P
PJM
Guest
So that we:
Are comfortable with the idea of angels
They are like God: Spiritual beings but have been known to take human form
They can be terrifying BUT often as appeared to Mary and Joseph and are Issiac not.
- Status
Are comfortable with the idea of angels
They are like God: Spiritual beings but have been known to take human form
They can be terrifying BUT often as appeared to Mary and Joseph and are Issiac not.
C
Crumpy
Guest
Scripturally, the first angels that may have been described are those that were depicted on the ark of the covenant.
I haven’t read that description in a long time, but I seem to recall that they were human-like and not animal-like (for example).
I haven’t read that description in a long time, but I seem to recall that they were human-like and not animal-like (for example).
P
patrick457
Guest
While popular art has depicted the cherubs of the Ark as winged humans (usually in an anachronistic Greco-Roman/Renaissance-esque fashion, if not Egyptian-esque), the actual account is really vague: mention is made of their faces and wings, but not of their bodies; it does not even indicate whether the ‘faces’ were human. “And you shall make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work you shall make them at the two ends of the cover; and make one cherub at the end on this side, and one cherub at the end on that; from the cover you shall make the cherubim on its two ends. And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings upward, overshadowing the cover with their wings, and their faces shall be ‘a man to his brother’ - towards the cover the faces of the cherubim shall be.”
Personally I tend to favor the idea that the cherubim were at this time probably imaged to somewhat resemble the winged human-animal genii (i.e. sphinxes, griffins, shedu, winged men, etc.) common in ANE and Egyptian iconography due to similarities between their functions - i.e. being mediators, guardians of the sacred and the footstools/vehicles/thrones of gods and kings - and because of the lack of any concrete description of their appearances for most of the time they are mentioned (Ezekiel is an exception), suggesting that their forms were already familiar to contemporary audiences (another instance where the Bible displays the high-context mentality of the culture it was written in): and these hybrid beasts happen to be one of the most common templates in the Near East (cf. William Albright).
http://media.kunst-fuer-alle.de/img/36/m/36_65149~winged-genii,-assyrian-period,-c-750-bc.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Khorsabad2.jpg/300px-Khorsabad2.jpg
http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/an/web-highlight/ss41_160_217.jpg
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2676/34000y.jpg
I’ve seen quite a lot of ‘Ark art’ where the cherubim is represented as pudgy baby faces with wings (which we all know is what cherubs look like
), as standard Christian angels, as Ezekiel’s living creatures, as winged human-headed snakes, as winged sphinxes, as Egyptian winged humans, and even as abstract triangles!
P
PJM
Guest
Have you considered that when Yahweh [God] commanded Moses how he was to build thre Ark of the Covenant; that God specified angels WITH WINGS?
**Exo. 25: 8-9 **And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.
According to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it…18-20 "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be
So either Angels do have wings; or God desires that we view them this way or God is wrong
Which is it
God Bless,
Pat
**Exo. 25: 8-9 **And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.
According to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it…18-20 "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be
So either Angels do have wings; or God desires that we view them this way or God is wrong
Which is itGod Bless,
Pat
S
steve53
Guest
I think people are dancing around the truth here.Have you considered that when Yahweh [God] commanded Moses how he was to build thre Ark of the Covenant; that God specified angels WITH WINGS?
**Exo. 25: 8-9 **And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.
According to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it…18-20 "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be
So either Angels do have wings; or God desires that we view them this way or God is wrong
God Bless,
Pat
Angels have wings because they serve a purpose. Why not give them fins, or (gasp!) hooves?
They need the wings to fly.
God never says how big Angels really are.
They are probably no larger than hummingbirds, and possibly the size of large insects.
Are they invisible? Well, in five dimensions, they probably can be seen. But not in our four dimensional world.
So easy, isn’t it?
W
whaleheadking
Guest
If you saw an angel, you would be afraid because it would be outside your normal frame of reference. Artistic representations are only symbols of things that cannot be represented any other way. An angel is not a person with wings, but something else altogether. If you are expecting to see a person with wings, and you see something else altogether with your limited senses, you will be afraid of it. That is why angels say, “Be not afraid.” Their presence is outside our normal realm of experience.
B
Benadam
Guest
Yup. Everything you said.
P
patrick457
Guest
S
sedonaman
Guest
I guess one must first ask if angels, being spirit, always look the same. If an angel were to appear to a human, I would expect the angel to look like something that person would know, identify with, and accept, which is why they are mostly depicted in human form with wings to symbolize their mission of messenger.
But you people don’t know crazy until you’ve seen the “Archangel Patio” modern art that my parish is currently installing. At the exhibit where you can make a donation, they had a picture of what it will look like. Wish I had a photo to post, but it looks like what a marble floor would after a body had fallen from some very high altitude and went splat!
When I complained that it didn’t look like an angel, I was told that I had no imagination. To this I asked if it was a car, would you buy it, or even want to be around when someone tried to start it up?
Modern art is nihilistic and therefore should not be allowed anywhere near a church, especially a Catholic Church.
But you people don’t know crazy until you’ve seen the “Archangel Patio” modern art that my parish is currently installing. At the exhibit where you can make a donation, they had a picture of what it will look like. Wish I had a photo to post, but it looks like what a marble floor would after a body had fallen from some very high altitude and went splat!
When I complained that it didn’t look like an angel, I was told that I had no imagination. To this I asked if it was a car, would you buy it, or even want to be around when someone tried to start it up?
Modern art is nihilistic and therefore should not be allowed anywhere near a church, especially a Catholic Church.
S
steve53
Guest
Satan started out as an Angel, right?
So they have cloven feet, horns, and a tail, as well as wings.
Pretty scary.
So they have cloven feet, horns, and a tail, as well as wings.
Pretty scary.
P
patrick457
Guest
And who said Satan actually looks like that red (or black, or what-have-you) bat-winged Pan-like horned guy wielding a pitchfork?
J
JCnMe
Guest
Angels do have wings- but when taking on human form to intercede the wings are not visible…there are different kinds of angels and all have different characteristics…your guardian angel when in full glory looks the most like the beautiful angels depicted-and yet when working around the ill or while you are sleeping may just be the glimpse of a shadow or a flash of light-the beauty is stunning and instead most work very inconspicuously in shadow until it is time to show themselves …an Archangel is more regal and very tall-each is very distinct…the visions in revelations are more symbolic to the message than literal…of course it’s up to you if you believe me or not:angel1:
E
Eire
Guest
As already stated, Angels are pure spirits and have no need of wings. They can appear anywhere in an instant and can assume any form they wish.
T
ThirstforTruth
Guest
As for angels appearance and much more try reading Peter Kreeft on Angels and Demons It will give you lots of the info you are searching for…and more.
D
domandcarols
Guest
This is an interesting topic. I’ve always wondered about this. 
J
Just_a_fellah
Guest
Can someone explain to me, without it sounding like a rationalisation, why there are artistic representations of angels or anything religious when it it plainly forbidden by the second commandment.
“Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above…”
Or if you prefer;
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Thank you.
“Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above…”
Or if you prefer;
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Thank you.
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, explain to me then why God said this to Moses. “You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.” And why in Solomon’s Temple you had these:
In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high. …] Around all the walls of the house he carved engraved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. …] He covered the two doors of olivewood with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. …] On [the entrance to the nave] he carved cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, and he overlaid them with gold evenly applied on the carved work. …] This was the construction of the stands: they had panels, and the panels were set in the frames, and on the panels that were set in the frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. …] And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around.
How dare God break His own law and slack on punishing those who violated it - instead blessing them!
And when the priests came out of the Holy Place, a cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD.
J
Just_a_fellah
Guest
I don’t know why God told Moses to go make some Cherubim because I DON’T PRESUME TO KNOW WHY GOD DOES ANYTHING. Maybe that’s what the 2nd Commandment is all about, curtailing the arrogance of man’s presumtuous interpritation of God’s intent, I DON’T KNOW, I WAS JUST ASKING A QUESTION.Well, explain to me then why God said this to Moses. “You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.” And why in Solomon’s Temple you had these:
In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high. …] Around all the walls of the house he carved engraved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. …] He covered the two doors of olivewood with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. …] On [the entrance to the nave] he carved cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, and he overlaid them with gold evenly applied on the carved work. …] This was the construction of the stands: they had panels, and the panels were set in the frames, and on the panels that were set in the frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. …] And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around.
How dare God break His own law and slack on punishing those who violated it - instead blessing them!
And when the priests came out of the Holy Place, a cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD.
And as far as God breaking his own laws - These laws were meant for man NOT HIM!!! God cannot break a law that doesn’t apply to Him. A father can forbid his child to cross a busy road. This does not mean the father is forbidden to cross the same road!!!
Also rolling your eyes when all I’ve done is ask a question is the height of rudeness!!!
P
patrick457
Guest
Three words: chill down, mate.
Sorry if I came across as being too sharp. 
But to get back to the ‘graven image’ question: the point of the commandment is not so much to ban the making of images by itself, but the worship of idols. And oh, who said that we Catholics worship the icons or the statues?
P
patrick457
Guest
Not exactly relevant to the subtopic at hand, but a little in the way of historical context.
Compared to their neighbors, the Israelites contributed little in the way of originality to arts and crafts. Borrowers for the most part, they mostly produced works hardly indistinguishable from that of other cultures of the time. The proscription in Exodus against making pesel (also cf. Deuteronomy 5:8), may have discouraged creativity in this area. Nonetheless, images did exist throughout the history of Israel until the postexilic period, a practice which the Bible does attest to. For example, Gideon fashions an ephod of gold (Judges 8:27) and Micah’s mother contributed silver for the making of an idol (pesel) in Judges 17:3. The Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon themselves were, on the face of it, a direct contravention of the literal understanding of the commandment, yet the authors did not denounce them.
Pesel, which is derived from the verb pasal, “to hew [into shape]”, “fashion by cutting” or “to carve” in Biblical usage would suggest a sort of image hewn from stone or cut from wood (later, the usage would extend to those cast from metal). If we take the wording literally here, the injunction would not include painted images. In most occurrences of the noun in the OT it generally means a sort of “cultic image” (i.e., an idol) and occurs almost exclusively in the context of references to imagery - apparently the word was so strongly colored by the contexts in which it is used. This usage is in contrast to other attested usages of cognates in Northwest Semitic languages, where the root psl still had the main meaning of “to hew” or “to carve”. In Ugaritic for example psl designates craftsmen who work on stones and wood. The occurrences of psl in Punic and Nabataean inscriptions are also associated with stone- or wood-work. The Syriac (psl) and Aramaic (psl/psylh, pslh) cognates, as well as extrabiblical Hebrew usages of the word also fall along the same lines.
The prohibition was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).
We now need to qualify this prohibition against images. Obviously, cherubim, serpents, lions, oxen and other images of ‘nature’ and ‘mythology’ were at times exempt from the ban. What seems to be forbidden is more often than not the depiction of the Deity Himself. We have as possible extant examples of such both the winged sun-disc symbol above the bull-calf on the top tier of the Ta’anach cult stand and the winged disc/beetle symbol on the seal impressionslmlk on the handles of royal Judahite storage jars.
Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of YHWH – its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of YHWH is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly steeds/mounts, the two cherubim.
The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.
The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.
Compared to their neighbors, the Israelites contributed little in the way of originality to arts and crafts. Borrowers for the most part, they mostly produced works hardly indistinguishable from that of other cultures of the time. The proscription in Exodus against making pesel (also cf. Deuteronomy 5:8), may have discouraged creativity in this area. Nonetheless, images did exist throughout the history of Israel until the postexilic period, a practice which the Bible does attest to. For example, Gideon fashions an ephod of gold (Judges 8:27) and Micah’s mother contributed silver for the making of an idol (pesel) in Judges 17:3. The Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon themselves were, on the face of it, a direct contravention of the literal understanding of the commandment, yet the authors did not denounce them.
Pesel, which is derived from the verb pasal, “to hew [into shape]”, “fashion by cutting” or “to carve” in Biblical usage would suggest a sort of image hewn from stone or cut from wood (later, the usage would extend to those cast from metal). If we take the wording literally here, the injunction would not include painted images. In most occurrences of the noun in the OT it generally means a sort of “cultic image” (i.e., an idol) and occurs almost exclusively in the context of references to imagery - apparently the word was so strongly colored by the contexts in which it is used. This usage is in contrast to other attested usages of cognates in Northwest Semitic languages, where the root psl still had the main meaning of “to hew” or “to carve”. In Ugaritic for example psl designates craftsmen who work on stones and wood. The occurrences of psl in Punic and Nabataean inscriptions are also associated with stone- or wood-work. The Syriac (psl) and Aramaic (psl/psylh, pslh) cognates, as well as extrabiblical Hebrew usages of the word also fall along the same lines.
The prohibition was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).
We now need to qualify this prohibition against images. Obviously, cherubim, serpents, lions, oxen and other images of ‘nature’ and ‘mythology’ were at times exempt from the ban. What seems to be forbidden is more often than not the depiction of the Deity Himself. We have as possible extant examples of such both the winged sun-disc symbol above the bull-calf on the top tier of the Ta’anach cult stand and the winged disc/beetle symbol on the seal impressionslmlk on the handles of royal Judahite storage jars.
Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of YHWH – its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of YHWH is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly steeds/mounts, the two cherubim.
The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.
The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.
- Status