Talk:Angel/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Free Will of Angels

Those interested may wish to read Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 where many believe that the history of satan is addressed (e.g., KJV Lucifer in Isaiah 14). Note the repetitive "I WILL's." (EnochBethany (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Try reading the whole chapters. Ezekiel 28:2 says "Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: [...] you are a mere mortal[...]", 28:11 says "take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him..." That chapter is specifically addressed to the human king of Tyre. It is only by taking 28:14 completely out of context, throwing away the rest of the chapter, and forgetting what a simile is ("anointed as a guardian cherub," or 'anointed like a guardian cherub') that anyone came to the conclusion that it has anything to do with Satan. Isaiah 14:4 says "take up this proverb against the king of Babylon". In 14:12, the part that says "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning" is (in context) mocking the king of Babylon (who refered to himself as "Helel," or "Morning star"). Kings of all sorts are typically proud, and mesopotamian kings often claimed to be gods. The "I will" stuff in 14:13 and 14 is just showing how high-and-mighty the king of Babylon thinks he is. It goes on to say in 14:16 "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms" - again, it's about a mortal king. 14:19 and onward are pretty much 'Hey, King of Babylon, you're gonna die, Babylon is gonna fall.' Also, Wikipedia does not do exegesis and does not make any doctrinal decisions, it only repeats a text and reports has been written about the Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you certainly are taking an interpretive stance & making a doctrinal decision, & rather dogmatically, I might add. Also in apparent ignorance of the views of others, you seem to pontificate. But this is the talk page. Myself, with great magnanimous magnanimity & gentlemanly sensitivity, threw out the FACT that some have taken those passages to refer to satan & referred those interested to the texts. Such persons may wish to compare Prince vs. King & see if they think they are the same person. They may also wish to compare the Prince of Persia & Prince of Greece in Dan 10 & see if they think those are human kings or part of a demonic government functioning above the human; cf. also Eph 5-6 "we wrestle not vs flesh & blood but against principalities, as well as reference to the Prince of the Power of the Air in scripture. But you may relax while you ponder the scripture on this subject as you won't go to the Lake of Fire for adoping one view or the other.(EnochBethany (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm simply reporting what the source text says. By cross-referencing different works within the Bible, taking stances in they should be understood in relation to each other, you are engaging in exegesis (which may be valid to one's own life, but Wikipedia doesn't take original research). Now, if you wanted to point out that Origen or another early church writer interpretted those verses as being about a fallen angel, that'd meet WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

ORGANIZATION OF THE ARTICLE

This article first allegedly takes up the subject of Angels in Judaism and then in Christianity. The topic "Judaism" is miscontructed. The system of thought in the Tanach / Old Testament is far different from Judaism, using that term to apply to the thought of Jewish persons after the destruction of the Temple, as embodied in the Talmuds and their core, the Mishnah. Thus to avoid categorical distortion of the subject and anachronism, the article would be better divided into

A. Malach in the Tanach / Old Testament

B. Angelos in the New Testament

C. Malach in post-biblical Judaism.

(EnochBethany (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

That'd be fine, but just as we shouldn't shove Rabbinical Judaism into the Tanakh, we shouldn't shove Christianity into it either. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Who suggested shoving Christianity into anything? Christianity, however, is to some extent a development out of the Tanach. The largest part of the scripture of Christianity is the Tanach, which is regarded as the Very Word of YHWH. And much fulfillment of prophecy in the Tanach took place in the life of Christ. My outline suggested none of the above, however. Neither was it intended to be part of anti-Christianity or Biblephobia.(EnochBethany (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Your original treatment of Malakh YHWH in the article pushed heavily towards a modern Protestant interpretation, without much in the way of acknowledging non-Christian or historical interpretations. While I also think that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the OT, editors leave their identities outside of the articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

In order to have a neutral POV, the places which attempt to pit one part of the Bible vs. another as if God's Word disagreed with itself (impossible since God is omniscient and cannot lie) need revision. One section can be from the POV that the Bible is consistent with itself and another for those determined to impose internal contradiction on the text. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

To say that different parts of the Bible do not say the same thing as other parts isn't POV, to try and turn the article into an apologetics work would be, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is POV. Since no parts of the Bible advocate opposing conceptions, those who assert such are showing a non-neutral POV. The article should not be an exercise in Biblephobia. You can never advocate that the Bible contradicts itself without debate with those who find it systematically consistent. And it is generally deceitful to present material in an anti-biblicist paradigm without recognizing that the other POV exists. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

It is your POV that there are no parts of the Bible advocating opposing conceptions. It would be POV to try and push for the idea that the Bible shouldn't be trusted because of contradictions, but I never said that. NPOV would simply state that one part says this, another part says that, and let the reader decide for themselves, perhaps reporting particularly notable interpretations. The Bible is not primarily a work of angelology and it is not by a single author, so it is a non-issue if different people in different times had different conceptions of angels. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Move Maimonides quote to Philosophy section?

I suggest this for two reasons: (1) The Phil. section contains a reference to Aquinas, so it now leans towards a Christian interpretation and could use the Maimonides quote for balance (and to keep it religiously neutral); and (2) The quote refers to Aristotle, which fits better in the Phil. section than in the Judaism section. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment only

Meaning, no change being sought, at this time. The Baha'i Faith section seems incomplete, as there are many ways that people can talk, and think, about angels beyond the one shown. For instance, KAF has this --

We created man: and we know what his soul whispereth to him, and we are closer to him than his neck-vein.

When the two angels charged with taking account shall take it, one sitting on the right hand, the other on the left

Not a word doth he utter, but there is a watcher with him ready to note it down

-- that addresses what might be an almost universally held notion. Has anyone collected, and analyzed or used, those references to angels that are specifically mentioned in the Quran? Especially, seeing as how they can actually be made applicable. jmswtlk (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

RS

The last sentence in the section on Christianity states ..."angels are sent into this world for testing"..., followed by footnote #29 which leads to (??????). My question is in regard to the linked site, who and/or what is it? Mannanan51 (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

It's cited to www.thiefinthenight.org, not a WP:RS, so removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" - Police detective Thomas Daggett in the 1995 movie The Prophecy --Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gender / sexuality of angels

What is known about the gender of angels in christian tradition? I think they are all considered male, because all their names are male, but art tend to show them genderless / asexual... So what's the official belief? --euyyn 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as Judaism is concerned, they are essencially little more than asexual robot messengers who are the physical manifestation of the will of G-d. SF2K1

A simple anectode is that the word malaka in Sanskrit renders the meaning female messanger or confidante [[1]]. --Xact (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Unification Church, all angels are male. God will make female angels at a later date (unspecified for now). Jude 1:6-7 hints that angels can engage in sexually immoral acts with human beings. This is a key to Unification Theology about the fall of man. --Uncle Ed 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic view (as far as I know) is that angles are Asexual. I think the names became Male after there use for angels, not befor.

The part of this section that reads:

"The base of the English word angel is the Koine Greek term άγγελος, a masculine noun, and the Latin derivation angelus is also masculine. The word "angel" in English (from Old English engel), French (from Old French angele), German, Spanish, and many other European languages are derived from the Latin, and are viewed as masculine nouns in those languages which assign gender to nouns."

is fallacious. Gender is used to mean grammatical gender, not natural gender, in the above text. Grammatical gender is often synonymous with noun class - it is a way of partitioning nouns into groups that behave (or behaved) in grammatically different ways, thus the assignments of grammatical gender are not necessarily made with regards to natural gender. The material quoted attempts to support an argument that angels are often view as male by confusing the meaning of gender. The argument could be salvaged by providing evidence that in the languages concerned the grammatical gender aligns very closely with a nouns natural gender, providing evidence that speakers of such languages perceived or thought about angels as masculine, thus their languages would classify the noun as belonging to the related grammatical gender. I have made a quick fix to this section by making clear the fact that the gender being referred to is grammatical not natural. Tulta (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole section is pure WP:OR/WP:SYNTH of Biblical or uncited sources. It needs to be solidly referenced or removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this site seems pretty authoritative ("General Council of the Assemblies of God" - the ruling body of a large church organization), and here's the official site of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church. Plus there are dozens of sites like these: (reference) (author has Masters Degree from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), (reference) (author has Masters Degree and substantial academic background), (reference) (The author says he has a Masters degree, and the site otherwise appears solid), (reference) (official publication of the United Church of God), and (reference). I have no connection with any of these sources. The statements in the section are pretty unobjectionable, I don't think that you're going to find much (if any) serious disagreement.GiveItSomeThought (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that the sectarian refs are only WP:RS for their denomination's modern-day views, not for the historical interpretations. For this we really need historians/Biblical scholars (PhDs in the subjects, not mere Masters in an unknown subject). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, disagree on a couple of points. The section as written is about modern-day understandings of ancient writings. The current views of religious organizations are perfectly acceptable on these points. The folks with the Masters Degrees are typically from respected theological institutions, with degrees in religion. These are really unexceptional points, and I will be adding (most of) these sources. Anyone is welcome to find better sources, or to find sources that disagree (I found no authoritative sources that disagreed on any of the points in this section). GiveItSomeThought (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Religious organisations are WP:RS on the beliefs of those religious organisations. Their views are doctrinal, not (purely) historical -- and we have no way of knowing the degree to which historical scholarship affected them. However given that different denominations have different doctrines, we can reasonably assume that historical scholarship is not the only influence on doctrine. "The folks with the Masters Degrees are typically from respected theological institutions, with degrees in religion." Fine. If we are addressing an issue of theology and religion, we will certainly consult them. This is however an issue of linguistics and translation, so we should consult experts on those fields. What you are describing is a bit like hiring an interior decorator to fix your plumbing. If these points are so unexceptional, you should be able to cite scholarly and nonsectarian sources for them -- per WP:RS. If you add them, I will flag them as being unreliable as (1) they are sectarian (2) their degrees are in religion not languages, & (3) because they have only masters degrees, as opposed to a PhD, let alone being a published expert on the issues. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me try it this way ... this section is describing current beliefs. That's the point of this section - what are the current beliefs of these religions about the gender of angels. Do you disagree with that description?

So far as I can tell, this section is not about what people 2000 years ago thought was the gender of angels, except to the extent that old beliefs influence today's beliefs. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Let me try it this way ...this section" IS NOT purely or even mainly about "describing current beliefs." It discusses "Angelic roles in the Tanakh", Koine Greek, Latin, Old English, Old French and a variety of other languages. These all require a source competent in linguistics, not theology. Further, the religious denominations that you cite are not representative of Christianity as a whole (and thus give them WP:UNDUE) but rather represent conservative American Protestant Christian sects -- ignoring Catholic, Orthodox, mainline Protestant views, and views held by denominations outside the US. Jewish and Muslim views are also omitted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... The cite to the Lutheran Church strikes me as pretty mainline Protestant. Can we agree on the following - at least some of this section refers to current Protestant beliefs about the gender of angels, and these cites can be added as a start? If we can agree on that, I'll keep looking for cites in the other areas that you mention.

Also, as I read this section, the references to the "Angelic roles in the Tanakh," and the linguistic elements are simply supportive of current views. Finally, for the etymology portions, I suppose that you would accept cites to standard dictionaries? GiveItSomeThought (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is "a moderately conservative, Confessional Lutheran denomination". It is only "the second largest Lutheran body in the U.S." and only the "eighth largest Protestant denomination in the United States". It is thus a minority viewpoint, even in the US. These citations represent only conservative American Protestant views, and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. You may "read this section" any way you want, but what it explicitly states is a whole lot of material about linguistics, and nothing whatsoever about "current Protestant beliefs". Therefore, as this section currently stands, it is the former that needs sourcing. If the article was rewritten to express current viewpoints, the LCMS view becomes marginally relevant -- but less relevant than the views of larger (and particularly international) Protestant denominations, the Catholic and Orthodox churches, Judaism and Islam. LCMS represents only 2.4 million out of 3.4 billion, or 0.07% of, members of Abrahamic religions. (see Religion#Classification) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced section

I am moving the, currently unsourced, section here to talk. Editors are welcome to recreate it if either:

1. they can come up with expert linguistic sources to verify the existing material; or
2. they can come up with material for a new section, from reliable sources, that is in some way representative of (i.e. gives WP:DUE weight to) the current view of major religions and denominations on this subject -- Catholicism & Sunni Islam would be 'must-have's for this (approx 1 billion adherents apiece), and the Eastern Orthodox Church (240 million) would also be high on list.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Although the religions mentioned above do not view angels as having gender in the human sense, however, angels are given a masculine aspect. For example, in the Jewish Tanakh the Hebrew form of the words used to denote angels are always masculine, and their described roles are masculine. Angelic roles in the Tanakh are those of a warrior, herald, guard (at the gates of Eden), wrestler (of Jacob; "a man," according to Genesis 32:24, or "the angel," according to Hosea 12:4). In Christianity and Islam, the masculine tone of angels is also adopted, as in the story of the mover of large stones (at the tomb of Christ). The suggestion in each religion is that in traditional societies these would all have been tasks typically performed by men. The few canonical names of angels (e.g., Michael, Raphael and Gabriel) are recognized in Judaism as masculine names, and have been widely adopted by other cultures. The base of the English word angel is the Koine Greek term άγγελος, a grammatically masculine noun, and the Latin derivation angelus is also grammatically masculine. The word "angel" in English (from Old English engel), French (from Old French angele), German, Spanish, and many other European languages are derived from the Latin, and are viewed as grammatically masculine nouns in those languages which assign grammatical gender to nouns. However, the study of linguistics recognizes no correspondence between linguistic "gender" and any gender-related properties of actual words.

[End of material removed as unsourced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC) ]

In Islam angels are genderless, I think this fact should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.222.237 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

the term in reference on duality is: "angelgod" also can be said "prayer for others" both are reciprocal meaning in description say one and it means the other vice versa in english translation context (just felt like adding this important fact into context here i can go into more detail but thats the best i can describe currently.)--174.30.221.206 (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

The titles of some of the sub-articles were vandalized. I would change them back myself but I have no idea what they were originally. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSpiegelman (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Angels are computer programs God runs on the Universe

Yeah. Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.9.2 (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What's your source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)