Creation of mankind

[Jorgo Ristevski]

I wanted to ask how are there other human rases (white, black etc.)? Were there other humans created besides Adam and Eve? And what about caveman? Thanks.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

According to Genesis all nations or peoples came from Adam & Eve. Thus the point is that we all encompass each other since we share the same nature as being human. Looked at from another vantage point the differences we see in different people are inherent to each of us.

As for cavemen whatever we believe about this it is important to take account of the Patristic understanding that man was created from the beginning in the image & likeness of God. Whatever our ancient history we need also to take account of the Fall.

Something else to keep in mind is that in Genesis we see a gradual technological development & spreading of the peoples after Adam & Eve. Without becoming too doctrinaire about this in Genesis there is an unease about this 'progressive' development with a suggestion that on some level it reflects the Fall.

On the other hand God also works with the divisions created by this development among the peoples of the earth. Otherwise there would never have been a Hebrew people.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Jorgo,

Before we get to anthropology, please look over these 3 threads (http://www.monachos.net/forum/search.php?searchid=133973). I particurly liked "How old is the Earth" thread post 19.

I found these 3 by searching for dinosaurs. It was in reference to your caveman question.

We are the human race. Within it there are varied biological differences. Black, white, brown, black hair, blue eyes, big nose, little ears. etc. these are God's way of making each of us unique and distinct to each other. But we are all human.

Only a dog can mate with a dog, only a whale can mate with a whale, only a human can mate with a human. Yet within each of these species, there are very many variations. Yes, there can be "accidents" of nature (not freaks of nature) but these should not be confused with evolution or some type of missing link as since the Fall we have all been subjected to gene altering conditions. excessive heat, excessive cold, corn syrup, and all those other additives in food on the grocery store shelf.

I have never seen it suggested but I have often wondered since Adam and Eve were the first created humans and Cain was concerned with being killed after he killed Abel, if perhaps God also created other humans and populated the Earth outside paradise postfall of course. It does not mention Adam and Eve having other children until Seth, but of course either position could be true.

Paul

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Thank you.

P.S. Paul the link you posted in your post ain't working. Is the problem with my browser? Thank you anyways.

[Paul Cowan]

Sorry, I am still learning how to use the hyperlinks.

Go to the search drop down box under the "private messages" link and type in dinosaurs. 3 threads come up. From there choose "How old is the earth thread."

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Sorry, I am still learning how to use the hyperlinks.

Go to the search drop down box under the "private messages" link and type in dinosaurs. 3 threads come up. From there choose "How old is the earth thread."

No problem it's ok. Thank you.

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Didn't know where else to post this.

http://s8int.com/

Is this site where I can learn from? I know that the Bible is correct and I don't believe in evolution but if I want to explain more scientificly something about Creation should I look at this site? Thanks and forgive me coz I am stupid and evil.

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Jorgo,

First you are not supid and evil. God made you and He does not Make anything evil.

Second No, I would not classify this site as trustworthy. Highly subjectve, inquisitive and cute, yes, but theologically sound, no. The author would make a good sci-fi book from any of these topics, but since science nor man can know pre-flood or pre-antiquity, his position is purely from hs mind.

Yes, from a concensus of others with the same mind, but nothing that can truely be proven. It might make good entertainment, but don't put much stock into its authenticity.

Paul

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Thanks for your reply and advice Paul Cowan.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I would only second Paul's advice. That website sounds like the "Chariots of the Gods" craze that went on some years back. It does not take much digging to counter most of what is proclaimed as "facts" at the website. Most of it is conjecture based on flimsy, unsupported "evidence" that has already been debunked elsewhere. Fun to read if you enjoy science fiction, but nothing to base your Faith on.

[Grace McCann]

Hi Fr.Raphael,

I must have been reading to many threads any got this one confused with the topic of who did Cain & descendants marry. So my question for clarification is... in reference to "also take account of the Fall" and
"on some level it reflects the Fall". Thank you for your patience with my confusing questions.

from the heart, Grace



According to Genesis all nations or peoples came from Adam & Eve. Thus the point is that we all encompass each other since we share the same nature as being human. Looked at from another vantage point the differences we see in different people are inherent to each of us.

As for cavemen whatever we believe about this it is important to take account of the Patristic understanding that man was created from the beginning in the image & likeness of God. Whatever our ancient history we need also to take account of the Fall.

Something else to keep in mind is that in Genesis we see a gradual technological development & spreading of the peoples after Adam & Eve. Without becoming too doctrinaire about this in Genesis there is an unease about this 'progressive' development with a suggestion that on some level it reflects the Fall.

On the other hand God also works with the divisions created by this development among the peoples of the earth. Otherwise there would never have been a Hebrew people.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M. Partyka]

According to Genesis all nations or peoples came from Adam & Eve. Thus the point is that we all encompass each other since we share the same nature as being human.Fr. Raphael,

I'm curious about your choice of words here. It might just be an instant of literary flourish, but consider how the statement "feels" with the underlined part removed.

"According to Genesis all nations or peoples came from Adam & Eve. Thus we all encompass each other since we share the same nature as being human."

Phrased this way, the first sentence is a simple statement of fact, and the second sentence derives meaning from that fact.

Phrased the original way, however, the emphasis is forced onto the meaning in the second sentence, and the first sentence -- the simple statement of fact -- is devalued.

Was this an intended shift in emphasis, or am I reading too much into this?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

M. Partyka asked:


I'm curious about your choice of words here. It might just be an instant of literary flourish, but consider how the statement "feels" with the underlined part removed.

Was this an intended shift in emphasis, or am I reading too much into this?

I'm afraid that a personal trademark of mine is that over time I forget not only what I said but its meaning! It's a wonder I remember my own name anymore!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Grace McCann]

Hi Fr.Raphael,

So does your last response mean that I'm out of luck in understanding your response that I underlined in your quote....

Oh, you would have fun in my home ~ I have 1 daughter (married) , 5 sons still at home, 3 Labs, 6 cats, 16 shih tzus, a husband ~ it's lucky I can remember any of the right names half the time. LOL

from the heart, Grace



Hi Fr.Raphael,

I must have been reading to many threads any got this one confused with the topic of who did Cain & descendants marry. So my question for clarification is... in reference to "also take account of the Fall" and
"on some level it reflects the Fall". Thank you for your patience with my confusing questions.

from the heart, Grace

[M.C. Steenberg]

I'm afraid that a personal trademark of mine is that over time I forget not only what I said but its meaning! It's a wonder I remember my own name anymore!

I find this revelation extremely comforting, as it places me in good company. My own personal trademark is to forget what I said, and later to come across it distilled in someone else's writing, and disagree with it in the strongest possible terms; then later to forget that I'd disagreed, encounter my refutation in some form, and disagree with that; only later to be placed in the position of disagreeing with both myself and... myself, having long since forgotten what it was I had once believed I was talking about.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Victor Mihailoff]

I wanted to ask how are there other human rases (white, black etc.)? Were there other humans created besides Adam and Eve? And what about caveman? Thanks.
The first man and woman were genetically richer than we are today. They could give birth to every race of mankind. Even the animals were genetically richer then. That is why Noah's Arc could hold ancesters for all land animals and birds. For example, there are over 300 types of pigeons/doves in the world today but only two of them were needed on the arc to give birth to the beginnings of all the variations in the world today. The same applies to dogs and cats. Did you know that a man left his zebra in a paddock/coral with a friend's horse and a crossbreed was born. It had the strpes of one parent in parts and the pure white fur of the other as well. Then we have the big cats. Tigers and lions can give birth to cross breeds called ligers or tigons.

[Robert Hegwood]

Long ago I recall reading somewhere that St. Gregory of Nyssa speculated that mankind was created en masse like all the other creatures but one was taken aside and enbreathed with the Holy Spirit who then became Adam our first father.

St. Gregory mentioned this in the context of God not creating a dead body for Adam and then enbreathing that, rather Adam began alive prior to God giving him the Holy Spirit and thus making him in the image of God.

If this is the case it answers the question about who Adam's children married after the fall better than other models. It does however raise some questions about the relationship of Adam and his family both pre and post fall to the other "humans". What did it mean for them when Adam was set apart? What did it mean for them when he fell? Did Adam's line revert "physically" to what they were prior allowing intermarriage with others. Did this intermarriage somehow communicate the "image of Godness" that Adam's line possessed or did that pass to other human's some other way if it did at all?

Of course there is the position that Adam was a distinct special creation and the fall saw him being given garments of skin taken from some undisclosed animal which might indicate Adam and Eve were somehow "fused" united with an extant type of creature which union produced "humanity" as we know it now. This answers other questions which are posed by evolutionary theory which points to a fairly extensive line of homonids prior to homo sapiens in the fossil record.

[Nina]

Robert, regarding St. Gregory of Nyssa there is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation circulating, spread around by the heterodox. They are the ones who have wrongly attributed to him the theory of apokatastasis (restoration of all). However St. Gregory of Nyssa never stated, or implied such a theory in his writings and I do not think he would have ever said the speculation you mention "that mankind was created en masse like all the other creatures but one was taken aside and enbreathed with the Holy Spirit who then became Adam our first father". Since this statem is problematic in many levels. To name a few: 1.It denies our exclusive descendancy from Adam and Eve. 2.It would make the original sin absent.

Can you please quote the original source? (St. Gregory of Nyssa)

[Nina]

The first man and woman were genetically richer than we are today. They could give birth to every race of mankind. Even the animals were genetically richer then. That is why Noah's Arc could hold ancesters for all land animals and birds. For example, there are over 300 types of pigeons/doves in the world today but only two of them were needed on the arc to give birth to the beginnings of all the variations in the world today. The same applies to dogs and cats. Did you know that a man left his zebra in a paddock/coral with a friend's horse and a crossbreed was born. It had the strpes of one parent in parts and the pure white fur of the other as well. Then we have the big cats. Tigers and lions can give birth to cross breeds called ligers or tigons.

And I have read that the skunk was in a little boat tied up to the Arc of Noah, following it. It is a joke. :)

[M. Partyka]

...St. Gregory of Nyssa never stated, or implied such a theory in his writings and I do not think he would have ever said the speculation you mention "that mankind was created en masse like all the other creatures but one was taken aside and enbreathed with the Holy Spirit who then became Adam our first father".I agree. This theory is something I've never read in any of the Fathers from the first four centuries. (Nor is the "garments of skin" theory, for that matter.)


Long ago I recall reading somewhere...that mankind was created en masse like all the other creatures but one was taken aside and enbreathed with the Holy Spirit who then became Adam our first father....Adam began alive prior to God giving him the Holy Spirit and thus making him in the image of God. If this is the case it answers the question about who Adam's children married after the fall better than other models. It does however raise some questions about the relationship of Adam and his family both pre and post fall to the other "humans". What did it mean for them when Adam was set apart? What did it mean for them when he fell? Did Adam's line revert "physically" to what they were prior allowing intermarriage with others. Did this intermarriage somehow communicate the "image of Godness" that Adam's line possessed or did that pass to other human's some other way if it did at all?If one were to explore this approach, I think one would have to posit that all mankind was created (or evolved into beings) with the innate ability to know God, and that the fall wasn't so much a loss of this ability as it was a loss of opportunity. Adam and Eve were taken to Eden and put on the "fast track" to theosis, if you will, but Adam's sinning against God caused himself and Eve to be thrown off the "fast track" and back into the wild world outside of Eden. In a sense, through Adam and Eve, God gave man the opportunity to know Him, but man refused to come to God in God's desired way and in God's desired time. Instead, they tried to bypass God and went after the likeness of God through the forbidden tree, so God threw them out of Eden and said, "I offered you the chance to partake of Me. In my mercy, then, I will come down and partake of you, so that all who wish may partake of Me."

As a sidebar, St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes in his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching:


12. ...man, was (but) small; for he was a child; and it was necessary that he should grow, and so come to (his) perfection. And, that he might have his nourishment and growth with festive and dainty meats, He prepared him a place better than this world, excelling in air, beauty, light, food, plants, fruit, water, and all other necessaries of life: and its name is Paradise. And so fair and good was this Paradise, that the Word of God continually resorted thither, and walked and talked with the man, figuring beforehand the things that should be in the future, (namely) that He should dwell with him and talk with him, and should be with men, teaching them righteousness. But man was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected; wherefore also he was easily led astray by the deceiver....

14. And Adam and Eve--for that is the name of the woman--were naked, and were not ashamed;for there was in them an innocent and childlike mind, and it was not possible for them to conceive and understand anything of that which by wickedness through lusts and shameful desires is born in the soul. For they were at that time entire, preserving their own nature; since they had the breath of life which was breathed on their creation: and, while this breath remains in its place and power, it has no comprehension and understanding of things that are base. And therefore they were not ashamed, kissing and embracing each other in purity after the manner of children.

[Robert Hegwood]

Can you please quote the original source? (St. Gregory of Nyssa)


Nope. It is just something I remember reading a long time ago...and I think it was attributed to St. Gregory, though I'm not absolutely sure. It was attributed to a noted early saint, that much I am certain of.


"that mankind was created en masse like all the other creatures but one was taken aside and enbreathed with the Holy Spirit who then became Adam our first father". Since this statem is problematic in many levels. To name a few: 1.It denies our exclusive descendancy from Adam and Eve. 2.It would make the original sin absent.

To point 1: I'm not sure that is necessarily an intractable problem since all extant human lineage traces back to them.

To point 2. I do not see how it would make original sin absent. If Adam and Eve fell then they committed the ancestral sin that effected all creation.

[Victor Mihailoff]

[quote=Robert Hegwood;60735]Long ago I recall reading somewhere that St. Gregory of Nyssa speculated that mankind was created en masse like all the other creatures but one was taken aside and enbreathed with the Holy Spirit who then became Adam our first father.

St. Gregory mentioned this in the context of God not creating a dead body for Adam and then enbreathing that, rather Adam began alive prior to God giving him the Holy Spirit and thus making him in the image of God.

The answer to that can be found in Genesis 2:7. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

In Christ, Victor

[Yuri Zharikov]

Nope. It is just something I remember reading a long time ago...and I think it was attributed to St. Gregory, though I'm not absolutely sure. It was attributed to a noted early saint, that much I am certain of.



To point 1: I'm not sure that is necessarily an intractable problem since all extant human lineage traces back to them.

To point 2. I do not see how it would make original sin absent. If Adam and Eve fell then they committed the ancestral sin that effected all creation.

I think the argument is about nothing because it started with a false assumption - St. Gregory of Nyssa said something about creation of people en mass.
The assumption was accepted as true without checking and the argument was developed as if the assumption was actually true... but it is FALSE.
As far as relying on our memory, oftentimes it fails us more often then we think (there were some nice posts about this by Frs. Raphael and Matthew). So to give this discussion some substance we need the source - who said this when and in what context, otherwise we are talking not about fathers' opinions but about our own; since this opinion runs counter to the scripture (eg. Rom 5:12) and the very fundamentals of Christian faith, imho it makes the argument only mildly interesting and not very relevant to the forum.

Yura

[Robert Hegwood]

Well maybe someone whose memory is better or whose reading is more extensive can recall who spoke in this vein.

As for the Genesis account Victor references this is the one that the saint in question, which I believe to be St. Gregory of Nyssa...maybe another Gregory, was dealing with. He said God did not create the body of Adam dead and then breath His Spirit into Adam to enviviate him, rather, Adam was created alive and God's enbreathing in this passage was His impartation of the Spirit so that man would be the image of God.

The speculation follows from the assertion that Adam was first created alive and not just as lifeless corpse that was subsequently animated. If he was alive prior to this visitation of God's Spirit then was he created corporally just as all other creatures were as one of many who was then later set apart or was he created alone?

I'll keep looking in the meantime to see if I can find the reference.

[M. Partyka]

I think with the "Adam was one of many" scenario, we need to choose between one of two courses:

1) God directly made many humans, all in the image of God, then chose Adam to act in Eden as the representative of all humanity.

2) God directly or indirectly made animals in human form, then took one of them (Adam), breathed into him a spirit, and put him in Eden to act as the representative of all humanity.

Of these two options, I think the one more easily reconciled with Scripture is the first, as it provides for the existence of full human beings outside of Adam's immediate family from which Adam's children could find spouses for themselves.

[M.C. Steenberg]

In the above, Nina wrote:


Robert, regarding St. Gregory of Nyssa there is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation circulating, spread around by the heterodox. They are the ones who have wrongly attributed to him the theory of apokatastasis (restoration of all). However St. Gregory of Nyssa never stated, or implied such a theory in his writings and I do not think he would have ever said the speculation you mention "that mankind was created en masse like all the other creatures but one was taken aside and enbreathed with the Holy Spirit who then became Adam our first father". Since this statem is problematic in many levels. To name a few: 1.It denies our exclusive descendancy from Adam and Eve. 2.It would make the original sin absent.

Can you please quote the original source? (St. Gregory of Nyssa)

Of course, you also should provide a source! St Gregory of course does speak about the possible salvation of all; it is not the case that this is a 'heterodox reading' of his works: it is a reading of what he actually writes. It is authentic to say that St Gregory does not mean by it what others in history have meant by it (e.g. it is not linked into a pre-cosmic 'fall of souls' as in Origin; it is not linked to an insistence that God will restore all, thus denying freedom, etc.); but it is not correct to deny that he spoke about it!

In any case, that isn't the main focus of this thread. As to the matter of the creation of man more directly: St Gregory speaks of a 'double creation' of man, first as ungendered and secondly as gendered; but I do not know, Robert, of any passage in his works that reflects what you note.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Nina]

Of course, you also should provide a source!

A source:


St Gregory of course does speak about the possible salvation of all [...] [St. Gregory's theology] (it is not linked to an insistence that God will restore all)

I am sorry, but the point about apokatastasis (on which we both agree) was not meant as a diversion, but it was meant as an indication about the various speculations and misinterpretations that exist in the non-Orthodox exegesis of St. Gregory's treatises.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I am sorry, but the point about apokatastasis (on which we both agree) was not meant as a diversion, but it was meant as an indication about the various speculations and misinterpretations that exist in the non-Orthodox exegesis of St. Gregory's treatises.

We must be very careful making claims about 'the non-Orthodox exegesis of St. Gregory's treatises'. This issue is not an example of that, so far as I can tell, because it is most clearly a present issue in his writings. Moreover, it is also an issue commented on and studied / exegeted by Orthodox theologians and writers, as much as by non-Orthodox.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Kornelius]

As to the matter of the creation of man more directly: St Gregory speaks of a 'double creation' of man, first as ungendered and secondly as gendered; but I do not know, Robert, of any passage in his works that reflects what you note.Dcn Matthew

Dear Fr. Matthew,

Yes, it is true that St. Gregory concludes that the creation of our nature is in a sense twofold. I agree with you father, that there is a difference, however, between this twofoldness and what Robert is saying below.


Long ago I recall reading somewhere that St. Gregory of Nyssa speculated that mankind was created en masse like all the other creatures but one was taken aside and enbreathed with the Holy Spirit who then became Adam our first father.

Let me explain Robert. The twofoldness in creation does not refer to a distinct human/intelligent creation apart from Adam, (as Roberts thinks), but rather to the rational and irrational in us. The rational in us contemplates the Divine and incorporeal nature of God. Likewise God in Whom there is no gender, ("In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female" Gal. 3. 28), so our rational side does not admit the distinction between male and female. On the other hand, the irrational, our bodily form is divided into male and female. That is why in Genesis (see below) we find two distinct references about creation of man. They refer, once again to the rationality and irrationality in our nature.


In the image of God created He him (Gen.1. 27)


Male and female created He them. (Gen. 1. 27)

Exegeting these two quotations, St. Gregory says:


Thus the creation of our nature is in a sense twofold: one made like God, one divided according to this distinction [male and female]...I think that by these words Holy Scripture conveys to us a great and lofty doctrine; and the doctrine is this. While two natures - the Divine and incorporeal nature, and the irrational life of brutes - are separated from each other as extremes, human nature is the mean between them: for in the compound nature of man we may behold a part of each of the natures I have mentioned, - of the Divine, the rational and intelligent element, which does not admit the distinction of male and female; the irrational, our bodily form and structure, divided into male and female. St. Gregory of Nyssa On the Making of Man.

Going back to Robert's post, I would like to point out what St. Gregory means by creation en masse. You are right Robert, he does speak of that, but it does not refer to a distinct creation apart from Adam and Eve, but rather to the timeless, diachronic, and eschatological character of the creation. Let me explain. St. Gregory said that "...in the Divine foreknowledge and power all humanity is included in the first creation." In other words, even future generations of mankind (us for example) are priviledged to have been created at that same moment with Adam and Eve, potentially that is, and then born of their descendancy (Adam's and Eve's) in our time.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Well maybe someone whose memory is better or whose reading is more extensive can recall who spoke in this vein.

As for the Genesis account Victor references this is the one that the saint in question, which I believe to be St. Gregory of Nyssa...maybe another Gregory, was dealing with. He said God did not create the body of Adam dead and then breath His Spirit into Adam to enviviate him, rather, Adam was created alive and God's enbreathing in this passage was His impartation of the Spirit so that man would be the image of God.

The speculation follows from the assertion that Adam was first created alive and not just as lifeless corpse that was subsequently animated. If he was alive prior to this visitation of God's Spirit then was he created corporally just as all other creatures were as one of many who was then later set apart or was he created alone?

I'll keep looking in the meantime to see if I can find the reference.

You see, there is no and cannot be "firsts" and "thens" in individual acts of creation for God does not create in time but with the time (otherwise He would be a mere demiurge). Time is a creature just like anything else and while we, people, need it to "create" something, He does not. The images of creation of man given in the Book of Genesis depicting God as if taking time, thought and effort to create man are simply meant to convey the idea of uniqueness of man as a part of creation and a unique dispensation about him. Bringing something into existence per se occurs outside of time, time begins with completion (so to speak) of a creative act. Thus both with creatures other than man and man, their creation to a human eye would look like a blink of an eye event. Plants are not there, you blink, and exuberance of plant life covers the whole earth, etc.
So St. Basil in Hexamaeron says: Therefore for us to understand that the world is created by Divine will not in time, it is said: in the beginning God made. To expound upon this ancient exegetes, expressing the idea more clearly, said: instantaneously God made, that is abruptly and instantly.
Bl. Agustin (do not know the source) said: God creates with the time, not in time.
Likewise St. John of Damascus in the Exact Exposition of Faith (book 2) states: Further, body and soul were formed at one and the same time, not first the one and then the other, as Origen so senselessly supposes.

in the Lord,
Yura

[Victor Mihailoff]

Thus both with creatures other than man and man, their creation to a human eye would look like a blink of an eye event. Plants are not there, you blink, and exuberance of plant life covers the whole earth, etc.
So St. Basil in Hexamaeron says: Therefore for us to understand that the world is created by Divine will not in time, it is said: in the beginning God made. To expound upon this ancient exegetes, expressing the idea more clearly, said: instantaneously God made, that is abruptly and instantly.
Bl. Agustin (do not know the source) said: God creates with the time, not in time.
Likewise St. John of Damascus in the Exact Exposition of Faith (book 2) states: Further, body and soul were formed at one and the same time, not first the one and then the other, as Origen so senselessly supposes.

in the Lord,
Yura

The glorious appearing of the Lord, the general judgment, and the end of the natural world are events which will take place almost simultaneously. They are described primarily in the 24th and 25th chap*ters of Matthew, in the third chapter of II Peter, and in the last pages of Revelation, which is first and foremost the book of eschatology.

Time began at some point, and accordingly at some point time will cease. For, as we are taught by the God-enlightened St. John of Damascus, after the general resurrection and the universal judgment, time will no longer be counted in days and nights; there will be “rather one unending day”. “Time will not exist then, but creation will be maintained” under a different form of course. “The created world can exist even in a state of ‘not in time’. Creation began, but will not cease to be!” The soul and the angelic beings have a beginning, but do not have an end, as St. Gregory of Nazianzos theologizes. Consequently, as Fr. Georges Florovsky writes, “it is possible to liken creation to a geometrically stretched band of rays or semi-direct lines, which from their source or at least from their initial point extend into infinity”. The world was created ex nihilo with the omnipotent word of God, “Let there be” [Gen. 1:3]. It began at some point. But “the word of God goes out, but does not pass away”. The God-inspired Apostle affirmed that “the word of the Lord abides forever” [I Pet. 1:25], and the life to which this word of God regenerates us is one eternal life. Moreover, God “created all things that they might exist” [Wis. Sol. 1:14]. “He did not create them for ‘a while’, but for always. With His creative word God brought creation into being for always”. Also, “there is no plan to recall this creative decision” of the omnipotent God. Consequently, “the world has a contingent beginning, but not an end. There is grace in the irrevocable will of God". (An Orthodox Survival Guide for the 21st Century)

Under the Lord's protection, Victor

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


I wanted to ask what about caveman? Thanks.I scanned the posts and do not think I saw the words caveman or cavemen. I may be wrong and missed it.

I once bought a booklet from an Orthodox church bookstore that gave an explanation for cavemen.

It said that throughout history there have been small groups of people that did not want to do their share of work in society, so they moved out of the mainstream and moved into caves (so they would not need to build houses). They were too lazy to plant crops and basically just hunted, fished and gathered wild food like nuts and berries.

They had alot of spare time, so they did much painting on the walls of their caves because they could not be bothered to make a canvas. Their contemporaries could have already had the use of iron and factories but they used what they could find in the wilderness for free.

Even in the 20th Century there were cultures similar to cavemen but they found a way to live in houses for free by squatting. There were the Beetniks and Hippies for example. Punks also learn to live without a job but now society supports our modern "cavemen" in many developed countries through social welfare.

The booklet said that God still looked after them. If they wanted to live like animals at least God would give them survival features too. So He darkened their skin and made their brows to bulge over their eyes for prtection against the sun's rays. He made their hair coarse and wiry so that it would not easily fall out, leaving their heads unprotected. He gave them excellent three-D memories so that they would not get lost. They could remember every tree, stream, hill and rock they saw on their treks. But their memory for symbols and numbers was poor because they no could longer read or use basic arithmatic becaue none of them trained to be teachers.

The point I am trying to make is that cavemen were not prehistoric men, but just dropouts from society.

In Christ - Rusty

[Father David Moser]

I once bought a booklet from an Orthodox church bookstore that gave an explanation for cavemen.
...

The point I am trying to make is that cavemen were not prehistoric men, but just dropouts from society.

Now that's an interesting conjecture that I have never heard before. Can you tell us who wrote this booklet and did the author refer to any sources - or was it just a personal opinion?

Fr David Moser

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Now that's an interesting conjecture that I have never heard before. Can you tell us who wrote this booklet and did the author refer to any sources - or was it just a personal opinion?

Fr David Moser If I said I read it in a booklet and you call it "an interesting conjecture" and ask me "was it just a personal opinion?" What does that indicate you to be implying?

It is a small booklet and does not use a bibliography but there is a source cited in the little chapter on this topic. It is (Job 30).

I just borrowed a copy of the booklet and found that it is written by a professor of Theology and Old Testament, but I do not know your motive exactly. So, I'll keep that to myself for the time being.

Why did I have to borrow a copy you ask? I gave away all of the copies I bought years ago to people who asked questions about the topic of the booklet and to family members who do not attend church services. I gave them copies of the NT and little prayer books also.

Besides, the booklet is too old for evolutionists. It was published decades ago. Evolution has evolved again since then. Too old, as you said in another voice about Fr Seraphim Rose being reposed since 1982 and not a suitable source for debate against modern evolution.

(Mat. 21:24-27) The creation of life, whence was it? From God's Word alone or from that plus the activity of a scientific theory not introduced in the words of Genesis? Answer me that clearly and openly first and I will answer your other question.

Rostilav Koolikov +

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Please let's get back to a Patristic discussion of the topic of this thread.

Many thanks.

The Management.

[Father David Moser]

If I said I read it in a booklet and you call it "an interesting conjecture" and ask me "was it just a personal opinion?" What does that indicate you to be implying?

I imply nothing - I only said that what you state is a unique position that I have not previously encountered and so I was curious as to how the author came by this opinion. You state that the booklet is quite old - "too old for evolutionists" and therefore there are a whole host of questions that arise for me. Is this something that was published with the imprimatur of the Church censor? Is it something that was found in a religious newspaper and reprinted? Is it something that was previously set aside by the Church but revived by a modern publisher who had an agenda? Just because someone printed a booklet of an old article doesn't make that booklet any more authoritative than an old Superman comic book or some protestant tract. I am simply asking for some authentication or verification of the theory you present.

As for your question - I suspect that if you read back on this topic in the various posts that have been been made, you will find an answer to your question. You seem to be quite insistent on the literal interpretation of Genesis without any addition of "outside" theories - and yet your "caveman" theory is far far outside anything that can be found in Genesis.

This whole post comes back to the admonition made at the end of the "creation/evolution" thread. If you are going to insist on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, please back it up with patristic sources. If you are going to insist on a non-literal/symbolic interpretation of the Genesis account, please back it up with patristic sources. An anonymous booklet printed by who knows who written by someone we don't know is not an authoritative source (even if it was sold in a Church bookstore).

Fr David Moser

[Yuri Zharikov]

Every theory before it is corroborated by evidence is conjecture - this is according to Karl Popper.

The difficulty with the question at hand is three-fold. One, what is a cave man? A man living in a cave? The term itself is from the Darwinist vocabulary of the mid-XIX c and it has a very strong evolutionist smell to it. To get at the issue I will venture to define it as the Neanderthal Man, that is a type of ancient people defined by a suite of archaeological artifacts. We can now pose the question as follows: is the Neanderthal Man different from us, that is is there such a separate biological entity as the Neanderthal/cave man? This leads us to two hypotheses.
Ho = no difference
Ha = difference

The null hypothesis of no difference is accepted by default unless it can be conclusively shown that the alternative hypothesis is true. If you are surprised, this is how the scientific hypothesis testing operates (I will again refer the interested parties to Karl Popper)

What evidence do we have on purported differences between the Neanderthal vs modern-type men? Most of the information has already been laid out in the mitochondrial Eve post (evolution/creation thread), namely C-14 dating shows considerable temporal overlap between the two types; morphological data (bones) shows strong regional/climatic similarities. Finally, DNA-extraction methods from ancient tissues have been developed. A recent review of 44 scientific papers addressing the question of genetic differences between the Neanderthal and modern-type men, concludes that data are inconclusive viz their relative biological status (I can provide a reference but it is in Russian). So given this, we cannot accept Ha and thus Ho (no difference) hypothesis stands. For all we know these were simply different races or populations.

Difficulty two is related to Patristic evidence. Many Fathers lived in caves themselves and so were cavemen and women by definition. Barbarian nations around them in many cases led similar life-styles. To apply the term in a Patristic context is thus not very meaningful. Still the idea of a cave-man implies or presupposes an biological ancestor of the modern man and I understand it is the connotation in which the issue came up here.

Is there anything that the Fathers and the Church can say about there being humans other than us? TONNES. The Oktoikh has 80 references to Adam and Eve as real historical figures and/or first humans (e.g. Sunday, 1st tone, 1st song of the Resurrection canon, 1st troparion; Sunday, 8th tone, 6th song of the Cross canon, 1st troparion). The Lenten Triodeon makes 60 similar references (e.g. Lord, I have cried out to Thee, 2nd stichera, Thu of the 2nd week; Stavro-Theotokion of the stikhovnya (?) of the Matins, Wed, 3rd week). Opening St. John Chrysostom's sermon on marriage (C.P. Roth & D. Anderson. 1986. St. John Chrysostom. On Marriage and Family Life. ST. Vladimir's Press, p 94) we read:

We must love our wife not only because she is a part of ourselves and had the beginning of her creation from us, but also because God made a law about this when He said: For this reason man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife...

This leads us to the third difficulty, namely why do we appeal to the Fathers at all? On a parallel thread we were encouraged to provide Patristic testimony on creation. This was done. As a result, a very pointed question was asked: does the testimony represent the Orthodox faith. The discussion just fell silent and no answer was given. (Fr. Raphael, I am very sorry, but to say that Patristic evidence is "very Patristic" did not help). So what this means? Perhaps unjustifiably, I thought that appeals to Patristics evidence were meant to bring us to consensus and help us align our ideas along the Patristic, no - along Orthodox, lines. Is it really the case or we are simply sifting through Fathers to see if perchance they will agree with us. And when they do not we just say 'so what' and move to a different thread?

I am just genuinely trying to understand, so please forgive me if my questions are offensive or unjust.

With love in the Lord,
Yuri

[Eugenia P.]

I have a question that may be a little off topic, but hopefully not too much. In my reading the other day in Genesis VI it mentions the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men. I was curious about this distinction as it is mentioned a couple of times (verses 2-5).

[Yuri Zharikov]

I have a question that may be a little off topic, but hopefully not too much. In my reading the other day in Genesis VI it mentions the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men. I was curious about this distinction as it is mentioned a couple of times (verses 2-5).

The difference between the lineages of Seth (sons of God) and Cain (daughters of men) is meant. I do not have a Patristic quote handy but this is a very common exegesis.

[Yuri Zharikov]

St. Ephraim the Syrian (On Paradise). The family if the two brothers became divided: Cain went away <...> to live in the land of Nod, lower than the places where the families of Seth and Enos dwelt. But the descendants of those who dwelt above and were called the sons of God abandoned their land, went down and entered into marriage with the daughters of men, the daughters of those who dwelt below.

[Robert Hegwood]

I've heard this explanation before and I don't think there is a concensus among the saints that is indeed the correct interpretation. It doesn't make sense to me for two reasons. 1. the children of these unions were supposed to have been giants...or whatever nefelim were supposed to be...something not man or men in any conventional sense. The book of Enoch which is honored as Scripture among the Ethiopian Copts describes these beings in terms much like that of the great giants of Norse mythology...mountain sized creatures. If it was just one tribe of men with a holy tradition mingling with another tribe with a corrupt tradition, then while still spiritually tragic, it does not produce some other kind of being than men, for better or for worse.

2. This type of thing is supposed to have happened twice, once before and once after the flood. The "sons of God" as descendants of Seth would only be Noah and his family and even when Noah cursed Ham for his indiscretion there was no indication that humanity got suddenly subdivided in the same preflood dicotomies.....Ham and sons were still human as were Noah and the rest, and that lapse of one family into sinful ways does not explain the supposed descendants of this second occasion that we meet in the time of David, namely Goliath and his six brothers...six fingered giants.

The sons of God as children of Seth is certainly an old interpretation and it preexisted the Christian community and was held by certain groups of rabbis...but it raises at least as many questions as it answers, and it never seems to have ever gained much traction either before or after Christ, though it has never been eliminated or discounted either.

Right now I would rather say we don't know exactly who the sons of God were or where they were from than to reach for too fascile or too fantastic an explanation to have all the loose threads neatly bundled up.

[Eugenia P.]

Thank you for the responses, and please forgive me for my lack of knowledge. Your responses have triggered more questions though, and I beg your patience.

The difference between the lineages of Seth (sons of God) and Cain (daughters of men) is meant. I do not have a Patristic quote handy but this is a very common exegesis.
I notice that in Genesis IV with the birth of Cain, Eve says she has gained a man through God. Of course obviously Cain's murdering his brother occured after this, but the interesting part is that in Genesis V it says that Adam begat a son after his own form, and after his own image, and this of course was Seth. I'm not sure of the implications, especially with the explanation I've quoted. If it's too in-depth to get into here and someone can recommend a book, I'd be open to that. Normally I would just read right through these passages without a second thought, but since I found this thread I thought I could gain some understanding of it all.

[M. Partyka]

According to the New Testament book of Jude, the "sons of God" were indeed fallen angels who had sired giants by mortal women.


Jude 1:6-8 -- And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities....And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."The words that St. Jude attributes to Enoch come from the apochryphal Book of Enoch (Ethopian translation used here):


Enoch 2:1 -- Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.It is from this apocryphal Book of Enoch that St. Jude also gets his example of "the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation" whom God "hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day":


Enoch 7:1-3,10-12 -- It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, "Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children."...Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. And the women conceiving brought forth giants, whose stature was each three hundred cubits.

Enoch 10:6-9,15-16 -- ...the Lord said to Raphael, "Bind Azazyel hand and foot; cast him into darkness; and opening the desert which is in Dudael, cast him in there. Throw upon him hurled and pointed stones, covering him with darkness; there shall he remain for ever; cover his face, that he may not see the light. And in the great day of judgment let him be cast into the fire."...To Michael likewise the Lord said,..."bind them for seventy generations underneath the earth, even to the day of judgment, and of consummation, until the judgment, the effect of which will last for ever, be completed. Then shall they be taken away into the lowest depths of the fire in torments; and in confinement shall they be shut up for ever.

Enoch 12:5-6;15:2 -- Then the Lord said to me: "Enoch, scribe of righteousness, go tell the Watchers of heaven, who have deserted the lofty sky, and their holy everlasting station, who have been polluted with women, and have done as the sons of men do, by taking to themselves wives, and who have been greatly corrupted on the earth....'Wherefore have you forsaken the lofty and holy heaven, which endures for ever, and have lain with women; have defiled yourselves with the daughters of men; have taken to yourselves wives; have acted like the sons of the earth, and have begotten an impious offspring?'"Taking into account these quotes from the Book of Enoch, and looking back at the quote from St. Jude, note how the crime of the angels and the crime of Sodom and Gomorrah are similar: both the angels and the Sodomites "gave themselves over to fornication" and "went after strange flesh".

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


According to the New Testament book of Jude, the "sons of God" were indeed fallen angels who had sired giants by mortal women.

The words that St. Jude attributes to Enoch come from the apochryphal Book of Enoch (Ethopian translation used here):

It is from this apocryphal Book of Enoch that St. Jude also gets his example of "the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation" whom God "hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day":

Taking into account these quotes from the Book of Enoch, and looking back at the quote from St. Jude, note how the crime of the angels and the crime of Sodom and Gomorrah are similar: both the angels and the Sodomites "gave themselves over to fornication" and "went after strange flesh".I can only find the quote of St (Jude 1:6-8) in my KJV Bible with Apochrypha. In it there is no book of Enoch, neither in the OT nor in the Apochrypha.

The quote from (Jude 1:6-8) refers to angels in chains. These are fallen angels, demons. But they also have no sons or daughters, childbirth being an impossible feat for them. The beings committing acts of fsexual imorality are the citizens of Sodom and Gomorah who are not angels or demons but only compared to fallen angels in their own fallen state of depravity and said to receive the same condemnation as the "fallen angels".

What version of the Bible did you use that tells of angels committing crimes, committing fornication (without bodies?) and siring giant babies? Giants are mentioned in the Bible for expressing two types of descriptions:

Actual physical giants like Goliath of Gath, his king and his fellow citizens.

And the word "giant" used figuratively as in "He was a giant to his people." Such as men of renoun who were called "great" and "giants". A giant of medicine, art, politics, education etc.

Angels, even fallen ones, cannot fornicate. Fallen angels (demons) can only participate in fornication by tempting humans to sin and being in contact with their souls so as to enjoy the pleasure through the human body's pleasures that filter into the soul.

Perhaps you have a Bible version which differs extremely from the KJV and the Orthodox version. I am interested in knowing its name.

I think that there must be a misinterpretation of scripture in that version, which is quite common with modern versions of the Bible that had no saints involved in their interpretation of text. Remember, the Septuagint was translated by 70 pious believers who prayed for divine assistance. Miraculously, all seventy translations were identical, word for word. That does not happen today with new versions of the Bible. Errors abound.

See (Luke 20:36) where both angels and children of God are mentioned. They are like angels but not sons of them.

I could not find the phrase "sons of heaven" in any concordance. Sons of God, yes. That is not to say that there does not exist one that has it, but not based on the KJV as far as I can see.

If we look back at post No. 39 in this thread, we can read,
The difference between the lineages of Seth (sons of God) and Cain (daughters of men) is meant. I do not have a Patristic quote handy but this is a very common exegesis.This quote expresses my understanding of the Jude passage and that of the Orthodox theologians' works I have read.

Because Seth remained faithful and was the son of Adam who was also called the son of God (Luk. 3:38) whereas Cain was not faithful but the first physical murderer of all time. He was considered the son of man's fallen state even though Seth was also born after the fall but retained a faithfulness to God's will and obeyed Adam, his father. Hence, Cain, the son of man.

My KJV Apochrypha does not contain the quotes you posted nor a book of Enoch. There were many candidate books for the Bible's inclusion. Many were falsely attributed to Apostles other than those already included as evangelists and Epistle authors. Some attributed to St mary Magdalene and Judas Ischariot. But the books of the Apochrypha were considered more likely to be genuine (though not always absolutely accepted as such) yet not included in the Bible for economy of pages and a lessening degree of importance. An economy observed in the NT also as St John the beloved of Christ stated, (John 21:25).


Towards the Resurection day of our Lord, James

[Father David Moser]

My KJV Apochrypha does not contain the quotes you posted nor a book of Enoch.

The book of Enoch is a relatively well known and easily obtained book. It is part of the pseudopigrapha (not part of the "deuterocanonical" books that make up what we frequently refer to as the "apocrypha" and which are actually the difference between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts). Here is a quote that describes the origin of the pseudopigraphal books.


For centuries among the Jews writers sought to shelter themselves behind the names of the great dead. In this they were guilty of no fraud. They imagined what Solomon or Enoch would say, or sing, upon a particular theme under given circumstances. It was not really they themselves, but their Solomon, their Enoch, Solomon or Enoch in them, who utter the new prophesies or temple praises.

Thus arose that body of literature, called by modern scholars, "Pseudopigrapha," that is, writings erroneously, unhistorically, and yet sincerely, ascribed to heroic figures ...

taken from the introduction to The Forgotten Books of Eden


These pseudopigraphal writings served in a way as scripture commentaries or as a way of giving voice to the various ideals brought to life by the reading of the scripture. These writings were just as integral to the societal and religious structure of the Jews in the time of Christ as the actual scriptures themselves. If you want to read these books, the above cited volume is fairly easily obtained (at least it used to be). I have had a couple of copies over the years and have seen it in various used book stores as well as some of the larger book sellers.

Fr David Moser

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


The book of Enoch is a relatively well known and easily obtained book. It is part of the pseudopigrapha (not part of the "deuterocanonical" books that make up what we frequently refer to as the "apocrypha" and which are actually the difference between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts). Here is a quote that describes the origin of the pseudopigraphal books.



These pseudopigraphal writings served in a way as scripture commentaries or as a way of giving voice to the various ideals brought to life by the reading of the scripture. These writings were just as integral to the societal and religious structure of the Jews in the time of Christ as the actual scriptures themselves. If you want to read these books, the above cited volume is fairly easily obtained (at least it used to be). I have had a couple of copies over the years and have seen it in various used book stores as well as some of the larger book sellers.

Fr David MoserThank Fr David, for this speedy reply to my request.

I will search the web for passages from this reference of interest you have given to me and the forum. It is my good fortune that both you and Mr. Partyka have a similar reading list.

In Christ the Provider, James

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Thank Fr David, for this speedy reply to my request.

I will search the web for passages from this reference of interest you have given to me and the forum. It is my good fortune that both you and Mr. Partyka have a similar reading list.

In Christ the Provider, James Greetings to all.

I have just performed a quick Google search and this is a popular website which has the url below.

http://instructor.prairie.edu/StevenIbbotson/RevScrip/NonCanon.html

For those interested, it gives a concise overview of the good and bad in these books. Once again thanks to M. Partyka/Fr. David Moser.

James

[M.C. Steenberg]

The book of Enoch is of course very well known to anyone who reads the early fathers seriously, since it was known to many of them, and they read it and many quoted from it, and offered points of commentary drawn from it. Its comments on the angelic rebellion in particlar, form part of the commentaries of many fathers.

I would caution againts reacting in an empassioned way about aspects of a subject with which one is not familiar.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

As to the specific question that has been asked above, regarding angels fornicating with humans and producing 'giants' as the offspring of these illicit unions (nephalim) -- though I cannot quite tell if the question was posed in a genuine desire to learn, or simply as an argumentative challenge -- this view is explicitly stated by, for example, St Irenaios.

[Kosta]

Many see a reference to cavemen and other neanderthals in the quote about the Nephilim, "...the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown." (Gen 6.4).

While all men are descended from Adam and Eve, there is a 'bottleneck' within human creation. All men are descended after the flood thru the lineage of Noahs sons'.

Its unlikely , pretty much impossible, that the sons of God were angels who basically fell in love with human women.
First off, angels cannot incarnate into flesh, They only 'appear' to take on various forms.
Secondly even if they could take on human features there offspring would not be able to procreate, as scripture says, the coupling of animated life forms are "after their own kind"(gen 6.20, 7.14). Likewise when you mate a donkey with a horse , the mule can no longer procreate.
Thirdly Christ said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven." This contradicts Gen 6.2 if one interprets the sons of God as angels marrying human women. One would even have to conclude that all men were not descended from Adam but are hybrids from spiritual beings.

The most logical conclusion is that either they were the the descendants of Seth mating with the offspring of Cain.
Or the sons of God, are a reference to a primitive royal lineage of kings and princes (in ancient times royal persons were considered either as gods or anointed by them) who took as many wives as they wanted, introducing polygamy and bearing many illegitimate children which lead to extreme poverty among these bastard offspring.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


As to the specific question that has been asked above, regarding angels fornicating with humans and producing 'giants' as the offspring of these illicit unions (nephalim) -- though I cannot quite tell if the question was posed in a genuine desire to learn, or simply as an argumentative challenge -- this view is explicitly stated by, for example, St Irenaios.The question -"What version of the Bible did you use that tells of angels committing crimes, committing fornication (without bodies?) and siring giant babies?" was posed regarding post 43. Fr David already answered it.

I would like to say, however, that the Holy Spirit is the best guide for spiritual reading. He guides those who love Him to the books written according to His will.

Remember the head demon who described his tactics to the abbot succeeder of St Paisius Velichkovsy? He said, "I write books too. Why don't they read my books?"

By the way, Kosta. I like your post. No less than 4 Biblical quotes help get the spiritual message across very well.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Kosta and others,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree with your sentiments: talk of angels consorting with humans challenges the incarnational notion of human existence, and indeed (in addition to the points you raised) presents great troubles in Christological confession - in engaging with the unique mystery of the becoming-human of the eternal Son. It has clearly never been the widespread teaching of the Church. However, it is interesting to note that a number of the fathers do speak expressly about it, particularly in the earlier period, which shows the dynamic of interpretation of this mysterious passage in the scriptures. Partly because the book of Enoch (together with a few others) were in widespread circulation, and for a great deal of time held of high authority by most of the Church, its speculations on various aspects of cosmic beginnings formed part of the scriptural matrix of the early fathers. Response to some of these views formed part of the refinements of the fifth-seventh centuries.

INXC, Dcn Matthew