changed themselves into the nature of men, in order that, living holily, and showing the possibility of so living, they might subject the ungrateful to punishment, yet having become in all respects men, they also partook of human lust,
Some, free agents [angels], you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament
I believe that there were a lower form of angel that had physical / corporeal nature. This is fascinating really.So, perhaps like a some other form of spiritual being unique to that time?
Giving weight to the theory that "Sons of God" refers to actual angels..in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Job 1.6); 2:1 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Job 2.1)).Yeah, that kind of kills my theory. Very interesting...
Now on a certain day, when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them. (Job 1:6)
And it came to pass, when on a certain day the sons of God came, and stood before the Lord, and Satan came amongst them, and stood in his sight, (Job 2:1)
So, perhaps like a some other form of spiritual being unique to that time?
St. Augustine writes in Book 15, Ch. 23 of the City of God:
"From these assertions, indeed, I dare not determine whether there be some spirits embodied in an aerial substance (for this element, even when agitated by a fan, is sensibly felt by the body), and who are capable of lust and of mingling sensibly with women; but certainly I could by no means believe that God's holy angels could at that time have so fallen ..."
And on the valid elements of Sacred Tradition in the Book of Enoch, he admits:
...
Somehow they had the ability to "change their nature" (Pope St. Clement) and assume a corporeal aspect to their nature, perhaps assume these part-spiritual and part-physical bodies (similar perhaps to what we expect of our risen bodies).We have examples in Scripture where good angels took human form. a) the Angel and Tobias, b) the 2 angels who came to see Lot in Sodom/Gomorrah, c) the Angel Gabriel to Our Lady, d) the 2 Angels at the Tomb of Christ on Easter, etc etc.
but certainly I could by no means believe that God's holy angels could at that time have so fallen, nor can I think that it is of them the Apostle Peter said, For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. 2 Peter 2:4 I think he rather speaks of these who first apostatized from God, along with their chief the devil, who enviously deceived the first man under the form of a serpent.Here's another few questions i'd like to ask St Augustine:
Perhaps the ancient stories of these beings that came down from heaven and taught them things, and built the various megalithic structures, founded cultures, etc. ... and then had "heroic" offspring were totally on the mark. These cultures said they came from the sky. Greeks had legends about Zeus coming down and impregnating women. It's easy to write that stuff off as purely made up, but it what if it wasn't totally made up, but a reference to these "sons of God" that came down from the firmament (or down from Olympus or the sky)?I genuinely believe this is the case (with, of course, embellishments to the stories) having delved into Homer and Greek fables a bit again lately. I think what they talk about in many, many mythologies are not simply fables (though many are) but also recollections of the feats of the Nephilim in the ante-Diluvian world. As Pax noted, men were stronger, smarter and long-living, which would be further amplified by the influence of an angelic nature.
As an aside...I believe Enoch says that the fallen angels were chained in a pit, but the Nephilim/Giants, when they died, since they were part angel/part man, still have their angelic souls and part of their punishment is to "roam the earth" until the end of time. I always wondered the difference between demons in hell and "evil spirits"/ghosts. Surely there is a difference. And I believe the nephilim answer the question and provide all kinds of answers to the existence of ghosts, hauntings, seances, witchcraft, etc.It would serve to contextualize the apparent contradiction I've always questioned about a demon could be on the earth and in hell simultaneously. Although the Apocaylpse does speak of Satan being loosed for a short time...
I definitely have to study this list of Father's opinions a bit more, it is really interesting. I still have a problem with the idea that fallen angels actually produced human/angelic children. Angels simply don't have the capacity. They have no matter of their own to work with. Devils can use "appearances only" bodies, but those bodies don't actually function. The biggest problem in my mind is, if fallen angels could procreate, then the antichrist would be the devil incarnate. But the antichrist will not be Satan incarnated, he will only "perfectly possessed". If Satan can't do it, why would his minion be able to? Maybe the fallen angels used the people who first entered into impure unions by tempting them into rituals in which the devils participated, where the sperm from particular individual(s) who had the giant gene was used? I don't know. I also don't know if there's enough information to really come to a conclusion.
Note: St Augustine is the main Church Father (that I am aware of) who explains Genesis as "Sons of Shem" (i.e. humans) instead of actual angels who were the fathers of the Giants. But, he entertained both opinions and wrote about both. Why did he depart from his Bishop, St Ambrose's view? I don't know for sure, but there is one theory that in the time when the Church was canonizing Scripture, there were heretics who were turning the people away from the Church by making fun of the belief in fallen angels and giants. Basically, accusing the Church of sci-fi mumbo jumbo. It is said that St Augustine and others starting using the term "Sons of Shem" instead. Is this true? I haven't researched it enough to know.
If there are other important saints/Church Fathers of this early period who disagree with the "fallen angels" theory, I am also unaware. I don't want to give the impression that I am advocating for one position or the other. I think the Church allows speculation, so I'm speculating.
Devils can use "appearances only" bodies, but those bodies don't actually function. The biggest problem in my mind is, if fallen angels could procreate, then the antichrist would be the devil incarnate. But the antichrist will not be Satan incarnated, he will only "perfectly possessed". If Satan can't do it, why would his minion be able to?My argument is pre-Flood and post-Flood rules are different. After the flood, God changed how the world and men operated. Why wouldn't changes also apply to angels/demons?
Also, Enoch describes in very, very minute details how the angels move the sun, moon and stars and also clouds, storms, wind, etc. So, it would make sense for such angels to have some (limited) corporeal nature, since their job is to deal with tangible things.
this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets)
Also, Enoch describes in very, very minute details how the angels move the sun, moon and stars and also clouds, storms, wind, etc. So, it would make sense for such angels to have some (limited) corporeal nature, since their job is to deal with tangible things.I don't know if that actually requires corporeality, but rather is just a result of the power of their angelic will. When I have time later I'll have brush up on my Angelology and dig into what Ss. Dionysius, Bernard and others said about angels.
I definitely have to study this list of Father's opinions a bit more, it is really interesting. I still have a problem with the idea that fallen angels actually produced human/angelic children. Angels simply don't have the capacity. They have no matter of their own to work with. Devils can use "appearances only" bodies, but those bodies don't actually function. The biggest problem in my mind is, if fallen angels could procreate, then the antichrist would be the devil incarnate. But the antichrist will not be Satan incarnated, he will only "perfectly possessed". If Satan can't do it, why would his minion be able to? Maybe the fallen angels used the people who first entered into impure unions by tempting them into rituals in which the devils participated, where the sperm from particular individual(s) who had the giant gene was used? I don't know. I also don't know if there's enough information to really come to a conclusion.I have the same hang-ups. It just doesn't correspond to what is taught about angelic natures. I suspect that some sort of selection for genetic defects was the aim, since angelic minds have the capability to know an object (in this case someone's genes) completely when thinking of it.
That objection above, I don't see offhand who posted it, again presumes that God only made the pure-spirit types of angels. My hypothesis is that He created a lower-tier of angel that were also partly-corporeal, not with bodies made from the earth, as with Adam, but with these aetherial bodies ... with properties similar to what people say our risen bodies will be like. These would be the ones said to be down by the "first firmament" and who were in charge of governing matter in all its forms.More to think about.
It's not clear to me whether they HAD bodies to begin with (or something equivalent to bodies) or they somehow ASSUMED bodies (by manipulating matter, as was in fact their function, per the one Patristic quote). So these angels seemed to have the ability to interact directly with matter, as that was in fact their chief function.
But these "assumed" bodies would seem to have the lower sensible faculties ... otherwise, they could not experience lust through them.
I don't know if that actually requires corporeality, but rather is just a result of the power of their angelic will. When I have time later I'll have brush up on my Angelology and dig into what Ss. Dionysius, Bernard and others said about angels.Everyone has brought a lot to the table. It's a very interesting subject. BTW, aren't giants supposed to return at some point?
I have the same hang-ups. It just doesn't correspond to what is taught about angelic natures. I suspect that some sort of selection for genetic defects was the aim, since angelic minds have the capability to know an object (in this case someone's genes) completely when thinking of it.
If these angels were merely manipulating matter (vs. somehow taking on real material bodies), the notion of "lust" wouldn't even factor in, as lust requires the interaction between the matter and the spirit, where the material could cause a reaction in the immaterial (generally the lower, sensible nature) ... unless somehow theirs was a purely intellectual "lust" of some kind, vs. the normal human lust caused by concupiscence in the lower nature.Scripture doesn't actually say anything about "lust" though, just that these women were fair and that they took them as wives.
The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose ... 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 6:2,4]
having assumed these forms, they convicted as covetous those who stole them, and changed themselves into the nature of men, in order that, living holily, and showing the possibility of so living, they might subject the ungrateful to punishment, yet having become in all respects men, they also partook of human lust, and being brought under its subjection they fell into cohabitation with women;
Scripture doesn't actually say anything about "lust" though, just that these women were fair and that they took them as wives.
True, but it does clearly imply that they were attracted to this women by their fairness enough to mate with them.The thing I still don't get is how if these were angels, then they would already have seen the Beatific Vision, right? Therefore, how could they ever fall?
Good reading of Pope St. Clement there. So they were initially motivated to assume bodies by some kind of covetousness .. and then it later turned to lust.
their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. [Matt. 18:10]
The thing I still don't get is how if these were angels, then they would already have seen the Beatific Vision, right? Therefore, how could they ever fall?
Not sure. But the regular/traditional angels fell also.Right. But that was prior to the creation of the world. These fell after, so, presumably, if they are traditional angels as the Fathers cited seem to presume, then how can they fall if they already saw the Beatific Vision?
A few other possible explanations…1) Scripture says that angels “in heaven” see the Beatific Vision. Maybe there are angels that have never been in heaven?This has become my understanding. When I heard it I was surprised to find out that some angels in service to man apparently await the fullness of their place in heaven because of their mission on earth. Can't remember where I read this. Do you have sources?
2) I remember reading somewhere that as different/advanced as a human is to an animal, or as an animal is to a plant…this is how advanced each of the 9 choirs of angels are to each other. So, it’s possible that some angels are ALWAYS in heaven (ie Seraphim/Cherubim) and some are NEVER there (until judgement day, because their job is to serve the world/humanity).
An example of the latter, is I’ve heard that the angels here on earth did not know that Our Lady was to give birth to Christ until it happened. Those angels who “brought tidings of great joy” to the Shepherds on Christmas we’re either angels from heaven or were earthly angels who had to be told, themselves, from heaven, of the news.
This has become my understanding. When I heard it I was surprised to find out that some angels in service to man apparently await the fullness of their place in heaven because of their mission on earth. Can't remember where I read this. Do you have sources?St. Thomas talks about it in the Summa:
Or else he is not speaking of all the angels; but only of such as sinned, who, in the opinion of some, belonged to the inferior orders. But there is nothing to hinder us from saying that the higher angels, as having an exalted and universal power over all corporeal things, were created in the highest place of the corporeal creature; while the other angels, as having more restricted powers, were created among the inferior bodies.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q61.A4.C
On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen ad lit. xi) that there is in the holy angels that nature which cannot sin. Therefore the holy angels cannot sin.
I answer that, The beatified angels cannot sin. The reason for this is, because their beatitude consists in seeing God through His essence. Now, God’s essence is the very essence of goodness. Consequently the angel beholding God is disposed towards God in the same way as anyone else not seeing God is to the common form of goodness. Now it is impossible for any man either to will or to do anything except aiming at what is good; or for him to wish to turn away from good precisely as such. Therefore the beatified angel can neither will nor act, except as aiming towards God. Now whoever wills or acts in this manner cannot sin. Consequently the beatified angel cannot sin.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q62.A8.SC
So, then, it remains to be said, that, as regards this first beatitude, which the angel could procure by his natural power, he was created already blessed. Because the angel does not acquire such beatitude by any progressive action, as man does, but, as was observed above (Q. 58, AA. 3, 4), is straightway in possession thereof, owing to his natural dignity. But the angels did not have from the beginning of their creation that ultimate beatitude which is beyond the power of nature; because such beatitude is no part of their nature, but its end; and consequently they ought not to have it immediately from the beginning.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q62.A1.C
The demons do not delight in the obscenities of the sins of the flesh, as if they themselves were disposed to carnal pleasures: it is wholly through envy that they take pleasure in all sorts of human sins, so far as these are hindrances to a man’s good.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q63.A2.Rep1
St. Thomas talks about it in the Summa:I'm not sure there's a difference between the "holy angels" which is Augustine's term for them, and "beatified angels" which is the term applied to them by St. Thomas. In other words, none sinned. The distinction is that they are angels who maintained their holiness as opposed to those who didn't. I'm not suggesting angels merit heaven either, because they were created already blessed and maintained that through their trial, however, some willingly work to help men for love of God and possibly gain extra glory when the time comes?
As for whether or not they have to merit their place in heaven, St. Thomas appears to make a distinction between those angels which have attained beatification and those who have yet to attain it.
And before this he makes such a distinction, as there are the "blessed angels" who possess a natural predilection toward the Good, as all do, but then there are the "holy angels" (above) who possess that knowledge beyond their own natural abilities, which is the Beatific Vision.
Further on, St. Thomas appears to contradict the notion of angelic beings, such as the demons, partaking in carnal sins, but it harkens back to what Lad and I were discussing regarding whether the covetousness (by means of envy) that these "sons of God" had toward human women, therefore sinning intellectually and falling from that.
We have examples in Scripture where good angels took human form. a) the Angel and Tobias, b) the 2 angels who came to see Lot in Sodom/Gomorrah, c) the Angel Gabriel to Our Lady, d) the 2 Angels at the Tomb of Christ on Easter, etc etc.I think you are on to something Pax.
I think God allowed many different things in the pre-Flood days than post-Flood. We know he gave men super-long lifetimes of 100s of years, and (presumably) more strength and intelligence. (Probably why God gave them agriculture and manual labor tasks - because they needed the preoccupation of work to stay busy.) We also know that pre-Flood men didn't drink (alcohol wasn't invented) nor did they eat animal flesh. So why couldn't angels act differently as well?
Post flood, men's lives were greatly shortened, they ate animal flesh and drank alcohol because of their loss of strength. And angels? They were, according to Enoch (and repeated by St Peter and St Jude in Scripture) chained "in darkness", as a punishment for their sins, until the judgement. Scripture does not say they were chained IN HELL, but "in darkness" (meaning... they are chained somewhere on earth?) That's how I take it.
1. It explains why all the elites go down to Antarctica - to see their demon gods. A protestant writer analyzed where Enoch described the "mountains underground" where the demons were chained. Enoch described the geography where he was taken to see this underground prison. He described the land having 3 mountains all in a row, with some other earth features. This protestant found only 1 place on earth where such a description matches...Antarctica. If true, does this explain a lot!
2. Demons being chained underground also explains the Apocalypse and CERN. Because in Apoc ch9, with the 5th trumpet, it describes the "bottomless pit" being opened, the king of which is named, in greek, Apollyon. Now in greek, Apollyon means "destruction". And outside of the CERN scientific headquarters is a huge statue of the hindu god, Shiva, who is the god of...destruction. (Coincidence, i'm sure).
CERN is also located in a place in Roman times called "Appolliacuм" (there's that destruction word again and another coincidence) and it was known to be a "gateway to the underworld". CERN is said to be using its particle machine, among many other things, to create black holes in order to enter other dimensions. Black holes are called by scientists as "bottomless pits" of gravity. (another coincidence?)
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/313922-cern-collider-hadron-higgs/
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/cern-looking-for-god-particle-or-opening-portals-of-hell/
I'm not sure there's a difference between the "holy angels" which is Augustine's term for them, and "beatified angels" which is the term applied to them by St. Thomas. In other words, none sinned. The distinction is that they are angels who maintained their holiness as opposed to those who didn't. I'm not suggesting angels merit heaven either, because they were created already blessed and maintained that through their trial, however, some willingly work to help men for love of God and possibly gain extra glory when the time comes?I recall a +Ripperger conference (probably referencing St. Thomas) where he mentioned that at the first few moments of their creation, the angels were given a choice of whether or not they will accept their mission (such as Guardian angels). Those that fell are the ones who rejected it, through pride and envy, and those who accepted were given the beatific vision which can only come through charity.
As for the fallen angels who "sinned with women", not even that is possible since, Thomas says, "The demons do not delight in the obscenities of the sins of the flesh, as if they themselves were disposed to carnal pleasures."Yeah, evidence here is pointing right back to the "sons of God" being either the sons of Seth, or something else entirely.
1. It explains why all the elites go down to Antarctica - to see their demon gods. A protestant writer analyzed where Enoch described the "mountains underground" where the demons were chained. Enoch described the geography where he was taken to see this underground prison.Yes, numerous elites have been to Antarctica. If you place an object on a table to represent the North Pole, and walk around the table in a circle, your hypothetical magnet would continue to point toward the "north pole."
Yes, numerous elites have been to Antarctica. If you place an object on a table to represent the North Pole, and walk around the table in a circle, your hypothetical magnet would continue to point toward the "north pole."According to the model of the universe used by modern science, the motion of the earth is too subtle to make any noticeable change in the constellations, and we move much too slowly around the galaxy to notice any changes. Supposedly it takes 225-250 million years to make one revolution around the galaxy.
Which means if you use your imaginary compass to figure out south -- that would be the direction continually pointing away from the object on the table, in a circle. In FE theory, the North Pole is at the center of the circle of the earth and the Ice Rim surrounding the circle of the earth is Antartica.
Interestingly, all the constallations revolve around the North Star.
This contracdicts globe theory which says the earth is spinning on its axis, also spinning around the sun, also spinning around in the galaxy. If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing the same stars revolving around the North Star, we'd be seeing different galaxies.
(https://i.imgur.com/MiiSLOM.png)
This has become my understanding. When I heard it I was surprised to find out that some angels in service to man apparently await the fullness of their place in heaven because of their mission on earth. Can't remember where I read this. Do you have sources?No, I'm sorry, I have no sources. I don't remember where I heard this.
Yeah, evidence here is pointing right back to the "sons of God" being either the sons of Seth, or something else entirely.It's clear freom these verses from the Book of Job.that the sons of God were angels, and some of them (1/3 we are told elsewhere) fell. The "sons of God" are fallen angels
| "Now on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them." [Job 1:6 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=6#x)] |
| "And it came to pass, when on a certain day the sons of God came, and stood before the Lord, and Satan came among them, and stood in his sight," [Job 2:1 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=2&l=1#x)] |
| "When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?" [Job 38:7 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=38&l=7#x)] |
| "The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose." [Genesis 6:2 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=6&l=2#x)] |
| "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 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=6&l=4#x)] |
It's clear freom these verses from the Book of Job.that the sons of God were angels, and some of them (1/3 we are told elsewhere) fell. The "sons of God" are fallen angelsI am aware of that, but what I am saying is that it is contrary to what the Church teaches on angelic natures. So, to say that these were, in fact, traditional angels in the sense of heavenly intelligences, doesn't add up.
"Now on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them."
[Job 1:6 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=6#x)]
"And it came to pass, when on a certain day the sons of God came, and stood before the Lord, and Satan came among them, and stood in his sight,"
[Job 2:1 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=2&l=1#x)]
"When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?"
[Job 38:7 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=38&l=7#x)]
Genesis 6 is clear.
"The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose."
[Genesis 6:2 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=6&l=2#x)]
"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 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=6&l=4#x)]
It is clear that they married the human women who bore giants, which correlates with the "myths" of the ancient Greeks and Romans.
"But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name."
[John 1:12]
"For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
[Romans 8:14]
"For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God."
[Romans 8:16]
"And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body."
[Romans 8:23]
"Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called, and should be the sons of God. Therefore the world knoweth not us, because it knew not him. Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is."
[1 John 3:1-2]
I'm thinking that back then nephilims took the shape of giants because they were most powerful, but now could they be taking a normal size but rule from the top by intelligence? Do you think some of the elites there can be nephilims? I guess nephilims are usually cannibals too, that explains those elites' behaviour. Perhaps some "humans" we see today in our daily life are not even humans? :confused:I don't believe that. The purpose of the Flood, some speculate, was to kill off these abominable Nephalim, which God succeeded in doing. You can still see some traces of giantism in people today (and even in some like Goliath), but that wouldn't be from the Nephalim as, presumably, Noah's line was pure in body and soul. Hence why he and his progeny were saved, because they were continuing the pure Messianic bloodline from Adam, as well as preserving the true Faith, to bring forth Our Lord Jesus Christ. Rather, I would speculate that before the Deluge the fallen angels manipulated certain genetic markers in these "sons of God" to bring forth the Giants/Nephalim.
We must not picture to ourselves the earth before the Deluge as it is now. Palestine was by no means so broken up by valleys and ravines. Plains were far more extensive, and single mountains less lofty. The Mount of Olives was at that time only a gentle rising. The Crib Cave of Bethlehem was as later a wild cavern, but the surroundings were different.
The people of those early times were larger. though not out of proportion. We would regard them with astonishment, but not with fright, for they were far more beautiful in form than people of a later period. Among the old marble statues that I see in many places lying in subterranean caves, may be found similar figures.
Cain led his children and grandchildren to the region pointed out to him, and there they separated. Of Cain himself, I have never seen anything more that was sinful. His punishment appeared to consist in hard, but fruitless labor. Nothing in which he was personally engaged succeeded. I saw that he was mocked and reviled by his children and grandchildren, treated badly in every way. And yet they followed him as their leader, though as one accursed. I saw that Cain was severely punished, but not damned.
One of Cain's descendants was Thubalcain, the originator of numerous arts, and the father of the giants. I have frequently seen that, when the angels fell, a certain number had a moment of repentance and did not in consequence fall as low as the others. Later on, these fallen spirits took up their abode on a high, desolate, and wholly inaccessible mountain whose site at the time of the Deluge became a sea, the Black Sea, I think. They were permitted to exercise their evil influence upon men in proportion as the latter strayed further from God. After the Deluge they disappeared from that region, and were confined to the air. They will not be cast into Hell before the last day.
I saw Cain's descendants becoming more and more godless and sensual. They settled further and further up that mountain ridge where were the fallen spirits. Those spirits took possession of many of the women, ruled them completely, and taught them all sorts of seductive arts. Their children were very large. They possessed a quickness, an aptitude for everything, and they gave themselves up entirely to the wicked spirits as their instruments. And so arose on this mountain and spread far around, a wicked race which by violence and seduction sought to entangle Seth's posterity likewise in their own corrupt ways. Then God declared to Noe His intention to send the Deluge. During the building of the ark, Noe had to suffer terribly from those people.
I have seen many things connected with the race of giants. They could with ease carry enormous stones high up the mountain, they could accomplish the most stupendous feats. They could walk straight up trees and walls just as I have seen others possessed by the devil doing. They could effect the most wonderful things, they could do whatever they wished; but all was pure jugglery and delusion due to the agency of the demon. It is for that reason that I have such horror of every species of jugglery and fortune-telling. These people could form all kinds of images out of stone and metal; but of the knowledge of God they had no longer a trace. They sought their gods in the creatures around them. I have seen them scratch up a stone, form it into an extravagant image, and then adore it. They worshipped also a frightful animal and all kinds of ignoble things. They knew all things, they could see all things, they were skilled in the preparing of poisons, they practiced sorcery and every species of wickedness. The women invented music. I saw them going around among the better tribes trying to seduce them to their own abominations. They had no dwelling houses, no cities, but they raised massive round towers of shining stone. Under those towers were little structures leading into great caverns wherein they carried on their horrible wickedness. From the roofs of these structures, the surrounding country could be seen, and by mounting up into the towers and looking through tubes, one could see far into the distance. But it was not like looking through tubes made to bring distant objects into view. The power of the tubes to which I here allude, was effected by satanic agency. They that looked through them could see where the other tribes were settled. Then they marched against them, overcame them, and lawlessly carried all before them. That same spirit of lawlessness they exercised everywhere. I saw them sacrificing children by burying them alive in the earth. God overthrew that mountain at the time of the Deluge.
Henoch, Noe's ancestor, opposed that wicked race by his teachings. He wrote much. Henoch was a very good man and one very grateful to God. In many parts of the open fields, he raised altars of stone and there the fruits of the earth flourished. He gave thanks to God and offered sacrifice to Him. Chiefly in his family was religion preserved and handed down to Noe. Henoch was taken up to Paradise. There he waits at the entrance gate, whence with another (Elias) he will come again before the last day.
Cham's descendants likewise had similar relations with the evil spirits after the Deluge, and from such connection sprang so many demoniacs and necromancers. so many mighty ones of the world, so many great, wild, daring men.
Semiramis herself was the offspring of demoniacs, consequently she was apt at everything save the working out of her salvation.
Later on, there arose another people esteemed as gods by the heathens. The women that first allowed themselves to be ruled by evil spirits were fully conscious of the fact, though others were ignorant of it. These women had it (the principle of possession) in them like flesh and blood, like original sin.
-Anne-Catherine Emmerich, Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, II.5. p.30-33
One of Cain's descendants was Thubalcain, the originator of numerous arts, and the father of the giants. I have frequently seen that, when the angels fell, a certain number had a moment of repentance and did not in consequence fall as low as the others. Later on, these fallen spirits took up their abode on a high, desolate, and wholly inaccessible mountain whose site at the time of the Deluge became a sea, the Black Sea, I think. They were permitted to exercise their evil influence upon men in proportion as the latter strayed further from God. After the Deluge they disappeared from that region, and were confined to the air. They will not be cast into Hell before the last day.I don't see how Anne Catherine Emmerich is contradicting Enoch's story, whom she praises as a holy man. It's unclear what she means when she says "when the angels fell". Is she talking about satan's revolt against God vs St Michael? I don't see how because she says they won't be cast into hell before the last day. But satan and his angels are already in hell. So she must be talking about fallen angels in the same way that Enoch was, which means, angels fell a 2nd time. She uses the term (assuming the translation is accurate) of "fallen spirits". But satan and co are not fallen spirits but demons who are in hell. So, it appears that the "sons of god" does mean actual angels.
I don't see how Anne Catherine Emmerich is contradicting Enoch's story, whom she praises as a holy man. It's unclear what she means when she says "when the angels fell". Is she talking about satan's revolt against God vs St Michael? I don't see how because she says they won't be cast into hell before the last day. But satan and his angels are already in hell. So she must be talking about fallen angels in the same way that Enoch was, which means, angels fell a 2nd time. She uses the term (assuming the translation is accurate) of "fallen spirits". But satan and co are not fallen spirits but demons who are in hell. So, it appears that the "sons of god" does mean actual angels.
I saw Cain's descendants becoming more and more godless and sensual. They settled further and further up that mountain ridge where were the fallen spirits. Those spirits took possession of many of the women, ruled them completely, and taught them all sorts of seductive arts. Their children were very large. They possessed a quickness, an aptitude for everything, and they gave themselves up entirely to the wicked spirits as their instruments. And so arose on this mountain and spread far around, a wicked race which by violence and seduction sought to entangle Seth's posterity likewise in their own corrupt ways. Then God declared to Noe His intention to send the Deluge. During the building of the ark, Noe had to suffer terribly from those people.
The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose.
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.
I definitely have to study this list of Father's opinions a bit more, it is really interesting. I still have a problem with the idea that fallen angels actually produced human/angelic children. Angels simply don't have the capacity. They have no matter of their own to work with. Devils can use "appearances only" bodies, but those bodies don't actually function. The biggest problem in my mind is, if fallen angels could procreate, then the antichrist would be the devil incarnate. But the antichrist will not be Satan incarnated, he will only "perfectly possessed". If Satan can't do it, why would his minion be able to? Maybe the fallen angels used the people who first entered into impure unions by tempting them into rituals in which the devils participated, where the sperm from particular individual(s) who had the giant gene was used? I don't know. I also don't know if there's enough information to really come to a conclusion.Reply to Objection 6. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): "Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God's holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge." Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.
Reply to Objection 6. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): "Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God's holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge." Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.Thanks for this Philothea. I knew I read this somewhere, but now we all have access to it.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm#article2
It seems that Emmerich is confirming that angels/watchers did fall, which St Augustine couldn’t rationalize. She agrees with Enoch, while St Augustine doesn’t.This thread is interesting and it's great to come back each time to find there's more meat on these bones. I still favor Augustine's theory, except that it doesn't fit better with certain Fathers. Even then, it's difficult to know exactly what some of them meant in light of the problems with cross species procreation. There really isn't enough proof to be sure demons were fathering babies. Perhaps demons understood a spiritual effect of a particular witchcraft, that illicit unions would be genetically disposed to becoming giants because it was the first time in history such pairings ever happened.
As far as genetics and reproduction goes, I also see an *apparent* contradiction between Emmerich/Enoch/Scripture and St Augustine. The former imply that the angels did reproduce, because that’s the only way the giants came about. While St Augustine is saying that the fallen angels used seed from men. But St Augustine doesn’t explain how/why the fallen angels were able to create super-human giants from ordinary woman/man genes.
It seems that St Augustine tries to downplay the fallen angel “father” theory because of the unexplainable lack of human matter but then creates the same problem with his fallen-angel-influence of normal human reproduction. Either way, it seems to me, the fallen angels corrupted human matter and created the Giants. Either they created/provided male genetic material or they corrupted/enhanced male genetic material. Both situations are other-worldly, and supernatural events which are foreign to our concept of angels.
Many of these stories speak of these gods mating with women, and that the result of this mating were the "heroes", such as Hercules, etc. were the result. And Genesis mentions that in fact the offspring of these "sons of God" mating with "daughters of men" was in fact the "great men of renown" and "giants". Every culture has these stories and legends. So it all starts to make sense. I've long been of the opinion that when cultures had stories like these, it wasn't because they were stupid, such as, "oh, look, lightning ... since I don't have a scientific explanation, it must be some god hurling it down from above" and that there's always something REAL to all these stories. Sumerians have the Gilgamesh epic which is nearly identical to Sacred Scripture's account of the Great Flood, and they had this "god" named Enki (could that be Enoch?) who would go back and forth between the gods and them (precisely as the Book of Enoch describes Enoch ... and of course the name is similar).The error above by seculars and atheists only makes sense to them because they don't believe in first principles and think higher things (reason) come from lower things. When in reality, despite their paganism, the ancients were far more insightful than modern men. It was apparent to ancients that lightning was it's own thing that was governed by something else. And this logic is a seed of the ancient wisdom of Adam and the truth about the one God.
St. Augustine doesn't rule out angels that could assume a partially corporeal nature, but his issues with it are how these angels could fall. Now, even if they could somehow assume a corporeal aspect, in order for any kind of lust to be in play, that would assume that these angels did have a sensible part of their being that could directly interact with this assumed body.Interesting for sure. Two things come to mind. Have we exhausted the possibilities regarding angels falling "in time"? Is it certain that some angels fell after the big spiritual battle and after man was created? Another theory is, it's possible that after all the angels fell, some were afforded a delayed punishment to be met out later (a lighter sentence as it were) and during their semi freedom, committed these other crimes and were punished with an additional punishments, yet spared a full-on hell until the end? Secondly, while such interspecies beings (mangels?) could exist, do the Fathers or other saints talk about, or maybe describe them? The ancient aliens theory isn't as persuasive because the legends from one pagan source from way back could have extended itself throughout the races who rejected God, and was just maintained in various ways. Yea, that isn't a likely scenario, but technically possible. Let's keep going. It's like peeling an onion and stuff keeps coming.
I think that the inclination today to reject the notion that these were angels comes from our definition of angels as being pure spirit (without even a sensible part of their being). But I don't know that we can preclude God's having created a type of angel that is in between the purely spiritual world and the material. We see that in one of the Church Fathers who wrote about this that this was the lowest tier of angel charged with interacting with the material world ("to govern matter in all its forms") and stationed at the "first firmament", namely, at the physical boundary of our world. So the Patristic quotes cited by Pax in the OP seem to indicate these Fathers before St. Augustine clearly believing that these were angels.
If you think about the etymology of "angel," it means a messenger. I look at that as meaning that they transition in hierarchical fashion down from God, to higher angels (who are the most like God), to lower choirs of angels, and ultimately to man and the physical world. So they're transitional between God and the material world. From what we know, Cherubim and Seraphim (the highest choirs) do not actually serve as "messengers" because they're constantly in the presence of God. So to call them angels I think simply means that they're lower than God, but then at the top of a hierarchical ladder that extends ultimately to the material creation.
So does it make sense for there to be one more step in the hierarchy? I think it does. It's typically been understood that man is the ultimate bridge between the purely spiritual (the invisible) to the purely material (the visible). But that does seem to me to leave a bit of a gap that could be filled by these hypothetical angelic beings.
So my hypothesis is that these beings were angels in the sense that they were transitional between God and ultimately man and then material creation, that they had a purely spiritual aspect, but also a sensible aspect, and that these were essential to the definition of their nature. Yet, unlike it is for man, it was not of their essence to have this sensible aspect joined to a body, but they COULD assume bodies, of a more ethereal nature, not made from the clay of the earth, but from a more rarefied material (such as which St. Augustine describes), and that these rarefied bodies (optional for them, unlike for man) could then interact with this sensible aspect of their nature, and so they could, for instance experience sensations such as attraction for women and then, after their fall, lust.
And this also would explain how they could fall in "time" as opposed to the angels who, being PURE spirit, had to decide to be either for or against God at the first instant of their creation. Time and movement through space are related to matter, and so is the capacity to "change", so this material aspect of their nature could explain how they could change over time and thus fall at some point later, rather than at the instant they were created.
These types of creatures would also explain all the ancient legends about these "gods" that came from the sky or lived in the sky (up in Olympus). Those "Ancient Aliens" people point out that nearly every ancient culture had stories of these "gods" that came from the sky. Of course, they misinterpret them as having come from other planets, but perhaps, as the one Church Father described it, they came from the lowest heaven (understood as the sky beneath the firmament by the Fathers), i.e. "the first firmament". It would be interesting to re-examine the very interesting findings made by the Ancient Aliens crowd under the supposition that they refer to these types of beings. Many of these stories speak of these gods mating with women, and that the result of this mating were the "heroes", such as Hercules, etc. were the result. And Genesis mentions that in fact the offspring of these "sons of God" mating with "daughters of men" was in fact the "great men of renown" and "giants". Every culture has these stories and legends. So it all starts to make sense. I've long been of the opinion that when cultures had stories like these, it wasn't because they were stupid, such as, "oh, look, lightning ... since I don't have a scientific explanation, it must be some god hurling it down from above" and that there's always something REAL to all these stories. Sumerians have the Gilgamesh epic which is nearly identical to Sacred Scripture's account of the Great Flood, and they had this "god" named Enki (could that be Enoch?) who would go back and forth between the gods and them (precisely as the Book of Enoch describes Enoch ... and of course the name is similar).
This is my current working hypothesis.
The error above by seculars and atheists only makes sense to them because they don't believe in first principles and think higher things (reason) come from lower things. When in reality, despite their paganism, the ancients were far more insightful than modern men. It was apparent to ancients that lightning was it's own thing that was governed by something else. And this logic is a seed of the ancient wisdom of Adam and the truth about the one God.This is my understanding because this stuff always crops up in those philosophies opposed to the Church. It's possible Fathers said things about it that I missed, but I can't think of anything that supports it.
This is my understanding because this stuff always crops up in those philosophies opposed to the Church. It's possible Fathers said things about it that I missed, but I can't think of anything that supports it.I've been reading some of the Divine Institutes by Lactantius here and there, and he touches on this same theme in his refutation of paganism and pagan ideas. It might be worth reading.
So, it appears that the "sons of god" does mean actual angels.
| "Now on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them." [Job 1:6 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=6#x)] |
| "And it came to pass, when on a certain day the sons of God came, and stood before the Lord, and Satan came among them, and stood in his sight," [Job 2:1 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=2&l=1#x)] |
Can you finish the passage for us here? Did the 'sons of God' come to stand before the Lord as men after death? We just need to verify context of what's being said.
"Now on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them."
[Job 1:6 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=6#x)]
"And it came to pass, when on a certain day the sons of God came, and stood before the Lord, and Satan came among them, and stood in his sight,"
[Job 2:1 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=2&l=1#x)]
Might they be fallen angles?
And this also would explain how they (lower angels) could fall in "time" as opposed to the angels who, being PURE spirit, had to decide to be either for or against God at the first instant of their creation.Right, it makes sense that lower angels do not have the intellect and purity of knowledge that the higher angels do. This is why lucifer and his followers made their decision, once, and were damned forever. They could rationalize their decision in an instant and either choose God or themselves - forever. It also explains why St Paul tells us that our fight is not against "flesh and blood" but against the "principalities and powers" (both angelic choirs, mid-tier) who rule the world. The angels and archangels would be the ones that "fell" in time. A simple angel, of the lowest tier, is WAY more powerful and intelligent than any man ever born. Just like any man is way more intelligent than any animal.
They could rationalize their decision in an instant and either choose God or themselves - forever.But, given what St. Thomas teaches about the angelic reason, ALL angels can do that, not just the higher choirs, by the fact that they are intellectual beings. The higher choirs have a much greater capacity for knowledge, but the instantaneous intellection of a principle from their natural reason does not differ:
So, likewise, the lower, namely, the human, intellects obtain their perfection in the knowledge of truth by a kind of movement and discursive intellectual operation; that is to say, as they advance from one known thing to another. But, if from the knowledge of a known principle they were straightway to perceive as known all its consequent conclusions, then there would be no discursive process at all. Such is the condition of the angels, because in the truths which they know naturally, they at once behold all things whatsoever that can be known in them.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q58.A3.C
Thus the higher the angel is, by so much the fewer species will he be able to apprehend the whole mass of intelligible objects. Therefore his forms must be more universal; each one of them, as it were, extending to more things. An example of this can in some measure be observed in ourselves. For some people there are who cannot grasp an intelligible truth, unless it be explained to them in every part and detail; this comes of their weakness of intellect: while there are others of stronger intellect, who can grasp many things from few.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q55.A3.C
Obj. 6: Further, to beget offspring is a vital act. But this has befallen the angels in their assumed bodies; for it is related: 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 (Gen 6:4). Consequently the angels exercised vital functions in their assumed bodies.
On the contrary, The bodies assumed by angels have no life, as was stated in the previous article (ad 3). Therefore they cannot exercise functions of life through assumed bodies.
I answer that, Some functions of living subjects have something in common with other operations; just as speech, which is the function of a living creature, agrees with other sounds of inanimate things, in so far as it is sound; and walking agrees with other movements, in so far as it is movement. Consequently vital functions can be performed in assumed bodies by the angels, as to that which is common in such operations; but not as to that which is special to living subjects; because, according to the Philosopher (De Somn. et Vig. i), that which has the faculty has the action. Hence nothing can have a function of life except what has life, which is the potential principle of such action.
Reply Obj. 6: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God’s holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge.
Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q51.A3.Obj6
Secondly, while such interspecies beings (mangels?) could exist, do the Fathers or other saints talk about, or maybe describe them?Mangles...:laugh1: Like it.
Mangles...:laugh1: Like it.Yep. I completely agree with that assessment.
I've not looked into any post-St Augustine saints' commentaries on the Nephilim. Mostly because, as is normal, they would've adopted +Augustine's opinion and added no new info. That's why Anne Catherine Emmerich's comments are so unusual - she both agrees (mentions possession) and disagrees with St Augustine (mentions fallen angels and Enoch).
My opinion is
a) there were angels who fell during Noah's time (too much evidence for it, both from Enoch, Church Fathers and pagan civilizations).
b) possibly the "genetic material" for such Giants was 100% human, but enhanced/altered due to fallen angel possession/knowledge. This would agree with St Augustine, Scripture, Enoch, Anne Catherine Emmerich, Ancient Aliens and the great X-files tv show, etc. This theory agrees with all sources because Scripture does not say "how" such Giants were fathered, only that fallen angels were part of it.
c) Such a theory also coincides with the future anti-christ, who will be 100% human.
And the reason this is all important? Because Christ said "As in the days of Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be". Obviously, Christ was first talking about sin and lack of faith/religion but I also believe that we will see "signs and wonders" in the last days and also a return of giants/fallen angels/"alien" demons/etc. Imagine what kind of technology "bump" our society could have, if fallen angels were directing the elites today? Lots of people in govt say that "Area 51" is all about super-technology and that it's 50-60 years ahead of what we see now. I think the "alien visitors" story will happen because it's the only way for the elites to introduce society to fallen angels, and a "new world" of futuristic technology. In the next 10-20 years, I expect this to happen, if God doesn't intervene.
He sides with St. Augustine here that these were demons which took possession of men for this purpose, not an act of generation by the demons themselves. So, I'm still going to have to say, along with Ss. Augustine and Thomas, that "sons of God" in this sense does mean the progeny of Seth.In the past, I only heard that St Augustine discarded the angelic influence and said that the "sons of god" = sons of Seth. This never made sense because it didn't explain why the Giants were so large and powerful. Scripture obviously went out of their way to say that the Giants were "mighty men". But why and how? The explanation of "holy men turned real bad" doesn't explain the Giants.
I don't see how Anne Catherine Emmerich is contradicting Enoch's story, whom she praises as a holy man. It's unclear what she means when she says "when the angels fell". Is she talking about satan's revolt against God vs St Michael? I don't see how because she says they won't be cast into hell before the last day. But satan and his angels are already in hell. So she must be talking about fallen angels in the same way that Enoch was, which means, angels fell a 2nd time. She uses the term (assuming the translation is accurate) of "fallen spirits". But satan and co are not fallen spirits but demons who are in hell. So, it appears that the "sons of god" does mean actual angels.
I have frequently seen that, when the angels fell, a certain number had a moment of repentance and did not in consequence fall as low as the others.
I am aware of that, but what I am saying is that it is contrary to what the Church teaches on angelic natures. So, to say that these were, in fact, traditional angels in the sense of heavenly intelligences, doesn't add up.
Much of the argumentation seems to come (at least later, by the time of the scholastics) from this notion that angels are pure spirit. Where is that taught or to be found in Sacred Scripture? Whence does that notion originate? I haven't seen any authority for that supposition, whether from Scripture or from Tradition. And yet it seems to be simply assumed, and then they draw conclusions from that presupposition. But what if it's not the whole story. Certainly it's clear that there are some higher choirs of angels that are indeed pure spirit. But why the different choirs and the hierarchy. To what extent are the lower choirs "inferior" to the higher ones? What is there that rules out the existence of a lowest choir where those creatures of God had spirit plus a sensible nature along with the ability to take on bodies (although not of earth like man but of a more aetherial substance).
In any case, we tend to lump all these creatures into the category of "angel", but there were differences and degrees of sublimity in the hierarchy from God down? It could be circular reasoning, where you define "angel" as a being of pure spirit, and then any that are called angels are supposed to be in this same category. In point of fact, I believe St. Thomas and others held that you can't really classify angels that way, in that every angel is his own special category and has a unique nature.
It would be interesting to dig up anything that the Fathers had to say about angels in general.
In any case, the very etymology of angel simply means "messenger" and by itself the term does not define them to be pure spirits, just as these transitional creatures between God, the invisible creation, and visible creation.
On the contrary, It is said (Ps 103:4): Who makes His angels spirits.
I answer that, There must be some incorporeal creatures. For what is principally intended by God in creatures is good, and this consists in assimilation to God Himself. And the perfect assimilation of an effect to a cause is accomplished when the effect imitates the cause according to that whereby the cause produces the effect; as heat makes heat. Now, God produces the creature by His intellect and will (Q. 14, A. 8; Q. 19, A. 4). Hence the perfection of the universe requires that there should be intellectual creatures. Now intelligence cannot be the action of a body, nor of any corporeal faculty; for every body is limited to here and now. Hence the perfection of the universe requires the existence of an incorporeal creature.
The ancients, however, not properly realizing the force of intelligence, and failing to make a proper distinction between sense and intellect, thought that nothing existed in the world but what could be apprehended by sense and imagination. And because bodies alone fall under imagination, they supposed that no being existed except bodies, as the Philosopher observes (Phys. iv, 52,57). Thence came the error of the Sadducees, who said there was no spirit (Acts 23:8).
But the very fact that intellect is above sense is a reasonable proof that there are some incorporeal things comprehensible by the intellect alone.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q50.A1.SC
On the contrary is the authority of Holy Scripture wherein they are so named. For the name Seraphim is found in Isa. 6:2; the name Cherubim in Ezech. 1 (Cf. 10:15,20); Thrones in Col. 1:16; Dominations, Virtues, Powers, and Principalities are mentioned in Eph. 1:21; the name Archangels in the canonical epistle of St. Jude (9), and the name Angels is found in many places of Scripture.And then he goes on to explain why these angels are assigned to each order.
I answer that, As Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii), in the names of the angelic orders it is necessary to observe that the proper name of each order expresses its property. Now to see what is the property of each order, we must consider that in coordinated things, something may be found in a threefold manner: by way of property, by way of excess, and by way of participation. A thing is said to be in another by way of property, if it is adequate and proportionate to its nature: by excess when an attribute is less than that to which it is attributed, but is possessed thereby in an eminent manner, as we have stated (Q. 13, A. 2) concerning all the names which are attributed to God: by participation, when an attribute is possessed by something not fully but partially; thus holy men are called gods by participation. Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly to name a man, we should call him a rational substance, but not an intellectual substance, which latter is the proper name of an angel; because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property, and to man by participation; nor do we call him a sensible substance, which is the proper name of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent way than to other animals.
So we must consider that in the angelic orders all spiritual perfections are common to all the angels, and that they are all more excellently in the superior than in the inferior angels. Further, as in these perfections there are grades, the superior perfection belongs to the superior order as its property, whereas it belongs to the inferior by participation; and conversely the inferior perfection belongs to the inferior order as its property, and to the superior by way of excess; and thus the superior order is denominated from the superior perfection.
So in this way Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) explains the names of the orders accordingly as they befit the spiritual perfections they signify. Gregory, on the other hand, in expounding these names (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.) seems to regard more the exterior ministrations; for he says that angels are so called as announcing the least things; and the archangels in the greatest; by the virtues miracles are wrought; by the powers hostile powers are repulsed; and the principalities preside over the good spirits themselves.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q108.A5.SC
Can you finish the passage for us here? Did the 'sons of God' come to stand before the Lord as men after death? We just need to verify context of what's being said.
| [1] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=1-#x) There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was Job, and that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil. [2] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=2-#x) And there were born to him seven sons and three daughters. [3] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=3-#x) And his possession was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a family exceeding great: and this man was great among all the people of the east. [4] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=4-#x) And his sons went, and made a feast by houses every one in his day. And sending they called their three sisters to eat and drink with them. [5] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=5-#x) And when the days of their feasting were gone about, Job sent to them, and sanctified them: and rising up early offered h0Ɩ0cαųsts for every one of them. For he said: Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts. So did Job all days. [1] "Hus": The land of Hus was a part of Edom; as appears from Lam. 4. 21.-- Ibid. [1] "Simple": That is, innocent, sincere, and without guile. [4] "And made a feast by houses": That is, each made a feast in his own house and had his day, inviting the others, and their sisters. [5] "Blessed": For greater horror of the very thought of blasphemy, the scripture both here and ver. 11, and in the following chapter, ver. 5 and 9, uses the word bless to signify its contrary. [6] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=6-#x) Now on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them. [7] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=7-#x) And the Lord said to him: Whence comest thou? And he answered and said: I have gone round about the earth, and walked through it. [8] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=8-#x) And the Lord said to him: Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a simple and upright man, and fearing God, and avoiding evil? [9] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=9-#x) And Satan answering, said: Doth Job fear God in vain? [10] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=10-#x) Hast not thou made a fence for him, and his house, and all his substance round about, blessed the works of his hands, and his possession hath increased on the earth? [6] "The sons of God": The angels.-- Ibid. Satan also, etc. This passage represents to us in a figure, accommodated to the ways and understandings of men, 1. The restless endeavours of Satan against the servants of God; 2. That he can do nothing without God's permission; 3. That God doth not permit him to tempt them above their strength: but assists them by his divine grace in such manner, that the vain efforts of the enemy only serve to illustrate their virtue and increase their merit. [11] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=11-#x) But stretch forth thy hand a little, and touch all that he hath, and see if he blesseth thee not to thy face. [12] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=12-#x) Then the Lord said to Satan: Behold, all that he hath is in thy hand: only put not forth thy hand upon his person. And Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord. [13] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=13-#x) Now upon a certain day when his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house of their eldest brother, [14] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=14-#x) There came a messenger to Job, and said: The oxen were ploughing, and the asses feeding beside them, [15] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=15-#x) And the Sabeans rushed in, and took all away, and slew the servants with the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell thee. [16] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=16-#x) And while he was yet speaking, another came, and said: The fire of God fell from heaven, and striking the sheep and the servants, hath consumed them, and I alone have escaped to tell thee. [17] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=17-#x) And while he also was yet speaking, there came another, and said: The Chaldeans made three troops, and have fallen upon the camels, and taken them, moreover they have slain the servants with the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell thee. [18] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=18-#x) He was yet speaking, and behold another came in, and said: Thy sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house of their elder brother: [19] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=19-#x) A violent wind came on a sudden from the side of the desert, and shook the four corners of the house, and it fell upon thy children and they are dead, and I alone have escaped to tell thee. [20] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=20-#x) Then Job rose up, and rent his garments, and having shaven his head fell down upon the ground and worshipped, [21] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=21-#x) And said: Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord. [22] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=20&ch=1&l=22-#x) In all these things Job sinned not by his lips, nor spoke he any foolish thing against God. |
| < previous (http://drbo.org/chapter/19001.htm) | Book of Job | next (http://drbo.org/chapter/21001.htm) > |
| < previous | Chapter 1 | next (http://drbo.org/chapter/20002.htm) > |
I see no contradiction. When we are told the "sons of God" took as wives the "daughters of man" it may have been prevalent among Seth's progeny.
I'm still on the fence on whether "sons of God" refers to the demons exclusively, or also the sons of Seth though. As both were involved in the generation of these giants.
Again, as I noted earlier in the thread, it's possible that these "sons of God' were some other unknown creatures that are referred to as angels by the correlation of this term "sons of God" with Job's definition. Yet, we also see individuals who are not pure spirits referred to as "angels" all over Scripture.On a totally unrelated and absolute sidetrack topic, when we're talking about the possibility of angels who are not pure spirits it makes me think how perfectly Tolkien captured such a nature in his Elves, who while being involved in the earth and helping men and fighting evil, also had an otherworldly feeling to them, as if they knew of their higher purpose.
On a totally unrelated and absolute sidetrack topic, when we're talking about the possibility of angels who are not pure spirits it makes me think how perfectly Tolkien captured such a nature in his Elves, who while being involved in the earth and helping men and fighting evil, also had an otherworldly feeling to them, as if they knew of their higher purpose.
Spanish Stonehenge dated at 5000 BC. This matches the EXACT time that Noah and the Giants were walking the earth. Stonehenge structures are just massive satanic sacrificial areas, built by the pagan Giants. Bible proved right again!Awesome.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/amp/spanish-stonehenge-drought/index.html
Awesome.
You should check out that episode of Ancient Aliens I shared a few pages back, that talk about the giants and megalithic structures too. Good stuff.
On a totally unrelated and absolute sidetrack topic, when we're talking about the possibility of angels who are not pure spirits it makes me think how perfectly Tolkien captured such a nature in his Elves, who while being involved in the earth and helping men and fighting evil, also had an otherworldly feeling to them, as if they knew of their higher purpose.Since you bring up elves, one school of thought says they are demonic.
dwarfs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(Germanic_mythology)), dragons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons), elves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf), fairies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy), giants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_(mythology)), gnomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome), goblins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin), griffins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffins), mermaids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid), talking animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_animals), trolls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll), unicorns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn), or witches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft), and usually magic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)) or enchantments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incantation)[Some of the other creatures in the fairy tales were pixies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixie), sprites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(folklore)) and elementals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental).]
A famous witch once made the statement “I come from a family of witches. While you were learning the 23rd Psalm, I was reading Tolkien and CS Lewis.”Generations have grown up being read to and reading Tolkien’s fiction and watching the antics of the animated fairy, Tinkerbell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_Bell_(film)). And now, generations have the idea that elves, fairies and the like, are FRIENDS of man.
—C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien: Heretical Fruits (http://libertytothecaptives.net/cslewis_fruits.html)
Yeah, it's all fascinating stuff. I think it was Anne Catherine Emmerich who said (through Brentano) that she saw these giants building such things. But what she described exceeded even the capabilities of giants, and she said they had diabolical help.I've read all 6 volumes of Anne Catherine Emmerich and nver saw anything about giants.
I've long agreed that there's simply NO WAY human beings could have built some of these meglithic structures that we could not build today even with all our machinery without some kind of preternatural intervention ... or else some technology (anti-"gravity") that we do not have today (at least in terms of what the hoi polloi (or goy) are allowed to know about).
I've read all 6 volumes of Anne Catherine Emmerich and nver saw anything about giants.
I agree with the rest of what you say.
I've read all 6 volumes of Anne Catherine Emmerich and nver saw anything about giants.Here's what I quoted.
I agree with the rest of what you say.
Here's what I quoted.Thanks DL. I'll look at my hard copy.
Here's what I quoted.Thank you DL. I found it in my copy.
4. The name of the first Jeqôn: that is, the one who led astray ⌈all⌉ the sons of God, and brought them down to the earth, and led them astray through the daughters of men. 5. And the second was named Asbeêl: he imparted to the holy sons of God evil counsel, and led them astray so that they defiled their bodies with the daughters of men.
12. And the fifth was named Kâsdejâ: this is he who showed the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away, and [the smitings of the soul] the bites of the serpent,
I've been reading the Books of Enoch and came across this in the Parables of Enoch, 69:4;
Which supports the notion that sons of God in Gen. 6:4 is referring to the sons of Seth. Where it appears here that these angels possessed these women (correlating with the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich) and then proceeded to seduce the sons of God, which were holy men, in this context, not angels, to defile these women.
Another passage of note is the following, which supports the idea that what we see today is exactly what these angels brought to corrupt mankind in those "days of Noe":
I'm not sure that leading them astray through the daughters of mean means that they possessed them or just that they used them to corrupt the sons of God.I forget where I read it, but there's a belief that Eden was on top of a mountain before the Flood and the sons of Seth lived on it near the Garden while those of Cain went to the lands below. Hence the likely embellishment of these memories into the "holy mountain" where the gods dwell, such as Olympus.
In the passage right after what you bolded "led astray [all the sons of God]", it says "and brought the down to the earth". Were these sons of Seth living up above the earth somehow?
One take is that several legions of fallen devils (giants) possessed men to sleep with the women. Men can be actively or passively possessed. We often in language supplant the figure for the reality, or the reality for the figure. We call St. Thomas the "Angel of the Schools." But he is not an angel. Christ in Holy Writ is referred to as an Angel.I thought it was because of the curse..
I remember reading Brownson and he attempted to explain dark people. He said that the third son of Noah, Ham, traveled furthest from the Ark, into Africa, where the people turned into a darker color. Promote this theory at your next biblical conference!
This is a very interesting thread regarding the giants.
It indicates they may have been born by cesarean??
I always wondered about that.
https://twitter.com/Ste87italy/status/1660322476897837065