Do angels have wings ? Were they created with wings ? Or an illusion people saw ?

[Peterkin]

Quote

The highest group of angels — the seraphim, the cherubim, and the thrones — not only contemplate God directly but are totally concerned with Him. ....

Quote

The second level, or sphere, of the angels — the dominations, the virtues, and the powers — do not possess the same kind of unified vision as the higher choirs. They see reality divided into the fundamental causes from which all things stem. And then the third group — the principalities, the archangels, and the angels — have a further de­volved understanding of the truth of the universe, from the large and basic causes of all things into a multiplicity of particular causes.

https://catholicexchange.com/what-are-the-nine-choirs-of-angels

This is the only reference I know of to any member of the highest sphere performing an earth-related service for God:

Quote

Gen 4:24  So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

They don't normally get anywhere near the ground. Archangels are not mentioned in the biblical stories; the first references are in Paul's letters. Later they're reported to make some announcements and issue warnings, but the courier chores - frequent throughout both OT and NT - fall to mere low-ranking angels, just as you say. 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Typically "angels" in the Christian mythology refer to messengers of god, which are probably closests to malakim in Judaism. These were human-shaped and originally depicted as wingless. This depiction changed around the 4th century when these messengers started to get wings and were depicted as such since then.

It was during the 4th century that the main body of Christian (now Catholic) canon was developed. Also: Christianity had moved to Rome, where its art and literature, going forward, would be heavily influenced by Roman aesthetics and expectations. That's very likely where the wings came from: depictions of Cupid, Mercury and the putti, the ubiquitous winged baby boys on valentine cards and overdecorated ceilings, who were later incorrectly dubbed "cherubs".

Edited December 20, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Archangels are not mentioned in the biblical stories;

Not arguing with that point, as I have forgotten much of my Catholic upbringing, but wasn't it said that Micky the archangel appeared to Mary and said, "Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus"....or was that Gabriel? Forgot then what Micky was known for and what appearence he made. The other archangel of course was the fallen one, Lucifer.

[Peterkin]

Not exactly. An angel introduces himself to Zacharias after telling him that his prayers are answered; he and Elisabeth are going to have a baby: John the Baptist. He doesn't say he's an archangel, but he's high ranking:

Quote

Luke1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

and then tells Mary she's about to get pregnant by The Highest

Quote

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

And the Mary goes to visit Elisabeth - a sort of prepartum play-date for their babies -  and Elisabeth says 

Quote

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

The 'arch' may have been added by Paul 100 years later, then the early Catholic scholars elaborated out all the other ranks, possibly after their own hierarchical organization under the pope. 

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

The other archangel of course was the fallen one, Lucifer.

There are some more, but they're apocryphal; Enoch didn't make it into the bible. He also tells about the war in Heaven - so much material for European theologians, novelists, poets and painters. Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Uriel, Saraqael, Raguel, and Remiel are the good ones; Moloch, Chemosh, Dagon, Belial, Beelzebub and Satan himself are the fallen angels, who rebelled against God's law.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There are some more, but they're apocryphal; Enoch didn't make it into the bible. He also tells about the war in Heaven - so much material for European theologians, novelists, poets and painters. Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Uriel, Saraqael, Raguel, and Remiel are the good ones; Moloch, Chemosh, Dagon, Belial, Beelzebub and Satan himself are the fallen angels, who rebelled against God's law.

Nice!!!Beelzebub/Satan/Lucifer I thought were one and the same.

(I won't mention the Greek Angel again) 

[Peterkin]

It's interesting literature, but not everyone's taste. Have you seen the series Good Omens? (BBC/amazon prime) It's nowhere close to as good as the book, and quite unnecessarily over the top in the graphic depiction of devils. 

Oh dear! I very much fear that's a trash heap out-take.

[Arikel88]

The bible refers that malakim is the way how Judaism called angels, the word angel comes from the word "Angelos" greek meaning messenger truth be told they are powerful beings and the order how angels were portay by the catholic church are wrong. The catholic portays them as human and child-like they were never that figure. But in biblical times the bible says it prohibits the israelites from depicting things from heaven.

 

20:4 exodus

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in the heavens above, on the earth below, or in the waters beneath.

 

This is case that angels could not be depicted and painted and most the images in the internet and the catholic paintings from the renassaince are wrong. Angels are being we cannot see with the naked eye, only the prophet Ezekiel says in A vision A sight of the Lord with his angels.

Ezekiel 10:1-22

That is closest what is described even though angels appear to him, How did this portrayal of angels in a good vs evil appears that angels will destroy each other

in the celestial war ?

Zoroastrianism

Is the influence that Catholic, Judaism, and Modern-Day Christian fall for it, It teaches that good and evil exist in the plane of angels heirarchy and angels all have wings and all are special beings. such as its monotheism, messianism, belief in judgement after death, conception of heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems. Even though Judaism predates it even before the exile of babylon the kingdoms of Judah and Israel worshipped other Gods and accepted influence from other religions. Zoroastrianism influence it all and this concept of angels and demons arouse.

 

What is the closest we know on how the angels really look like, how the lord is in his throne with them is

hebrews 12:29 for our "God is a consuming fire."

It is reference of what power he is made of and the angels around him are made of fire like his because he is so powerful other ranks of angels under Seraphim, Cherubins, and Ophafins ( Thrones ) can be near him.

 

G-d is not men or women in appearance but fire he can come down here as man but in heaven his body is fire !!!

 

The angels are made of his fire and can withstand his enormous power

. The question do angels have wings ? some do and some don't their is heirarchy that exist but for christians Seraphims are the high order the top but for hebrew (Judaism) chayot ha kadesh are the higher caste but here is an example.

 

Maimonides

 

he puts heirarchy like this

Rank Angelic Class Notes 1 Chayot Ha Kadesh[21] See Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 10 2 Ophanim See Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 10 3 Erelim See Isaiah 33:7 4 Hashmallim See Ezekiel 1:4 5 Seraphim See Isaiah 6 6 Malakim Messengers, angels 7 Elohim "Godly beings" 8 Bene Elohim "Sons of Godly beings" 9 Cherubim See Hagigah 13b 10 Ishim "manlike beings", see Genesis 18:2 Daniel 10:5
then the christian one 1: Seraphims 2:Cherubins 3:Thrones (Ophanims) 4.Dominations 5.Virtues 6.Powers 7.Principalities 8.Archangels 9.Angels are the order of christians.   But because of the flood, the destruction of the temple of Solomon when babylon attacked, and other times history is destroyed in Israel by this calamities we do not know the way is organized and rabbi's say that great information was lost in this incidents of history we do not know how the order is ? Some scholars say Chayot Ha Kodesh are indeed Archangels so the order maybe switched. So where does it says angels have wings ? one part says it. When moses made the ark God instructed him to put wings on the cherubs ! 1 kings6:27 27And he placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple. Since their wings were spread out, the wing of the first cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the second cherub touched the other wall, and in the middle of the room their wingtips touched. It shows the ark was made with cherubs and their wings. Where does it say they don't have wings ? The ophanims ( Thrones) they do not have wings Ezekiel 1:15-21 As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like topaz, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not change direction as the creatures went. Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around. When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose. Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. When the creatures moved, they also moved; when the creatures stood still, they also stood still; and when the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.
No where in this part do they have wings. There is error that people see angels like child-like babies that have wings and the Catholic church depicted them as cherubs such A way and the bible never said they look like that but powerful creatures with 4 wings of the Lord !!! People the eyes are fooled for what they see and people who saw angels cannot see the whole being for it is A being of fire.   A fire more greater than suns but what does the bible say about Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel aren't they archangels shouldn't they be Chayot Ha Kadesh the truth is Raphael and Uriel are not real they are not God's angel another error of history they were created by the catholic church. They do not appear in the tanak or bible no aprt. The bible only talks of 2 angels and they are Mikael and Gavriel they are the angels G-d sends to talk to his prophets. Raphael is made up just like the baby cherubs, also Uriel they are not part of the old testament they do not appear only in the apocryphals books. So Raphael and Uriel are not bible based but made up.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Arikel88

[Peterkin]

 

Quote

The catholic portays them as human and child-like

No, it doesn't. That's renaissance and Rococo art. Angels in Catholic churches and graveyards are mostly adult androgyns; some later ones, particularly of the guardian class look more distinctly female, while the juveniles merely cluster about the edges of clouds for decoration. Of course they're human-looking: that's what it says, over and over again, in both testaments of the bible.

 

55 minutes ago, Arikel88 said:

But in biblical times the bible says it prohibits the israelites from depicting things from heaven.

Are you sure? Leviticus says

Quote

26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

which is roughly he same as your Exodus quote: it says no idols for worship. Pictures are fine; idols are forbidden. If you couldn't make pictures of anything from heaven or earth or the ocean, you couldn't have any art.

55 minutes ago, Arikel88 said:

So where does it says angels have wings ?

Several places. But most places angels are mentioned, wings are not. That doesn't mean they don't have any: feet and hands are not specifically mentioned, either, yet nobody who met one says an angel is a disembodied face with no limbs. They're simply not described in detail. It's the message they bring that's considered important, not the messengers' appearance. But sometimes, as in Sodom, they're deliberately passing for ordinary men.

 

55 minutes ago, Arikel88 said:

There is error that people see angels like child-like babies that have wings and the Catholic church depicted them as cherubs

That wasn't the Catholic church, that was some artists, practicing artistic license. It came to be a comforting notion for people of the Middle Ages, when infant and child mortality was very high, that their children become angels in Heaven. Why would you begrudge those grieving parents? 

 

What's your problem with wings, anyway? Why should a heavenly messenger not have wings?

55 minutes ago, Arikel88 said:

So Raphael and Uriel are not bible based but made up.

     

And the critical difference would be.... ?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Peterkin

[Doogles31731]

I liked Joigus' contributions, and particularly his questioning about why the 'oldtimers' were moved to invent such things as angels. The records of the God actually speaking in a booming voice to mere mortals are rare. Moses' experience comes to mind. But theoretically, there had to be a messenger of some kind to deliver all the 'god-given' words of wisdom that humans listed on their scrolls as the 'word of God'.

An intermediary between God and man was needed. And since there was clearly a flat Earth and a heaven where God resided, the messengers had to have a means of travel. Now the only means of travel into the sky in the days of those old-timers was the flight of birds. Hence angels had to have wings.

That's my hypothesis, and I'm sticking to it -- lol.

Don't bother ticking a like of this hypothesis, because I don't have a heart.

 

[joigus]

On 12/19/2021 at 3:57 PM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

If one is to take this as a topic of discussion and not preaching (because you’ve been warned about that), and that this isn’t a topic for science, by your own insistence, we’re left with religious sources…but you haven’t really provided any. 

The disappointingly vague introduction almost excuses the unserious responses and poor signal/noise. (which will be cleaned up)

 

!

Moderator Note

Angels (presumably) exist in religious literature and culture, which is the domain in which this can be discussed. 

 

Anyone who can't follow that limitation should not post.

 

I had missed important aspects of this note. I'm sorry. I'm also sorry that most of my comments here went either unnoticed or misunderstood.

As I'm sure you know, there is an ages-old technique called maieutics, used by Socrates, part of which consists in --precisely-- following the argument of the proponent to the ultimate conclusions, so as to prove that there's a fatal flaw --or many, or insurmountable, as the case may be. Presenting opposition sometimes presents you also with the problem of the opponent adopting an aggressive stance that doesn't allow you to deploy any further arguments; while entering their logical framework allows you, in a manner of speaking, to set up a logical time bomb that I've found through the years to be far more effective than engaging in simple gainsay exercises.

Edited December 22, 2021 by joigus
minor correction

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

Now the only means of travel into the sky in the days of those old-timers was the flight of birds. Hence angels had to have wings.

Not necessarily. Both Jesus and Mary got up there without any wings.   Sometimes angels are depicted with wings, sometimes without: they're optional.

[joigus]

23 hours ago, Arikel88 said:

Maimonides

 

he puts heirarchy like this

I trust any third-rate archaeologist of the 21st century a thousandfold more than an army of thirty thousand Maimonides. Maimonides hadn't the faintest idea what carbon dating was about, or what the Hebrew pastoral and agricultural people of the Bronze Age had to deal with on a daily basis --because he didn't dig the ground in search of refuse food, or ancient manuscripts, or even excrements.--, or what the layers of destruction of ancient cities looked like. A city like Meggido was destroyed thousands of years before Maimonides was born, and yet, archaeologists of the 21st century have seen, sifted through, and analysed to the minutest details every inch of terrain in that city and many others like it, and consequently are much more intimate with what those people thought, their dreams, their hopes, their fantasies, than Maimonides would have even dreamt of.

Edited December 23, 2021 by joigus

[Arikel88]

Maimonides is A comparison there was

Maseket Atzilut

Jacob Nazir, in his Maseket Atzilut, also listed ten ranks of angels, beginning from the highest:^[22]

Rank	Angelic Class
1	Seraphim
2	Ophanim
3	Cherubim
4	Shinanim
5	Tarshishim
6	Ishim
7	Hashmallim
8	Malakim
9	Bene Elohim
10	Erelim

Berit Menuchah

Abraham ben Isaac of Granada, in his Berit Menuchah, also listed ten ranks of angels, beginning from the highest:^[22]

Rank	Angelic Class
1	Erelim
2	Ishim
3	Bene Elohim
4	Malakim
5	Hashmallim
6	Tarshishim
7	Shinnanim
8	Cherubim
9	Ophanim
10	Seraphim

Reshit Chochmah

Eliyahu de Vidas, in his Reshit Chochmah, also listed ten ranks of angels, beginning from the highest:^{[citation needed]}

Rank	Angelic Class
1	Chayot Ha Kodesh
2	Ophanim
3	Seraphim
4	Cherubim
5	Erelim
6	Tarshishim
7	Hashmallim
8	Elim
9	Malakim
10	Ishim

[Peterkin]

 

36 minutes ago, Arikel88 said:

Maimonides is A comparison there was

 Lots of people, over  a long period of time, have made lists. What's the point of reproducing some of those lists here?

[Arikel88]

They all have different systems the thing is that all of it proves there was A system that was in heaven and all fo this are system that many scribes and other contemporary writters also reading from ancient texts thought the order was but we are not giving an image of the heavenly things are not giving to us but none the less man in its fear and curiosity made men adventure in its logic and understanding of those times. Angels do have wings and some don't simple and all of it's is for good in the future.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Arikel88

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Arikel88 said:

there was A system that was in heaven and all fo this are system that many scribes and other contemporary writters also reading from ancient texts thought the order was but we are not giving an image of the heavenly things are not giving to us but none the less man in its fear and curiosity made men adventure in its logic and understanding of those times

It fascinates me that this is the version which came AFTER editing the original. Will you please state this another way, preferably with a more coherent and less broken syntax next time?

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Arikel88 said:

They all have different systems the thing is that all of it proves there was A system that was in heaven and all fo this are system that many scribes and other contemporary writters also reading from ancient texts thought the order was but we are not giving an image of the heavenly things are not giving to us but none the less man in its fear and curiosity made men adventure in its logic and understanding of those times. Angels do have wings and some don't simple and all of it's is for good in the future.

The problem with book's is, they trap our understanding in what we know; we don't need wing's or angel's to find heaven, just a map of the trap...

[Peterkin]

12 hours ago, Arikel88 said:

They all have different systems the thing is that all of it proves there was A system that was in heaven

Oh, I see:

• D.C. United
• FC Cincinnati
• FC Dallas
• Houston Dynamo
• Inter Miami CF
• LA Galaxy
• Los Angeles FC
• Minnesota United FC
• Montreal Impact
• Nashville SC
• New England Revolution
• New York City FC
• New York Red Bulls
• Orlando City SC
• Philadelphia Union
• Portland Timbers
• Real Salt Lake
• San Jose Earthquakes
• Seattle Sounders FC
• Sporting Kansas City
• Toronto FC
• Vancouver Whitecaps FC

See? That proves there is professional soccer in Heaven. (The bad news is, you're designated goalie for the Timbers next Saturday.)

[Doogles31731]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not necessarily. Both Jesus and Mary got up there without any wings.   Sometimes angels are depicted with wings, sometimes without: they're optional.

Jesus and Mary were not angels, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all have conflicting spins on those last days. All wrote their versions some decades after the event. They were no reports from eye-witnesses at the time. And some of the AD painters who depicted the angels were never trained to paint wings. They opted out of wing-painting classes at Art School. So I'm sticking to my hypothesis that angels had to have wings to commute between the flat Earth and Heaven -- lol.

But I love your proof and reasoning that there is professional soccer in heaven. I'd tick your heart if I was fair and decent, but I don't have a heart for you to reciprocate upon. So I'm a bit narked -- lol

[Peterkin]

They could; they didn't have to.

1 hour ago, Doogles31731 said:

And some of the AD painters who depicted the angels were never trained to paint wings.

Odd. They could manage Leda's swan, Pegasus and Cupid, but not a humble heavenly messenger? 

[Doogles31731]

Yeah, some attended classes conscientiously, but some were work dodgers. You were lucky to see the depictions of the conscientious ones -- lol.

[Peterkin]

LOL. I linked to hundreds of them - both kinds. They're not exactly hard to find!

Michelangelo could paint anything he wanted to and chose not to put wings on his angels. By then, the addition of wings had become an artistic convention and it was unusual not to put them in. It had not always been so.

Quote

Martin suggests that the ‘earliest Christian angels with wings are modelled on pagan female personifications, such as Nike’.[22] Epiphany, doom, punishment, protection, victory are all adjectives which Martin introduces as a means of suggesting that change and the angelic body are interwoven.

The Development of Winged Angels in Early Christian Art by Therese Martin

[Doogles31731]

Michaelangelo was a rebel and was known to have deliberately created imperfections in some of his paintings as a personal defiance of perfection. Hence he defied perfection by leaving wings off his angels. It is rumoured that he had manifested this same rebelliousness at wing-painting classes, so they flunked him in that subject and when he went into practice, he didn't have TGA approval to paint wings -- lol.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Doogles31731 said:

Hence he defied perfection by leaving wings off his angels.

No, that wasn't the reason. They are perfect in all respects: this 'imperfection' is solely in the eye of the beholder.

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

(and I wish you'd let up on that painting school joke)

[Doogles31731]

Wow Peterkin! Where ever did you come across that video? It boggles my imagination to realise that anybody took that much time and effort into the reasons why Michaelangelo didn't like to paint wings on his angels. You can see that at one stage of his life, he did so reluctantly because he sometimes painted only one wing or else he superimposed a large bird with wings on his subjects to simulate wings. 

See, according to my hypothesis, he did not have the qualifications to practice angel-wing-painting, and he was scared of the authorities. So he managed  to get away with half doing it, with masking it, and if he did do genuine angel-wing-painting, he hoped that the authorities would not discover it -- lol. 

I'll give you an 'A' for effort, but my hypothesis still stands that angels had to have wings to commute from Flat Earth to Heaven as messengers. You don't see rocket fuel gas appearing from their rear ends, do you? And if they did, the Climate Extinctionists would be protesting on the streets -- lol.