Remember in all this that these people are just assuming that angels have the capability and power of procreating, much less that they can do so with human beings. But they are not humans. So why should we assume that they can do that at all? I, frankly, don't think that we should, so as far as I'm concerned, the "nephilim-are-offspring-of-men-and-angels" people can't even get their argument off the ground.

And none of this, by the way, is coming from an anti-supernatural bias as the video suggests. I have no problem with the supernatural. What I do have a problem with is the claim that just because we say something is supernatural we somehow have the right to stop using reason and that we have the right to start positing irrational ideas. All things--including God--act in accordance with their nature. Nothing--including God--does anything beyond or outside of its nature, that is, nothing does anything it does not have the natural capacity for. Since there is no reason to believe that angels have the capacity by nature to reproduce, much less to reproduce with humans, but on the contrary there is reason to believe that they do NOT have that capacity, then it is irrational to propose that they did so.

At least, that's what the Scripture seems to imply to me.

I think that we shouldn't read into what Paul says as a statement declaring that "angelic beings" can't have sex.
Marriage and sex are two different things.
The issue of "sons of God" mating with human females is a tricky one because there are a few views as to what "sons of God" means.
From what I have study from various sources both canoical and non-canoical and outside sources too, I have found a few interesting views:
Angels that "rebelled" against God loved to pass themselves off as the "good guys" ( Angels of light) and seduce females ( wasn't what Satan did to Eve seduction? though not physical of course).
Many views believes that war and technology came from these fallen angels.
Angels passed looked and "acted" human when in Human form ( the angel that Jacob wrestled with for example).
There is no reason to believe that angels going against God's wishes would NOT behave badly in this way.
Every culture has the stories of "supernatural beings" ie: gods, mating with females and producing demi-gods.
Many cultures mention "bad gods" that can be "related" to fallen angels that may have been Serphas or Cherubims.

I think that, if we take worldwide mythology into account also, there seems to be "pattern" that lends a certain weight to the interpretation of Genesis that:
Fallen angels come to earth and mated with females and produced "hybrid" human children, that they also may have taught humans advanced things and that God, to put a stop to that, caused a flood to contain them.

[Ariel]

I'm sure you've read, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30). If the angels are not given in marriage, it follows that they are not the type of beings to marry at all. It would be cruel of God to create a being with a propensity to/capacity for marriage and then deny it of them. Now if they are not the types of beings that marry, it seems to follow that they do not have those functions that necessitate and constitute that which makes marriage unique--the marital act. All that is to say, if angels are not given in marriage, it seems to follow that they do not have the natural capacity for reproduction. If that is the case, then they couldn't do what this interpretation of Gen 6 has them doing.

Remember in all this that these people are just assuming that angels have the capability and power of procreating, much less that they can do so with human beings. But they are not humans. So why should we assume that they can do that at all? I, frankly, don't think that we should, so as far as I'm concerned, the "nephilim-are-offspring-of-men-and-angels" people can't even get their argument off the ground.

And none of this, by the way, is coming from an anti-supernatural bias as the video suggests. I have no problem with the supernatural. What I do have a problem with is the claim that just because we say something is supernatural we somehow have the right to stop using reason and that we have the right to start positing irrational ideas. All things--including God--act in accordance with their nature. Nothing--including God--does anything beyond or outside of its nature, that is, nothing does anything it does not have the natural capacity for. Since there is no reason to believe that angels have the capacity by nature to reproduce, much less to reproduce with humans, but on the contrary there is reason to believe that they do NOT have that capacity, then it is irrational to propose that they did so.

At least, that's what the Scripture seems to imply to me.

"If the angels are not given in marriage, it follows that they are not the type of beings to marry at all. It would be cruel of God to create a being with a propensity to/capacity for marriage and then deny it of them."

The text doesn't indicate that the angels' purpose, if indeed they were angels, was marriage, nor that marriage was a God-given propensity. It's quite possible those angels had some other reason for wanting to inseminate human women. For example, judging by the outcome, they may have wanted to start a line of supermen to compete against, to rule over, or even to eliminate natural humans.

"All that is to say, if angels are not given in marriage, it seems to follow that they do not have the natural capacity for reproduction."

That seems a non-sequitur. If God never planned for angels to marry, they could still have the capability for procreation. In fact, we see numerous places in Scripture where angels assume human form, as I'm sure you'll agree; if they can do this unnatural or supernatural act, what stops them from procreating? Perhaps some women "show[ed] hospitality to angels without knowing it" (Heb. 13:2).

[Jac3510]

"If the angels are not given in marriage, it follows that they are not the type of beings to marry at all. It would be cruel of God to create a being with a propensity to/capacity for marriage and then deny it of them."

The text doesn't indicate that the angels' purpose, if indeed they were angels, was marriage, nor that marriage was a God-given propensity. It's quite possible those angels had some other reason for wanting to inseminate human women. For example, judging by the outcome, they may have wanted to start a line of supermen to compete against, to rule over, or even to eliminate natural humans.

You misunderstanding here is due to your misunderstanding here:

"All that is to say, if angels are not given in marriage, it seems to follow that they do not have the natural capacity for reproduction."

That seems a non-sequitur. If God never planned for angels to marry, they could still have the capability for procreation. In fact, we see numerous places in Scripture where angels assume human form, as I'm sure you'll agree; if they can do this unnatural or supernatural act, what stops them from procreating? Perhaps some women "show[ed] hospitality to angels without knowing it" (Heb. 13:2).

I take it you would agree that if it does follow that "if angels are not given in marriage. . .they do not have the natural capacity for reproduction" then my argument is sufficient to prove its point (if not, then you're only painting yourself into a corner, because once I prove that it follows and you deny its sufficiency after all, you'd just be guilty of moving the goalposts, a logical fallacy). Granting that, the only issue is why it should follow, since it obvious that angels are not given in marriage.

The reason is simple enough: the purpose of marriage is procreation and the raising of children. Put differently, marriage (by nature) is a sexual union, which is to say, it is a procreative union. Any beings who marry then are in principle capable of just such a union. A being that cannot engage in such a union cannot be married (By the way, that is why the whole notion of "gay marriage" is self-contradictory non-sense, to put it politely. You may as well speak of square circles).

We cannot simply say, of course, that the reverse is true, namely, that any being that cannot engage in marriage cannot have a sexual union. That's obviously not true on a lot of levels. But that doesn't affect my argument. In fact, when we look at the exceptions, we see that it proves my case. Animals and plants do not "marry." Some may mate for life, but that's hardly the same thing as a marriage. In fact, that we know of, the only beings that marry are humans. The reason is that marriage is not only a sexual union, but it is also a public union. That is, it is the basis of family, which is the basis of society. In still other words, there are good reasons that society has traditionally demanded sex and marriage (or, at least, marriage and children) go together. Once again, animals may be social, but they do not have a society--a civilization--in the same sense that humans do.

So what we see from all this is that rational creatures perceive the end of sex is procreation and that children of such creatures demand a mother and a father in a lifelong commitment to one another, which is to say, marriage. That, by the way, is the bottom line of the rather standard natural law argument for "sex-only-in-marriage." But on this, then it is obvious that any intelligent being--or at a bare minimum, any being that is going to reproduce with a human--must have the capacity for engaging in marriage, for where sex is among such beings, marriage is. But, modus tollens, where there is no marriage, it follows necessarily that there is no sex.

Now, in all of the above, I am very much assuming a natural law world view. If you are not familiar with it, I would highly recommend you read Edward Feser's The Last Superstition. Other than that, I would only add that our culture's general rejection of natural law is near the root, if not the root, of our cultural degradation.

edit: bottom line - the capacity for procreation necessitates the obligation to marry where it [procreation] occurs. Where there is no marriage, there can be no capacity for procreation, for that would be suggesting that the being possess a natural (which is to say, good) end that it would be necessarily and always evil to meet, which is contrary to the meaning of natural.

edit2: it's really disturbing that you take Heb 13:2 to refer to women having sex with angels.

[Ariel]

To Jac3510

Last things first: I'm glad you appreciated my little Hebrews 13:2 joke.

Your argument appears to be based wholly on Jesus' explanation in Matthew 22:30 (and Mark 12:25), "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." The context was Jesus' correction of the Sadducees' mistaken ideas on heaven (and, of course, of their attempt to confound and/or trap him). In other words, Jesus said humans in heaven will not marry, just as the angels in heaven do not marry.

But the subject we are discussing is not "angels in heaven" but rather "angels visiting earth." Jude may well have had them precisely in view when he wrote (v.6) they were "the angels who...abandoned their proper dwelling." The fact that angels do not marry in heaven reveals nothing about their capabilities on earth; indeed, one could argue that it is the the non-fallen angels who remain in heaven and do not marry, whereas the fallen angels whom God ejected from heaven may not only be capable of human procreation, in their demonstrated ability to assume human form, but also inclined toward it for the enormous and malevolent creatures who resulted, Goliath apparently being the smallest of them. As I surmised in my first response to you, that inclination almost certainly had an evil, if not actually fatal, design.

[RickD]

For those who believe "Sons of God" means angels in this instance, where in scripture are fallen angels called Sons of God? By virtue of falling, haven't they lost their place in heaven, and lost the title, "Sons of God"?

[Jac3510]

But the subject we are discussing is not "angels in heaven" but rather "angels visiting earth."

There's no warrant to suggest that angels don't have a capacity in heaven but that somehow they gain that capacity on earth. What you are failing to understand about my argument is that it is based on the nature of angels as revealed by Jesus. If angels don't have that capacity by nature, then they cannot suddenly "gain" that capacity and still be angels. That would be like asking if God could make horses with rational minds. Strictly speaking, a horse is not the kind of thing that has a rational mind any more than a triangle is the kind of thing that has four sides. If God gave the "horse" a rational mind, it would be something other than a horse--it would not be "a horse with a rational mind" (all due respect to Mr. Ed).

It's the same problem here. If angels don't have the power to procreate by nature, then they can't gain that power when on earth and still be angels.

Jude may well have had them precisely in view when he wrote (v.6) they were "the angels who...abandoned their proper dwelling." The fact that angels do not marry in heaven reveals nothing about their capabilities on earth; indeed, one could argue that it is the the non-fallen angels who remain in heaven and do not marry, whereas the fallen angels whom God ejected from heaven may not only be capable of human procreation, in their demonstrated ability to assume human form, but also inclined toward it for the enormous and malevolent creatures who resulted, Goliath apparently being the smallest of them. As I surmised in my first response to you, that inclination almost certainly had an evil, if not actually fatal, design.

But there is absolutely no reason to think that Jude had them in view in Jude 6. You're just reading that into the text. But even if it does, all it would mean was that the angels left their proper place. As you put it, that "reveals nothing about their capabilities on earth." Let me say this yet gain: you don't get to just make up an assertion that angels suddenly gain this new capacity they didn't have before when they go to earth. You could, as you note, argue that happened, but you've not argued anything even remotely close to an argument.

You really need to take seriously the fact that just because you can invent some fanciful interpretation of a text that you can therefore say, "WELL THIS IS A POSSIBLE READING PROVE IT WRONG!!!1111!" I don't have to prove it wrong. You are the one proposing the fanciful interpretation. There is absolutely no warrant for your claims, and I have given a lot of warrant for why we ought not hold them. Whether you understand the issues or not, the fact is that your interpretation makes about as much sense as saying a square in once place moved to another can suddenly have three sides. But, of course, the problem there is that three sided objects aren't squares at all. Add to all that the complete lack of any warrant for what you are suggesting, and it's just absurd to even consider it. Contextually, the Sons of God in Genesis 6 are the descendants of Seth. Contextually, the nephilim are not the children of the sons of God/daughters of men. They are just another group of people who are on the earth at that time. And, in fact, if you insist, against the text, that the sons of God are angels and that the nephilim are their children, then you would have to assume that the angels took human form AGAIN after the Flood. But why on earth would you suppose that? The problems with THAT view are even more ridiculous.

If you want to put forward a proper argument, please do so. But don't keep giving me this garbage about how this text MIGHT mean that and how it COULD be read in this or that way. Don't tell me that what we're told about angels in heaven doesn't necessarily apply to angels on earth. I mean, if we can do all that, then I'll just say that "the Son of God" are obviously aliens. I mean, hey, IT COULD BE! There's not verse in the Bible that says it isn't!!!!

[Ariel]

Jac3510

I respectfully decline to discuss this further with you. You seem to be becoming much too agitated, not to mention verging on becoming personally abusive, and I don't wish to be a stumbling block for you.

I'm new here on this forum, and I'm not presuming to lecture an old hand like you. Instead, I'll simply defer and give you the last word without further arguing my position. If you want to conclude that to be cowardice or ignorance or bad manners, you're free to do so. I wish you well. If, as I suspect will happen, we bump into each other on other threads, I intend to proceed as if we are beginning anew.

[Jac3510]

Cowardice, ignorance, or bad manners? No, I don't take it as any of those things. I do take it as a rather standard feature of discussion board rhetoric . . . "why u mad, bro? u can hav da last wurd."

I've played that card myself. At this point, I'm supposed to protest that I'm not mad or agitated, yada yada yada. As a point of fact, I assume that the agitation you are reading is my the fact that I regard the position you are taking and the means by which you are defending it as just silly. As I said before, you may as well insist that triangle can be made to have four sides. I can understand why you would take that as "verging on becoming personally abusive." People tend not to like being told, however nicely, that they are being irrational, and here is that great difficulty we encounter in Scripture--how do you tell the truth in love? I have my own thoughts on that, but I suppose I'll just let that sit.

Beyond that, I'll simply share two other quick things with you:

1. Regardless of what I know to be your misunderstanding of me, I also know that you don't know me from Adam and that you are a very new member here, so I won't expect you to read my words in light of the same history others have here. As such, I'll just tell you that I hear what you are saying and I see how things can be so construed. I'll take that under advisement for future interactions with you and other new members especially;

2. So long as we're honestly sharing our experience with how the other comes across, I'll point out that attacking someone's argument that you don't understand and then telling someone publically that they are "verging on becoming personally abusive" and, most of all, saying you "don't wish to be a stumbling block for [me]" doesn't at all come across as gentle and loving but as pompous and arrogant--it can seem like rhetoric put on full display. It doesn't look good to play the martyr card, now matter how well meaningful.

I'm not at all saying that you are truly pompous and arrogant or that you really are more of a rhetorician than anything else. I've not known you nearly long enough to think that, and my charitable assumption (that I make strictly for myself) is that you're practicing standard the discussion board type protocols. I'm saying that I'd like to get beyond all that and actually be willing to have real conversations about real issues, and veiled ad homimens, even when then are not intended to be as such, are still ad hominems and detract from that end.

I do look forward to your future posts.

Welcome to the board.

[PaulSacramento]

For those who believe "Sons of God" means angels in this instance, where in scripture are fallen angels called Sons of God? By virtue of falling, haven't they lost their place in heaven, and lost the title, "Sons of God"?

There is no indication that the sons of god were "fallen" angels per say, they may simply have been angels that seeing women, desired them.
Pretty much every culture has these stories.
I don't think that by virtue of their falling or rebelling against God that they ( the angels) love their "parentage" anymore than Adam did when he rebelled.
Angels have free will, as shown by the fact that some did rebel and fought against other angels.
They are not perfect nor were they ever.
Funny that Jac mention "aliens" since, well, be the very definition of the word, angels can be viewed as aliens ( Beings from another place other than earth).


The term "alien" is derived from the Latin alienus, meaning stranger, foreign.

Extraterrestrial means:
outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.

Now, back to the topic at hand.
We know that the extracanonical book of 1Enoch mentions fallen angels and how they bred with women and gave many technology and such and while the book is not part of Catholic and protestant canon, it was viewed in some jewish and some christian circles as canonical ( Ethiopian church for example).
ST Jude alludes to it in his letter and the likes of ( from wiki):Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Lactantius, and others borrowed an opinion out of this book of Enoch, that the angels had connection with the daughters of men, of whom they had offspring ('the giants of the past'). Tertullian, in several places, speaks of this book with esteem; and would persuade us, that it was preserved by Noah during the deluge.

The thing that we should be open to is that the most natural reading is that the sons of God were angels and that there is no reason to believe that angels, having free will and being able to rebel against God, if they wanted to mate with human women, they would have and it is quite natural to think that off springs with be something "other" than 100% human.

Does the bible EXPLICITLY state that?
No.
It does seem to imply it though.

My view is that IF angels could rebel against God ( and they did) what better way than to do it then to "exploit" His creation.
I see no ethological reason to believe that it would NOT be possible that this happened and, IMO, it adds reason to why God brought forth the flood.

[Jac3510]

Funny that Jac mention "aliens" since, well, be the very definition of the word, angels can be viewed as aliens ( Beings from another place other than earth).


The term "alien" is derived from the Latin alienus, meaning stranger, foreign.

Extraterrestrial means:
outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.

Hi Paul!

i still haven't seen any contextual warrant for such a fanciful interpretation, btw

But more seriously,

My view is that IF angels could rebel against God ( and they did) what better way than to do it then to "exploit" His creation.
I see no ethological reason to believe that it would NOT be possible that this happened and, IMO, it adds reason to why God brought forth the flood.

This is my issue. I don't have a problem saying that angels could rebel against God. I'm saying that I don't see any basis for claiming that by rebeling against God they somehow gained new powers (i.e., procreation). There's only two ways to see this: either angels have the power to procreate by nature (with humans, no less!) or they do not. If the former, you have to assume that they simply choose not to exercise that natural capacity. But if they do so universally (referring to the unfallen angels), then it becomes rather clear that for them to exercise that natural capacity would be evil. But it is self-contradictory to say that in is always evil in every case to exercise a natural capacity. So if angels have the natural capacity to procreate with humans, then there is, in fact, no such thing as natural capacities, which is self-contradictory (so I go back to my four-sided triangle example). If, on the other hand, angels do not have the natural capacity to procreate with humans, then the interpretation in question suggests that angels gained a new capacity upon rebelling. In that case, however, we have a substantial change and the being is no longer an angel at all (or else we're talking about more four sided triangles). And if you are going to argue that angels can cease to become angels and become some other type of being upon rebellion, complete with new types of capacities it did not have as an angel, then I want to know what your warrant is for making such a huge claim about the nature of angels. As of now, I just don't see any.

[PaulSacramento]

Funny that Jac mention "aliens" since, well, be the very definition of the word, angels can be viewed as aliens ( Beings from another place other than earth).


The term "alien" is derived from the Latin alienus, meaning stranger, foreign.

Extraterrestrial means:
outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.

Hi Paul!

i still haven't seen any contextual warrant for such a fanciful interpretation, btw

But more seriously,

My view is that IF angels could rebel against God ( and they did) what better way than to do it then to "exploit" His creation.
I see no ethological reason to believe that it would NOT be possible that this happened and, IMO, it adds reason to why God brought forth the flood.

This is my issue. I don't have a problem saying that angels could rebel against God. I'm saying that I don't see any basis for claiming that by rebeling against God they somehow gained new powers (i.e., procreation). There's only two ways to see this: either angels have the power to procreate by nature (with humans, no less!) or they do not. If the former, you have to assume that they simply choose not to exercise that natural capacity. But if they do so universally (referring to the unfallen angels), then it becomes rather clear that for them to exercise that natural capacity would be evil. But it is self-contradictory to say that in is always evil in every case to exercise a natural capacity. So if angels have the natural capacity to procreate with humans, then there is, in fact, no such thing as natural capacities, which is self-contradictory (so I go back to my four-sided triangle example). If, on the other hand, angels do not have the natural capacity to procreate with humans, then the interpretation in question suggests that angels gained a new capacity upon rebelling. In that case, however, we have a substantial change and the being is no longer an angel at all (or else we're talking about more four sided triangles). And if you are going to argue that angels can cease to become angels and become some other type of being upon rebellion, complete with new types of capacities it did not have as an angel, then I want to know what your warrant is for making such a huge claim about the nature of angels. As of now, I just don't see any.

RE: Aliens.
Playing devil's advocate here:
Note that before "space travel" was a possibility that "non-human beings" or beings of "supernatural characteristcs" were called "gods" but as soon as space travel become "popular", we have reports of aliens...

As for your other argument, I would say that you are assuming that angels do NOT have the capacity to procreate with humans based on your interpretation of what was written in Mat and Luke and to that I would simply state that it does NOT speak of sex but marriage ( two very different things) AND speaking of life in heaven in heavenly form, not terrestrial forms.
Biblically speaking we have no explicit statement on whether angels can or can not have sex with humans at all.
We do know that angels CAN and HAVE passed themselves off as humans, to what extent we do NOT know.

The issue is simply how one interprets the passage "sons of god" withing the context of Genesis.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
There is no indication that the sons of god were "fallen" angels per say, they may simply have been angels that seeing women, desired them.

So now the good, holy angels are sinners too.