/lit/ - Literature

>>16128067
go back

>>16128067
They look like H.P Lovecrafts monsters

Why are the seraphim constantly covering themselves with their wings. What are they hiding

>>16128067
There are different orders of angels. The scary looking ones are the seraphim and cherubims. Normal angels just look like people. Look at the angel that appeared to Abraham, they were indistinguishable from men but were just very attractive looking. If you really want to be scared read the first or second chapter of Ezekiel. When I first read it I remember thinking I'd have a heart attack if I saw that thing.

>>16128067
Can confirm, have interacted with these beings under the influence of dmt.

Imagine this nigga singing about Jesus to you like the shepherds saw on the night Jesus was born. The NT says they were terrified when they saw this. If you picture Catholic angels you'd be confused by that statement. But now you know why they were horrified.

>>16128107
Cherubim you say?

>>16128067
Angels were edited into the bible when educated Hebrews realised how unorthodox their folk tales were. They were originally Yahweh himself showing up in person, probably holding a thunderbolt.

>>16128169
Fuck off with your x tier shit

>>16128178
Didn't know Harold Bloom and Sigmund Freud were /x/, but okay, keep talking about psychedelic angels.

They were written that way to defy depiction as icons or idols. I've read on /x/ that the ancient Hebrews didn't like idols, but that seems like a wacko theory, don't you agree?

>>16128196
No one in the entire world gives a shit would Freud has to say about the bible. And I mean that. Go away, Reddit.

This guy comes up to you and asks you if you've heard the good news about Jesus. What do you say?

>>16128067
New testament angels (Gabriel for the most part) just look like shiny winged dudes, the old testament (Ezekiel in particular) is where the flaming wheels with eyes come from

>>16128067
>What else are they lying about?
Why don't you ask what they ever claimed that was true, we'd be done with a simple nothing.

>>16128067
There is an hierarchy of angels with different appearances

>>16128087
They're just really shy uwu

>>16128067
The most enigmatic part to me was when Jacob literally wrestles with God all night and almost beats him too. Also I assume one of those things in OP was the death angel that killed all the first borns of Egypt

>>16128067
>deliberately incorrect
Something tells me the whole of Sodom didn't want to fuck one of those

>>16128218
NT angels don't have a description outside of revelation as far as I know. It's simply implied that they are terrifying.

There's a lot of that in the NT though, including what Jesus's resurrected body looked like and why no one could recognize him but then suddenly they could, etc

>>16128178
He's right tho.

>>16128220
Why are all atheist retorts so clunky and ineffective?
>>16128087
Divinity, which will kill you if you look at it.

>>16128241
I do. I wanna skullfuck an angel. Maybe eat a couple babies out afterwards.

>>16128196
>They were written that way to defy depiction as icons or idols.
I would believe that, that's the reason I think they put that Jesus walked on water. People will keep waiting for the rest of eternity for the second coming because no one can walk on water, it's not possible, they inserted principles that can't be recreated so as to legitimize the previous stories and delegitimize future stories.

>>16128246
Ok yeah he has photographic evidence of Hebrews "editing" angels into the bible. Fuck off.

>>16128250
Why do you assume he's an atheist?

>>16128254
Don't need it. Jews were stupid enough to be obvious about it.

>>16128253
This is really brainlet tier and not in line with higher criticism at all. I am begging you to fuck off with your r/atheism pseud garbage. Maybe read an actual contemporary book about biblical criticism. These kind of posts are just so fucking brain dead it's hard to take.

>>16128244
For some reason I just always assumed they looked like beautiful men, like the ones in Sodom and Gomorrah that made the entire city wanting to fuck them.

>>16128252
And I wish God would destroy your home city and delete your soul, but wishes aren't horses.

>>16128270
Various angels look different. Some do look like men. The one that visited Abraham and Sarah, for instance. They mistook him for a person. But it appears the majority of types described are either some vague type of terrifying or specifically some deformed schizo creature. They serve different purposes though.

>>16128254
It's called textual criticism or philology, anon. The old testament has been revised and rewritten many times over - do you think they just did this for fun, or because the priests at the Temple read the old text and thought, "That's not quite right"? It only solidified a few hundred years BC.

But by all means, call me /x/ for not taking a piece of folklore at face value. I enjoy the irony of that.

>>16128270
Angels present as male but aren't actually either when they have a human form. They're beautiful in what I assume is an androgynous way

>>16128288
I have a degree in this field and you're embarrassing yourself. The nature of your assertions are puerile. Post one peer reviewed article that categorically states descriptions of angels were edited into the bible. And it has to use the term edit.

>>16128291
I am sure that some present themselves as male and others as female

>>16128329
None present as female ever, actually.

>>16128268
I think it's far more braindead to just assume a bunch of oral fables are entirely literal and not lessons from earlier generations on how to live you life well.

>>16128302
Are you saying the Bible was never edited? It just appeared behind a rock one day in a hardback edition?

Don't know what they're teaching you in your Crystal Healing course, or whatever degree it is you're pursuing.

>>16128396
I never claimed anything of the sort, schizo. Your language was designed to imply things that aren't supported by facts to the point where if you leave out your specific terminology your post is meaningless, which is why you caved and couldn't produce a source

>>16128376
You're arguing with a strawman you created in your mind because you're a weak person. Go to website.

>>16128216
Scream for satan to save me.

>>16128216
>terrified_Chad_yes.png

>>16128466
>>16128478
People always react in fear of angels when they show up. From luke

8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel(A) of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid.(B) I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.

>>16128435
Why would I need a source to say that Judaism did not begin as a monotheistic religion, and had qualities more like an exclusive polytheist cult in its early years? Do you think they accidentally found themselves with scriptures that carefully hid the name and image of their god, and even carefully hid the images of his messengers, when this was a completely novel idea? Even "messengers of a god" is a novel idea and clearly exists only to futher distance him from the visible world. Do you think it was draft one?

What about in the book of Genesis where God just walks around on the ground and shares a tent with the patriarchs? Doesn't that sound a little off to you, not quite orthodox? If you were a recensionist, wouldn't it make more sense to you that God himself couldn't possibly have been in that tent, surely the venerable authors must have meant his messenger? Oh, this text must have been mistranscribed by some fool, I'll just correct this.

I don't want to produce a source because I like to think for myself. These are thoughts. Source: my brain. You're clearly in the teacher's pet phase of academic development - you know, on your mystery degree that grants you so much authority on this subject, and also on the subject of acupuncture.

>>16128532
I didn't read your post. I bet you feel dumb typing that all out. Go shit up another thread I don't care what stupid people think or feel.

>>16128539
Oh and I studied textual criticism at Penn in the Near Eastern Languages department. Lol at your life.

>>16128067
Same reason they celebrate birthdays and christmas. Burn in hell you pagans.

>>16128067
In the Bible, there are four entities that now get called 'angels.' They are the seraphim, cherubim, ophanim, and malakhim. Some people also add stuff like the thrones, dominions, powers, principalities, from the New Testament but those are never described and sometimes sound like they refer to secular mortal authorities, and if to anything spiritual, more so to demons than angels. Speaking of demons the se'irim are also described. What's important to know is that malakhim alone is translated in Greek as angelos, and that's because both of those words mean 'messenger.' So in the most restricted sense only they are 'angels.' The malakhim have the form of humans. That is why angels get depicted as humans (with wings), because the malakhim really just are human-like beings (though they're not shown with wings anywhere in the Bible). On the other hand, the seraphim and cherubim are shown with wings but they're more like celestial creatures. The seraphim have six wings covering their face and worshiping God continuously. We are not told what they look like past that, HOWEVER the word 'seraph' is also used throughout the Bible to refer to serpents of a sort, so that puts into perspective the whole thing with the serpent in the garden (maybe it was a seraph originally, though the word isn't used). The cherubim have four heads (ox, lion, eagle, man)and four wings. Then the ophanim or 'wheels' are wheels-within-wheels full of eyes. The seraphim, cherubim, and ophanim are never called malakhim so technically these 'Biblical angels' might never have been angels, but an entirely different class of celestial creatures that do such things as worship God and drive his chariot/merkabah.

>>16128244
>why no one could recognize him but then suddenly they could
I once read Judas had to kiss Jesus on the cheek to give him away because everyone saw Jesus differently and a description wouldn’t have worked. That would explain why Judas had to point him out even though he was fairly known by the time Rome arrested Him.

>>16128376
This midwit take is as reddit as they come

>>16128703
What about "princes" they seem weird and different

>>16128769
Yeah see there's all kinds if weird stuff about what divine beings look like in the bible. This is why I side with the reformed position that you shouldn't depict Jesus. I think it's misleading at best and prevents reflecting on what was really going on when he was alive. Depicting him as a man just walking around doesn't do it justice. There was more to how he looked and acted.

>>16128787
Aside from Michael 'our prince' it's hard to tell whether the princes are supposed to be national gods or similar (or something lesser to fit with the monotheism) or if they're straight up demons. In Daniel you see the prince of Persia and the prince of Grecia, and the antichrist figure that shows up is possibly also a prince in that regard. In the New Testament Satan gets called the prince of the air and the prince of this world.

>>16128787
I’m no expert but I think pre-renaissance depictions were mostly based on divine revelations

>>16128703
Any books on the subject? Or any similar subjects

>>16128824
Unironically the Bible, I don't even mean that to be flippant but I didn't read books on angels to learn what I learned, I just read the Bible. Obviously you won't see the word 'malakhim' or 'ophanim' in there, they get translated as angels and wheels respectively. Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1 are the main chapters on seraphim and cherubim/ophanim respectively.

>>16128216
y-you t-too

>>16128067
>Why do Catholics paint deliberately incorrect things?

How does Protestantism fare in the art department?

>>16128250
Why does it matter if it kills you if you go to heaven anyway. The angels would be doing you a favour.

>>16128978
Reformed tend to abide by this thing called the second commandment. Doubt you've heard of it though.

>>16128107
Would a very attractive angel permit himself to be masturbated by a normie?

>>16128216
"hey that's great about Jesus and all, but could y'all niggaz do something about my receding hairline."

>>16129045
Reformed also believe in witches, elites being chosen by God and are the most regressive tribal savages one could ever meep

>>16129087
Haha wow are you mad. Probably because you're so confident in your pedophile cult religion I bet. Seek help.

>>16129011
When was the last time you sat for confession?

>>16128302
What does it mean to have a degree in a fictional story? It's like having a degree in Harry Potter and asking for a scholarly article refuting his magic wand. A scholarly article by another schizoid?

Are there any more obscure classes of angels, except these?

>>16129149
>he doesn't understand what NELC is
>he never went to an ivy league school
>he's never been to an archeological dig site
>he's never fucked an Egyptian undergrad student
Kys

>>16128216
"Yeah, he seems like a pretty swell guy."

>>16128067
none of those are correct

>>16129149
Do you know how much of a toll it takes on others to put up with your puerile faggotry day after day?

>>16128087
in the bible the word "feet" is sometimes used as an euphemism for genitals. depenslding on how you interpret it, it is possible these angels were covering their cocks

>>16129274
Cite your source.

>>16128087
its because theyre so cute UwU

OH SHIT
CAST BUFU ON IT
my reaction if I saw one probably

>>16129285
anon i dont really feel like opening a new tab and search bible verses where the word feet is used to imply genitalia
can you do the research yourself? I'm too lazy

>>16129285
his college sociology professor

>>16129045
There are a lot of Protestant depictions of angels my friend.

>>16128067
Angels don’t normally have corporal forms we can perceive. They are literally just immaterial intellects in which each individual is it’s own species

>>16129397
>doesn't know what the second commandment is

>>16129413
>He gets his ideas from medieval Aristotelians
Where in the Bible does it say angels are anything other than what they appear to be? Why do people find every way to take the Bible non-literally? Read it plainly, take it at its word. Drop the Greek philosophy.

>>16129413
>Angels don’t normally have corporal forms we can perceive.
uh

>>16129441
This is why I became a Calvinist. It's insane listening to a Catholic talk about anything. Just tiring.

>>16129338
2 Samuel 11:3-15. 3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. 5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child. 6 And David sent to Joab, saying, Send me Uriah the Hittite. And Joab sent Uriah to David. 7 And when Uriah was come unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, and how the people did, and how the war prospered. 8 And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and WASH THY FEET. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king. 9 But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and went not down to his house. 10 And when they had told David, saying, Uriah went not down unto his house, David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? why then didst thou not go down unto thine house? 11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing. 12 And David said to Uriah, Tarry here to day also, and to morrow I will let thee depart. So Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day, and the morrow. 13 And when David had called him, he did eat and drink before him; and he made him drunk: and at even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house. 14 And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. 15 And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.
fuck you

>>16129441
Article 1. Whether the angels have bodies naturally united to them?

Objection 1. It would seem that angels have bodies naturally united to them. For Origen says (Peri Archon i): "It is God's attribute alone—that is, it belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as a property of nature, that He is understood to exist without any material substance and without any companionship of corporeal addition." Bernard likewise says (Hom. vi. super Cant.): "Let us assign incorporeity to God alone even as we do immortality, whose nature alone, neither for its own sake nor on account of anything else, needs the help of any corporeal organ. But it is clear that every created spirit needs corporeal substance." Augustine also says (Gen. ad lit. iii): "The demons are called animals of the atmosphere because their nature is akin to that of aerial bodies." But the nature of demons and angels is the same. Therefore angels have bodies naturally united to them.

Objection 2. Further, Gregory (Hom. x in Ev.) calls an angel a rational animal. But every animal is composed of body and soul. Therefore angels have bodies naturally united to them.

Objection 3. Further, life is more perfect in the angels than in souls. But the soul not only lives, but gives life to the body. Therefore the angels animate bodies which are naturally united to them.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the angels are understood to be incorporeal."

I answer that, The angels have not bodies naturally united to them. For whatever belongs to any nature as an accident is not found universally in that nature; thus, for instance, to have wings, because it is not of the essence of an animal, does not belong to every animal. Now since to understand is not the act of a body, nor of any corporeal energy, as will be shown later (I:75:2, it follows that to have a body united to it is not of the nature of an intellectual substance, as such; but it is accidental to some intellectual substance on account of something else. Even so it belongs to the human soul to be united to a body, because it is imperfect and exists potentially in the genus of intellectual substances, not having the fulness of knowledge in its own nature, but acquiring it from sensible things through the bodily senses, as will be explained later on (I:84:6; I:89:1). Now whenever we find something imperfect in any genus we must presuppose something perfect in that genus. Therefore in the intellectual nature there are some perfectly intellectual substances, which do not need to acquire knowledge from sensible things. Consequently not all intellectual substances are united to bodies; but some are quite separated from bodies, and these we call angels.

>>16129503
Reply to Objection 1. As was said above (I:50:1) it was the opinion of some that every being is a body; and consequently some seem to have thought that there were no incorporeal substances existing except as united to bodies; so much so that some even held that God was the soul of the world, as Augustine tells us (De Civ. Dei vii). As this is contrary to Catholic Faith, which asserts that God is exalted above all things, according to Psalm 8:2: "Thy magnificence is exalted beyond the heavens"; Origen, while refusing to say such a thing of God, followed the above opinion of others regarding the other substances; being deceived here as he was also in many other points, by following the opinions of the ancient philosophers. Bernard's expression can be explained, that the created spirit needs some bodily instrument, which is not naturally united to it, but assumed for some purpose, as will be explained (Article 2). Augustine speaks, not as asserting the fact, but merely using the opinion of the Platonists, who maintained that there are some aerial animals, which they termed demons.

Reply to Objection 2. Gregory calls the angel a rational animal metaphorically, on account of the likeness to the rational nature.

Reply to Objection 3. To give life effectively is a perfection simply speaking; hence it belongs to God, as is said (1 Samuel 2:6): "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive." But to give life formally belongs to a substance which is part of some nature, and which has not within itself the full nature of the species. Hence an intellectual substance which is not united to a body is more perfect than one which is united to a body.

>>16129285
That anon has it wrong. 'Covering your feet' is in fact a euphemism, but it's a euphemism for pulling your pants down basically, except with your robe. It's what you do when you're pissing and shitting. The Bible says people about to piss and shit are 'covering their feet.' It's true that in Isaiah 6 the seraphim are described as covering their feet with their wings, but they're also described as covering their faces, and the cherubim of Ezekiel 1 cover their bodies. They probably meant the feet-covering literally in Isaiah. It also doesn't make sense to say the seraphim have their pants down to piss and shit when we're talking about their wings.

>>16129441
>not getting your ideas from medieval Aristotelians
Missing out, bro

>>16128329
There are zero female angels in the Bible.

Article 2. Whether angels assume bodies?

Objection 1. It would seem that angels do not assume bodies. For there is nothing superfluous in the work of an angel, as there is nothing of the kind in the work of nature. But it would be superfluous for the angels to assume bodies, because an angel has no need for a body, since his own power exceeds all bodily power. Therefore an angel does not assume a body.

Objection 2. Further, every assumption is terminated in some union; because to assume implies a taking to oneself [ad se sumere]. But a body is not united to an angel as to a form, as stated (Article 1); while in so far as it is united to the angel as to a mover, it is not said to be assumed, otherwise it would follow that all bodies moved by the angels are assumed by them. Therefore the angels do not assume bodies.

Objection 3. Further, angels do not assume bodies from the earth or water, or they could not suddenly disappear; nor again from fire, otherwise they would burn whatever things they touched; nor again from air, because air is without shape or color. Therefore the angels do not assume bodies.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xvi) that angels appeared to Abraham under assumed bodies.

I answer that, Some have maintained that the angels never assume bodies, but that all that we read in Scripture of apparitions of angels happened in prophetic vision—that is, according to imagination. But this is contrary to the intent of Scripture; for whatever is beheld in imaginary vision is only in the beholder's imagination, and consequently is not seen by everybody. Yet Divine Scripture from time to time introduces angels so apparent as to be seen commonly by all; just as the angels who appeared to Abraham were seen by him and by his whole family, by Lot, and by the citizens of Sodom; in like manner the angel who appeared to Tobias was seen by all present. From all this it is clearly shown that such apparitions were beheld by bodily vision, whereby the object seen exists outside the person beholding it, and can accordingly be seen by all. Now by such a vision only a body can be beheld. Consequently, since the angels are not bodies, nor have they bodies naturally united with them, as is clear from what has been said (Article 1; I:50:1), it follows that they sometimes assume bodies.

>>16129549
Reply to Objection 1. Angels need an assumed body, not for themselves, but on our account; that by conversing familiarly with men they may give evidence of that intellectual companionship which men expect to have with them in the life to come. Moreover that angels assumed bodies under the Old Law was a figurative indication that the Word of God would take a human body; because all the apparitions in the Old Testament were ordained to that one whereby the Son of God appeared in the flesh.

Reply to Objection 2. The body assumed is united to the angel not as its form, nor merely as its mover, but as its mover represented by the assumed movable body. For as in the Sacred Scripture the properties of intelligible things are set forth by the likenesses of things sensible, in the same way by Divine power sensible bodies are so fashioned by angels as fittingly to represent the intelligible properties of an angel. And this is what we mean by an angel assuming a body.

Reply to Objection 3. Although air as long as it is in a state of rarefaction has neither shape nor color, yet when condensed it can both be shaped and colored as appears in the clouds. Even so the angels assume bodies of air, condensing it by the Divine power in so far as is needful for forming the assumed body.

>>16128178
The Bible itself is /X/ tier so what's wrong with saying all the wacky shit regarding it? He could be right for all you know.

>>16129574
I went to Penn so pretty sure I know better

>>16128067
>Why do Catholics paint deliberately incorrect things?
I think that's because they only portray one choir of angels

>>16129613
>all that autistic fan fic tier ordering and categorizing
>don't even get it right
Where are the princes?

>>16129536
>the angel was taking a dump mid-flight like a pigeon

>>16129613
Most of these classes are referred to only as demons, so it's awfully interesting that Catholicism teaches they're the good guys. Classic pedos

>>16129598
I study philosophy on my own and know better than most philosophy graduates. The fact you went to a uni (which isn't even that good so I wouldn't mention it to not embarrass myself further) doesn't mean much. All humanities degrees can be easily self-taught nowadays so the "I went to uni so I know better" argument is a weak one if you are a humanities graduate.

>>16129733
>le pedo meme
Will you shut the fuck up for thirty seconds

>>16129733
Angels of all classes fell as demons. There isn’t an “angel only” or “demon only” class

>>16128067
old christian art didn't give wings to angels
the wings are probably used to imply "this thing can fly". but this is debated

>>16129741
This is the pain we deserve for letting it get this far and not purging and inquisiting the hierarchy before this happened. It’s literally in the epistle to the Romana. Heresy makes you gay. It’s a surprising fact of history

>>16128067
Those are demons, not angels; bodies of angels, and of humans, appear/are made in concord to the form of eternal anthropomorph Protofanes; the original bodies of demons resemble the form of an owl, however, due to their hyperimaginality, and supermutability, they manifest primarily in concord to whatever shape or form they are affined to, and/or serves for them as a means to an end.

>>16129441
Medieval Aristotelians referenced their work to the Scriptures, in the same way every Protestant theologian does.

>>16128067
>This is what angels actually look like according to the Bible
Can I get some verses that support this view please?

>>16129749
Where does the bible say that

>>16129766
Where does the bible say that

>>16129149
this might just be the most retarded post ever written on this board

>>16129737
Not even him but most autodidacts on /lit/ are absolute shit pseuds. If you're different, show us, otherwise
>All humanities degrees can be easily self-taught nowadays so the "I went to uni so I know better" argument is a weak one if you are a humanities graduate
means nothing.

>>16129850
>where does the Bible say that
Who wrote and compiled your Bible? Disgusting Quranic sola scripturans are a pox in this Earth. It’s as if they believe the scriptures fell from the sky

>>16130041
what do I have to read to think like you

>>16130073
The Bible. Post where is Sola Scriptura implied in the Bible.

>>16130083
obvs already did that why are you being a ho help a nigga out with some additional literature

>>16129986
The only way I can possibly show you that is if I become a tripfag so that you can follow my posts but that would go against the nature of this website. I hope that just by that you can see how great of a philosopher I am because I'm capable of understanding good principles and sticking to them.
>most autodidacts on /lit/ are absolute shit pseuds
Yeah and most humanity graduates are retards who went to uni to go to parties, get drunk, have sex, etc but and at the end of 4 years end up serving coffee to STEMchad graduates. Yet we should take their word as a fact because well, they got an inflated piece of paper to prove they studied the subject.
If you are dedicated and smart you can be successful in humanities regardless if you went to uni and listened to Dr.Shekelstein or not.

>>16130041
Who do you think wrote the bible lol? No really I'm curious.

>>16128067

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM

4-dimensional creatures fucking with us. Since they exist "eternally" (aka, "time" does not apply to them) the appear appear as a living example of a tesseract.

>>16128067
They was trippin on shrooms dawg

>>16128703
Spectacular post. Thank you

>>16129441
>he doesn't get his ideas exclusively from Medieval Aristotelians
You gay or something?

>>16129766
Demons, Angels .
same same
daemon = godlike

>>16130159
>most humanity graduates
I'm biased but I prefer to imagine nobody exists outside top 50 PhD philosophy programs. Of course people who get a BA in humanities somewhere or other are going to be shit. There's a further commitment necessary to then go to grad school, and a quality requirement to get in a good one. There's some good smart people stuck in less competitive programs but any time you meet really weird 'philosophy grad students' they tend to come from shitty programs where anything gets accepted as a dissertation.

>>16128067
Angels also appeared as youths. I don't think angels have one singular, immutable form. They appear in various forms, and obviously the ones you'd see painted in churches are the youths with wings

>>16128087
Obama's birth certificate

>>16129274
This is incorrect. There are no sources, the only source is "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" listing a variety of verses that supposedly support his perverted theory, but none of them actually support the theory. I'm willing to argue over this one.

>>16129312
So "feet" is not used as a euphemism for genitals, and your point is moot. Got it.

>>16129149

>>16130210
I concur, though the more accurate term would be: "superphysically", since the tesseract more aptly represents the recursivity of physis --through which demons are capable of transmuting physicality-- rather than eternity of being; just as the hypercube is the ideopolitical nucleus of Zion, the nanotesseract is the superphysical/plasmic nucleus of demons' physical bodies/vehicles, wherewith they can transform at will.

>>16129274
I wonder (((who))) came up with that one

>>16128067
Don't care; still Christian.

>>16130210
Angels are not eternal. They were created during one of the 6 days of creation. It's just not specified which.

>>16129173
>>16129260
This amount of seething.

>>16130855
I went to Penn. You didn't. Nothing will ever change that.
*looks at degree*

>>16128268
why not give a counter argument then

>>16131016
I already did. I went to Penn, you're a fuckass clownpie. Go back to R.eddit.

>>16130870
Was it a BA or higher?

>>16128241
Uhh, have you looked at the way trannies dress as demons to proselytize to kids?

Sodomites fuck ANYTHING.

>>16129413
This is because we are Flatlanders in comparison to them.

That also explains the inconceivable shapes they take on when they decide to make themselves visible to us.

>>16131062
>That also explains the inconceivable shapes they take on when they decide to make themselves visible to us.
This is an interesting theory.

>>16129087
The Bible also speaks about witches, so you are accusing a Protestant of actually believing what the Bible says and acting incredulous about it. Not the best look.

>>16131250
Where?

>>16131305
Not him but the witch of Endor is one and people conjuring 'familiar spirits' is widespread in the Bible (and condemned).

I think I've been mindfucked by abrahamism.
I think they look extremely beautiful

I've often wondered if aesthetic theory, particularly the Sublime, comes directly out of depictions of the angels.

>>16131463
The sublime is super tied to it. The Bible often uses sublime terminology to refer to God. It talks about God being 'awful' and 'terrible' and then lists 'fear of God' as a virtue. They mean awful in the sense of inspiring awe, and terrible in the sense of inspiring terror, just to be clear (its KJV English). The reaction the prophets have to visions of angels is always a falling down moment. The implication is that they're experience magnitudes beyond their deserving it and all they can do is collapse in prostration or submission at that stuff. And that's not to mention the actual imagery being quite sublime in itself, with how alien it is described to be.

>>16128539
>>16128435
>>16128268
Wow, christfags really are just butthurt fags aren't they.

>>16131433
I can't get the earlier poster out of my head who mentioned that the reason they have such bizarre appearances is because they exist in dimensions beyond our understanding.

It makes you wonder about those odd situations with Jesus and his identification and the nature of his resurrected body that were also mentioned in the thread. I'm coming around to the Reformed notion of forbidding depictions of Jesus because (aside from the second commandment), there is simply no way to accurately capture him accurately even if we had a record of what he looked like. There was clearly something going on with his appearance that either changed or altered or defied understanding, and it likely has to do with his dual nature as well as this idea of angels existing in bizarre ways when forced into 3 dimensions.

>>16128539
>>16128554

What's a good book to check out the history of this kind of shit? I'm so deeply interested in early Jewish and Christian culture, the interpretation and imagery side, but I'm not like interested enough in the deep theology to really check out stuff like Kabbalah and Christian mysticism. It's still really fascinating though.
BBC's In Our Time has a great episode about Angels and their imagery through time.

>>16128216
Looks more like someone from the campus crusade for Cthulhu...

>>16128067
>not a single post about how the one on the upper right looks like goatse
This board is shit

>>16128067
Only Thrones, Seraphiim, and Cherubiim look like that, all the other angels are humanlike

>>16128532
Patriarchs were closer to angels

I love /lit/ threads about angels. Keep it going bros.

>>16128787
>This is why I side with the reformed position that you shouldn't depict Jesus
mudslime psyop

>>16128067
As someone who has dropped hero doses of LSD this is exactly the kind of beings you see on it.
The most salient characteristic is that they are always described as being covered in eyes.
Symbolically you could say this is because they have awareness in many dimensions.
The biological/rationalist explanation is that our brain is hard-wired to pay attention to facial features especially eyes and so we see eyes emergent in complex patterns.
If these old prophets were just tripping though then I wonder what drugs they were on and why.

>>16134355
How did u managed to not get dissasociated? ive read that some people were blank for months because of this.

>>16134361
It's a process of dying and being reborn. There's nothing that I managed, I was just along for the ride. All I can do is talk about the experience as it happened to me, I can't account for what may have happened to someone else.

Can anyone recommend some angelological works? Serious stuff preferably, not just catalogs of wacky angel descriptions but real encounters with angels

>>16128216
can jesus give me a couple more inches of dick being a 6 incher dicklet is suffering

>>16128703
Good post.

Those are the lower ranks that have no sense of autonomy or will - you'll see them in the apocryphal texts protecting Eden or delivering messages and putting on a divine display to whatever prophets they need to.
The archangels and other angels of heaven just look like men - or rather they can take that form.
Read the Sodom & Gomorrah story, the angels just look like men to everyone else.
And about the "lying", it's just a romanticised and non-abstract depiction of beings and events. It's the same with Christ being depicted as a blonde white man and not a middle-eastern hunchback, many considered it sacrilege to depict biblical scenes in a strictly realist style (check out the early pre-raphaelite paintings and their controversy for this)

>>16128067
Pretty sure they look like me

>>16128067

Wait, so if my name is Gabriel, then is this what I’m supposed to look like as an angel?

>>16129051
Humanlike angels have no genitals

>>16133232
No need to read books or learn anything, just go to penn

>>16128067
Friendly reminders jesus is literally a multieyed, multihorned lamb and dissenters will perish in the lake of fire.

>>16129757
I think angels started to be depicted as winged beings when christianity has reached territories that worshipped the greek/roman gods. Since Angelos translates to messenger, they might have given them the main characteristic of the previous best known messenger god, Hermes/Mercury, that being wings.

>>16135948
Nike and Eros also had wings

>>16129051
There's a story in the bible about the one time people tried to fuck angels. It didn't work out so well, even for the people who watched the punishment.

>>16128067
so basically devil may cry was right about everything.

>>16136033
You can wrestle angels, that's about it.

>>16136252
angels fucked sexy women who then birthed giants.

>>16128132
How did it go?

>>16128216
Of course I have.

>>16128085
Hahahaha I AGREE BROOOOOO

>>16137453
Well, after smoking it I had the classic near death experience; shooting through a psychedelic tunnel toward a light at the far end. Getting closer I realized there was some sort of self transforming being within the light, similar to the ones shown here but way more alien and multidimensional than any christian monk could convieve. This being was way brighter than the light it was in. I could hardly look at it, it was like it was made out of some kind of self transforming ethereal lightning. Anyways it started telepathically inviting me into the light, so I agreed and jumped in. After which I experienced absolute monistic existence within the entire cosmos. Pretty neat, I guess.

>>16128216
I FEEL GOD OVERTAKING ME
IT IS A GOOD PAIN

I found this relevant to the thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf665ZroKuA