Supernatural 4x1 "Lazarus Rising" SPOILERS after ep discussion

What about the story of [COLOR=black]Shadrack, Meshack and Abendigo who survived a night in the fiery furnace. The guards had seen a strange "fourth man" in the furnace with the men.

All I ask is for examples where the angels' appearance is so horrible looking that it causes pain and agony to mortals. Thus far, no one has stepped up with an example. Sounds to me like hearsay and conjecture passed down from one person to the next.

 

Has nothing to do with horrible looking, but that human eyes simply can't deal with the power or concepts involved. Much like the Medusan in that TOS episode. Looking at the Medusan made a human go insane, but what Spock says when he manages to stay sane, is that the Medusan was beautiful. This is similar. An angel is simply too much for the human mind and eyes to grasp, and if you try, the first, the second or both overload.

 

I think a mullah would argue that these are not the acts of Allah, because Allah doesn't work that way. Allah is a creator, not a destroyer. Many Muslims reject the Vengeful, Wrathful God of The Hebrews unlike Christians who try to tie that God and their Peaceful, Loving God together and usually look like hypocrites in the process. Although there are some that think they are the same god as well in Islam. Muslims seem to see God like The Light Side of The Force in Star Wars. A highly evolved, invisible being who works it's will and tries to communicate through humans rather then imposing it like Yehweh.

If you haven't read Preacher by Garth Ennis you really should. He addresses all of these arguments and mocks the hell out of people who try to defend against them.

 

Uh, first of all, I don't really care what any Muslim thinks about the subject, it's about what the books say about what god did.

Plus, have you, or all of those Muslims, ever READ the Q'uran? My god, man, it's burn in hell for this or that every single page at least once, and every other page it's, "All those who think the destruction of cities won't happen to them, are fools. I've done it before, and I will do so again, so be warned, and live right, lest I wipe your city out." Indeed, the Pharaoh and Moses event is named by name in the Q'uran.

The Q'uran is the single most sick book that I've ever read in my entire life, and ever since it was pointed out that little thing about Q'uran not being in chronological order and what that means vis-a-vis a certain passage, it's gained an entirely level of horror.

The god of the Q'uran makes the vengeful prick of the Old Testament look like a nice guy in comparison. It seems the prick decided to take his evil up another notch, which is impressive to say the least.

There is nothing more horrible than the god of the Q'uran and the Q'uran itself. So how anyone, especially Muslims, can see him as a sweet nice force is beyond me. They can't really be Muslims, because they basically reject just about every relevent passage in the Q'uran to get to "sweet nice force".

What? Does he agree with me or not? Does he mock people like me, or the people trying to defend against my argument? I don't get it.

 

OK, not horrible looking, but I've spent more than my fair share of time in being indoctrinated in Christian beliefs and I remember that angels are warriors for, and messengers of, God. Nowhere in the bible does it say that their appearance would overwhelm men. It does talk about God's appearance being too intense for Moses (hence his clothing looking whiter than snow) after God walked past him.

 

Well Angels predate christianity by quite a number of centuries, with versions being in several different faiths, not to mention all the apocryphal gospels from christianity. Not to mention all the minor offshoots of Christianity.

I would expect that Kripke wouldn't limit the concept of God to that strictly of mainstream Christianity.

I will try and do some research for examples over the next couple days.

 

Well from just a 20 minute search it appears that the idea of the blinding visage of divinity, or angels is at the very least an artistic license of the late dark ages through the 1400's.

There is also this (from god) but I can certainly see it being done by gods messengers.

He has made their eyes blind, and their hearts hard; for fear that they might see with their eyes and get knowledge with their hearts, and be changed, and I might make them well.

One of the many translations of John 12:40

Isaiah 6:10

"Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed."

Corianthians 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.

Then of course there is Acts 22:

Which has Saul being blinded from a light from heaven. One that blinded him, one who's voice no one else could understand (its Jesus, who isn't there in his presence).

ANd though it is Christ voice, he isn't there in person. So who is the blinding light from heaven?

All of these do imply that divinity can blind, it seems like little of a stretch to show god's messenger doing it.

There are even interpretations that in the end when the reapers (God's angels) bind the unfaithful that they do this through blinding, but it is never stated out right at least in the approved gospels.

 

There are plenty of gospels that weren't approved by mainstream Christianity.

 

All those scripture quotes were not talking about literal blindness, but understanding. Paul was the only one literally blinded physically.

However, God does tell Moses no man can see his form and live. That's one of the reasons that the cohen hagadol (high priest) had to fill the most holy place with incense on yom kippur.

 

But see that is the power of metaphor, it is open to multiple interpretations.

And again, this is just the "bible", their is a vast, vast amount of work that isn't considered canon.

But that is why I did end with the last one which seems to be absolutely literal blindness, one that is cured later.

I also like it because it also has voices that only one can understand (even if Christ), but I like it also if I remember correctly (and trust me on this I am very rusty), Christ isn't physically there. Nor is it stated that it is his image. While it certainly could be some projection of Christ, it could also be God who who is the light and projecting Christ's words. Or it could be a messenger of god (which actually makes a lot of sense in this case).

In fact, almost all knowledge of angels (names, attributes, purposes) come outside the official bible. Things like the Book of Enoch.

ANd clearly Kripke is taking things outside of the Bible, because Castiel, the angel of Thursday (yeah, funny Kripke) isn't in the Bible.

In fact I can only recall (and again my memory of the Bible is from decades ago so I easily could be in error) three (non fallen) angels that are named: Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel.

But there are a host of angels in the Book of Enoch, the Book Esdras, some in Rabbinical literature all predated Christian faith. Then you have all the various gospels that were never approved and are considered non canon.

Unfortunately those sources are much harder to search.

 

Hey, be thankful we have Kripke writing instead of Tim Kring. I can't believe how disappointed I was in the Heroes premiere tonight. Ouch!!!

 

Plus, they are all referencing God, and not angels.

 

Getting my own thoughts down first again...

Well, that was... not what I expected.

I expected them to spend at least four episodes angsting and hunting for spells and demons and so forth, agonising about how to get Dean out of hell. I did NOT expect him to simply pop up and say "hi" before the title card even appeared. Speaking of which - The Birds? Really?

I suppose I should congratulate them on confounding my expectations and not being predictable. But through out the whole episode, I refused to believe that what I was seeing on screen was "real." I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, sure that it would all turn out to be a fantasy that Dean was suffering while in hell. Things seemed just that little bit off everywhere, such that I felt like this wasn't really happening. I suppose mostly because I couldn't believe that this would happen.

When the explanation finally happened, I felt thrown even further. It seemed like the third-season arc of "Dean's going to hell" was done with, like they said, "Okay, so he's in hell now. That's done with, nothing more to explore there. Let's do something completely unrelated now!" And this is definitely new territory for the show to explore.

I can only hope that this feeling was deliberate, and that like the jump forward between s2 and s3 of BSG, they will go back and fill in the gaps. I just don't want them to completely forget everything that went before in their pursuit of new angles.

On a lighter note, Jesus mo'fo'ing Christ on a sidecar, how insanely hot did Jared look when he opened the door to Dean and Bobby (I'm ignoring the bimbo). Dear God, that boy can wear a t-shirt. *fans self like southern lady*

 

Well, I am sure as hell not getting involved in the god-angels-qu'ran bitchfest. I have no frame of reference from which to speak, so it's all just fiction on the same level as Supernatural itself as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, me no likey New Ruby. Me want Old Ruby back.

See, that to me was a signal that it wasn't real, because we've already been told more than once that Busty Asian Beauties is his favourite, and how suspicious is it that his favourite porn was right there along with free food and drink just after he miraculously crawled out of the grave with not a scratch on him?

But hey, I guess I was wrong.

My thoughts exactly. Again, it flashed me back to Buffy/Angel, in which the Powers That Be (aka "good") refused to act directly because of humankind's free will, whereas the Senior Partners (aka "evil") were only too happy to interfere as much as they wanted.

 

The show has briefly flirted with what Dean has experienced. It hasn't been forgotten, but it hasn't been truly explored yet either. In the next two live episode they do have flashback's to at least what Sam experienced.

As for actually seeing much of hell, I wouldn't count to much on that. Kripke has been clear they don't have the budget to show much of it. So I would suspect (again opinion) that we see more psychological after effects then actually see anything happen.

 

Yeah and new Ruby does suck. And that was strictly a monetary choice to get rid of the original actress. Really so far the only poor casting the show has done this season.

 

It wasn't their fault their budget was slashed. I'm sure Katie Cassidy would have been more than happy to return, but the budget cuts must have put her out of their price range.

 

You're going to have be patient until episode 10. We get major "fill in" for what happened to Dean and Sam when Dean was gone. Kripke's a major tease.

 

I was under the impression that after Ruby's spirit was sent away by Lilith and then she herself vacated the the body they had both been in that the human shell was dead. I'd imagine being possessed and vacated by a demonic entity would be extremely traumatic to go through once, let alone twice. Not to mention she had been shot at least once by Bobby a ways back.

The other actress might have been overpriced for their budget, but at least with the concept of "Ruby", we didn't lose the character. As I've only seen Lazarus so far, I'll reserve judegement on whether I like the "new" Ruby or not.

 

The ratings are in for last nights season 4 premiere double bill.