Just to follow up on this, my understanding from 2-3 different sources is that St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco was a significant figure who specifically transmitted this view among people in modern America.
Doctrine & Theology Orthodox eschatology (end of times)
- Thread starter Roosh
- Start date
Just to follow up on this, my understanding from 2-3 different sources is that St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco was a significant figure who specifically transmitted this view among people in modern America.
This is a great listen/read on the nephilim:
A Land of Giants - The Lord of Spirits | Ancient Faith Ministries
There are giants in the Bible. Many Christians have tried to explain them away, ignore them, or treat them as mere metaphors. But the Orthodox Church takes giants seriously. Join Fr. Stephen De Young and Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick as they venture into the ancient Land of Giants and discuss why...www.ancientfaith.com
Here is an article on the Orthodox position on millennialism:
Fr. John Whiteford. If Satan is Alive, Why Not Millennialism?
orthochristian.com
I would be careful about Lord of Spirits's take on the Nephilim.
Fr. Seraphim Rose, in Genesis, Creation, and Early Man taught that the Nephilim are NOT demonic beings, but rather the sons of Cain who fell away from God through their own evil choices. Fr. Seraphim backs this up with Patristic sources.
Keep in mind that Lord of Spirits is a production of Ancient Faith, an organization with an apparently ambivalent view of the holy fathers and their teachings.
I agree with Fr. Seraphim, adding on that St. John of Damascus mentioned that angelic beings (good and evil alike) do not have material bodies and cannot interact with earthly beings in a conventional physical manner.
With that being said, I would also add that I have heard a new ("centrist") interpretation, which I would paraphrase as: "The Nephilim were born from humans who consented to demonic rituals during the creation of children, leading to demonic possession" -- which is theoretically compatible with both views. In other words, we might say that the sons of Cain were normal humans who were in communion with demons, leading to this outcome.
As a Christian-orthodox theologian I can confirm this is what I was told, discussing with our lector of Old Testament at Faculty of Theology of Bucharest. Despite the fact that at the beginnings some commentators of the book of Genesis implied that Nephilim would be descendants of demons , later, the consensus of holy fathers of the Church was that `sons of God` means not angels or demons but descendants of Seth and `sons of man` means descendants of Cain. And because the `sons of God` ,who had a different position regarding honoring God in opposition with descendants of Cain, chose beauty of apostate women instead of continuing the Tradition, the offspring, as a punishment from God, had in they the sign of apostasy, being giants (Nephilims).
Our lector said to me when I questioned him, that demons can`t have offspring, would contradict Dogmatic. And I can add this: God didn`t create man and woman to be let at the mercy of demons who, indeed, can create instant material appearances, which aren`t in fact real bodies. Demons can have so much power over humans how much humans give to them. And regarding seducing of a woman by a demon who took a body of an attractive man this isn`t impossible but is possible only with the consent of the woman completely aware of what is happening. Otherwise God doesn`t allow it.
Yes, it does not seem to me that Eusebius has reviewed all that Fr. Stephen and Fr. Andrew has said on this topic, since they provide no contradiction from what I've heard and studied.
This interpretation is what the Ancient Faith priests teach, however I am far from an expert to be able to say whether they are on point or not, it does seem like an ultimately mysterious topic that we don't really *need* to know too many details about, personally I do have a curious streak but we'll probably never know the answers in this life. But as you & the other gentleman above say, the consistent teaching is that angels / demons cannot directly procreate with humans in any way.
I have listened to Fr. Stephen De Young's podcast, and it contradicts what Fr. Seraphim Rose teaches.
There are three problems with this:
1. Demonic possession does not automatically condemn a person. St. Gregory of Palamas teaches that there is a worse condition than demonic possession: knowingly turning one's back on God, which is what the sons of Cain did. Fr. Spyridon goes into details here.
2. This ties into point 1, above. The suggestion in the 'centrist's' interpretation is that there is no room for free choice or grace. The children born from the demonic ritual necessarily must be condemned, despite having no choice in the matter -- according to this view.
3. There is no Patristic support for the centrist position. Fr. Seraphim Rose, in citing the Patristic sources, makes zero mention of demonic rituals -- if they were crucial to this story, we would have evidence from the holy fathers.
Even if Fr. Stephen's interpretation did not contradict the holy fathers, it would need to be presented with the qualification that it is Fr. Stephen's private view, and not what the Church teaches. However, neither of the Lord of Spirits hosts make this distinction. This in itself is dangerous.
Last edited:
You're going to have a hard time explaining the man of lawlessness, then. As such, we are just talking about scale, and not a suggestion of no room. Did anyone make a blanket statement that all products of this weird ancient practice were Nephilim? Your logic is not sound.
This is a good thought and point, but I don't think that Fr. Stephen (perhaps he'd answer this question) would argue that the Nephilim were "purely" demonic beings. In a certain sense, of course he cannot, because they aren't immaterial/physical in this world the way we are.
I think this is implied since this is such an esoteric concept and is not dogmatic, pretty much making it theologumena. The Book of Enoch is not canon, mostly for the same reason - but it doesn't mean it is not useful in understanding parts of the Old Testament. Fr. Stephen talks about this too. You aren't focusing on what is important in Fr. Stephen's work here, which is describing why the Old Testament violence took place and how to square it. That is a stumbling block for many modern people, especially.
Hm, I'm not sure I draw that same conclusion. These giants, men of renown, and so on were still human and thus still could have repented regardless of how tight they were with demons & the worship thereof no? Their physical & technological/material power is something that it is well-documented that demons can provide to humans. It is just *nigh* impossible for them to repent under the circumstances, not just because of their birth but because of the sick society they grew up & lived in. Which in my understanding is why God commanded Israel to wipe out the Canaanites (ie demon-worshipping "giants") without quarter. But for example Rahab was still spared due to her repentance, showing that it surely wasn't utterly impossible for them to have escaped judgment.
The man of lawlessness chooses to become possessed by Satan, which is very different from being possessed through parental sin and having no choice in the matter.
God punished the antediluvian peoples for their sin, not for their condition of birth (Genesis 6:5).
Even if this were 'implied,' it needs to be stated clearly that this is not what the Church teaches. However, Fr. Stephen and Fr. Andrew present these views as though they were factual, gleaned through years of scholarship. Lord of Spirits in this sense is a dangerous podcast.
You didn't answer my question. Thus, your assumptions aren't true.
I have not seen you produce anything yet that substantiates what they teach is contradictory or that the church even has a definitive teaching on the subject. That's my point, also - it is all private opinion, when it comes down to it. The number of fathers or saints talking about it may or may not make it valid.
We are going around in circles. I cannot convince you despite giving you ample evidence, so we'd better leave it as is.
I recommend you carefully read Genesis, Creation, and Early Man. The Church has a definitive teaching on the Flood and why it happened, which contradicts what Lord of Spirits teaches.
Even Fr. Seraphim Rose, whom I believe was a saint, made a clear distinction between his private views, and those of the holy fathers (in consensus). It is too bad that Fr. Stephen and Fr. Andrew don't do the same, since their podcast can lead many astray, even evoking a gnostic undertone.
We are going around in circles perhaps because you can't tell me why you believe that what Fr. Stephen is saying is incompatible with fallen humans who did have free will. There isn't a circle, actually, both @Iacobus and I have just asked why these are incompatible and you haven't told us how or why they are. I have no problem with the possibility that Fr. Seraphim may be a saint.
I don't want to derail this topic (eschatology), but ultimately what Fr. Stephen and Fr. Andrew are teaching is that the children who were born from these demonic sex rituals (which occurred between humans) were themselves condemned, solely because their parents were evil.
This is not what Scripture nor the holy fathers teach. It is a direct contradiction, since being born of evil parents does not automatically condemn a person to judgment (there are pious saints born of evil pagans, for instance).
Last edited:
I listen to them quite frequently and may be incorrect here, but I do not recall this statement or position, as you state it. Present your evidence, please.
That is precisely their claim. Like I said, I won't derail this thread any further, and you seem intent on defending this view of the Nephilim.
If so, that's fine, you are entitled to your view. My concern is mainly to point out that it is a view that has zero support in the holy fathers, and moreover Lord of Spirits makes no distinction between private views and Patristic consensus here.
P.S. I should add that I heard this from a priest: "If after 2,000 years of the Church you think you've found a new teaching, then it is most likely a heresy, or on the border of heresy. If it is not, then it isn't necessary for our salvation."
I asked for evidence, as in, present what they said that supports your claim. Since you can't or won't, I assume that they didn't say what you claim.
Thank you for posting this. These words of the patriarch give me a sense of peace in these anxious times
The Orthodox article that I read about their eschatology seems to be the most scripturally informed and the closest to the church fathers’ beliefs.