Author Topic: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis (Read 6055 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #15 on:** August 17, 2022, 11:30:47 PM »

Quote

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:

1. Satan and those angels who rebelled against God and who were defeated by St Michael are in hell and are ALREADY JUDGED, are they not? Judgement day means nothing for them, other than their battle for earth is over.

2. In theory, those fallen angels who fell into lust (not a direct rebellion against God, like lucifer's clan) would then be chained in hell/darkness until the judgement day, because they fell AFTER earth was created; they fell AFTER time/temporal calculations existed. Therefore, judgement day would matter for them, and also it would matter for their offspring, the nephilim.

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. They are always searching for a body; searching for temporal vessels because they feel incomplete.

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's why the evil spirits try to possess animals (the pigs in Scripture who jumped off the cliff after Christ released the man from possession) and also try to possess people. I think it's these spirits who possess musicians/actors/elites and may be the answer as to why some of these people look "off" or look like clones. They've made themselves a vessel of the demonic. But that's a whole other topic.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2022, 11:32:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 17, 2022, 10:26:09 PM

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.

If you ever delve into the connections between various Indo-European (Japhite) cultures and beliefs, you'll realize that they are all speaking of the same group of "gods". And given they each have their own tales of giants fighting the gods, there's proof positive there of the effects of this angelic lust not being simply limited to giantism (in the sense of large bodies) but also the alternative meaning of "great men", which could describe the preternatural power of these angelic-human hybrids.

And this line makes me digress back to our own era which is not unlike those days of Noah Our Lord referred to, with the big push of transhumanism and genetic modification. Something that was most likely prevalent during those days, by means of unnatural procreation rather than profane science, thanks to the influence of these angelic Watchers. As it is written: "Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us." [Ecclesiastes 1:10] Perhaps you guys are onto something here, and these fallen angels are trying to finish the work they started through their minions by corrupting human nature itself?

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2022, 11:37:42 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 17, 2022, 11:30:47 PM

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...

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2022, 11:43:00 PM »

Yes, also with Our Lord giving satan "100 years" of extra-power, I would venture that hell has been "unleashed" in an unusual way than in the previous 2,000 years. But, I do think that our current demonic influence is still different/less than what the "unchaining" in the Apocalypse 9 describes. Apoc 9 describes the sky being darkened and chaos (kind of similar to many movies, ie the end of Ghostbusters). This sounds like a special "event" while our times is more like "years of influence".

Tradman · « **Reply #19 on:** August 18, 2022, 08:43:41 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 17, 2022, 09:10:22 PM

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.

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** August 18, 2022, 08:48:57 AM »

I'm not sure that St. Augustine would shy away from something just because heretics mocked the Church for it. Heretics never stop mocking the Church for one reason or another.

In the passage cited earlier, St. Augustine entertained the notion that it's not impossible for angels to have some kind of aetherial body, but he seemed to be hung up on how these angels could have fallen or succuмbed to lust when they had not been afflicted with Original Sin .. .and that was the same issue I mentioned I would be puzzled by. But perhaps there are more things in God's creation that have been "dreamt of in our philosophy".

But, if I recall from Enoch (and I'll go back to check), it sounded like their fall was related to some deliberate act of will first, and then presumably after they had fallen, they too would have been susceptible to lust.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #21 on:** August 18, 2022, 08:49:30 AM »

Quote

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?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 18, 2022, 08:52:27 AM »

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.

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #23 on:** August 18, 2022, 08:56:26 AM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** August 18, 2022, 08:59:47 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 18, 2022, 08:56:26 AM

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.

Right, and it's there in your post from Athenagoras (these are the ones that fell):

Quote

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)

So he says he has the witness of prophets. Could he have in fact been alluding to the Book of Enoch here?

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #25 on:** August 18, 2022, 09:04:11 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 18, 2022, 08:56:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Tradman on August 18, 2022, 08:43:41 AM

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.

Tradman · « **Reply #26 on:** August 18, 2022, 09:09:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 18, 2022, 08:52:27 AM

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.

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.

More to think about.

Tradman · « **Reply #27 on:** August 18, 2022, 09:09:50 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 18, 2022, 09:04:11 AM

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 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.

Everyone has brought a lot to the table. It's a very interesting subject. BTW, aren't giants supposed to return at some point?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** August 18, 2022, 09:49:36 AM »

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.

There's nothing hypothetically that would have prevented God from creating a being that was halfway between angel and human, where they had their spiritual higher faculties, and then also sensible faculties, with the difference being as their bodies were optional, where they could assume bodies and have them interact with their lower/sensible faulties. So for them having a body would not have been essential to their nature, and yet they could assume real bodies if they wanted to.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #29 on:** August 18, 2022, 09:50:07 AM »

This talk about these fallen angels obtaining corporeality, somehow, reminds me a lot of their depiction in the 2014 Noah film (which I like, despite it's environmentalist themes, so sue me

)

Author Topic: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis (Read 6055 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

DigitalLogos

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

DigitalLogos

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Pax Vobis

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Tradman

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Ladislaus

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Pax Vobis

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Ladislaus

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Pax Vobis

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Ladislaus

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

DigitalLogos

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Tradman

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Tradman

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

Ladislaus

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis

DigitalLogos

Re: Enoch, Church Fathers and the Giants of Genesis