Quote
JET said:
First, I am not defending the view that (fallen) angels directly corrupted the human race in Genesis 6. There is a reasonable argument to be made though, that they were indirectly involved (through possession of men).

I have heard this argument before ... using the two texts in Matthew and Mark as "absolute proof" that angels were not involved in the Genesis 6 corruption. However, Jesus only says that the angels in heaven are not involved in marriage unions. I think these texts are far too weak to hang the label of "infallible proof" against the argument put forth in the Genesis 6 context.

JET first ypu must prove through scripture that the term "the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose." means that fallen angels possessed men for the purpose of sexual congress. In fact if you read about the various acts of possession that are recorded in scripture it is unlikely that they would behave in a manner that would induce daughters of men to allow themselves to be married off.

Second that theory still preposes that this possession somehow corrupts the genetics of man so that the line of the messiah would contain something other than human genes. And I am writing this as someone who has been taught this very thing in Sunday School. Which I have totally rejected having seen the truth presented by the Pilgrim and others when it comes to the godly line of Seth and Cain.

Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo