Talk:Angel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This belongs in some subsection headed "Fiction", surely? The Real Walrus 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi! I put this here so it can be made a little better. I'm not trying to be rude about this. Let's make a few changes and put it back on the page.

You wrote: "the Energy is transdimensional". I don't understand what this means. Can you explain this any better? Thanks.

The transdimensional part was somebody else's revision, who edited my New Age portion If you check View Other Revisions back on the Angel page you will see the original context, and I was struggling to make the point, and had grammatical problems *G* The Energy this refers to is Spiritual, and it is not limited by the natural laws of Physics, but also exists mysteriously and simultaneously outside the 3-D world's matter, energy, space, and time--BF--

"BF": I think there is no such thing. If you want to put something like this on Wikipedia, please say "some people believe X." Don't just say, "X is true". Thank you.

hey leave my colors alone will ya ! I prefer green. :-)

Using the colors messes up some Web browsers, so some Wikipedians are removing the colors

---

This article could use a lot of work... it's basically illegible in this form. The poor paragraphing, incredible amount of seemingly irrelevant detail and excessive use of scripture references makes it impossible for a casual visitor to obtain the information s/he wants.

Bz2 20:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I bit the bullet and added a cleanup request. If you feel brave enough, it'd probably be best to split the whole thing into separate articles for the individual religions as there's a lot of religion-specific stuff there. It'd make the main angel article a lot less cumbersome and would provide more readily accessible information to the casual visitor without going into religious details (please note, the edit page actually complains about the page being too big) - Bz2 20:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Yang 13:53, 5 July 2005(UTC)

Angels are a significant part of religious hence why the article goes into religious details in the process; splitting up the article is unnecessary and what, if any, would be the justification for those ramifications?

I didn't imply anything about whether or not angels are religious symbols. I merely noted that the article is too long, unwieldy and generally illegible because of poor structuring and bad style. I suggested splitting it up per religion as a way to make it shorter and more manageable. Bz2 15:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

New Age

Angels are also a part of New_Age beliefs, where angels (known as Dakini in some New Age systems) are timeless, inorganic, immortal, inhuman beings who have existed with the Spiritual Energy's appearance as part of the One, not servants of God. Because the Energy is transdimensional, the behavior of angels has always been revelatory and mysterious. However, they respond to the state of spiritual energy within individuals, with the empathy that comes with their higher state of existence. Manifestations of angels in human form are explainable because can manifest in any form they choose.

Haha. Seeing this summary reminds me of The Matrix. "The One" sounds like Neo and the angels seem like Mr. Smith(s)

---

Found the source of this discussion from the Bad Jokes page.

(The theory was part of the Angel article. But since aliens and UFOs are generally dismissed as nonsense, so is this theory.)

Some atheists believe that angels were crews of an alien starship that visited earth a long time ago. These crews wore space suits with a glass bubble helmet which was mistaken as halo. Their space suits had wings that allowed them to fly like Buzz Lightyear in the cartoon Toy Story.

The captain of the starship went by the name Jahveh. A mutiny took place on board. A high ranking officer by the name of Lucifer and his followers were exciled to earth after the failed mutiny. The unexplainable alien technologies were viewed as miracles by the primitive human civilization at the time. The starship stayed with humanity for a long time until the captain's son was crucified by the people on earth. The aliens gave up on humanity and departed, they promised to return.

Those atheists believe the books of Bible can be consistently explained in terms of alien visitation. The sharp difference between the angry God who flooded and burned humanity in the Old Testament and the lack of similar punishments in the New Testament and in today's world was explained by the departure of the starship.

What is the advertisement for an movie doing in here ? Please explain how this links at all to anything.

The familiar image of Buzz Lightyear helps the readers visualize how advanced technologies could be linked to attributes of angels by primitive people. e.g. Helmet as Halo, Flight suit as wings of angels, laser pistol as fire balls. Feel free to replace it with another familar icon that can provide the same visualization.

Phenomona beyond human knowledge were often interpreted as divine intervention. For example, in mythology, Thor was responsible for thunders and lightnings in the sky. Nowadays, we no longer take those supernatural beings seriously. Some day when we know enough, we may realize that some religions we believed in were just wrong interpretions due to our ignorance.

---

can those people be called atheists, since they believe in a being with all kinda' powers? --MichaelTinkler

I think they should be called atheist because they try to deny the existence of God by substituting him with a biological being - the alien.

This makes no sense -- should go to Patent nonsense?

Alien or New Age should deserve at least a subpage. They are belief of some people. In my opinion, the Christian belief of angels should be moved to a subpage too, or else this article become biased towards only one religion. Where is the NPOV here? Why is the New Age paragraph repeatedly removed? Is there freedom of religion in wikipedia? How can people be so closed mind that anything non-christian makes no sense. To the atheists, the Bible belongs to Patent nonsense too, but atheists respect your belief and won't call it nonsense in front of your face. Why can't Christians be more tolerant of different idea and people around them?

If you put '/Dakini' inside the double brackets"[[:|:]]" it creates a new subpage inside Angel.[In case anyone wants to sub sub sub page any of this =)]

---

I think all the Dakini stuff deserves its own page and I moved it there 04 October 2001.

---

"Many Old Testament chapters mention an "angry God" who sends his(her) angel to smite the enemies of the wandering tribes of Judah." I don't recall this. Refs?

---

I think the stuff about aliens belongs on an entirely different page altogether, as it is not a belief about angels specifically (Jahveh would not be an angel) but about extraterrestrials perhaps being responsible for all the stuff normally held to be divine. Chariots of the Gods comes to mind, but I'm sure a handful more people have bothered to develop all this stuff, so someone else should come up with a place to move it.

I think this argument makes no sense. Christians believe in more than just angels. By the same argument, the Christian belief should be removed from this article too because christian belief is not about angels specifically either. Why the belief that 'angels are aliens' has to be moved from an article about angels? I know, it is the same reason why the New Age belief must be moved too, it is simply because non-christian belief must be removed from wikipedia. I guess you know I am just trying to be sarcastic.

In the alien belief, Jahveh is not an angel, he is just another alien in power.

Christian beliefs on the divine in general should indeed go on other pages, and the article should link to them for more information. For instance, it would be inappropriate to have a long explanation of the great chain of being, but nothing would be wrong with mentioning that under that scheme angels occupy the position intermediate between man and God, and linking for more info. Same thing here - a quick note that angels have considered to be aliens with a link to more info would be best. If it's worth a subpage then it's worth a page. After all, you want to say the same thing on Jahveh, right?

---

My Grandfather claimed he saw Angels in the sky over the battlefield after one of the battles on the western front in World War 1. Apparently there was one particular battle where thousands of soldiers, from both sides, claimed to see this. Many who saw it were not particularly religious people. A few of the German soldiers apparently described them as Valkeries, though most said Angels. Does anyone have more definitive information? Do we think this is important enough to include on the page?

Yes, I think if the sightings were recorded, they should be mentioned here because they were believed to be angels. Perhaps they coincides with UFO sightings and future scholars may confirm angels are just aliens. Let not hide the information from the researcher.

---

How many contributors to this article have ever experienced angel(s)? It is a mystical experience that needs to be inserted in here some place, or I could add a cross-ref from New Age "The light beckons the curious moth." ~BF

---

Is Uriel an archangel. What are actually archangels? -- Jan

All seven archangels listed occur in some Jewish writings. All Christian groups accept Michael and Gabriel who occur in the book of Daniel, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches accept Raphael, and only a few churches like the Ethiopian Orthodox accept the the last four. 209.244.91.81 06:10 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)

From the Catholic encyclopedia: The "angels" are assigned to the salvation of one man. Thus the guardianship of the human race belongs to the order of "Principalities," or perhaps to the "Archangels," whom we call the angel princes. Hence, Michael, whom we call an archangel, is also styled "one of the princes" (Dan. 10:13). Moreover all corporeal creatures are guarded by the "Virtues"; and likewise the demons by the "Powers," and the good spirits by the "Principalities," according to Gregory's opinion (Hom. xxxiv in Ev.).

Angels as dead people

Where does the idea that angels are dead people back in a mission come from? It's quite popular in popular media: It's a Wonderful Life, Highway to Heaven, but I can't link it to a major confession. Is it from the Swedenborgians?

---

The idea that all angels are 'dead people' is one of the central tenets of Swedenborgianism, through there is little believe in dead people coming back on a mission from God (see Blues Brothers. But since Swedenborg lived in the 18th century, and the idea of angels being dead people can be traced earlier than that, I don't think we can say that it is strictly a Swedenborgian teaching. It is true that while it's hard to find official doctrine in the world today that include this idea, it actually is all around us. I've been to funerals where the priest started by saying that it's very sad that Uncle Joe is dead in the ground and we'll miss him until the resurrection when he will be dug up (the official doctrine of their church), but finish by saying that we can take comfort knowing that Uncle Joe is happily living in heaven where he isn't bothered by his cancer anymore and he can see Aunt Jane who died two years ago. No one seems to really belive the official doctrine but have an inate understanding that when people die they continue to live.

It's my understanding that the early christian church in the first and second centuries understood this to be true. Looking for a reference...-AmosGlenn 03:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wings

I thought that the idea of angles with wings came via the Hebrew from Assyrian art, with their winged bull-men (kudurru?). But if the data in the article is so late it can't be so.

Physicality

The article contained the following: "many theologians have argued that they have no physical existence. (Hence the frequently recounted tale of Scholastics arguing about how many angels could fit on a pinhead; if angels possess physical bodies, the answer is "a finite number", if they do not, the answer is "an infinite number".)" I think it is a misrepresentation of the debate to think that the answer `an infinite number' is forced on us if we think angels are non-physical. One might think the answer is none (since non-physical beings cannot occupy space), one (since non-physical beings would be unextended - like the pinhead), infinitely many, or that the question doesn't make sense (because it has a false presupposition - that angels are the types of things that can fit on pinheads). What is ruled out is a finite number greater than 1 if angels are non-physical. I've altered the article accordingly. - RossCameron

Purpose

I thought that angels warned Lot and not Abraham about the destruction of Sodom as the article states. Please correct my mistake or the mistake in the article.

Abraham entertained the angels before they went to the city of Sodom and stayed with Lot.--Jondel 07:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Information

There's a lot of duplicate information in this article. A lot of what is presented in the "General" section is duplicated needlessly throught the article.

Angel of the X-Men

Angel is also the name of a winged superhero who was one of the first members of the X-Men. Would someone who is a little more knowledgable on the subject be willing to add and addition to this article, or am i just not looking in the right place?

# of angels on a pinhead

Regarding the number of angels that fit on a pinhead, this article stated that the answer must be either: (1) at most a finite number (2) not any finite number greater than 1 Clearly, however, the answers must be: (1) at most a finite number (angels have physical bodies; hence at most a finite number of angels can fit on a pinhead at once) (2) not any finite number greater than 0 (angels have no physical bodies, so the answer is either "an infinite number", or "none at all") It should be noted that the previous version of (2), would be compatible with at most one angel on a pinhead (1 is not a finite number greater han one), which is not compatible (as the argument sees it) with a physical body.

Contrary to a previous comment above, a pinhead is not an infintesimal point, nor do I think the scholastics would have believed it to be as such, so the answer cannot properly be one.

On a tangent, it should be noted that this question really applies, not to whether angels have physical bodies, but whether angels have a one or more non-infintisemal, non-overlapping, spatiotemporal locations. Conceivably, a being could lack a physical body yet still have one or more such regions of space it occupies. Equally so, a being could have one or more physical bodies, which could be either infinitesimal or capable of overlapping, in which case an infinite number of such physical bodies could be fit on a pinhead. -- samuel katinsky

mispelling? misplacing? missomething?

You use the same hebrew word (אלהים) for the word elohim and shin'an

Scholastic theologians???

From the page

"Scholastic theologians teach that angels are able to reason instantly, and to move instantly. They also teach that angels are intermediaries to some forces that would otherwise be natural forces of the universe, such as the rotation of planets and the motion of stars. Angels possess the beatific vision, or the unencumbered understanding of God (the essence of the pleasure of heaven). Furthermore, there are more angels than there are anything else in the universe (although when first written this would have probably not included atoms since atomic structure was not known)."

Um, Scholastic theologians, of christianity?

Without a referance to who, or which demonination (if any) of christianity, thia is POV.

Actually, the term "Scholastic Theologians" refers to a pretty well defined set of pre-Reformation Theologians (see Scholasticism) -- of course, it would be nice to have a bit citation, but those understandings can be found within Scholastic writings -- the main point being that "Scholastic theologians" is a well-understood term, refering to specific theological movements during the late Middle Ages (more or less).

New section: Latter-Day Saint View

I just added this section (somehow I wasn't logged in when I did it. Sorry!) What do you guy think? Is it wiki-worthy? Wadsworth 23:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would add a new page under the LDS view of angels and shorten the section on this page with a link to the Mainpage. Wiki-worthy, but too long for this page. freestylefrappe 02:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like someone else might be splitting it up, with a seperate article for each religion. I'll let whoever does this take care of it, I suppose. Wadsworth 12:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Angels of Heaven

On the Bible part, someone decided Angels have no free will as beings with capabilities beyond humans. This is untrue, since there is no reason to believe Angels are unintelligent and are much like robots. Angels by necessity do have the ability to have wisdom, understanding, and knowledge as agents of God. Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is the best one, since it has the least parts; therefore, Angels that are like robots strictly programmed by God is more complex, or a class of beings that help God, but are intelligent is the best answer. Finally, Angels can be in human form and are not limited to being air; therefore, Angels have physical existence, but can move in mysterious ways. Unsigned comment by 172.195.130.79

Please end your comments with four tildes (~). That shows your IP address and helps to distinguish you from other users. Thanks. freestylefrappe 00:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, many would argue that Angels do have free will. After all, how could so many angels have rebelled against God, if they did not have the freedom to do so in the first place? It obviously implies some form of intelligence and self-awareness. MasterXiam 06:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Since angels are entirely imaginary, they both have and not have free will at the same time :) PiCo 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Angels and Aliens

Some people believe that angels are ancient references to extraterrestrials due to their lack of genitals and the fact that they come from the sky. I myself don't know that much about the matter, but I think it's worth mentioning. PersonDude 17:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The wings would have been mechanical flying devices?--Jondel 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before a few years back. The thread is still present Under the New Age section above on this talk page, in the paragraph about "bad joke". There was a theory on Angels=Aliens; halo=space helmet; Wing=flying devices; the cessation of miracles of the caliber of "Noah's flood", "Plagues of Egypt", "parting of the red sea" etc. = departure of an alien spaceship. Kowloonese 02:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

List

There is a nice section under Fallen angel that not only lists believed fallen angels, but does so by rank. Can we get some such thing under this topic as well? I have no knowlege of this topic.--Dustin Asby 13:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we did have a list of angels...Oh! I know: look in the Hierarchy of angels article. OmniAngel 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Greek influence?

Was there greek influence in the figure or form? For example the Greek goddess Nike or Roman Victory(mythology) is winged.--Jondel 04:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the greeks invented wings or winged creatures. SF2K1 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The iconic image that was adopted for Christian angels was Greek rather than Persian-Babylonian. Athena had lost her early winged form by the Classical period. Nike, Eos, etc. are the Greek winged figures adopted by the earliest Christian illuminators, in Constantinople and Syria. --Wetman 18:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But the Angels/Cherubim/Ophanim had wings long before the Jews even met the greeks/persians as can be observed in Tanakh. SF2K1

Uh you're right(to SF2K1). I remember something like Isaiah describing an angel with 6 wings. I'm just struck that some Greek gods look like angels. Maybe the Greeks were influenced by Persian-Babylonion illuminators? Persians seem to have influenced the Jews too (part of Zoroastrisism).--Jondel 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC) --Jondel 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)