Biblically Correct Angel Christmas Tree Topper

[Subdeacon Joe]

Edited October 7, 2025 by Subdeacon Joe
Repost image

[Texas Lizard]

Could we get threw Halloween first...Before something about Christmas trees....I am not ready for this.....Don't even have my list ready...

 

Texas Lizard

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Didn't open with a picture.  Just a BIG blank square with a question mark box

[Calamity Kris]

Yep I got an error too.

[Yul Lose]

1 hour ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Didn't open with a picture.  Just a BIG blank square with a question mark box

Mebe it’s a non denominational Christmas tree topper, thus the ? mark.😆

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Didn't open with a picture.  Just a BIG blank square with a question mark box

 

46 minutes ago, Calamity Kris said:

Yep I got an error too.

 

18 minutes ago, Barrel Rider said:

link does not work

 

Fixed it.  It was weird.. it worked at first. 

 

1 hour ago, Texas Lizard said:

Could we get threw Halloween first...Before something about Christmas trees....I am not ready for this.....Don't even have my list ready...

 

Texas Lizard

 

No! 

And whaddya mean "not ready?" @Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 already gave us the 3 month warning!

[Calamity Kris]

Oh my goodness.  That might be Biblically correct, but it's the stuff nightmares are made of.

 

This comes to mind courtesy of Alan Parsons:

 

I am the eye in the sky, looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules, dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind

And I don't need to see any more
To know that

I can read your mind (looking at you)
I can read your mind (looking at you)
I can read your mind (looking at you)
I can read your mind

[Subdeacon Joe]

4 minutes ago, Calamity Kris said:

Oh my goodness.  That might be Biblically correct, but it's the stuff nightmares are made of.

 

There's a reason that usually the first thing an angel says to a human is,  "Fear not!"

 

A few others.

 

 

 

 

If you crochet:

 

 

 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

2 hours ago, Texas Lizard said:

Could we get threw Halloween first...Before something about Christmas trees....I am not ready for this.....Don't even have my list ready...

 

Texas Lizard

And Turkey Day!

[John Kloehr]

7 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

And Turkey Day!

Beat me too it.

[Texas Joker]

How would you describe an ai surveillance drone to a bronze age barbarian?

 

A created being of many eyes and wings?

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

NO!!!  JUST . . . NO!!!

[Capt. R. Hugh Kidnme]

I'm fairly certain Indiana Jones was trying to track that thing down, for Henry's museum,  in the 2nd or 3rd sequel.

[Alpo]

Saw this, thought of this thread.

 

 

[John Kloehr]

^{Rev 4:8 (NIV)} Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:

“‘Holy, holy, holy

is the Lord God Almighty,’^[a]

who was, and is, and is to come.”

 

And the 4 creatures? Described in 4:7:

 

The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle.

 

---------------------

 

So read it, and do not understand. Though the second girl was closest in costume, but do not find the referenced creatures were angels. While angels do praise Him, known angels include Michael, Gabriel, the Cherubim (guarding the entrance to Eden), and Lucifer. Angels are generally more of messengers (to people) and the four beasts* referenced do not seem to be this, though the all-seeing eyes (all seeing-eyes) are seen as a references to not being able to hide sins of someone in their presence (from God).

 

* Other translations use the word "beasts" rather than "creatures."

Edited October 25, 2025 by John Kloehr

[watab kid]

thats beautiful , my wife would approve of that on our tree , 

[Subdeacon Joe]

3 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

^{Rev 4:8 (NIV)} Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:

“‘Holy, holy, holy

is the Lord God Almighty,’^[a]

who was, and is, and is to come.”

 

And the 4 creatures? Described in 4:7:

 

The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle.

 

---------------------

 

So read it, and do not understand. Though the second girl was closest in costume, but do not find the referenced creatures were angels. While angels do praise Him, known angels include Michael, Gabriel, the Cherubim (guarding the entrance to Eden), and Lucifer. Angels are generally more of messengers (to people) and the four beasts* referenced do not seem to be this, though the all-seeing eyes (all seeing-eyes) are seen as a references to not being able to hide sins of someone in their presence (from God).

 

* Other translations use the word "beasts" rather than "creatures."

 

 

They are considered to be in the ranks of angels because of the context - heavenly creatures about the Throne of God.  

[John Kloehr]

5 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

 

They are considered to be in the ranks of angels because of the context - heavenly creatures about the Throne of God.  

It is difficult to sort out all the references I have only a basic understanding and historical curiosity as to how the rules of society came about. And the change from oral tradition to freezing the stories in time by writing them down (Dove? Raven? Moses released one of them, the scribes wrote both as the stories they recored varied). I did have the opportunity to take some classes in college (late in life) on religion. Not related to this thread, but when digging into Jericho could not help but notice the people marched around the walls for seven days blowing the Rams horn.

 

This lead me to ask the professor two questions: What is the significance of a Rams horn? (It is a call to repentance) The people did not take  pause for the Sabbath on the 7th day? (Bit of a deeper dive, but war has different rules; the Koran (Quran) has an explicit exception). This is in those Syrah's documenting Moses' (Musa's) entry into Canaan (with the Lord''s blessing) without any mention of Jericho. From actual history (archeology), it seems there was an earthquake which might have been at the right time to destroy a city.

 

Anyway, we may know the beginning had "light." There is actually some interesting cosmological significance to this, as when the universe cooled enough to allow electrons to couple with protons, this would "separate the light from the dark." But another translation would find that in the beginning, there was "wisdom." Figuring out what that was, based on what things meant when they were written....

 

More than 2,000 years ago? Just look at the confusion over the 2nd at 250 years. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult?

 

Anyway, I have clearly rambled, maybe this post should be its own thread or just be deleted. My mind is elsewhere, on the great hamburger steak and fries I had tonight, my colonoscopy Monday (polyp hunters are good guys), and more so the purge tomorrow afternoon with Poopitol (R)(TM). Maybe I will do a thread on that tomorrow.

[Subdeacon Joe]

36 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

And the change from oral tradition to freezing the stories in time by writing them down

 

One of the problems of our modern society,  we expect everything to be written down instantly by eye witnesses, and for them to all agree.  But ask 5 people to describe a car crash and get at least 6 versions. 

That's why the "contradictions" in the Gospels don't bother me.  Notbonly different people describing events, but telling different audiences about them at different times,  and with a different emphasis.  But,  as with the car crash,  they all agree that there was a car crash. 

 

42 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Figuring out what that was, based on what things meant when they were written....

 

 

As one wag put it,  "The gulf of meaning between the terms "horse play" and "pony play" illustrates why expecting your culture's translation of another's ancient texts to be 100% true to their original intent is dangerous and probably not good idea."