Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Biblically-Accurate Angels Explained" video.

@CRneu The stories of yore were much better than this belief in a "material" and "spiritual" world though. The latter is just a mythology of excuses. In the original stories, Yahwe and his angels are just dudes hanging out in the sky, in a real, physical location you could visit. That's honest myths.
3
The texts don't say that they took some form though. And we have inhabitants of heaven lusting after human women and having offspring with them. Most plausibly angels and most other inhabitants of heaven were originally supposed to look just like humans.
3
@Serocco No. The "point" people think they are making is that popular depictions of angels are not biblical and tgey in fact look more exotic. Instead if anything popular depictions are wrong because they give them wings when most angels just look like regular humans without wings.
3
@nhunguyen091 That's a cute head canon, but it's not biblical. Originally the inhabitants of heaven, including God and his angels, were probably supposed to look just like humans.
2
@ivo2781 No, that's not likely at all and having different numbers of faces or eyes on something isn't hard to think of. Moreover the origin of mythical creatures is typically older mythical creatures, not people just making them up in their final form.
2
You think the author wanted to express that the person having the vision had the impression that the wheel within a wheel was very smart?
2
To the contrary, the people trying to make the bible more modern and appealing to current sentiments are mistaken. The "biblically accurate angel" meme was pro bible.
1
@JohnGrapes Except no one said that. The biblically accurate angel thing is a weak form of apologetics making angels seem less humanoid and ordinary than they actually appear in the bible, feeding into the modern sentiment that heaven ought to be exotically different from the realm of humans.
1
No, that's not safe to assume, that's your cringe af modern head canon.
1
None of that stuff is biblical though. In particular the older stories are free from this modern hogwash and the inhabitants of heaven simply have bodies like everyone else.
1
What fractal? A wheel in a wheel isn't a fractal.
1
No.
1
??? East Asian dragons don't have wings.
1
The angels are literally commanded around by Yahwe. Yahwe explicitly tells Job that he can do what he wants, because he's more powerful.
1
@nhunguyen091 You can't even keep your limp dicked lip service to egalitarianism straight. You don't want to surpass your parents in anything? I would consider myself failed as a parent if my children didn't do better than me.
1
@CephirDay People made up those heavenly beings and they behave far less exotically in the bible than most fantasy races.
1
No. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that "most religions come from psychedelics". And religions aren't just claims about consciousness.
1
That's your head canon.
1
No. Pretty much everyone doesn't read literally enough, completely ignoring all of the important cues and explaining away uncomfortable parts as "metaphors" even where it doesn't make sense at all. 90% of scholarship is to actually take the texts seriously.
1
@PauKj It says wheel in a wheel. That's not impossible geometry. To the contrary that fits many possible geometries.
1
It says wheel within a wheel. It says nothing about "vortex of eyes" or "higher dimensional geometry". The description doesn't fit at all, let alone "to a T".
1
You'd probably have to consult the original text to see whether they would have called that a "wheel within a wheel".
1
That's your head canon, not what's in the bible. You're doing the same as the medieval demonologists.
1
Manoha, Lot and angels don't exist. This isn't about your idle speculations, but about what the authors of those texts intended.
1
They look nothing like bejeweled self dribbling basketballs at all. So no, you're bullshitting yourself. Moreover there's zero evidence of anyone having some consumable form of dmt in mesopotamia.
1