Traditional Catholic forum - SSPX Resistance News - message board for Catholics

Traditional Catholic Forum

A message board for SSPX, Resistance and other Traditional Catholics to discuss news and matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith
Since 2006
New: RSS Feed

Click here to start your session so CathInfo gets credit!

Welcome! ( login | Register ) » Catholic Info » Traditional Catholic Faith » Fighting Errors in the Modern World » Nephilim Controversy

Pages: << prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... next >> Reply to Topic Create New Topic Create New Poll
Nephilim Controversy

Reputation: 14
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 19

Add IllyrianOZ to your buddy list Send an email to IllyrianOZ Send a personal messsage to IllyrianOZ Ignore all posts by IllyrianOZ  people like this post0      people dislike this post0 Quote Go to the top of the page

"Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown". Genesis 6:4

Is there a DEFINITIVE Church Teaching on the Nephilim? It seems as though all ancient sources are more inclined towards the more sinister involvement of demons, whereas more modern theologians think it means Sethites. Here is a link of what the Early Church Fathers thought, as they were split on this topic;

Here is another great article by Barbara Aho;

Sons of God were either;

1) Sons of Seth, who intermarried with the Daughters of Cain (which somehow produced giants? And gave them almost supernatural abilities etc?) This is interpreted as to be a warning against mixed marriages... but then why would God ANNIHILATE the whole human race but 8 because of mixed marriages, something more sinister had to be happening.

2) Sons of God refers to angel who fell to Earth, and in doing so adopted physical bodies and fornicated with the women. "And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire". Jude 1:6-7. The Book of Enoch, although not canonical, supports this, as does Flavius Josephus.

3) A mix of premises 1 and 2. Sons of Seth became involved in the Satanic rituals of the Cainites, and thereby became perfectly possessed by demons which somehow corrupted their seed in some supernatural way? This notion is supported by the works of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich

The Holy Bible says that "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven" Matt 22:30.
This only says that Angels IN HEAVEN do not marry. I also know that Thomistic Metaphysics dictates that angels cannot procreate. But this still leaves holes in the story.

Also, in Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites approached the land of Canaan "There we saw certain monsters of the sons of Enac, of the giant kind: in comparison of whom, we seemed like locusts". Enac/Anak were a race of Nephilim. If the Deluge was GLOBAL (which I think it was), there were no descendants of Cain alive, so this cannot refer to mixed marriages theory again.

There are COUNTLESS verses and commentaries that prove/disprove either of the 3 theories. My question is this; I am inclined to believe either 2 or 3. Am I falling into some kind of heresy?

Ave Maria!

Posted Mar 4, 2012, 11:52 pm
Ignored by: 0


Reputation: 701
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 2,214

Add LaramieHirsch to your buddy list Send an email to LaramieHirsch Send a personal messsage to LaramieHirsch Ignore all posts by LaramieHirsch  people like this post0      people dislike this post0 Quote Go to the top of the page

Heresy? I dunno. I buy the legend, at least. I have, ever since I was a kid. In my younger days, I was a Bible-thumping Protestant, and so of course, everything in the Bible was literal and true.

It still is.

My old ways of considering the Bible have not gone away. I still take Genesis quite literally, including Genesis 6:4.

Whatever the case, I'm sure I'll know what the truth is when I'm dead, anyway.

Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. - Aristotle

Posted Mar 5, 2012, 3:48 am
Ignored by: 0


Reputation: 1878
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,768

Add Graham to your buddy list Send an email to Graham Send a personal messsage to Graham Ignore all posts by Graham  people like this post0      people dislike this post0 Quote Go to the top of the page

I think #2 makes the most sense on the face of it. I've also read an interpretation where the the "fornication" with the "daughters of men" is taken in a figurative sense to mean that immaterial beings took on corporeal form. In this case "fornication with the daughters of men" simply means that these superlative beings mixed with the four elements and acquired corporeal form.

Posted Mar 5, 2012, 4:29 am
Ignored by: 0
Pages: << prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... next >> Reply to Topic Create New Topic Create New Poll E-mail me when replies are made to this topic View Printable