Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Thomas Aquinas his view of the Seraphim


Moondoggy

Recommended Posts

Quoted from Summa Theologiae by Aquinas,

"The name Seraphim is expressed by the word "ardor" or "fire" Hence, Dionysius expounds the name "Seraphim" according to the properties of fire, containing an excess heat. We consider in the fire the quality of clarity, or brightness, which signifies these angels have in themselves an inextinguishable light, and that they perfectly lighten others.

"As they were developed in theology, seraphim are beings of pure light and have direct communication with God. They resonate with the fire attached to purification. The etymology of "Seraphim" itself comes from the word "Saraph". Saraph in all its forms is used to connote a burning, fiery state. Seraphim, are classically depicted by their having six wings radiating from the angel's face at the center." End Quote.

This is not far from the Rabbi Moses Mamonides description also, which the Jewish Orthodoxy bases its angelology upon.

I can see no correlation that the hebrew word "seraph" implies anything more or less than "Fiery or burning".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moondoggy

    13

  • draconic chronicler

    11

  • brave_new_world

    4

  • RougeRat

    4

Towards the later part of his life, Thomas Aquinas was quite a Christian mystic. This quote of his is worth mentioning: Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing else than the vision of the Divine Essence... For perfect happiness the intellect needs to reach the very essence of the first cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with God.....in which alone man's happiness consists, as stated above.

Yeah the thing I like about St. Thomas Aquinas was that he realized that true salvation doesn't just come through attaching oneself to the belief system that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior but that one must become like Jesus himself and experience God in its purity for oneself. Thank God for the Christian mystics!@!

Edited by brave_new_world
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, forgive my ignorance, are Seraphim really angels at all? I'm not saying that they are necessarily dragons or even dragon like beings (same difference I guess) but were they ever mentioned as being angels?

Also, does seraph just mean "fiery" or "fiery serpent"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Towards the later part of his life, Thomas Aquinas was quite a Christian mystic. This quote of his is worth mentioning: Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing else than the vision of the Divine Essence... For perfect happiness the intellect needs to reach the very essence of the first cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with God.....in which alone man's happiness consists, as stated above.

Yeah the thing I like about St. Thomas Aquinas was that he realized that true salvation doesn't just come through attaching oneself to the belief system that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior but that one must become like Jesus himself and experience God in its purity for oneself. Thank God for the Christian mystics!@!

I believe that was in his theology, but I also believe the pre-requisette was receiving Christ because then becoming like him has no reference point in which to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, forgive my ignorance, are Seraphim really angels at all? I'm not saying that they are necessarily dragons or even dragon like beings (same difference I guess) but were they ever mentioned as being angels?

Also, does seraph just mean "fiery" or "fiery serpent"

The Seraphim are biblically mentioned once only In Isaiah chpt 6. The Jewish Orthodxy included them in their view of Angelology. You can read this on wikpedia or the Jewish encyclopedia on line. Saraph is translated "burn" 118 times in the old testament. In its plural form it is just translated "Fiery serpent" three times. But remember that a language like hebrew the translation is keenly dependant upon the immediate context. You like the rest of us have to read the record and determine what the Seraphim look like. Do they have faces or fiery snouts? Hands or scaly claws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that was in his theology, but I also believe the pre-requisette was receiving Christ because then becoming like him has no reference point in which to follow.

What do you mean has no reference point in which to follow? My point was St Yhomas became as holy as Jesus or John the Baptist and not simply believed in them. Instead of simply taking Jesus in as his Lord and saviour and waited around for death and go to some post-humous survival called heaven, he actually found salvation in the here and now which is the "Kingdom of God within".

You don't even have to christian to find the Kingdom of God within, it can occur whether you are Buddhist or a Muslim, hence why mystical experiences is a worldwide phenomena that has been happening all over the world at all times. Hinduism which is the oldest recorded religion in history has had mystics who have described their mystical unions with God long before Christianity developed.

As long as one detaches from one's own ego which in effect is dying unto oneself, then you'll recieve the grace of the universe whether you want to call it Christ, Allah or Nirvana. All relgions are different entrances to the same truth. Another Christian mystic called William Law put it in words well when he wrote:

In what does salvation consist? Not in any historic faith or knowledge of anything absent or distant, not in any variety of restraints, rules or methods of practising virtue, not in any formality of opinion about faith and works, repentance, forgiveness of sins, or justification and sanctification, not in any truth or righteousness that you can have from yourself , from the best of men and books, but soley and wholly from the life of God, or Christ of God, quickened and born again in you, in other words in the restoration and perfect union of the first twofold life in humanity.

And another angle is seen from St. John of the Cross:

The fitting disposition for union with God is not that the soul should understand , feel, taste or imagine anything on the subject of the nature of God, or any other thing whatever, but should remain in that pureness and love which is perfect resignation and complete detachment from all things for God alone.

So even Christian saints admit that one does not need to know about the outward life of Christ to have a direct union with God experience or revelation. All one simply needs to do is "remain in that pureness and love which is perfect resignation and complete detachment from all things for God alone".

The bible and life of christ are only as good insofar as it can help you achieve the above mentioned state of mind so as to experience God directly oneself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, forgive my ignorance, are Seraphim really angels at all? I'm not saying that they are necessarily dragons or even dragon like beings (same difference I guess) but were they ever mentioned as being angels?

Also, does seraph just mean "fiery" or "fiery serpent"

The esteemed Jewish encyclopedia, with its Hebrew speaking experts believe the Seraphim were originally fiery flying serpents, and this relates directly to the Sumerian origins of the Hebrew theology. We have the same Garden of Eden with intelligent talking winged dragons that serve a God in heaven. These dragons guard the gates of heaven, the throne of God, and the sacred trees, exactly like the Cherubim and Seraphim of the Hebrew theology. The Egyptians also used the same name "Serraf" in the Pyramid texts that would later evolve into the Book of the Dead. It is called a fiery flying serpent and its hieroglyph looks much like the quadrapedal Sumerian dragon, as does also the dragon images on the Menorah that was one of the most sacred objects in the Jewish temple. There can be no doublt however because the Jewish Rabbis translated the word Seraphim to Drakones, when Hebrew scripture was translated to Greek before the Christian era. Scriptures found in the Dead Sea Scrolls show the word Drakones substituting Seraphim in the Greek text versions and Christianity continued this belief with Books such as Apoc. of Baruch identifiying dragons as heavenly creatures whose job was to consume the wicked. This is why we see dragons swallowing sinners decorating most Christian cathedrals in Europe. The creatures sent to punish the Israelites are seraphim, and in church sanctioned medieval art are depicted as winged dragons. Burning is something the dragons do with the fiery breath mentioned even in the Bible. But it is a verb. The noun seraph is always a serpentlike heavenly creature.

Moondoggy,

St Thomas Aquinas recognized Satan as one of the heavenly dragons still acknowledged by the Chruch in his time. In his Summa he states in regards to Satan, "This DRAGON which Thou hast formed, he who was more excellent that all the rest in nature, became the greater in malice."

Bibles of Aquina's time depict God riding on the backs of dragons when illustrating the chapters in which God is desribed riding on the Cherubim. Perhaps then, Aquinas identified only the Cherubim as dragons and not the Seraphim. Or it is equally possible someone added the "human face" description to St. Aquinas Summa, unless we know it is the original document. Certainly many members of the Church still regarded the Seraphim as serpent-dragons for ivery Bible covers showing the throne of God illustrate it flanked by the soul-devouring Seraph-dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The esteemed Jewish encyclopedia, with its Hebrew speaking experts believe the Seraphim were originally fiery flying serpents, and this relates directly to the Sumerian origins of the Hebrew theology. We have the same Garden of Eden with intelligent talking winged dragons that serve a God in heaven. These dragons guard the gates of heaven, the throne of God, and the sacred trees, exactly like the Cherubim and Seraphim of the Hebrew theology. The Egyptians also used the same name "Serraf" in the Pyramid texts that would later evolve into the Book of the Dead. It is called a fiery flying serpent and its hieroglyph looks much like the quadrapedal Sumerian dragon, as does also the dragon images on the Menorah that was one of the most sacred objects in the Jewish temple. There can be no doublt however because the Jewish Rabbis translated the word Seraphim to Drakones, when Hebrew scripture was translated to Greek before the Christian era. Scriptures found in the Dead Sea Scrolls show the word Drakones substituting Seraphim in the Greek text versions and Christianity continued this belief with Books such as Apoc. of Baruch identifiying dragons as heavenly creatures whose job was to consume the wicked. This is why we see dragons swallowing sinners decorating most Christian cathedrals in Europe. The creatures sent to punish the Israelites are seraphim, and in church sanctioned medieval art are depicted as winged dragons. Burning is something the dragons do with the fiery breath mentioned even in the Bible. But it is a verb. The noun seraph is always a serpentlike heavenly creature.

Moondoggy,

St Thomas Aquinas recognized Satan as one of the heavenly dragons still acknowledged by the Chruch in his time. In his Summa he states in regards to Satan, "This DRAGON which Thou hast formed, he who was more excellent that all the rest in nature, became the greater in malice."

Bibles of Aquina's time depict God riding on the backs of dragons when illustrating the chapters in which God is desribed riding on the Cherubim. Perhaps then, Aquinas identified only the Cherubim as dragons and not the Seraphim. Or it is equally possible someone added the "human face" description to St. Aquinas Summa, unless we know it is the original document. Certainly many members of the Church still regarded the Seraphim as serpent-dragons for ivery Bible covers showing the throne of God illustrate it flanked by the soul-devouring Seraph-dragons.

That is not what he is quoted as saying in the summa, that Just posted. read it again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean has no reference point in which to follow? My point was St Yhomas became as holy as Jesus or John the Baptist and not simply believed in them. Instead of simply taking Jesus in as his Lord and saviour and waited around for death and go to some post-humous survival called heaven, he actually found salvation in the here and now which is the "Kingdom of God within".

You don't even have to christian to find the Kingdom of God within, it can occur whether you are Buddhist or a Muslim, hence why mystical experiences is a worldwide phenomena that has been happening all over the world at all times. Hinduism which is the oldest recorded religion in history has had mystics who have described their mystical unions with God long before Christianity developed.

As long as one detaches from one's own ego which in effect is dying unto oneself, then you'll recieve the grace of the universe whether you want to call it Christ, Allah or Nirvana. All relgions are different entrances to the same truth. Another Christian mystic called William Law put it in words well when he wrote:

In what does salvation consist? Not in any historic faith or knowledge of anything absent or distant, not in any variety of restraints, rules or methods of practising virtue, not in any formality of opinion about faith and works, repentance, forgiveness of sins, or justification and sanctification, not in any truth or righteousness that you can have from yourself , from the best of men and books, but soley and wholly from the life of God, or Christ of God, quickened and born again in you, in other words in the restoration and perfect union of the first twofold life in humanity.

And another angle is seen from St. John of the Cross:

The fitting disposition for union with God is not that the soul should understand , feel, taste or imagine anything on the subject of the nature of God, or any other thing whatever, but should remain in that pureness and love which is perfect resignation and complete detachment from all things for God alone.

So even Christian saints admit that one does not need to know about the outward life of Christ to have a direct union with God experience or revelation. All one simply needs to do is "remain in that pureness and love which is perfect resignation and complete detachment from all things for God alone".

The bible and life of christ are only as good insofar as it can help you achieve the above mentioned state of mind so as to experience God directly oneself.

Cannot say I know everything about the man's theology. But I posted this with his view of the Seraphim, not his entire theology of salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey DC 118 times count them, is the word seraph translated burning and they have nothing to do with serpents or dragons. You have three verses that are. I think by the sheer volume of the translation alone should clue you into the word origin and its meaning. 118 to 3, if this was a football game score-you lose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannot say I know everything about the man's theology. But I posted this with his view of the Seraphim, not his entire theology of salvation.

The number count means nothing becasue when it is used as a noun it is always a serpent dragon. When it is a verb, it is EXACTLY what these serpent dragons do, spew fire and burn things. That is why the word for a fire breathing dragon is also the word that means to burn things.

It is the same thing with words like Rat or Worm. They are first known as a Noun, and become a verb based on what the animal noun does. Rats "rat" on others. Worms "worm" their way through the ground, Ands Saraphs (fire spewing serpent dragons) BURN things.

And if you are so ready to acknowledge St. Thomas Aquinas as the end all expert, he acknowledged Satan as a phyiscial dragon and that there were others of his kind, also "formed" by God, and that Satan was the most excellent of them all. This certainly does sound like St. Thomas acknowledges dragons as heavenly creatures, onlly one called Satan "became greater in Malice". But like I said, most Bibles of his time depicted God riding on the backs of his dragons, and every cathedral depicted dragons swallowing up sinners on Judgement day, often being herded into their mouths by swan winged angels. Even satan is sometimes depicted as a dragon being swallowed by an even bigger heavenly dragon.

So are you saying Aquinas was wrong about Satan being a physical dragon and that God created more of these dragons to serve him? But that he is right that seraphim are not dragons in form? I believe someone may have changed his Seraphim description a bit, and that he must have believed these fiery beings had the form of dragons, and Satan was one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted from Summa Theologiae by Aquinas,

"The name Seraphim is expressed by the word "ardor" or "fire" Hence, Dionysius expounds the name "Seraphim" according to the properties of fire, containing an excess heat. We consider in the fire the quality of clarity, or brightness, which signifies these angels have in themselves an inextinguishable light, and that they perfectly lighten others.

"As they were developed in theology, seraphim are beings of pure light and have direct communication with God. They resonate with the fire attached to purification. The etymology of "Seraphim" itself comes from the word "Saraph". Saraph in all its forms is used to connote a burning, fiery state. Seraphim, are classically depicted by their having six wings radiating from the angel's face at the center." End Quote.

This is not far from the Rabbi Moses Mamonides description also, which the Jewish Orthodoxy bases its angelology upon.

I can see no correlation that the hebrew word "seraph" implies anything more or less than "Fiery or burning".

My theory is that God is the pures of energy .....

God is the angels and the system .... pure energy .....

Tis complicated but I think you get the picture so I have to agree with you!!!

~*~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory is that God is the pures of energy .....

God is the angels and the system .... pure energy .....

Tis complicated but I think you get the picture so I have to agree with you!!!

~*~

I agree that God is probably pure energy and maybe even radioactive which is why He warned Moses not to get too close. Only the Seraphim/Fiery Serpents could stand in His direct presence, and it is interesting that reptiles thrive in high radiation that normally would kill men.

But if you concede that the Bible is accurate, angels cannot be these energy creatures. According to the Bible, the angels must eat food to survive and appear identical to normal young men. Thy are also not particularly strong, as men can sometime overpower them as the Bible also states. Angels eat human food on earth, and manna in heaven. Of course, the Bible could be wrong about all these things, but if so, then where do you draw the line?

Modern cartoon angels only have wings becasuse later theologians "took them from the description of the flying serpents that guarded the throne of God, and put them on the human body in imitation of the Gods of the pagan greeks and romans. The Seraphim are never referred to as angels, or human-like, they are referred to as creatures if not by their actual name. The ancient Rabbis themselves translated the word Seraphim to the Greek word Drakones, this is undeniable historical fact, so there can really be no dispute what the ancient Bible writers were talking about.

And since when does "pure energy" need wings to fly? Serious Biblical scholars understand that the Serphim are vestiges of the guardian winged Mushushu dragons that guarded the throne of God, gates of heaven and sacred groves of the Sumerian God of Abraham. That's also where the original Eden and flood stories came from as well.

The invisible spirit angels of the New Testament are derived from the pagan Greek daemons, which can be good or bad. These have nothing to do with the Old Testament angels and fiery serpents (seraphim). It is interesting that Christians seem to think pagan greek additions to the Bible should be more accurate that the original Bible. But then, few pagans accepted Judaism, because it wasn't "pagan enough" for them, as Christianity turned out to be.

Edited by draconic chronicler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number count means nothing becasue when it is used as a noun it is always a serpent dragon. When it is a verb, it is EXACTLY what these serpent dragons do, spew fire and burn things. That is why the word for a fire breathing dragon is also the word that means to burn things.

It is the same thing with words like Rat or Worm. They are first known as a Noun, and become a verb based on what the animal noun does. Rats "rat" on others. Worms "worm" their way through the ground, Ands Saraphs (fire spewing serpent dragons) BURN things.

And if you are so ready to acknowledge St. Thomas Aquinas as the end all expert, he acknowledged Satan as a phyiscial dragon and that there were others of his kind, also "formed" by God, and that Satan was the most excellent of them all. This certainly does sound like St. Thomas acknowledges dragons as heavenly creatures, onlly one called Satan "became greater in Malice". But like I said, most Bibles of his time depicted God riding on the backs of his dragons, and every cathedral depicted dragons swallowing up sinners on Judgement day, often being herded into their mouths by swan winged angels. Even satan is sometimes depicted as a dragon being swallowed by an even bigger heavenly dragon.

So are you saying Aquinas was wrong about Satan being a physical dragon and that God created more of these dragons to serve him? But that he is right that seraphim are not dragons in form? I believe someone may have changed his Seraphim description a bit, and that he must have believed these fiery beings had the form of dragons, and Satan was one of them.

Well, then if in verb form how then does dragon magically get into the picture. I think an accurate translation would be a fiery being, because no other word is tied to the verb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory is that God is the pures of energy .....

God is the angels and the system .... pure energy .....

Tis complicated but I think you get the picture so I have to agree with you!!!

~*~

I agree with this. I don't care whether the bible says so or not. I am Christian and think that the whole cosmos is God. From the sand to the Angels and even the Devil itself! Everything is God. As a christian mystic put it:The knower and known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.

To me a christain isn't someone who follows the bible word for word, but someone who does his best to simply: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. and to: love thy neighbour as thyself.

afterall on these two commandments: hang all the law and the prohpets.

All biology is physiology, all physiology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, all physics is mathematics, all mathematics is energy, all energy is consciousness and all consciousness is God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then if in verb form how then does dragon magically get into the picture. I think an accurate translation would be a fiery being, because no other word is tied to the verb.

I believe I explained it very clearly. A fly "flies". A worm "worms". A Saraph (dragon) saraphs (burns things).

It was not me who translated Seraphim to Drakones, it was the ancient Jewish Rabbis, who I strongly suspect knew more about ancient Jewish theology than any living person today. The Jewish encylclopedia explained why this is so. Serpent-dragons were guardian creatures in the Sumerian origins of Judaism. I am just reporting the facts. And it is hardly difficult to understand. Nobody in Israel questions why an attack helicopter is named after a heavenly serpent dragon called the Saraph. Americans named their AH1 attack helicopter the Cobra.

The ancient Christians believed the same thing. I have provided plenty of evidence to prove this. Even if St. Thomas Aquinas did not identify the Seraphim as dragons, he still acknowledged the existence of heavenly dragons created by God, and the "most excellent" of these creatures became "malicious", referring to Satan. The Bibles that St. Thomas used pictured God riding on dragons in the vereses about him riding the Cherubim, and portrayedd His throne guarded by dragons. These illuminations were made by monks supervised by priests, both of which studied the Bible all of their lives. I strongly suspect they know much more about Holy scripture than you as well.

I cannot fathom why you have such a problem with this. It is not my fault modern theologians changed the Bible to make it more acceptable to the modern audience. All I am doing is proving through scripture and archaeology that both the ancient Jews and ancient Christians clearly acknowledged flying reptilian dragons as the highest heavenly creatures, and that Satan was never an Angel, but one of these same creatures.

And if God is real, and the Bible accurate, this explains why every human culture acknowledges the same dragons from the dawn of recorded history despite the fact no physical evidence of them has ever been found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I explained it very clearly. A fly "flies". A worm "worms". A Saraph (dragon) saraphs (burns things).

It was not me who translated Seraphim to Drakones, it was the ancient Jewish Rabbis, who I strongly suspect knew more about ancient Jewish theology than any living person today. The Jewish encylclopedia explained why this is so. Serpent-dragons were guardian creatures in the Sumerian origins of Judaism. I am just reporting the facts. And it is hardly difficult to understand. Nobody in Israel questions why an attack helicopter is named after a heavenly serpent dragon called the Saraph. Americans named their AH1 attack helicopter the Cobra.

The ancient Christians believed the same thing. I have provided plenty of evidence to prove this. Even if St. Thomas Aquinas did not identify the Seraphim as dragons, he still acknowledged the existence of heavenly dragons created by God, and the "most excellent" of these creatures became "malicious", referring to Satan. The Bibles that St. Thomas used pictured God riding on dragons in the vereses about him riding the Cherubim, and portrayedd His throne guarded by dragons. These illuminations were made by monks supervised by priests, both of which studied the Bible all of their lives. I strongly suspect they know much more about Holy scripture than you as well.

I cannot fathom why you have such a problem with this. It is not my fault modern theologians changed the Bible to make it more acceptable to the modern audience. All I am doing is proving through scripture and archaeology that both the ancient Jews and ancient Christians clearly acknowledged flying reptilian dragons as the highest heavenly creatures, and that Satan was never an Angel, but one of these same creatures.

And if God is real, and the Bible accurate, this explains why every human culture acknowledges the same dragons from the dawn of recorded history despite the fact no physical evidence of them has ever been found.

Look, you just did it again! You are saying the noun saraph is dragon and it is not. Buy a good analytical Hebrew lexicon that is not produced by a christian publisher and you will see that it just means fiery or burning. Why not look at the records all 118 of them and see what it is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot fathom why you have such a problem with this.

Exactly, that's what I want to know too. What's the big deal if they have reptilian-like skin?! Are dragons less appealing than bird-winged creatures??? Are they lesser in God's eyes???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, that's what I want to know too. What's the big deal if they have reptilian-like skin?! Are dragons less appealing than bird-winged creatures??? Are they lesser in God's eyes???

I personally don't have a problem with angels being "dragon" or "dragon-like" creatures (same difference I guess), but I think actually calling them dragons makes them seem too much like make believe or some sort of fantasy to a lot of people. I guess bird creatures are more believable than dragons to a lot of people. Heh I don't know.

Also, moondoggy keeps mentioning that there is no actual source of them being reptilian. (I believe..honestly I am just sort of skimming through things now since a lot of stuff is just a rehash of the "was satan right" thread. :D The war that does not end lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, moondoggy keeps mentioning that there is no actual source of them being reptilian. (I believe..honestly I am just sort of skimming through things now since a lot of stuff is just a rehash of the "was satan right" thread. :D The war that does not end lol)

Actually, I've been following these guys (DC, M, and A-S Child) for quite a while, and I find the Reptilian Creatures versus "Goofy Cartoon Swan Winged Humanoid Seraphim" versus "Harp Strumming Swan Winged Handsom Human Freaks (angels)" topic rather interesting, partly because of my personal reason. True, some of the posts loop..., but the arena is very entertaining and informative, nevertheless, regardless of my personal reason. I and a professor friend of mine did our groundwork at our nearby "big city" library to verify some of the stuff written here. These guys have valid points, depending on the source materials used. And of course, we're waiting for DC's book because hopefully, it will not disappoint and with all-new extensive pictures to see and detailed findings... No doubt, DC is holding out on us for the big surprise, I hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't have a problem with angels being "dragon" or "dragon-like" creatures (same difference I guess), but I think actually calling them dragons makes them seem too much like make believe or some sort of fantasy to a lot of people. I guess bird creatures are more believable than dragons to a lot of people. Heh I don't know.

Also, moondoggy keeps mentioning that there is no actual source of them being reptilian. (I believe..honestly I am just sort of skimming through things now since a lot of stuff is just a rehash of the "was satan right" thread. :D The war that does not end lol)

I NEVER said "Angels were Dragons"! The Bible talks of angels that look EXACTLY like young men (who have no wings), and it talks about "other" heavenly creatures, variously named Seraphim, Cherubim, Destroyers, and even DRAGONS depending on which verse you read. Seraphim sing praises to God in Isaiah, and Dragons sing praises to God in Psalms. There is no doubt that they are talking about the same creatures.

It is not my fault that dragons are so ingrained in the human psyche that they occur in virtually every human theology, and therefore modern popular culture as well. It was the ancient Jews themselves that decided the best word to translate the Seraphim was "dragons", or more correctly, the ancient Greek Drakones that would become our modern English "dragon".

I have quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia that states the Seraphim are most probably "Fiery flying serpents". You can read this again just a few posts up from here. And it is historical fact that the ancient Jews transtlated the word Seraphim to Drakones. And even the Egyptians called fiery flying serpents the very same name - Saraph. And the Israelis today still recognize this word as the Heavenly Serpent Dragon. I don't know how many other sources you need, but all of the ancient Christian art confirms this as well.

Moondoggy is just playing word games. The Bible does use the word Saraph to mean fiery flying serpents in the Bible when used as a noun. He even admits this. But here is the stupidity of his logic. A fly can be an insect, but it can also mean the act of an airborne object. If the latter meaning is used more often in a book, according to Moondoggy's warped logic, it should make the use of the word as an insect, invalid. I'm sorry, but I think the archaeological evidence, the acknowledgement by one of the most reputable scriptural sources (Jewish Encyclopedia), and the acknowledgement of the entire Hebrew-speaking nation of Israel that the Saraph is a heavenly serpent dragon, has a bit more weight than moondoggys notion that the Seraphim must be the beautiful swan-winged angels becasue he remembers that from his Sunday School coloring books.

And Yes, DLV, in addition to the rare ancient Judaic and Christian artwork that verifies the scriptures about the Heavenly dragons, there will indeed be many more BIG Surprises!

Oh and Moondog, inaddition to calling Satan a literal dragon, not an angel. and acknowledging God created more of these dragons, Aquinas also states Satan was a Cherub, and NOT a Seraph. l guess you can argue that cherubs are chubby baby angels like your Sunday School coloring books show, but in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, Bibles illuminating the passages about God riding on a Cherub, portray Him riding on a classic, reptilian, fire breathing dragon. But not like "eragon" straddling its neck, but rather, in a golden throne strapped on the creature's back. Being a scholar, I am sure Aquinas saw the connection between the tree guarding Cherubs of the Bible, and the Tree guarding dragons of many ancient cultures, though he probably did not know, that the origin of all the rest, was not the Bible, but the original Sumerian Mushushu dragons that guarded the sacred trees, throne of God and gates of Heaven, just like the Biblical Cherubs. But like the Jewish Encylcpedia plainly states, "Cherubim and Seraphim are grouped together", and this is becasue they are BOTH dragons, for these are their titles. Some Biblical dragons are simply referred to as "destroyers" or even "dragons", though by the orignal Hebrew word "Tannin".

Edited by draconic chronicler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I NEVER said "Angels were Dragons"! The Bible talks of angels that look EXACTLY like young men (who have no wings), and it talks about "other" heavenly creatures, variously named Seraphim, Cherubim, Destroyers, and even DRAGONS depending on which verse you read. Seraphim sing praises to God in Isaiah, and Dragons sing praises to God in Psalms. There is no doubt that they are talking about the same creatures.

It is not my fault that dragons are so ingrained in the human psyche that they occur in virtually every human theology, and therefore modern popular culture as well. It was the ancient Jews themselves that decided the best word to translate the Seraphim was "dragons", or more correctly, the ancient Greek Drakones that would become our modern English "dragon".

I have quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia that states the Seraphim are most probably "Fiery flying serpents". You can read this again just a few posts up from here. And it is historical fact that the ancient Jews transtlated the word Seraphim to Drakones. And even the Egyptians called fiery flying serpents the very same name - Saraph. And the Israelis today still recognize this word as the Heavenly Serpent Dragon. I don't know how many other sources you need, but all of the ancient Christian art confirms this as well.

Moondoggy is just playing word games. The Bible does use the word Saraph to mean fiery flying serpents in the Bible when used as a noun. He even admits this. But here is the stupidity of his logic. A fly can be an insect, but it can also mean the act of an airborne object. If the latter meaning is used more often in a book, according to Moondoggy's warped logic, it should make the use of the word as an insect, invalid. I'm sorry, but I think the archaeological evidence, the acknowledgement by one of the most reputable scriptural sources (Jewish Encyclopedia), and the acknowledgement of the entire Hebrew-speaking nation of Israel that the Saraph is a heavenly serpent dragon, has a bit more weight than moondoggys notion that the Seraphim must be the beautiful swan-winged angels becasue he remembers that from his Sunday School coloring books.

And Yes, DLV, in addition to the rare ancient Judaic and Christian artwork that verifies the scriptures about the Heavenly dragons, there will indeed be many more BIG Surprises!

Oh and Moondog, inaddition to calling Satan a literal dragon, not an angel. and acknowledging God created more of these dragons, Aquinas also states Satan was a Cherub, and NOT a Seraph. l guess you can argue that cherubs are chubby baby angels like your Sunday School coloring books show, but in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, Bibles illuminating the passages about God riding on a Cherub, portray Him riding on a classic, reptilian, fire breathing dragon. But not like "eragon" straddling its neck, but rather, in a golden throne strapped on the creature's back. Being a scholar, I am sure Aquinas saw the connection between the tree guarding Cherubs of the Bible, and the Tree guarding dragons of many ancient cultures, though he probably did not know, that the origin of all the rest, was not the Bible, but the original Sumerian Mushushu dragons that guarded the sacred trees, throne of God and gates of Heaven, just like the Biblical Cherubs. But like the Jewish Encylcpedia plainly states, "Cherubim and Seraphim are grouped together", and this is becasue they are BOTH dragons, for these are their titles. Some Biblical dragons are simply referred to as "destroyers" or even "dragons", though by the orignal Hebrew word "Tannin".

Wrong again!!! The Jewish encyclopedia puts them in the order of Angels in reference to Maimonides research! No word games here Draconic any decent analytical Hebrew Lexicon will bust apart your view of theusage and meaning of Seraph. Which I gather you fear because you never reference a "real" research tool. I forgot more about biblical research than you will ever know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again!!! The Jewish encyclopedia puts them in the order of Angels in reference to Maimonides research! No word games here Draconic any decent analytical Hebrew Lexicon will bust apart your view of theusage and meaning of Seraph. Which I gather you fear because you never reference a "real" research tool. I forgot more about biblical research than you will ever know.

Can somebody else here please explain the below paragraph to Moondoggy since he is apprently unable to read high school level English?

From the article on Seraphim in the Jewish Encyclopedia: "According to a third and more probable theory, the seraphim originally were serpents, as the name implies. Among many peoples of antiquity serpents played an important part in myth and folk-lore. For instance, there were Tiamat in the Babylonian legend of the Creation, and the Uræus serpent in Egypt. Consequently, since the Jews shared the superstitious ideas of surrounding nations in other respects, it should not be a matter of wonder if they adopted this notion as well. That the serpent filled a special rôle among them as a demoniacal being may be seen from the story of Adam's fall (Gen. iii.). In this connection the names "Dragon Spring" and "Serpent Pool" (places in the vicinity of Jerusalem) are worthy of being noted. A brazen serpent brings relief from the effects of the bite of the fiery serpents (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.) which Yhwh sent among his disobedient people in the wilderness. Isaiah (xiv. 29, ***. 6) speaks of fiery, flying serpents and dragons; and a brazen serpent, Nehushtan, stood in the Temple at Jerusalem, and was an object of worship until the time of Hezekiah, who destroyed it as being idolatrous (II Kings xviii. 4 et seq.). The worship of Nehushtan was plainly a remnant of ancient superstition, and was reconciled with the worship of Yhwh by connecting Nehushtan with the scourge of snakes in the wilderness and the rescue from them (Num. xxi. 9 et seq.). Therefore the theory seems possible, even probable, that the seraphim have their counterpart in the flying serpents of Isaiah (comp. also II Esd. xv. 29). It is only natural that these winged guardians of Yhwh's throne were soon ranked as higher beings and invested with the human form or with some features of the human body; and it was because of the very fact that they were adopted into the Yhwh cult that they were, in process of time, ennobled and spiritualized"

Do you understand what the words "more probable" means, Moondog. Here, I'll help you. It means the first part about the Seraphim beings winged humanoid cartoon angels is "less probable", but of course, they are obviously going to mention this idea too, for the benefit of Christians with winged angels they think are Seraphim in their coloring books and Christmas cards. But if you read this very carefully and slowly you will see that these esteemed scholar believe the Seraphim began as fiery flying serpent dragons.

And as for your knowledge of hebrew, read this again also "The seraphim were originally serpents as THE NAME IMPLIES. Everyone in Israel knows this, the writers of the Jewish Encyclopedia know this, why can't you figure this out.

Please, somebody try to explain this to him in words he can understand. I am ready to give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I NEVER said "Angels were Dragons"!

I understand that fully -you've been clear about that, but I think many are interperting anything that is "dragon-like" into being a dragon. Many people have "dragons don't exist!!!" fully implanted into their brains, and I think that is why some people will not consider your theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that fully -you've been clear about that, but I think many are interperting anything that is "dragon-like" into being a dragon. Many people have "dragons don't exist!!!" fully implanted into their brains, and I think that is why some people will not consider your theory.

You still don't get it. The Bible does say there are angels, and they are identical to humans. I have never disputed that. But it also says there are other creatures that are a kind of flying serpent dragon. Apples and oranges. The "dragons" are the oldest, in compliance with our ideas of evolution. The human like angels seem to have been recruited from normal humans, becasue the "dragons" do not make good messengers or spies among humans. This is what the original Sumerian Adam story was all about. He was not blessed with eternal life. He was a normal man among many, that was offered eternal life, and the message was conveyed by a talking serpent dragon. This is the original Eden story, written 2000 years before the Hebrews finally wrote the same story down, considerably altered by that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.