Re: Great video lecture on the Nephilim by Lynn Marzulli
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:28 am
Not according to the natural law.PaulSacramento wrote:... it does NOT speak of sex but marriage ( two very different things) ...
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Not according to the natural law.PaulSacramento wrote:... it does NOT speak of sex but marriage ( two very different things) ...
Context of the text is crucial:Byblos wrote:Not according to the natural law.PaulSacramento wrote:... it does NOT speak of sex but marriage ( two very different things) ...
On natural, law this is incorrect. On natural law, Jesus is speaking of sex, and that sex and marrage are not "two very different things."PaulSacramento wrote: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.
Well, this link and quote from New Advent may help explain what they mean:RickD wrote:Byblos or Jac,
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by natural law, and how what Paul is saying, goes against it.
This Natural Law would be what Paul wrote about in Romans 2:14,15...- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.94). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.
How do you assume that angels are rational beings or that they are forbidden to marry? how rational is rational here? And Jesus' words don't say angels are forbidden to marry but that in heaven there is no marraige. one reason being that there are all males, atleast that is how they show up to be.But in that case, it is incredibly obvious that angels cannot procreate for all the reasons I already explained. Sex and marriage cannot be separated, for marriage is the context by which sex is a good (and that for a lot of other reasons we can talk about if necessary). That means that if a rational being has the ability to procreate, it also has the ability to enter into marriage, since marriage is a sexual union. But from that it follows that any class of rational creatures that are forbidden to marry--that do not marry by nature--it must be the case that they do not have that as a part of their nature. They do not have that as a natural capacity. That is, they are not capable of engaging in the act itself.
In short, if angels don't marry by nature, then by nature angels can't have sex.
But even animals can have sex, but sex is not just marrige then. If someone has the natural capacity to have sex, then going backwards from this reasoning that just means they are married...and that is how earlier, most early marriges worked. If we can count Adam and eve and family and the rest and down the line to even times of patriachs too.They do not have that as a natural capacity. That is, they are not capable of engaging in the act itself.
I don't have to deny natural Law, I simply state that going against natural law IS an option, ie: free will.Jac3510 wrote:Regardless, Paul, Byblos' point still stands. On natural law, Jesus' statement says something about the nature of angels which means He is also saying something about their capacities. It seems to me that you either have to deny natural law all the way around or else you have to show that the natural law argument I've been putting forward is mistaken. In short, you said before:
On natural, law this is incorrect. On natural law, Jesus is speaking of sex, and that sex and marrage are not "two very different things."PaulSacramento wrote: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.
So, once again, you either need to deny natural law or else show that my argument fails--namely, that angels may procreate even given Jesus' statements understood from a natural law perspective. Because my argument is that when we understand Jesus' statements from a natural law perspective, then we see that it necessarily follows that angels cannot procreate (and especially not with humans).
Angels have physical form on earth, this is consistent in the OT.Seraph wrote:I have a very hard time believing that angels physically appeared on the earth and had offspring with people at any point in time, for many of the reasons Jac already mentioned. Angels seem to be celestial "non-physical" messengers based on their appearances in the Bible. Even if angels and humans had offspring, would the result necessarily be something evil that needs to be exterminated?
The "Cain bloodline vs Seth bloodline" explanation and their cultural differences being merged into something ugly seems to make a lot more sense to me.
Again, show from scripture where "Sons of God" ever refers to fallen angels. Unless you're suggesting that heavenly, unfallen angels mated with humans. Then you would have to believe if they weren't fallen angels, that God approved of their behavior. It's just not logical.PaulSacramento wrote:Angels have physical form on earth, this is consistent in the OT.Seraph wrote:I have a very hard time believing that angels physically appeared on the earth and had offspring with people at any point in time, for many of the reasons Jac already mentioned. Angels seem to be celestial "non-physical" messengers based on their appearances in the Bible. Even if angels and humans had offspring, would the result necessarily be something evil that needs to be exterminated?
The "Cain bloodline vs Seth bloodline" explanation and their cultural differences being merged into something ugly seems to make a lot more sense to me.
Jacob wrestle with an angel, remember?
The term "sons of God" is used consistently in the OT to refer to angels, see Job for example.
I am not saying that is the case in Genesis 6 mind you, I am simply stating that the possibility can NOT be dismissed so easliy because the OT tends to lend some weight to it being the case.
Job chapter 1 reads: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 1:6-7)
Job Chapter 2. Verse 1 states: “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.”
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? — Job 38:4-7
Jude tells us that angles left their natural state:
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.
Some suggest that these "giants" did not just "go away" because of the flood ( different views about how this came to be):
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. – Numbers 13:31-33.
Again, my point is that while there is enough evidence to warrant the possible interpretation of Genesis 6 as "sons of God" meaning Angels.
No, sons of God does not refer to "fallen angels" per say.RickD wrote:Again, show from scripture where "Sons of God" ever refers to fallen angels. Unless you're suggesting that heavenly, unfallen angels mated with humans. Then you would have to believe if they weren't fallen angels, that God approved of their behavior. It's just not logical.PaulSacramento wrote:Angels have physical form on earth, this is consistent in the OT.Seraph wrote:I have a very hard time believing that angels physically appeared on the earth and had offspring with people at any point in time, for many of the reasons Jac already mentioned. Angels seem to be celestial "non-physical" messengers based on their appearances in the Bible. Even if angels and humans had offspring, would the result necessarily be something evil that needs to be exterminated?
The "Cain bloodline vs Seth bloodline" explanation and their cultural differences being merged into something ugly seems to make a lot more sense to me.
Jacob wrestle with an angel, remember?
The term "sons of God" is used consistently in the OT to refer to angels, see Job for example.
I am not saying that is the case in Genesis 6 mind you, I am simply stating that the possibility can NOT be dismissed so easliy because the OT tends to lend some weight to it being the case.
Job chapter 1 reads: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 1:6-7)
Job Chapter 2. Verse 1 states: “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.”
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? — Job 38:4-7
Jude tells us that angles left their natural state:
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.
Some suggest that these "giants" did not just "go away" because of the flood ( different views about how this came to be):
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. – Numbers 13:31-33.
Again, my point is that while there is enough evidence to warrant the possible interpretation of Genesis 6 as "sons of God" meaning Angels.
That's my point. Any angel who mated with humans had to be a fallen angel. So with that said, Sons of God in this context, would have to mean fallen angels. And I don't see any scriptural backing for Sons of God being fallen angels. Do you see what I'm saying?PaulS wrote:
No, sons of God does not refer to "fallen angels" per say.
I have shown where it refers to actual angels but nowhere is it explicit that they are "fallen".
I do think, however, that we can agree that IF angels mated with humans that they were going against God and as such, they were "fallen angels".
Why can "sons of God" not refer to fallen angels? Can "sons of God" not just refer to angels in general.RickD wrote:That's my point. Any angel who mated with humans had to be a fallen angel. So with that said, Sons of God in this context, would have to mean fallen angels. And I don't see any scriptural backing for Sons of God being fallen angels. Do you see what I'm saying?PaulS wrote:
No, sons of God does not refer to "fallen angels" per say.
I have shown where it refers to actual angels but nowhere is it explicit that they are "fallen".
I do think, however, that we can agree that IF angels mated with humans that they were going against God and as such, they were "fallen angels".
No, I don't see what you are saying since nowhere in scripture is there a explicit reference to fallen angels at all, even Satan isn't directly called a fallen angel.RickD wrote:That's my point. Any angel who mated with humans had to be a fallen angel. So with that said, Sons of God in this context, would have to mean fallen angels. And I don't see any scriptural backing for Sons of God being fallen angels. Do you see what I'm saying?PaulS wrote:
No, sons of God does not refer to "fallen angels" per say.
I have shown where it refers to actual angels but nowhere is it explicit that they are "fallen".
I do think, however, that we can agree that IF angels mated with humans that they were going against God and as such, they were "fallen angels".