/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>547300

no images are allowed in churches

>>547301

Iconoclasts OUT

>>547301

I mean "would any church even accept that?" as in "Would a bishop or priest tell me to stop?"

Er, sorry for bumping this thread.

Can we at least talk about images of angels as they are written in the bible? Do you think some Christians would find it odd that they took those forms?

>on his boat

kek

Now, Cherubs does look like this: Feet like of calf, but straight. Four arms, and four wings (the highest of them have six). Four faces of ox, eagle, man and lion (or one of them only). Sparkling like bronze. Over all rather humanoid.

"Flaming wheels" are Thrones, not Cherubs.

>>547301

Iconoclasm is Islam-inspired heresy from VIIth century

>>547471

Islam didn't exist when Exodus 20:4-6 was written

>>547471

Just for the note for everyone: this is merely manmade material description of immaterial and we shouldnt Imagen that they literally look like this. For further information, please read pseudo Dionysus the Areopagete.

Angels dont have material bodies. They're persons of pure spirit. They can assume various material forms at will, with exceptions. The "visual" descriptions of angels in the Bible describe via imagery reflections of their spiritual nature that might have been a case of using metaphor on the part of the writer or the chosen form of the angels to best reflect their nature or some aspect of their nature. For example the cherubim having the head of the best of each type of animal shows that they are superlative. The humans with wings image as I understand it is a later artistic convention, but definitely reflects their nature as being able to move between different planes of existence, and of having personalities somewhat like our own. As far as I understand it, the cherubim depicted on the Ark of the Covenant and the curtains of the Tabernacle and Temples were more in line with the four-headed creature description given above.

>>547473

But Iconoclasm was never a thing before VII century.

>>547498

Yes anon, Exodus 20:4-6 was a thing before the 7th century

>>547501

You know, the things of the old law aren't desirable things to be sought, they were meant to drive terror into our hearts.

>>547497

>example the cherubim having the head of the best of each type of animal shows that they are superlative

Nope, it merely foretold about four gospels, each animal of which became symbol of one of the books.

>>547508

The 10 Commandments are of the Law.

>>547510

I don't see how that's mutually exclusive with what I said.

>>547511

But not of the old law

>>547497

>Angels dont have material bodies.

Answered in the OP.

>I mean the actual forms they prefer to take when they're on Earth

>>547512

Please define what you mean by the "Old Law." As far as I'm familiar with that term it's genrrally used to refer to the entirety of the Mosaic Law, including the moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. You seem to be using the phrase to refer to the Mosaic Law except for the moral law. That makes sense since the moral law is the only part of the Mosaic Law still in effect. My point is merely that I don't think the Tabernacle and the Temple violated the prohibition against graven images given in the same Mosaic Law as the instructions to make these buildings, so strict iconoclasm is an innovation.

>>547513

As far as I'm aware, angels can take pretty much any form they want. The more outlandish descriptions are reserved for the higher order angels that usually don't come to earth. These are mostly described in Ezekiel if I'm not mistaken. Most of the time, the lower order angels (actually, angels proper) that do come to earth apparently take the form of ordinary humans, without wings. Angels are shapeshifters. They can be represented by any form. Of course most of the time I imagine they don't take any form at all.

Crazy images of Cherubim and Seraphim are fairly common in old churches.

>>547522

>strict iconoclasm

Please define this

>>547536

That isn't at all innovative. Deuteronomy 7:5

<But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

>>547545

That is about destroying the icons of other religions, this is about going and destroying your own.

>>547548

What it is about is destroying images which receive worship, which is what that picture depicts. God isn't ok with idolatry when Christians do it, He takes a principled opposition. Christian idol is a contradiction in terms.

>>547553

>It receives worship

What, is it your waifu or something?

>>547554

ITS A IMAGE OF A IMAGINARY FAITHFUL MEMBER OF THE CHURCH

IF THIS WAS REAL LIFE, A STRICT ICONOCLAST LIKE YOU WOULD SCREAM AT ME FOR WORSHIPING IT

WHY ARE YOU CHANGING DIRECTIONS NOW?

>>547558

>WHY ARE YOU CHANGING DIRECTIONS NOW?

I'm not. You made a meaningless shitpost, I responded in kind.

>>547551

No it isn’t. God explicitly specifies that he is talking about the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites in that chapter. One thing about the OT is God gives specific directives to the Israelites instead of an open-ended "kill the any heathen you see" like in the Quran.

>>547563

>God explicitly specifies that he is talking about the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites in that chapter

Yes He does. And then, one verse before this, He explains why they are not to marry any of these people

<For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

So although it's about these nations in particular, it's about false religion in general.

I'm genuinely unsure, but I think we usually depict them as humanlike for a couple reasons.

>God became man, so humanity itself is inherently godlike. Depicting them as angels is a nod to this and honors the angels as well.

>Many famous angels take the form of men; the angels that are not strictly messengers like the Cherubim and Seraphim are in heaven praising God

>The nonhuman forms they take can be difficult to depict accurately

>Granting them a human form reminds us of their mutual shared nature as created and intelligible beings rather than as "thinking wheels" or what have you

The more I mull this over I'm reminded of the ban on depicting Christ as a lamb in icons. Biblically speaking there's nothing particularly upsetting about it, but it downplays the importance of the Incarnation in practice. I'm thinking this is a similar circumstance.