Talk:Fallen angel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Theology (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Occult (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Origins Disputed[edit]

The section on "Origins" is indefensible -- there are demonstrably false statements marked as "citation needed" but in truth they need to be deleted. The section needs to be re-written by someone with actual knowledge of the subject, not retrospectively projected assumptions. Most scholars believe the idea of Fallen Angels entered Judaism under the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian Exile (the suggestion that there are "Bad Angels" throughout the bible is asinine -- there is NOT ONE). *The Apocaplyptic Imagination* by John J. Collins is an excellent place to start looking for more info... Yonderboy (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

?[edit]

Second Sphere, under the dominion, it looks as if some nerds added in their names...

Disobedience to God as per the Koran[edit]

Both Islam sections are pretty messed up, especially the second which refers to Iblis as Lucifer and says he is the angel which loves God the most. There is nothing in the Qur'an that refers to Iblis as Lucifer and nothing that indicates he loves God the most or at all. The reason this area lacks citations is because there are none to indicate much of what the article is saying. Someone please clarify that The Qur'an makes no mention of "Lucifer", that "Iblis" is chief of the race called the Jinn, and that the Qur'an never says Iblis loved God the most. It is a very common misconception that Iblis is an angel when the Qur'an clearly states he is a Jinn, right here

"018.050 Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers!"

The Qur'an also makes clear that Satan does not really have a battle with God so much is an avowed enemy of Human Kind. It seems Satan has resigned to what he has decided is his fate of everlasting destruction in Hell but has prayed to God to give him a chance to disrupt the affairs of the humans (who disbelieve in God).

"007.014 He said: "Give me respite till the day they are raised up." 007.015 (Allah) said: "Be thou among those who have respite." 007.016 He said: Now, because Thou hast sent me astray, verily I shall lurk in ambush for them on Thy Right Path. 007.017 Then I will certainly come to them from before them and from behind them, and from their right-hand side and from their left-hand side; and Thou shalt not find most of them thankful. 007.018 He said: Go forth from hence, degraded, banished. As for such of them as follow thee, surely I will fill hell with all of you."

and another one

"015.032 (Allah) said: O Iblis! what excuse have you that you are not with those who make obeisance?

015.033 (Iblis) said: I am not such that I should make obeisance to a mortal whom Thou hast created of the essence of black mud fashioned in shape.

015.034 (Allah) said: Then go thou forth from hence, for lo! thou art outcast.


015.035 And surely on you is curse until the day of judgment.

015.036 He said: My Lord! then respite me till the time when they are raised.

015.037 (Allah) said: "Respite is granted thee

015.038 Till the Day of appointed time.


015.039 (Iblis) said: "O my Lord! because Thou hast put me in the wrong, I will make (wrong) fair-seeming to them on the earth, and I will put them all in the wrong,-

015.040 Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones.

015.041 (Allah) said: This is a right way with Me:

015.042 "For over My servants no authority shalt thou have, except such as put themselves in the wrong and follow thee."

015.043 And lo! for all such, hell will be the promised place.

So basically I suggest someone fixes this section up. I don't know why I don't feel like doing it myself. I'm hoping someone will clean it up. In the meantime I'm going to check other areas in relation to this as I suspect some errors are likely in relation to what Iblis is and what the Jinn are. It is somewhat essential in understanding the Islamic worldview. __________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkspy (talkcontribs) 04:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


The whole section seems kind of poorly written (not to mention uncited), but the whole second half is one preposterous, hugely offensive sentence. "It was then that Allah created the universe and sent Adam to earth for by disobeying Allah he had forfeited his right to reside in heaven and since then man has been deceived by Lucifer into creating other gods or changing and misshaping the code of life sent by allah through his prophets ( main are Moosa (moses) whose teachings were misshapen and Jews were born , Eisa (Jesus) whose teaching were in the form of the book called as ingeel (pronounced as In-Jee-l) which was misshapen and changed by the church to give birth to the monopolized religion of Christianity , and finally there was Mohammad (may peace be upon him) who was the last prophet sent by Allah to bring human on the right path of Islam and it was through him that Quran was sent down earth by Allah through the Arc angel Gabriel(gibraeel - pronounced as JIB-RAA-EEl), in parts called as WAHI's, who used to come down to earth and teach the Quran by heart to Mohammad(may peace be upon him) who in turn had it written down by those who could read and write as he himself was uneducated and could not read and write.".

Ya. Wow. --Stephen (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is just really absurd that most people depict Demons as ugly creatures.... chimerarc —Preceding comment was added at 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Yeah. I am Muslim and I totally agree that that particular section was not very well written. Aside from its non-neutral wording, there are a lot of unnecessary inclusions, such as pronunciation guides... it makes the entry seem like something that was copy and pasted off of a religious education website. I could try to fix it, but right now I am very busy :( We'll see if my schedule doesn't clear up over the next few weeks. --Winterlain (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Self Reference[edit]

"Please be aware that a great many of these links either do not exist on wikipedia or simply redirect you. Many redirect you to the page for the "Book of Enoch" which lists a large number of 'the fallen'. However there are 19 pages that do exist you might find usefull."

Should this paragraph be modified? --Tango 18:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Sources[edit]

Can someone give sources for this? For example, the phrase "son of fire" appears nowhere in any version of the Bible I can find. These seem (in their details) to be folk stories -- when were they developed? Do they pre-date Christianity, or are they a medieval invention? -- The Anome 08:59, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Why should the son of fire fall down before a son of clay?" is the response of the Angel Azazil on being asked to worship Adam: it's from the Koran, not the Bible. You're quite right that we should try to reference whatever is of value in the article to primary sources rather than secondary compilations. -- Prince 09:09, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Now that's really interesting, as I'm sure a lot of people would regard that story as part of their Christian beliefs... I'd be very interested in any source citations you could give to reveal the origins of these accounts. -- The Anome 09:12, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Feel free to change/correct the article. You can use the following texts as reference/sources:
  1. Goldwin, Malcom. Angels: An Endangered Species. Gill & Macmillan Ltd. ISBN 0752205706. November 4, 1996.
  2. Davidson, Gustaav. A Dictionary of Angels: Including the Fallen Angels. Free Press. ISBN 002907052X. Reissue edition: October 1, 1994.
  3. Ashley, Leonard. The Complete Book of Devils and Demons. Barricade Books. ISBN 1569800774. October 1, 1996.
There are many books about them, just do a search on Amazon with the keywords fallen angel. :)

21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)66.235.60.58 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC) The truth about Lucifer (satan) on: http://CaptainChurch.proboards57.com http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=24582 http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=15311 http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?user=ChurchCaptain http://groups.google.com/group/TeenAnswers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TeenAnswers http://groups.google.com/group/answers-for-teens http://groups.yahoo.com/group/answers-for-teens http://www.bev.net/users/homepages/JamesSorrell

Jim Sorrell [CaptainChurch]

--Maio 10:47, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)


One thing though, there seems to be an inordinately small amount of biblical content in this article. Even if the subject is barely covered, that fact should be noted, as a great deal of... er... 'logical Christians' would listen only to canonical sources.

You mean Protestants. Keep in mind that King James and other Protestants pruned the Catholic Bible. Also the Catholic priesthood use a lot of sources not in their Bible in their total theology. Remember that the Bible is focused on spiritual matters concerning lay people. Thus the complete material for exorcisms was not in the standard Catholic bible. A key Protestant decision was to eliminate all metaphysical trappings not concerned with lay people. And of course the Catholic pruned material taken from the Jews. Who in turn pruned those few materials accumulated from elsewhere like Zorasterian.
Also until around the time of Moses a lot of material was orally related -- very hard to make Wikipedia citations to that until it reached paper in changed form. Many other recorded materials were destroyed and survive only via second hand references. Wikipedia needs to take a few lessons from archaeology because that continues to happen through history. Come up with a standard symbol that annotates that material is from secondary sources and no copy of the original is know to exist or that material is pre-urban oral legend.
So this article should start with a key acknowledgment that there is no definitive answer but only a fragmentary and conflicting one due to the topics very distant historical roots and wide spread passage through many cultures. Where possible annotation should be made as points strong associated with particular cultures and maybe not acknowledged by others. Like perhaps fallen angels important in the Koran but seldom mentioned in Protestant Bibles.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)



The Bible only discusses Demonology in the extreme minor. One thing, for example, the name Lucifer is only explicited in the OT, and even there it only refers to the King of Babylon.

Koran, Life of Adam and Eve & Bowing to mankind[edit]

Since the Life of Adam and Eve predates the Muslim religion by 500 years or so, wouldn't it be more accurate to attribute the story of Lucifer refusing to bow to mankind to it? I'm posting here because editing the original article would require an entire section to be modified. I can edit the article if general consensus agrees (or if anyone out there wants to research this to make sure). If I don't hear something soon, I'm gonna go ahead an make the change. It's unknown to me whether Milton would have had access to _Life of Adam and Eve_ or not, so the claim that he got his idea from the Koran is at least questionable as well (See _Life of Adam and Eve_ 13-16). --Jleonard

I found two different versions of that book, one here [1] and the other one here [2] (Slavanic). I read 13-16 as you said, but I can't find any relation to what you are trying to express. Do you have a link to an online version of the text that you are referring to? I have heard that it was Lucifer also, but in the end they are all religious texts with many continuity flaws. --Maio 22:43, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Here's the version I'm refering to. It's known by "Vita." [3] I read the copy contained in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha - (C) 1983 by James H. Charlesworth. It dates the text to 100 A.D. (which is the date I've also found on the web). Here's a quote from Charlesworth that refers to the dating of this text:

"Given the relationship with the Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, rabbinic traditions, and perhaps Paul, the most natural span for the original composition would be between 100 B.C. and A.D. 200, more probably toward the end of the first Christian century. The Greek and Latin texts were produced between that time and A.D. 400"

--Jleonard

As I said earlier, it is a religious text with continuity flaws. I beleive that it would be better to express something like "Azazeth refused blah blah blah... although in X book that dates from Y says blah blah blah". Thanks for your concerns. :) --Maio 07:12, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good to me. Would you like to make the changes or would you like me too? Thank you for taking the time to contribute such interesting information to Wikipedia! I appreciate your work. --Jleonard

You. >_< --Maio 22:31, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Maio: OK I edited the page. As I got into the edit process, things sort of morphed away from the intial plan so as to accurately reflect the facts as we have them and also provide smooth transition and integration with the rest of the document. The part that I really thought needed changing was attributing the popular Christian myth to a Muslim source when it is originally a Christian story dating all the way back to 100 A.D. It is in fact, most likely that the Koran borrowed this story from the Book of Adam and Eve which would have been in popular circulation in the Middle East by ~600 A.D. when the Koran was written. If you want to discuss further or there are changes you would like to see made, please let me know or feel free to make them yourself. Thanks, Jonathan

from The Fall from Grace[edit]

needs better attribution than "according to legend" —No-One Jones 23:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the Christian religions, The Fall From Grace is the explusion of the angel Lucifer from Heaven by God, possibly for inciting War. Lucifer fell, and it is supposed that he changed his name to Satan, or that his name was changed. According to legend, Lucifer was the brightest angel in Heaven, who rose too close to God and learned a new truth, perhaps a paradox, or even a parallel to Adam and Eve's temptation and exile from Eden. Upon learning some piece of magical knowledge, perhaps from the Tree of Knowledge, Lucifer became Satan, questioning God at every turn, and accusing God of atrocities, thus sparking a war in Heaven. Finally God had the last straw with Lucifer (now Satan) and cast him down to Earth where he lived with mortals for a time before forming his own version of Heaven, Hell. It is suggested that Satan rules Hell much like God rules Heaven, yet with Satan's own leadership style, and thus this can be seen as a kind of spiritual mitosis, where a new lord of a realm besets upon himself almighty power, or at least it is viewed that way by Satanists.
The Fall from Grace, like most myths or legends, is open to many types of interpretation.


Biblical:[edit]

The idea of Satan ruling over Hell is probably an old superstition, coming from misinformed Christians. According to Matthew 25:41,46 Hell was prepared as a place for the Devil and his angels, to be in everlasting fire, not as a place to rule. The Bible state Satan roars about the world:

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: (1 Peter 5:8 KJV)

and that he is the ruler (modern; often translated "prince" also) of it (though not owner) in John 12: 31. See also [4] for more verses supporting this..

Infinitelink 23:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Literature and The Fall from Grace[edit]

Many works exist depicting The Fall from Grace. By far, the best work of this nature is by Christopher Marlowe, titled The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. Marlowe examines a learned man's fall from grace, as he sells his soul for power. Mephistopheles argues that Doctor Faustus must honour his contract with the Devil, or suffer a fate far worse than eternal damnation. Faust examines the central theme of despair, leading to any fall from grace, in a religious parody format.

List[edit]

It had been correctly pointed out over at "List of fallen angel" that the list had no context, and that there was no guarantee of its accuracy (whatever that means in a case like this). It seemed more sensible to put it here, where it has a context, and where there are presumably editors who can assess its accuracy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm more amature at wiki than I'd like to be so I don't know the best way to do this, but shouldn't the discussion pages be merged as well?--Dustin Asby 23:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, also. The list would look much better in a table, but, once again, I have no idea how to do that in wiki.--Dustin Asby 23:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Tables part is easy; I'll bring over the discussion page when I have a moment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk:List of fallen angels[edit]

Vandal's comment removed by Fire Star 22:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone care to explain what this page is all about? What is the source of the information? Which religion pushes a belief in these things? Currently the list, as information, is useful; it makes sense only if you already know the context. A few introductary words in the article would be useful. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Accuracy[edit]

This page doesn't match up very well with Hierarchy of Devils. I understand that the list is based off of the idea of choirs of angels generated in medieval times, but who is in which group seems to be getting mixed up. --Dustin Asby 21:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

These two articles in question should be merged so duplicate (and contradictory) information isn;t here. Also it is in dire need of citations. DreamGuy 00:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Both the comments above seem to the point, so I've merged the list with and redirected the article to Fallen angel, where it has a context, and where there should be editors who can assess its "accuracy". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Article dispute[edit]

As the headline states, please read the added warnings in the article before proceeding with any edits. Satanael 15:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this warning is not adequate. The text of the article, as it stands, clearly suggests that the beliefs outlined in this article are broadly held by Christians, and this is simply misleading. Using the phrase 'in Christian tradition' in fact suggests the opposite of what you seem to think it suggests. By editing it to read 'in some Christian traditions', we would be allowing for the fact that these beliefs are, at best, adiaphora. Unless there is further discussion on this, I intend to reinstate the edits (or try to find a version we can agree on) and amend the warning, which is badly written, patronising and inaccurate in its sense. Please also remember to sign your comments by using four tildes like this: ~~~~ . I hope we can conduct a spirited discussion in the spirit of Wikipedia and don't mean to offend. Thanks. Peeper 08:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Christian tradition refer to the general belief regarding Christian mythology and folklore around the world. It's not something that is generally up to discussion. For example, the belief that Satan rebelled against God and that Satan and his following angels were subsequently thrown out of Heaven and became demons is Christian tradition. Satanael 15:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your earlier post. Unfortunately, with all due respect, your grasp of English does not support the argument you are trying to make. If you start a sentence with 'In Christian tradition', then the reader will expect that what follows is shared by all or at least the large majority of Christians. However, this is not the case with the subject matter of this article. I accept that your definition of 'Christian tradition' is accurate ('general belief regarding Christian mythology and folklore around the world'). What I am arguing with is your suggestion that the notion of Fallen Angels, and the whole belief-system around the fall of Satan from Heaven, falls into this category. It simply does not. (Additionally I take serious issue with your assertion that Christian tradition 'is not something that is generally up to discussion' - but this is perhaps another argument altogether. Feel free to visit my talk page if you want to take this further.)
We therefore need to find alternative wording for the opening paragraph. I am not clear what your objections were to my earlier wording. To say 'some aspects of Judaeo-Christian tradition' and 'in some Christian denominations' is not to devalue these beliefs, but simply to reflect the fact that they are not shared by all Christians everywhere. If you could suggest an alternative which makes this point clear but which you prefer, then please do. Once we have agreement we can proceed with the edits. Many thanks. Peeper 15:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally I take serious issue with your assertion that Christian tradition 'is not something that is generally up to discussion What I meant by that is that the definition of "Christian tradition" is not something that is generally up to discussion.

What do you think the phrase "Christian tradition" refers to, anyway? Christian tradition basically refers to what is the general Christian view on it's "mythology". It's like saying that "Norse mythology" and "Scandinavian folklore" are synonymous, which is to rape the phrases utterly beyond their meaning. Satanael 18:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't appear to be tackling the argument, and what you have said doesn't make sense. What this article contains is NOT part of the general Christian tradition. It is a set of beliefs shared by a number of Christians, but you CANNOT say it is Christian tradition. This is simply not true. The content of the article must be verifiable and be based on evidence which you must cite. The statements made in the introduction to this article are neither supported nor supportable with evidence, and we must therefore rewrite. Unless you can provide a sound basis for keeping the current wording, I will make further changes shortly. If you still disagree we will have to consider how to proceed. If you wish to have a discussion about the nature of mythology/folklore/tradition and what can reasonably be attributed to 'Christian tradition', please do so on my talk page. Peeper 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it simply refers to it's mythological significance. Christianity, like all religions, has it's own share of mythology. Whether you believe it or not is not up for debate. The general Christian tradition, ie. the historical, medieval aspect, WAS that Lucifer fell from heaven. The ideas of fallen angels, demons, devils, and so forth were created in order to terroize the peasants during the Medieval ages in order to create power for Catholic Church. If you want to change it to 'in the historical christian mythologies' you may, but you will also bog down the article.

Nonsense. I am adding about five words to the article. I have tried to make my points clear but you do not seem to want to understand. By saying 'in Christian tradition', you are giving the impression that, on the whole, all Christians share these beliefs. They do not. If you say 'in some Christian traditions', you are acknowledging that there is a great deal of diversity among Christian beliefs. I don't know what your religious background is, but you clearly have very little idea what Christianity is about, and I suggest that you read up a little on religion and belief systems before making badly-thought-out assertions like this.
In the meantime, can you suggest a wording that is acceptable? Otherwise that warning will just stay on the page and undermine both our work. Peeper 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
These concepts are older than Christianity. They certainly were not invented for Catholic opression of peasentry, as many anti-Catholic tracts may suggest. If you have a source showing the creation of these concepts thats is great, however, Jewish literature and non-canonical texts contain older documents with these concepts. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to make my points clear but you do not seem to want to understand. By saying 'in Christian tradition', you are giving the impression that, on the whole, all Christians share these beliefs. They do not. This is the first time I have ever responded to a dispute, so if I am in error here please forgive me. I for one would like to know how it is that you think that not all christians share this belief. Every denomination, if you will, that I know of believes that fallen angels are and do exist. Whether they be Jewish, Protestant, Evangelical, Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical Free, Assemblies of God... this is a basic tenet of christian belief. You can not claim to be a christian, who has been saved by the grace of God, if you do not believe in the Devil and his fall from grace. It benn talked about in the Bible, Koran and even I believe in the Torah or Talmud. Please let me know if I have posted incorrectly or anything like that. 19:11, 1 NOvember 2005 (UTC)


I'm Sorry, BUT you say, I quote: "You can not claim to be a christian, who has been saved by the grace of God, if you do not believe in the Devil and his fall from grace." This is simply nonsense, as salvation is from original sin (man's disobedience to god), not salvation from the devil. Granted, the serpent MAY be interpreted as the devil, BUT it doesnt explicitly or implicitly say who or what it it in the Book of Genesis, so the serpent may be interpreted in various ways. In the Lord's Prayer we say "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" - Mention of temptation and evil (as in Serpent/Eve tempting Man)... no Diablo anywhere... So you can be quite the pious Christian and not adhere to the "Fallen Angel" School of thought. I agree with the "Some Christian traditions" argument. BTW: I am a Roman Catholic who does believe in the Fallen Angel, but that doesn't mean Christians from other denominations do so to.


I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it is "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil ONE." Unfortunately many translations of the Bible, following the example of the KJV (which is ulitimately one of the best works), or simply using the KJV in "new" versions (where the language was 'clarified') this detail wasn't included; some translations have, however, fixed this (such as the NIV), though I do personally prefer the KJV often for scholarly study. Sorry about that, now you know. (And no offense) Infinitelink 23:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If the vast majority of Christians hold that Lucifer was an angel who suffered a fall from grace, it can easily be considered Christian Tradition. Last I knew, the vast majority of Catholics believed this and that is a very large chunk of Christianity right there. If you stopped the average Christian on the street and asked them "Is the Devil a fallen angel?" most would answer yes. Is there some specific part of the article that someone finds should not be included? - 24.7.186.22 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

All of you out there discussing, please remember to keep your head cool. This is an important discussion, but don't forget the talk page guidelines. [5] Thanks. Wsrh 2009 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and a reply to Mr Anonymous[edit]

You need to assume that we want to understand if you don't feel we do understand, one of two things are true, you didn't explain it, or we don't agree. This is about the concept irrespective of belief, and frankly, lackes serious and verifiable sourcing. The lists of Angels is especially problematic, as I don't have any reference listed, and at that no context (Document, book, etc.) for that reference is listed. If you put things like that here, it MUST have a source. It can't be "so sez me". At wikipedia, we need to write articles with no particular Point of View that means it would be understandable to a person of any faith or none at all. I know some of this is from "Mystical City of God" by Bl. Mary of Agreda. It needs sorting out. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree that Wikipedia, in order to maintain integrity, should have documented proof of any stated facts. However according to Pepper the original reason for the disupte of the article was to change the words "In Christian tradition" to "Some Christian traditions." I for one would like to know what he/she is baseing their argument on. As I stated in my previous post every religion that claims they are christians believes that Satan fell from heaven along with many other angels. You can't claim to have a belief In God and/or Jesus if you don't believe in Lucifer. The above denominations that I mentioned are probably the largest and most well known of "Christian Churches" Since the majority of the people who claim to be Christians belong to one of those denominations then at worst a simple majority of Christians share this belief and at best all or almost all share it. As this constitutes one of the ways that pepper would drop his dispute, then I believe the dispute is solved. If you would like I can visit a website of each of the above named faith's and provide proof via website address of their core beliefs which will be in agreence with the original writer and myself. Also as I stated earlier I believe that in order to call yourself a Christian you must have accepted Jesus as your personel savior. Now if what pepper is trying to say is that some chruch denominations ie Chruch of Scientology do not agree with a fall of angels as documented in many religious texts from various religions, then perhaps we all need to make sure we are agreeing with the defination of a "Christian." Please comment and somebody explain to me how to sign a post. 0047, 3 November 2005

Some Christian traditions do not think this is a factual article, and may or may not subscribe to the notion there are fallen angels, as described here. You can't make definitions for people who claim to be Christians on wikipedia. It is not helpful to use terms like, "You cant" and "majority believe" and apply them universally. A blog or public website is not authoritative, I can provide a website claiming that Hitler was alive in Antartica, and his Nazi minions are operating a Nazi moon base. This concept of fallen angels has a tangential relationship to Christianity, but the primary sources are in and out of Christian literature, that is to say; the treatment is historical and metaphysical. The original sources need to be produced, be it Biblical, or Kabbalah, or whatever document from antiquity. We then categorize them from the aource, and people can then understand what is being said, and how much stock they put in the belief. We can excise anything found by "psychic emainations", "latter day prophecy" and Nazi moon base discoveries. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 10:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Pepper here (actually Peeper). Thanks for contributing Anonymous, you are doing fine but you just need to sign your posts by adding four tildes (like this: ~~~~ to the end of your comments which then appears as your username and time stamp.
I am simply amazed that this debate is going on so long. Dominick iss completely right, but let me put it simply: I am a lifelong Christian, and have attended Baptist, Anglican, ecumenical and Quaker congregations in my time. I have come across one or two people out of hundreds who subscribe to any of the beliefs in this article. It is simply factually inaccurate to give the impression that these beliefs are 'Christian tradition'. They are part of some Christian traditions. Is that simple enough?Peeper 11:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, I believe in Jesus but do not necessarily believe in 'Lucifer'. Are you telling me I am not a Christian? Peeper 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
If you are a christian, athiest or animist, if hopelessly off topic. Lets not go there, shall we? This is about the concept of a fallen angel. I think we should catalog the historical sources used in the article and briefly summarize what each one says. I think the oldest sources are the Jewish traditions, and minor ancient beliefs. Next we can use medeival sources, or eastern ones. If ther eare popular culture sources we can trace to a notable source, those can go in there. Posing any things about a fallen angel without a source should be excised. Things should read like the topic from the kust section, source first what it said, then, any contrasts with other texts. (Sign a post with four ~~~~) Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are a christian, athiest or animist, if hopelessly off topic. Lets not go there, shall we? Oh, you're probably right Dominick ;) Tell you what Anonymous, take it up on my talk page - I like a good debate. As to Fallen Angels, Dominick's suggested approach is completely correct. But we do need to find a form of words for the introductory paragraph which is not seen as misleading. Any suggestions? Peeper 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

First off my apologies Peeper for the misspell of your name. It appears to me that we may have a problem here. That being we have gotten off the track as to the dispute with the article. If I am wrong please let me know, but it appears that the original reason that you disputed the article was because you disagreed with the phraze "Christian Tradition." We live in America so it is certainly your right to dissent to anything that you disagree with. However a new dispute appears to have originated from Dominick who it appears is disputing the article not because of "Christian Tradition" but beacause the Author did not include source material for making a statement that fallen angels exist. This appears to be what I am reading from the earlier posts. As I stated earlier I certainly agree that source material is central to any good project. After all remember those papers we all had to do in highschool and college. If you didn't state your sources your paper was thrown away and you got an F. Same thing here. I suggest that we solve this problem by quoting or citing as source material those passeges in religious texts that document a fallen angel(s) story. I quote Luke 10:18 and Revelation 12:9(KJV) as source material supporting fallen angel(s). This should appease Dominick. Then those visitors who know nothing about fallen angel(s) or disagree can find out what we are basing this information on. If after finding out about the source material, they can then dispute the article and bring forth their own sources for disagreeing with the story.

Back to you Peeper you stated in one of your original posts that by stating Christian tradition "then the reader will expect that what follows is shared by all or at least the large majority of Christians." If you claim to be Christian that is your right and I will not say that you are not because only you and God knows if you are or not however IMHO I can't believe that you are claiming the defination of a Christian as put forth by Websters Dictionary that states: "Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish- Function: noun Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Now as this is supposed to be more of a scientific website then a religious one we should follow the defination of "Christian" from a well respected source. I for one am finding it hard to believe that you calim to be a christian which means you profess a belief in Jesus, but find exception to Satan and/or fallen angels being a part of Christian tradition. As Christian belief is founded on the Bible and the Bible being the Word of God it can be construed that in order to claim to be a Christain you must belive that what the Bible says is ture. Since there are many instances in the Bible talking about Satan and the fall of the angels how can you claim to be a Christian, as put forth by Websters Dictionary, if you don't follow this. I submit that your dispute is invalid as you don't follow a christian tradition, as put forth by Websters and all Christians traditions believe in Satan being thrown from heaven. As Jesus is the Son of God and only wanted to honor his Father and do his bidding it can be construed that claiming a belief in Jesus means you believe in God which means you believe in the Bible and what it says. My apologies for not signing the post I tried the four tilde thing and it posted my IP adress. You will forgive me if I don't wish that to be seen by the world. Perhaps I am doing something worng?

Thanks for your reply. Sorry the tilde thing didn't work, we will have to appeal to a more technically minded user than me! Have you signed up for an account? If not this may be the problem, but anyway- to the matter in hand.
You are right that there are two issues here, so for ease of reference I will use sub-sub-headings to separate them out.This should make our discussions more structured and easier to follow. I hope that we can continue this interesting debate and reach some kind of consensus, but it doesn't look like it'll be easy! (Incidentally can I also ask you not to assume that we are all American, nor that being American gives you any particular ownership of the idea of respectful disagreement. The idea of Wikipedia is that it is a global grassroots community of users, and the values of debate and dissent are quite universal. But I fully appreciate and respect your sentiment and the high value placed on free speech in American life - no offence is meant by this). Peeper

Hi Terascque, I am replying separately under each heading to keep the arguments easier to follow. Feel free to expand these sections independently as we are pursuing two lines of discussion here and it is already pretty wordy. I have no objection to you emailing me by going [[6]] as our discussions may not be of interest to all users. Perhaps we could debate the finer points that way and post stuff directly related to the article here.Peeper 20:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Christian tradition[edit]

This is the real sticking point. I think your choice of Webster's as a definition for Christianity is nonsense. As you point out, it is between the believer and God, whatever they conceive him to be, to decide whether or not he or she is a Christian. If you must have an authoritative definition (and you seem keen on a positivist, 'scientific' basis for this) then surely Jesus himself can be the only real supplier of that?

This illustrates that you and I have very different perceptions of something as fundamental as how one knows oneself to be a Christian. Now, these perceptions are wider than just technical differences about the nature of our shared faith - it is patently true that we come from different Christian traditions. That is, we can be broadly grouped together under the same banner of faith, but our experiences and understanding of our faith are probably radically different from each other (belief in 'Lucifer' is another case in point). So you see you must recognise that there is no single, homogenous 'Christian tradition', but rather the grouped experiences of thousands, even millions, of individuals over the centuries, often blurred together but often diametrically opposed to the traditions of other groups. A modern Greek Orthodox Christian has very different beliefs and has very different interpretations of God, Christianity and even the world than a 17th-century Quaker or a 12th-century English Catholic. I hope this makes sense to you - your positivist, evangelical, black-and-white view is one Christian tradition, and should not be applied to all Christians. We are simply not all the same!

Simply put: can you accept the phrase 'in some Christian traditions', or do you still object to its inclusion? If you do object, please can you now suggest a new wording to open this article which does not suggest that all Christians hold these beliefs? Peeper 00:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss my personal faith background further than I have already, please email me or do so here as this is not directly relevant to this discussion (I would be happy to discuss further with you though). But there are a few main points I wish to make:
  1. Webster's is a dictionary. It is not an appropriate source for an intellectual framework of the complexity required by this discussion. A definition is just that: an arbitrary construct which has no real use for sociological, historical or even theological insights.
  2. Third the verses that I put forth although small and not containing much detail are still contained in the Bible and therefore I believe can be called upon as a reference or source material. Remembering that I am a Christian, I object to this viewpoint as it is positivist and grants the Bible additional authority purely on the basis of what it is. While I personally agree that the Bible does have higher authority than 'Mein Kampf', 'My Life' by Bill Clinton or 'Mrs Tiggywinkle', I do not consider that there is any intellectual basis for giving it this authority in a secular, egalitarian intellectual community. You cannot impose your religious values on the wider community. This may be appropriate in a church setting but it is not so here. (Additionally you stated earlier that this is supposed to be more of a scientific website then a religious one, so how can you then justify giving the Bible this self-referential source authority?!)
  3. Most importantly, I am simply astounded that you cannot understand that there are many different Christian denominations, that they all subscribe to different sets of beliefs, and that many if not most of them either reject or, more often, do not have an opinion on the views laid out in Fallen Angel. Very little of this is in the Bible - some is obliquely referred to, but the lists of angels, the theological disputations about lust and free will, and the hypotheses about 'Different sides of God' are simply not there. Therefore they are, at the very least, adiaphora, literally 'things that do not make a difference' to the substance of one's faith. Each denomination has its own traditions, shaped not just by your right-wing evangelical view of the Bible but by hundreds or thousands of years of history. Surely this is enough to convince you that when you say 'In Christian tradition' and describe your own belief, you are exluding me and millions of other Christians who do not share those beliefs! As you say, it is between the individual and God. As a Quaker, one of our 'Advices and Queries' tells us: Think it possible that you may be mistaken. Unless you adopt this approach, you risk showing hefty and hurtful disrespect to all those who disagree with you on (normally quite arcane and tangential) points of doctrine. Peeper 20:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

This one is a bit easier. Dominick's arguments about sourcing is quite correct and kudos to you for accepting this. However, the verses you supply are very weak evidence. Luke 10:18 is a minimal, almost passing reference to the fall of Satan by Jesus and contains no doctrinal or mythological substance. The entire book of Revelation is, by its very nature, an Apocalypse. Again, it contains little in the way of doctrinal or mythological content, is explicitly a personal vision the primary vehicle for which is symbolism rather than the creation of a folkloric or quasi-historical backdrop to the faith. (There are issues around ignorance of the context of the Bible here, but if you wish to discuss that then please do so on my talk page).

What Dominick - and I - would expect to see would be full and comprehensive referencing demonstrating where all the beliefs in this article are laid down or drawn from. What ancient or mediaeval texts speak of the hierarchy of angels or where do the hypothetical 'reasons for their fall' come from?You could look at some of the Featured Articles on the main page to get an idea of how a comprehensive article should be properly referenced.Peeper 00:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope these arguments are clear and that we can take these forward productively. This is a very interesting and positive debate, and hopefully we will get a really good article out of it. In the meantime, do feel free to take these issues up further here or on my talk page, and until you can fix the tilde thing, can we have a name to address you by? Mr Anonymous seems a bit...well, anonymous! Peeper 00:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Also as I have referenced a couple of sources in the Bible that were written by different people as supporting material I would like to know what reference material you claim for such a belief not being correct or not having occured. I do not suggest that the beliefs expressed in this article are incorrect in any objective sense, just that the verses you supply are very minimal and do not really support much of what is in there. All they contain is references to Satan falling from heaven: they are not even statements of belief, but can even be interpreted as flourishes of imagery. You do not have to have exhaustive references for every single comment, but when you make a statement (for example,A fallen angel is...an angel that has been exiled or banished from Heaven for disobeying God's mandate or for rebelling against God), you must be able to tell the reader where that information came from. Where the Bible is concerned, context is very important,too. Otherwise you can quote Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV), The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left as a Biblical endorsement of the Republicans (or in my case the Conservatives!). Contextually and lexically this is nonsense - but when taken so narrowly, you could just about plausibly get it through. So please look for passages - Jesus did not speak like an advertising executive in eight-word soundbites, but like a passionate and intelligent preacher.
Secondly, much of what the article contains is sourced well- see the paragraphs on God's Aura and Lust, both of which state at the outset where the arguments they contain are derived from. This practice needs to be extended. I think my original point was that you will simply not be able to find a source for the claim that there is one indivisible 'Christian tradition' and that the contents of 'Fallen Angel' are part of it. Peeper 20:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


A reply to Christian tradition and Sources[edit]

First let me apologise for my comment about America. I took no offense to your return comment and hope none was taken by mine. Second by quoting Websters I was merely using it to try to form a basis of common ground. Something that we could both agree on. I feel Websters to be an impartial and authoritative source of reference material on this matter. I will certainly agree with you though that different denominations have different views on different subjects. For example although Catholics believe in God and Jesus they also do some things that I totally can't understand and don't know the basis for. They pray to the Virgin Mary. Why? She can't intercede on their behalf. She has no supernatural powers and so can't make their prayers come true. As it talkes about in the Bible about having no other God and not praying and or worhsiping others then God why do they do this. I have no idea although it is part of their belief system. Now I am not saying this does not make them saved although I do not think that they should use the label Christian when they are not following or only following some of the teachings of Christ. Like I said earlier I won't say if you are saved or not. That is not for any of us to even speculate about. However all religious denominations that I know about, who claim to be Christian, believe that Satan fell from heaven. Is it your belief that Satan was not cast out of Heaven or that Satan does not exist? I believe that in order to be called a Christian one must believe in Jesus which by default means you must believe in God. Since it talkes about in the Bible that the Bible is the Word of God inspired by him then you must believe that what the Bible says is true. How does one profess a belief in the teachings of Christ if one does not believe in God if one does not believe in the Bible? The three go hand in hand. If you dont' believe in one how can you believe in the others? Since there are instances in the Bible that talk about Satan being cast from Heaven what is your rebuttal for their inclusion in the Bible and what do you think they mean. As I stated earlier I am not casting doubt on whether you are saved or not I am merely suggesting that I dont believe your beliefs are in agreeance with what Websters has put forth as a defination of Christian. Since we are trying to write an impartial encyclopedic reference we should go by what the defination of the word means. Note again I am not in any way shape or form suggesting that you are or are not be saved nor am I flaming your beliefs or anything like that I am merely suggesting that if we are going to use the word Christian we should agree on what the word Christian means. I would like to know what denomination you belong to and whether this is a belief of that particular denomination or merely your own opinion. Who or what do you believe Satan to be. Also as I have referenced a couple of sources in the Bible that were written by different people as supporting material I would like to know what reference material you claim for such a belief not being correct or not having occured. Third the verses that I put forth although small and not containing much detail are still contained in the Bible and therefore I believe can be called upon as a reference or source material. I believe that they can be used as source material to support the author's position regarding fallen angels as having occured. I will agree though, that upon further review of the article, there are instances were he/she is putting forth subject matter with which there is no verifiable, at least that we know of, source. However just to play Devil's Advocate he does claim some resources. Unfourtuately I do not have acces to said material nor does my library so I have no way of knowing if the material he presents in his article is contained in these references of not. Has anyone looked at said material or does anyone have access to it in order to see if the information he presents is contained within said material. Fourth I am having a hard time coming up with a suitable reworking of the opening since I believe that in order to call yourself Christian you must believe in Satan and his fall from grace. I beleive this to be one of the cental back stories behind the reason for Jesus having to come to earth to save man. If you can supply source material, from a religous organization that most or even a significant portion of the population would agree is a Christian organization, that supports your opinion I would be happy to reconsider my position. By this I mean please don't present as evidence Darwins theory or other non religious texts. As we are using as a basis for this article a religious soure it would only be appropriate to dispute with other religious text. Fifth since I seem to still be having a problem signing the post I usually go by the name terascque. Again please note I am not calling into question your realtionship or lack therof with Christ, only that you are using the word Christian in a manner inconcistent with what many people would agree with. I hope that makes sense.

In a way...my responses to your arguments are above, in each subsection. I think the next step, then, is to try to devise a new opening paragraph. I am fairly busy at the moment but will try to do this in the next week or two, and submit it to this page for discussion before posting it into the main text. I am enjoying this challenging debate, and hope that we can reach a good consensus on it eventually. Cheers for your contributions...maddening but interesting!! ;) Peeper 20:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to respond also, both with respect to questions of source material and to the application of "Christian" and "Christian tradition." On the issue of source material, I think first and foremost that, although Terascque's point about non-religious texts is in essence a good one, but his above reliance on the Bible seems to me misplaced for two reasons. First, because the composition of the Bible has been and yet is a matter of dispute; consider, for instance, the apocryphal designation with which many protestants regard 7 books of it which Catholics consider entirely canonical, or the Orthodox churches' almost unilateral assertion that the Revelation of St. John the Divine is neither Johannine nor inspired. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that, if revealed truth can be considered "true," it cannot be found in the numerous religious texts besides the Bible. Irrespectively, the substance of what few sources I have found thus far which bear on this page's material are as follows (please forgive my rendering of everything in the Latin alphabets, but I recently converted to Linux and seem to have lost my alphabet and logosyllabary library). First, that there exist a Devil and a number of angels, some of whom serve him, is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verse 41: "tote erei kai toiz euonumon pereuesthoi ap emou oi kathramenoi eis to pur to eionion to etoimazmenon to diabolo kai tois aggelois autou." [sic]. (English: "then he will say to those on his left, 'Then go thou, thou cursed ones, into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and the angels which are his.'") The Bible, or the Catholic Bible in any case, can also be used to establish that a fall of angels occurred as punishment for some crime, and for which said angels are condemned to hell, as we see in 2 Peter, chapter 2, verse 4: "ei gar o theoz aggelon amartezonton ouk ephesato seiraz zophou tartaresaz paredoken eiz krisin throumenous." (English: "That God did not spare those angels which sinnned, but delivered them down infernal ropes unto the lower hell, and unto torment, to be reserved unto His judgment:" That's useful, I think. As regards a hierarchy of angels, most of it is latecoming and as nearly as I can find, only marginally "traditional" in any sense, but merely extracanonical and nowhere actually heretical. Cherubim are mentioned in Genesis and Ezekiel 1; archangels in First Thessalonians (iv, 15) and in the (of questionable authenticity) Epistle of St. Jude, and seraphim in Isaiah. (vi, 6). That's all that's really defensible; the business of powers and thromes, etc. is first made explicit in the "De Coelesti Hierarchia" (which was almost certainly not the work of St. Denis the Areopagite), and although its author claims his or her information from St. Paul's Epistles to the Ephesians (i,21) and Colossians (i,16), it seems clear that he or she must have been confused, as the dominions and principalities etc. can much more logically as referent to actual such things. In theory they could be classes of angels, but this interpretation is rendered suspect by the fact that St. Paul decries "religions of angels" only a few sentences later. The hierarchy of hierarchies was added, apparently on a whim, by St. Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica." I, (108-9) Finally, as regarding the actual names of angels, fallen or otherwise, the Bible provides only Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Abaddon, and Satan; the last never being named explicitly as an angel only as a master of them (above). Older Jewish sources (apparently of decent repute, although I sadly don't know a word of Hebrew and have to take the authorities entirely at their word) name Uriel and Jeremiel. Some more names arise in the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch (aka Ethiopic Book of Enoch), of which only two fragmentary translations survive, but these include a few of those on the list of fallen angels, most notably Azazel. It also makes explicit that Satan not only leads fallen angels but is one also, in a detailed account of the Fall, for whose trustworthy translation I have to wait three weeks at the university library (a little excessive I think). I am told, though, that the relevant bit is the 1st and oldest of 5 constituent books, specifically chapters 1-36, and that these chapters date to 170 BCE or earlier. <http://www.tertullian.org/articles/souter_orat_bapt/souter_orat_bapt_06adverts.htm>. However, a number of the names on the list are clearly taken from gnosticism, (especially "Ialdabaoth," a pantheon chief in Valentinus' hierarchy) which in my opinion in many respects resembles the Neo-Platonism of Porphyry, and the pagan religions of the ancient near east, significantly more than it does Christianity proper. Which brings me to my original second point, viz. "Christian" as a term. I am skeptical that it means anything other than a person who answers the question "What religion are you?" with "Christian," largely because of its mutable and diverse nature and history. One can take the original meaning, "anointed," but then only Christians could talk about Christians, because others (as did Julian Apostate, who named them "Galileans") might not acknowledge any such anointment, and that would be inconvenient. People ought to simply agree what Christian means when they start to argue about what is or isn't it, and if they can't, bear in mind a certain impossibility to anybody winning. In any case, Ihope something was at least slightly useful, and if not, at least slightly interesting. Joris-Karl 13:54 9 November 2005

Feel free to delete this entry as you please, since I am unfamiliar with the protocol and aocial etiquette of Wikipedia at this point, but I would like to congratulate both sides in this debate on maintaining (for the most part) a positive discussion instead of devolving into flame posting and other such childishness. Instinctively, I knew that an open-sourced project such as this would carry with it intractible problems of debate and opinion, however there seems to be a great deal more thought put into resolving these debates than I had initially imagined. On to my content. Having perused for several days now topics of interest on a variety of other religions, mythologies, entities, and other elements central to the beliefs of other people, I would like to point out that the article, as written, is far more culturally sensitive than the treatment accorded to many other topics. For example, Islamic Mythology starts with "Stories of genies, magic lamps, flying carpets, and wishes", Articles on Djinn and Ifrit give equal weight to video games and pop culture as they do to historical/traditional interpretations and the opening line on an article on Zoroastrianism uses quotes to belittle the importance of that religion to the history of Persia. The current phrasing, "A fallen angel is, in Judeo-Christian tradition, ..." seems a pretty innocuous opening when put in context of how information is generally handled on this site. From an outside perspective, I was not fooled into believing that it was a central tenent of Christian mythology. I think a more important question, since the author(s) are defining what a Fallen Angel IS according to some interpretation (however narrow), is are there any other different definitions that are not being represented? User:version9 21:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


The article is biased by denominations[edit]

The article has many biased POVs by the many Christian denominations. This is the ultimate cause of disputed inaccurate accounts. None of the information is incorrect, but just biased, and needs to be neutralized by the Bible. If there can be direct accounts, and non-confliction due to denominations, then this page wouldn't be so...conflicting. Rhetoricalwater 19:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Most information can be sourced to Biblical and non-Biblical sources for the Judeo-Christian frorm, and the other orsm are easily sources rom the respective documents. I it is souced it would not be so PoV. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 21:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, as I see it, sourcing it would make it much better. But things are mentioned that have conflicting interests with other things. This must be because of denomination bias. Rhetoricalwater 05:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Lucifer/Satan Reference[edit]

If you refer to the Beelzebub page, you find that the most modern perception of the unholy trinity consists of Lucifer, Satan, and Beelzebub. As it is obvious, the unholy trinity is the counterpart of the holy trinity: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. In the Holy trinity, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually different. But, Christian tradition is to know that they are one, and or merged. If this is not a confliction with the counterpart, the unholy triniy, therefore: Satan is Lucifer and Lucifer is Beelzebub. So this is outstanding proof that when Lucifer fell, he became Satan, or merged with him into the unholy trinity with Beelzebub. Honestly, I can't give direct scriptures but the reading is accountable. Rhetoricalwater 05:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but I was the one who added that info. But seeing as how it needs better sources, it will be removed.
And about the "unholy trinity". First of all, there is no such thing. Second of all, the only real "unholy trinity" is the one portrayed in Revelation, consisting of The Dragon, The Beast and the False Prophet, however as it not really is a trinity, it's not really relevant. Satanael 12:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm really over the top right now. I've never been this mad on Wikipedia. So have it your way, whatever every you say kid Have your way, have your way. Hey, if denying information just becuase you don't know, is your thing, oh well...If there's no such thing as the unholy trinity explain this please: Most modern demonologists has the unholy trinity consisting of Satan, Lucifer and Beelzebub. Satan as the Devil and Sovereign of Earth, Lucifer as Hell's top monarch and Beelzebub as Hell's leading politician.--from Beelzebub He was not cherubim, he is much rather deity of vermin. Rhetoricalwater 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I was the one who added that part to the Beelzebub article anyway. There is no "unholy trinity" as there is no general advocation for such a belief.

As far as I know, Milton was the first one, that we know of, that stated that Beelzebub was a cherub. And umm: Hey, if denying information just becuase you don't know, is your thing, oh well... Satanology is the one subject in Demonology I care most about. I'd explain more deeply into it, but seeming as you aren't here anymore, I'll just take it up again when, and if, you return. Satanael 15:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Rhetoricalwater how can you become angry while trying to portray a version of God? If you believe in the holy trinity, then you would understand that we are also a part of God when we are in Christ (saved). And if we are one with God we do not become angry at anything. This is not a version of righteouss anger either, for you have become angry at someones belief being opposite of yours. The Bible states nothing of the unholy trinity. Your stating that Satan is lucifer due to the fact that lucifer fell, and became satan. Then you view Paul and Saul as 2 men as one? Because paul was Saul before he became saved. He is still one man, with a different name. Lucifer is Satan, and Satan is Lucifer. They are one. This discussion holds no truth, it says no where in the Bible anything of there being, nor not being a unholy trinity. Just because one thing is of Good, does not make that same thing of Evil, just the opposite. A divided house can not stand, either way if Satan is a 3 part being, or a 1 part being, he will still fall and burn in hell, with all those he decieved. - TienK

curious[edit]

How much of this information coems from Judeo-Christian sources, and how much from contemporary sources such as movies and comic books and was retroactively sourced? Er, by which I mean doing something like this: "I read about Beelzebub in Hellblazer and then googled him and found some referrences and used those because they sound better."

As I say: just curious. Scix 10:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about all those hypothesises, two of them, the pride, lust and the first disobedience ones, I think are correct; but I know that all the names of those fallen angels are from scholarly sources. Satanael 10:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No wonder...[edit]

I am astounded at how long this debate has gone on. No wonder there are over 1500 different denominations of Christian-based faiths in the U.S. This is why there is no one Christian-based definition for "Christian." No one can agree on one definitive statement.I think the dictionary definition is good in that it defines without emotion. Actually, the definition of Christian is immaterial to this whole debate. This seems(to me) to be the real problem here: Some are involving emotion and their own personal beliefs instead of remaining objective. I realize this is hard to do; that is separate heart from mind. There is nothing wrong with "A fallen angel is, in Judeo-Christian tradition"; this does not state that every single Christian and Jew believes this...heck,how many arguments between Christians about baptism are there going on at this very moment? Original sin anyone? Quit splitting hairs people. "Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Christianity and Judaism..." (Wikipedia).

Here is one verse that refers to Lucifer's fall:

Isaiah 14:12 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV)

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

Rev. 12:7-9 (KJV) And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Also, read Ezekial chapter 28.

Satan from Dictionary.com (I chose this because it is readily available to anyone online): n : (Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions) chief spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind; master of Hell [syn: Satan, Old Nick, Devil, the Devil, Lucifer, Beelzebub, the Tempter, Prince of Darkness]

adversary; accuser. When used as a proper name, the Hebrew word so rendered has the article "the adversary" (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). In the New Testament it is used as interchangeable with Diabolos, or the devil, and is so used more than thirty times. He is also called "the dragon," "the old serpent" (Rev. 12:9; 20:2); "the prince of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30); "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2); "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4); "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2). The distinct personality of Satan and his activity among men are thus obviously recognized. He tempted our Lord in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11). He is "Beelzebub, the prince of the devils" (12:24). He is "the constant enemy of God, of Christ, of the divine kingdom, of the followers of Christ, and of all truth; full of falsehood and all malice, and exciting and seducing to evil in every possible way." His power is very great in the world. He is a "roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet. 5:8). Men are said to be "taken captive by him" (2 Tim. 2:26). Christians are warned against his "devices" (2 Cor. 2:11), and called on to "resist" him (James 4:7). Christ redeems his people from "him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb. 2:14. Satan has the "power of death," not as lord, but simply as executioner.

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary (cited by Dictionary.com)

I don't mean to offend anyone; religion is never a quiet discussion. How many interpreations of the Bible are there?

--Susannah 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Isaiah and Ezekiel quotes do not refer to any fallen angel or demon, they actually refer to Nebuchadnezzar and the King of Tyre respectively. And you should also never use the KJV of the Bible, as it is highly biased and not reliable. Lucifer is used in the Vulgate as a translation for the Greek "Phosphorus" found in the Septaguint, which basically means lightbringer and refers to the morning star. The original Hebrew uses Helel as a designation for the morning star in the text, and if one wants to take it that way, one can interpret it to be Lucifer's angelic name. Or one can interpret it to just be a divine designation for the King of Babylon. Satanael 10:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, Sataneal is right about this. That whole "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" was a metaphor in reference to the proud Babylonian rulers (probably speficially King Nebuchadnezzar) and their predicted fall. Most people, though, don't even bother to examine that verse -- and, indeed, that entire verse and the preceding verses -- in context:
Thorough explanation. Ryu Kaze 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ACTUALLY,according to the Life Application Bible: Isaiah 14:12-14 "there are several interpretations for Lucifer in these verses. 1) He is Satan, because the person here is too powerful to by any human king. Although Satan may fit verses 12-14, he does not fit well with the rest of the chapter. 2) This could be Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzar, kins with supreme power. their people looked upon them as gods. These kings wanted to rule the world. 3) This could refer to both Satan and a great human king..."

As far as the King of Tyre goes...according to Ezekiel he was in Eden, the garden of God, was the annointed guardian cherub,and had access to the holy mountain of God...how can this refer to only a human... --Susannah 13:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that so much argument is going into who is or isn't a Christian and very little about source material. There is no "Judeo-Christian" tradition, that is something that doesn't exist.

Judaism is *very* different from Christianity in everything from theology to the very nature of divinity. There is no Jewish concept of a "devil" or "hell" in the Christian sense - the Adversary is basically an office, an angel who is the prosecuting attorney in the court of heaven. The function of that angel is to state the record of the soul being accused, nothing more.

Judaism doesn't hold to any "fall from heaven" or that angels have free will. They are expressions of divine will in and of themselves and do as they are made to do. Gehennom (or Gehenah) which is mistaken as "hell" is a temporary crucuble of the soul, where impurities are burned away. It lasts no more than 11 months.

There are Kabalistic references to mishappen or misformed angels that are a testament against a person for "sins" - but the Jewish concept of sin is also very different from the Christian one. In short - stop calling it Judeo-Christian and assuming the beliefs are the same - they are decidedly different.

And for the record, the references to the "morning star" are in fact of Nebuchadnezzar all bad translations aside, it's clear in the Hebrew and the writings that go along with it. Mortifyd 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well put, Mortifyd, and as such may I suggest a change to the introductory "In Abrahamic religions, a fallen angel..." since Judaism quite clearly doesn't have any fallen angels, which is shown by the need to include the book on Enoch into the discussion, and it is not recognised as part of the Tenakh/Old Testament by any mainstream Jewish teachings. Perhaps the article should be split up into how different Abrahamic religions define fallen angles, since this entry seems to be entirely about Christianity, with only a small amount on Islam, nothing solid on Judaism and nothing at all on Bahaism. As such, I will be so bold as to change the mention on "Abrahamic religions" to something more accurate. Ste175 01:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

incoherence[edit]

An act by God of creation was forseen as resulting in multiple outcomes, with each of these three doctrines that were traits held by certain angels.

This sentence seems fairly incoherent. What do you reckon it's trying to say? How could it say it better? The rest of the paragraph isn't much better. --Jim Henry 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vita Adae et Evae[edit]

It says in this article, that the "Vita Adae et Evae" was written near the end of the 10th century AD. That doesn't correspond with other articles on the Wikipedia, for instance the "Life of Adam and Eve" and "Lucifer" articles. Could someone who has sufficient knowledge about "the Vita" correct this information?

merge from Evil Angels[edit]

There's a page called Evil Angels that seems to describe Fallen angels, but with a lot more original research. Is there any distinction between the two concepts? If not, I suggest Evil Angels be merged into this page. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Evil Angels is pretty much taken straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia, [7]. It's public domain, so not a copy-vio, but still should be merged to this page, IMHO. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Merge for sure. The lifting of the text from a third-party seals the deal. --Plumbago 08:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitely merge. If no one wants to do this, pass me a note. -Zara1709 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

please don't merge from Evil Angels[edit]

I'm not so sure that the fallen angels intended to destroy or foul up the earth, though that was what ultimately happened. They broke the law by coming here, but breaking the law doesn't necessarily equate to evil. Larry Gerndt 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia formula, so successful in many cases, fails miserably with matters of religion, because the system doesn't acknowledge disparate views based on contradicting sources, which various people put faith in. I would suggest removing both pages - they are utter failures as an attempt to inform. More use is made of Apocryphal sources (e.g. book of Enoch) that inspired ones like the Bible. The difference is - inspired sources have passed Contemporary Peer Review; their contemporaries often hated the prophets but they kept their words as inspired. The apochryphal sources have failed this same test. The comments above are at least backed up by Scripture. I would also pull the article on Satan as totally misleading, and Jehovah's Witnesses as wildly inaccurate. But if too many voices are listened to, truth can never be arrived at. <mailto:business.kid@gmnail.com>

- I would truly like them to remain; I have now bookmarked them as an incredible inspiration to help flesh out a character's background in a project I'm working in. Some of this information, as flawed as it may or may not be, really fits into what I've already been developing (without knowledge of it! I'm sorry, I'm not heavily religious, but I do love reading of incidents and phenomena from different religions). Despite any inaccuracies, this information beautifully matches up with the current storyline plan and perfectly adds what I think is necessary to perfect the bond between the two central protagonists. I'm now truly inspired to continue on with the project and see to its completion and release! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.255.176.235 (talkcontribs).

Here's an idea - why don't you just bookmark the page the Evil Angels text was lifted from? Wikipedia does not exist to serve as backup diskspace for its editors. --Plumbago 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

- I also do not think "evil angels" equate to the angels who fell from heaven through worldly temptations, however I'm no expert on this subject. I just do not think they are quite related enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.255.176.235 (talkcontribs).

List of Fallen Angels[edit]

Where did that list of alleged Fallen Angels come from? Besides that I (a Bible-believing Christian, by the way) disagree with the whole notion of Satan equating to Lucifer, I have never even heard of this list. Does it come from the Koran? The apocrypha? I've looked through the article and unless I'm missing something, it is not said. At any rate, it should be more obvious. --Narfil Palùrfalas 22:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the lists are probably from the books listed in the bibliography section the end of the article. It would be much more helpful if the main text was more explicit in the source though. To say the least, this isn't my subject, so if a contributing editor could help here ... --Plumbago 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This Is a Mess[edit]

This entry is a complete and unter mess. Here's a few examples....

  • There are a number of different beliefs regarding the origins and motivations of fallen angels. Many focus on issues of free will, lust, pride, or the incomprehensibility of the acts of God.*

Who believes that? CITE SOURCES

  • It is generally accepted by most Christians that the fallen angels were cast out of Heaven...*

Who generally accepts that? CITE SOURCES

  • Generally, these actions included active rebellion...*

Who thinks it's generally? CITE SOURCES

  • Pride is often involved, especially in cases where an angel believed itself to be more powerful than God (Lucifer being the prime example among these).*

Often? What the hell is often without sources?

I could go on, but I won't. I give you a few day to clean up this rubbish, or I'll trim it down to a single paragraph and cut out the NPOV/unsourced garbage you've all written - Welshy 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm right behind you, Welshy. I tried a good while back to moderate a particular sentence (a claim that these beliefs were universal among Christians) and was greeted with sound and fury; I was surprised that my tag in May for references has not been deleted. So, in a few days' time, I am happy to join the fray and trim this highly unbalanced and opinionated article of its unsourced, unreliable assertions. Peeper 09:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I too am curious where much of this content comes from; this and the War of Heaven. That Lucifer (a Latin name for a minor Roman diety) is the same as Satan is largely losing Christian supporters, and I think the text is quite clear that it is a literal King of Babylon. The belief is now pretty much based on tradition; I'm not sure what the Roman Catholics officially believe in this respect. This article states quite definitely that Lucifer was a fallen angel (see "Definition of the term"). I disagree with removing most of it, but a rewrite is certainly in order. --Narfil Palùrfalas 17:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Don't be fools. Any broad statement about worldwide politics or religion CANNOT be properly referenced. There is no accurate survey of billions of people. You might come up with references to "authorities" respected by certain groups (e.g. Roman Catholic Pope). But those "authorities" will only be venturing their personal guess and opinion albeit more informed than the average bear. Unfortunately different groups won't respect that authority's opinion. The best you can do is say "large numbers of Christians cite this as official doctrine including..." then cite some specific Church congregations. People can then draw their own conclusions as to how many people in these groups adhere to doctrine (e.g. like no contraception in the Catholic church). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gunk in lead[edit]

One sentence in the lead read "One early source for information on angelology and demonology is the Persian [sic] prophet Zoroaster." The hymns attributed to Zoroaster are not "one early source for information on angelology and demonology"; the author of that sentence is confusing Zoroaster with Zoroastrian tradition. Moreover, that sentence is synthesis and has no business being in an article on "Fallen angel" as that concept doesn't exist in (any stage of) Zoroastrianism. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Need a do-over for the Section Origin of the Term[edit]

Fallen Angel is not a translation of the word nephilim (KJV translates as giant.)See wikipedia entry for nephilim. They are the crossbreed children of angels and humans per Enoch. The Jude quote is both out of place in the middle of the Enoch info and doesn't say FALLEN so kind of useless unless there is a reliable source saying in darkness is the same as fallen. The paragraph starting "The distinction of good and bad angels" exactly contradicts the Jude quote unless being on earth is the same as chained in darkness. "The gradual development of Hebrew language consciousness on this point is very clearly marked in the inspired writings. The account of the fall of the First Parents (Genesis 3) is couched in such terms that it is difficult to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who was jealous of the human race." This paragraph makes no real sense. How do we get a gradual development starting with the 3rd chapter of the 1st book? And even if it did how do we get from a principle of evil to a Fallen Angel? (Off the point but: In plain English Adam and Eve is better than First Parents and set is better than couched.)And the Philo paragraph is more of a footnote than a readable entry. I think it says the Greek translation may have used angel instead of son in some passages but we can't tell because those passages are corrupt. I'm willing to do soem clean up but someone who has real knowledge might do a better job. 96.227.80.178 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I likewise have strong concerns over the accuracy of this section (and the article generally, for that matter). It appears to be mostly rather mangled OR/SYNTH of unclear provenance. HrafnTalkStalk 05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the author of the "Origin of the Term" section. In stating the etymology of the word nephilim, I've shown from where the "fall" comes. While the King James version translates "nephilim" as "giants", a reference to their abnormally tall stature owing to the cross-breeding between human and angel, the actual Hebrew word derives from a reference to their origin, that of having fallen from heaven to mingle with humans on earth (Gen. 6:4). The quote from Jude, who was well familiar with the book of Enoch as evidenced by his quoting from it, lends credibility to this last assertion.Larry Gerndt (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Risen Demon[edit]

If their is such thing as angels to sin and fall to hell to be a Fallen Angel, (And possibly differ from the common demon) Is it possible for a demon born in hell, to choose to repent it's sin and become a sort of opposite to Fallen Angel? A "Risen" or "Raised Demon"?--86.146.59.66 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Angels and thus demons aren't "born", they are created. While some have speculated that it may be possible for a 'fallen angel' to repent, I know of no Abrahamic religion that considers such a possibility within its theology. Regardless, the possibility would require a WP:RS in order to be mentioned in the article. HrafnTalkStalk 18:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
What about Marchosias? He maybe a Duke of Hell but still he is reliable to conjuror, truth to all questions and hope to return to heaven with demons (Not Fallen Angels), Unless he has intentions to storm heaven but that would be foolish, in yet still he holds some sort of hope. This is just a hypothosis.--86.146.59.66 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Only according to Aleister Crowley, and Marchosias leaves Marchosias' status (was he himself a "non fallen angel", is a "non fallen angel" (i) an angel that did not fall or (ii) a demon that is not a fallen angel), and the criteria for "return to heaven" more than a little ambiguous. You would have to return to the original source, and in any case, Crowley himself is a theologically WP:FRINGE figure who should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
So you believe their cna be no such thing as Risen Demons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.93.255 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't care whether there are or not. All I know is that we have no reliable source unambiguously stating that any prominent religion thinks that they do exist. HrafnTalkStalk 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm, eitherway I retrieved the answers I seek. Thanks for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.77.2 (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, yep Christ has the power to forgive fallen angels, and many believe this will eventually happen, the kid will add some references to the main page. However its important to remember that fallen angels have commited the unforgiveable sin. They witnessed the the miraculous power of God (Mat 12 , Heb6:4 ) yet still choose to rebel. God makes such reprobates not even desire reconciliatoin, he makes them have a depraved mind (Rom 1:28) so its unlikely fallen angels will even want to repent , untill the time comes for the restoration of all things, where they will be forced to accept Christ (Phil 2:10), and afterward will be glad that they have done so when they are restored to blissful union with Love. So anyway, its not likely there is really such a thing as accended demons right now , and in fact they dont appear in the work of great writers who are in tune with the cosmic pulse, but only in genre fiction. PS, its widely beleived that the unforgiveable sin cant be committed by anyone who hasnt had a direct revelation of Gods miraculous nature, so no need for anyone to stress if they said unclean things in their minds. Mrthekid97 (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dark angels[edit]

Dark angels er en skater gruppe fra danmark

medlemmer: Andreas Nikolaj lasse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.72.52.38 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation (via Google Trans): Dark angels are a skater group from denmark
members: Andrew Nicholas placement --Auric (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Milton[edit]

is Book 7, lines 131-134. If you can make it go directly to that quote, please do. 173.21.123.155 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutraility[edit]

this artcile is not neutral 'coz there is no Islamic POV (Idot (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Because you have provided NO SOURCE for "Islamic POV". Read WP:V. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
'co it's just absent here! (Idot (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC))
Please read the WP:WEIGHT section of WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." No "reliable source" = zero weight. Not mentioning a viewpoint for which a RS has not been given is in perfect compliance with WP:NPOV. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sumerian "gods" as fallen angels[edit]

Enki for example had a son with a human woman, Adapa. Gilgamesh was also 2/3 "god" and 1/3 human. Some of the other Sumerian "gods" also had relationships with human women. And last but not least, the Sumerian "gods" taught the humans many of God's secrets. That's exactly what the fallen angels did, even though God strictly forbid it. Enki's city Eridu is also described as "Place of the Prince", and Enki himself described as "Lord of the Earth" or "Prince" (of hell). That's exactly how Satan and Lucifer are described in the Bible. After reading through all the pages here on Wikipedia regarding Sumer and the Sumerian religion I have no shadow of a doubt that Sumer was the place where the fallen angels came down to earth and corrupted mankind, fornicated with human women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.201.23.62 (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSs dsicussing any of these as "fallen angels" (as opposed to demigods)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Since I've almost never seen anon editors bother to actually read the site's guidelines (*sigh*), to be clear Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of place?[edit]

I dont think detailed information about the chiefs of the groups of tens of 1 Enoch's Watchers is helpful here. It's enough to give that information in the article on these "Watchers". Esoglou (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect your input on that. I will move it back. I wanted to see how it would look and if it was better. It just seemed to me better... but its more or less my POV. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Section merge: Grigori into Watchers[edit]

"Grigori. These are the Watchers... of whom we have so full accounts in 1 En." - Charles, edited, in conjunction with many scholars, by R.H. (2004). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English : with introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several books. Berkeley: Apocryphile Press. p. 439. ISBN 0974762377. 

On this page only, I'm merging Grigori into Watchers section, since they are the same beings. On the Watchers page, it is appropriate that they remain separate sections for textual distinction, but it is not necessary here. By having two sections on this page, also suggests they are separate beings, even if it is stated otherwise. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Falsifying quotations[edit]

User:‎Esoglou, in regards to:

(diff | hist) . . Fallen angel‎; 18:39 . . (+442)‎ . . ‎Esoglou (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Watchers who fell: please don't falsify quotations by inserting words of your own into them)

Could you elaborate more on this accusation against me?

I italicize the text because there are various versions. If you are going to put quotes than you need to specify which version its coming from. Quite honestly, the entire paragraph is unnecessary and can be summarized in one sentence, and that's where this is going... All this detail is getting way overblown. As editors, we prepare summaries of the information... not quotes all over the place. If you are going to get stuck on quotes... then provide the version that its coming from, please.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I referred to the insertion of "(fifth heaven)" into "out from the height with his angels, and he was flying in the air continuously above the bottomless" (2 Enoch 29:1-4). Esoglou (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I won't do that anymore. I'm sorry if that caused a problem. You are right, I should have at least had a source for it. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Subsection: Watchers[edit]

  • Objective: To prevent edit warring
  • Goal: Come to resolution of each sentence, line by line and/or item by item.
  • Editors: User:jasonasosa versus User:Esoglou
  • Discussion: Open discussion concerning Watchers in 1 Enoch and Grigori (Watchers) in 2 Enoch

Paragraph 1[edit]

The Watchers mentioned in the Jewish pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch, also known as the First Book of Enoch, are viewed as fallen angels who intermarried with human beings during the Antediluvian period before the Flood.[1][2] The Watchers in the Book of Enoch are paralleled to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4.[3]

I propose to strike out reference #[1] because it does not provide page number. The Zondervan reference is sufficient.
ref#[1] Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol.1 Doubleday
I do not object to the contents of this paragraph. It should stay as is.
User:Esoglou, do you have any objections?
-Jasonasosa (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the first sentence is inaccurate. Not all the Watchers mentioned in the Book of Enoch intermarried with human beings. Some (the majority, I suppose, but I think 1 Enoch does not specify) were faithful. "In 1 Enoch 12:3-4 Enoch is asked by the faithful Watchers of the heavens to go to their rebellious brethren in order to announce God's upcoming punishment for the iniquities they committed on earth" (Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, p. 54). And indeed this chapter of 1 Enoch a) presents Enoch as a righteous man; and b) says "his dwelling place as well as his activities were with the Watchers and the holy ones". These Watchers ask Enoch to "go and make known to the Watchers of heaven who have abandoned the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women ..." Note "the Watchers of heaven who have", not "the Watchers of heaven, who have". The faithful Watchers thus speak of some Watchers, by no means all, as having defiled themselves.
In the light of how the first sentence is corrected, the second sentence will require new consideration.
(As a by-the-way remark, not for discussion at this point, I will say that, when compared with 1 Enoch, the internal logic of 2 Enoch shows up as faulty, and interpreting one part of 2 Enoch in the light of another is risky.) Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
PROPOSAL 1: (For review); Please Note: I've taken the html (ref) tags out so we can see the sources on this page.
In the Jewish pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch, a fallen angel motif is given in Chapters 6-36, concerning Watchers who came to the earth and corrupted mankind. They married and had intercourse with human women, (Charlesworth 2011, p. 5) (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2011, p. 1389) a narrative often parralleled with the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. (Wright 2004, p. 20)
(End subsection)
Grigori (New sub-section)
END PROPOSAL 1
Notes from Jasonasosa (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. This new par. does not subject all Watchers to being "fallen", noting your concerns about faithful Watchers while still being able to tie into Gen 6.
  2. It specifically identifies the fallen Watchers of Ch. 6-36.
  3. The Charlesworth reference is updated with a page num.
  4. A new subsection to address the Grigori, noting your concerns about the riskiness of Enochian book discussions in same subsection.
Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Charlesworth, p. 5 does not use the word "Watchers" and speaks instead of "fallen angels". It says that chapters 6-36 are not the only parts of the book that concern the fallen angels: there is information about such angels also in the Dream Visions part (chapters 83-90). It is not certain that the "sons of God" in Gen 6:1-4 were fallen angels (see the New American Commentary, vol. 1A (Genesis 1-11:26), pp. 321ff, which comes down on the side of the view that the "sons of God" in that passage were not meant to be understood as angels). A study dedicated precisely to fallen angels and Enochic literature also reports the Jewish rabbinical view that the "sons of God" were humans, not angels (see pp. 206ff. of Annette Yoshiko Reed's Fallen Angels and the History Of Judaism And Christianity). So is there any reason to say more than that the Book of Enoch speaks of fallen angels among those it calls Watchers, that it presents them as having had intercourse with women and having corrupted mankind as in the Gen 6:14 account of the actions of the "sons of God", and that it says that, at the request of other Watchers, Enoch interceded on their behalf but in vain? Referring to chapters 6-36 is unnecessary and wrongly suggests that the book mentions fallen angels only in those chapters, and it should not be suggested that Gen 6:1-4 makes the "sons of God" out to be (fallen) angels, like those described in 1 Enoch.
PROPOSAL 1-B: (For review): Please Note: ISBN#s for sources listed below are on main page under Fallen angel#References
The Jewish pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch presents a fallen angel motif concerning Watchers (Reed 2005, p. 2) who came to the earth and corrupted mankind. They married and had intercourse with human women, (Charlesworth 2011, p. 5) a narrative commonly parralleled in Christian theology, with the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. (Wright 2004, p. 20)(Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2011, p. 1389)
(End subsection)
Grigori (New sub-section)
END PROPOSAL 1
Notes from Jasonasosa (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Using Reed, p.2 to connect Watchers with fallen angles supported by Charlesworth, p.5
  2. Removed "Chapters 6-36" so as to not lock in fallen angels into those Chapters alone.
  3. Specifying "in Christian theology" to keep to scope. Judaism's view of "Sons of God" is not in scope of this article. Though Sethian theory takes a minor role in Chrisitian theology, it is more prominent in secular theory, which is also out of scope of this article. These subjects are discussed on Sons of God article, well within scope there.
  4. Mention of Enoch is out of scope of this article. (Topic: Fallen angels only)
  5. Deciphering between evil and good angels is out of scope of this article. Scope of this topic is discussed on Watcher (angel) page.
  6. "Generally, the Watchers are paralleled with the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4" - Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits, 3161486560, p.20. Proposal 1-B specifies only fallen angel Watchers to be connected with Gen 6... does not suggest faithful ones.
Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"Generally, the Watchers are paralleled with the sons of God in Genesis 6:-14": Wright says this in relation either to the Book of the Watchers or, in my opinion more likely, in relation to "a well-known subject in early Jewish literature", certainly not "in Christian theology", an idea explicitly denied by Reed's Fallen Angels and the History Of Judaism And Christianity. Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Subsection: Grigori[edit]

Paragraph 1[edit]

Unlike the Book of Enoch, the Second Book of Enoch tells of angels who were "thrown out from the height". Chapter 18 of this Jewish pseudepigraphon speaks of "the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail rejected the Lord of light", (ref name=2En18 2 Enoch 18:1-7 in The Forgotten Books of Eden and in many other editions)and whom it locates in the fifth heaven. These Grigori are identified with the Watchers of the Book of Enoch.(Orlov 2011, p. 164) Of these, some "went down on to earth from the Lord's throne" and there married women and "befouled the earth with their deeds", resulting in confinement under earth.(DDD 1998, p. 893) (ref name=2En18)

Notes from Jasonasosa (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC) on current content

  1. I don't know why "Unlike the Book of Enoch" keeps popping up. It doesn't even make sense...
  2. The "many other editions"/versions, need to be clearly stated. Hyperlinking this way is not wiki standard... in fact, I may have to bring in User:Dougweller in on this one.
  3. On this page, we should avoid discussing about where the Grigori are located. It suggests that they are only located in fifth heaven, when really they are scattered in different realms. Such talk should belong on the Watcher (angel)#The Grigori page, because really its kind of off topic from the fall.
  4. Somehow the DDD,893 got misapplied to the end. That page only supports that 200 princes fell or in another words "turned aside from the Lord"; It doesn't belong here.

PROPOSAL 2: (For Review)

The Second Book of Enoch tells of Watchers who were "thrown out from the height".(2 Enoch 29:7) Chapter 18 refers to them as "the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail rejected the Lord of light". Grigori are identified with the Watchers of the Book of Enoch.(ref name = "Orlov,164">Orlov 2011, p. 164) The Grigori who "went down on to earth from the Lord's throne", married women and "befouled the earth with their deeds", resulting in confinement under earth.(2 Enoch 18:1-7, translated by Rutherford H. Platt, Jr)

Please review. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent (no need to talk of how many went down), except for some minor points.
The Second Book of Enoch tells of Watchers angels (the mention of the throwing out does not identify them as Watchers) who were "thrown out from the height"(2 Enoch 29:7). Chapter 18 refers to them as (chapter 18 does not mention any as thrown out) "the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail rejected the Lord of light". Grigori are identified with the Watchers of the Book of Enoch.(ref name = "Orlov,164">Orlov 2011, p. 164) The Grigori who "went down on to earth from the Lord's throne", married women and "befouled the earth with their deeds", resulting in confinement under earth.(2 Enoch 18:1-7, )
Cool beans. Jasonasosa (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry: as is obvious, I wrongly thought this was to be the whole section on the Grigori. I also left uncompleted my alteration of the last citation. I was going to insert "in The Forgotten Books of Eden" in place of "translated by Rutherford H. Platt, Jr", since it is not clear that the translation was by him. But perhaps there is no need to specify. Esoglou (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We would never just link to a Google search in this way. We link to real individual sources that editors are expected to have verified meet our criteria at WP:RS. And as an aside, snippets won't do, who knows if that next sentence you can't see says "Of course, what I just wrote is nonsense". Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 2[edit]

Most sources quote 2 Enoch as stating that those who descended to earth were three,(ref)Sources presenting one version of 2 Enoch and sources using a different version(/ref) but Andrei A. Orlov, while quoting 2 Enoch as saying that three went down to the earth,(ref)Andrei A. Orlov, Dark Mirrors (SUNY Press 2011 ISBN 9781438439518), p. 93(/ref) remarks in a footnote that some manuscripts put them at 200 or even 200 myriads.(ref name = "Orlov,164"/) In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalypic Literature and Testaments edited by James H. Charlesworth, manuscript J, taken as the best representative of the longer recension, has "and three of them descended" (p. 130), while manuscript A, taken as the best representative of the shorter recension, has "and they descended", which might indicate that all the Grigori descended, or 200 princes of them, or 200 princes and 200 followers, since it follows the phrase "These are the Grigori, 200 princes of whom turned aside, 200 walking in their train" (p. 131).

  1. As User:Dougweller noted above for Par.1, linking Google searches, snippets and such do not meet criteria for WP:RS.
  2. In Charlesworth work, manuscripts J and A are his own identifiers... Those terms are not used or recognized by other analysts. Charlesworth just used those letter names to make it easier to make comparisons between the shorter version and the longer recension.
  3. "which might indicate that all the Grigori descended," based on blah blah blah... sounds like WP:OR
PROPOSAL 2-2:
Early Enochic accounts often use the numeral "two hundred" to refer to the number of them who descended to earth. In later accounts, in particularly from 2 Enoch 18:3, the number is exaggerated(ref>Orlov 2011, p. 92</ref) from as many as 200 hundred thousand to 200 myriad.(ref name = "Orlov,119">Orlov 2011, p. 119: Dark Mirrors, p. 119</ref) Platt's version only indicates that three Grigori went down,(ref>Platt 2004 Reprint, p. 226</ref) while other manuscripts list the original number at two hundred.(ref name="DDD,893">DDD 1998, p. 893</ref)
END PROPOSAL 2-2
Please review, thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I have read this just before going out and will not be able to comment at greater length until tomorrow. But I can point out the major defect: Orlov does not say that 200 myriads went down to the earth (your synthetic interpretation). Instead he quotes the phrase about the 200 myriads who "turned aside from the Lord": 200 myriads who sinned and were fallen angels in that sense. Other sources explicitly quote 2 Enoch as saying that the number of Watchers/Grigori who descended to the earth were three. I hope that is clear enough. Esoglou (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
We'll get this cleared up. No worries. I know what you are saying. I'm not stuck on this proposal anyway. We just have to figure out a way to make it more clearer about the relationship of those who turned aside and those who descended to earth, or if they are one in the same... or not. Jasonasosa (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Orlov does use the word "descended" in reference to 200 myriads, which implies going down to earth. "Some manuscripts of 2 Enoch render 200 descended Watchers, others 200 myriads descended. The shorter recension of 2 Enoch 18:3 translates 'These are the Grigori, 200 princes of whom turned aside, 200 walking in their train' - Anderson, 2 Enoch 1.131"(ref>Orlov, Andrei A. (2009). "The Watchers of Satanail". Essay (Gorgias Press): 15, Footnote #40. </ref) which is used in his book Dark Mirrors, p. ix, 92, 119-120. Based on this information I've revised Proposal 2-2B as follows:
PROPOSAL 2-2B:
Early Enochic accounts often use the numeral "two hundred" to refer to the number of them who descended to earth.(ref>Orlov 2011, p. 92</ref) Some manuscripts of 2 Enoch render 200 descended Watchers, others 200 myriads descended.(ref name = "Orlov,119">Orlov 2011, p. 119: Dark Mirrors, p. 119</ref) The shorter recension of 2 Enoch 18:3 translates "These are the Grigori, 200 princes of whom turned aside, 200 walking in their train" - Anderson, 2 Enoch 1.131(ref>Orlov, Andrei A. (2009). "The Watchers of Satanail". Essay (Gorgias Press): 15, Footnote #40. </ref) Platt's version only indicates that three Grigori went down.(ref>Platt 2004 Reprint, p. 226</ref)
END PROPOSAL
Please review. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Dude (does this mean "friend"? It is not part of my vocabulary), please have patience with me. I have had other things to do, and indeed have other things to do just now, but I will try to give you a rapid response. As far as I can see, my comment on Dark Mirrors was correct. However, in The Watchers of Satanail, Orlov interprets the text as making a "reference to the number of the descended Watchers as two hundred (myriads)", explaining: "Some mss. of 2 Enoch speak about 200 descended Watchers, others 200 myriads descended Watchers". The text he is commenting on and which he quotes on the previous page is that of the longer recension of 2 Enoch, which, as he quotes it, says that "three of them descended to the earth". A more accurate presentation seems to be:
Early Enochic accounts often use the numeral "two hundred" to refer to the number of them who descended to earth.(ref>Orlov 2011, p. 92</ref) Andrei A. Orlov quotes the longer recension of 2 Enoch as stating that, of the Grigori, "three of them descended to the earth", but understands it as referring to 200 or, according to some manuscripts, 200 myriads (2 million) descended Watchers. He quotes the shorter recension as saying: "These are the Grigori, 200 princes of whom turned aside, 200 walking in their train, and they descended to the earth" ...
Please don't insist on the altogether misleading "Platt's version only indicates that three ..." The mention of three descending is found not only in what you call Platt's version but also in F. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.130-132., which Orlov quotes, and which is the text in what I have been calling "the Charlesworth book". You will find the same text of chapter 18 of 2 Enoch in R.H. Charles. It is arrant nonsense to say the longer recension of 2 Enoch says anything other than that three of the Grigori descended to the earth. Esoglou (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(Pending response) from Jasonasosa (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer[edit]

A lot of changes in this article since Jan 1st. But just looking specifically at the "Lucifer" section, not sure everything is an improvement. Lucifer was a title of Christ up till the 3rd or 4th Century, and what 100% hard evidence is there in any Jewish source that any Jewish writer identified Isaiah's Morning Star with a fallen angel? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there have been quite a lot of changes since 1 January, and I too am not at all sure that everything is an improvement. But I wonder what source says Lucifer was a title of Christ (since when?) until the 3rd or 4th century. The title Lucifer could have been used of Christ after people began to write of him in Latin. The word "lucifer" (Latin for "morning star") appears only three times in the late 4th-century Latin Vulgate (Job 11:17, Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19) and not as a title of Christ. So what were the earlier writings in which the word was used of Christ? I presume that Adele Berlin and Maxine Grossman are Jewish writers, I mean the editors of The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, which says that the Jewish writers of Jewish pseudepigrapha did "misinterpret" Isaiah 14:12 as referring to Satan cast out of heaven as a fallen angel. Esoglou (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
User:In ictu oculi, Lucifer as a title of Christ would be out of the WP:SCOPE of this article. Such topic is best discussed at Lucifer. The scope of Lucifer in this article is with the POV that he is a fallen angel: whether from the POV of being Satan, the POV of being an unnamed angel wearing Lucifer as a title, or the POV of having the name Lucifer, who happens to be a fallen angel (Not necessarily Satan). Therefore, there is no 100% hard evidence of who Lucifer is... Maybe the layout of this article is deceiving, and needs to be changed so as to not confuse the audience into thinking that it is a cold hard fact that Lucifer is Satan or a fallen angel. It must be made clear that this is interpretation / POV. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 15:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Esoglou - Lucifer/Phosphorus in 2 Peter 1:19 is taken as a reference to Christ in very early Christian texts, from the Greek and old Latin before the Vulgate. Pre-Lucifer of Cagliari evidently.
The entry for Berlin only says "revised Sarah L Schwartz" that doesn't tell us who/when wrote p651 but the bracketed text (a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12) in "Satan's expanded role describes him as ruler of a demonic host, influencing events throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12). Satan is rarely ... " is not supported by any evidence. Where in Charlesworth's OTP or the DSS is there any such interpretation of Is. 14.12. As far as I know the misreading of Is. 14.12 has no Jewish evidence, but is of Christian origin. That "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" may be the editor's comment, or forward-looking or who knows. It's a fairly major innovation to be claiming in the article text that Judaism rather than Christians were responsible for the Is. 14.12 reading.
Hi Jasonasosa - why? no, Lucifer as a title of Christ is not outside the scope of this article. If 4th Century Christian reinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12 is relevant in the (non-Jewish) section of the article, then that this is a later Christian reinterpretation/development also goes in. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This article is about fallen angels... to include Christ would be to suggest him as a fallen angel. It is defiantly out of scope. That subject belongs on the Lucifer page. I had put the reference on that page at one point, but User:Esoglou omitted my edit entirely. I had not disputed it yet, because I've been planning on gathering more information about how Lucifer ties into Christ as a title or description.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonasosa (talkcontribs)
In ictu oculi may disagree with the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion and complain that it gives no source for one of its statements, but it is, in Wikipedia terms, a reliable source.
What "very early Christian texts" interpreted 2 Peter 1:19 as a reference to Christ? If any of them did in Greek, why do you suggest that φωσφόρος (lower case) means "Lucifer" (upper case). Surely it means instead "morning star", the Latin for which is "lucifer" (lower case). Not even the King James Version translates φωσφόρος as Lucifer, though it (unlike more up-to-date translations) used "Lucifer" to translate the Hebrew word in Isaiah 12:14 that in Greek appears as ἑωσφόρος, not φωσφόρος. Why does the name of Lucifer of Cagliari suggest to you that Christ was called Lucifer before the time of Lucifer of Cagliari? Certainly, Christ is today called "morning star" (in Latin, lucifer), but certainly not Lucifer, in the Roman Rite Easter Vigil liturgy, but that is later than Lucifer of Cagliari.
(I have corrected a mistake that I made: the Vulgate uses the word "lucifer" (morning star), not the name Lucifer, three times in the nominative and vocative cases, but also twice in the accusative.) Esoglou (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou, see Augustine's Tractate on John 35 for example - with the Christ-Lucifer arising in Christian's hearts. More to the point would be to ask which early Christian texts interpret 2 Peter 1:19 and don't connect the Lucifer there with Christ? References to the 2 Peter Christ-Lucifer will still common long after Origen became the first to identify the Isaiah Lucifer with Satan. They are today too, in any Catholic or Protestant commentary on 2 Peter.
As for a reliable source this brief bracketed statement "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" in a brief dictionary entry on Satan - author unknown - in the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion may not pass WP:IRS as the "best such source" or "source reliable for the statement" ...
Can I ask who added the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion and made the conclusion currently in the article?
Richard L. Rubenstein The Religious Imagination A Study in Psychoanalysis and Jewish Theology, 1968 cites "Is.14:12-14. 20. Bernard Bamberger, Fallen Angels (Philadelphia: Jewish Publishing Society, 1952), pp. 9 ff. 21. For rabbinic interpretations of Isaiah 14:12-14 as referring to Nebuchadnezzar, cf. Mekilta Shirata (Ed. L.), Vol. II, 18, 1.84-86; p." The relevant quote in Bamberger is Bernard Jacob Bamberger Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan's Realm Page 109 2006 "This verse, we have seen, was held by Christians to describe the fall of Satan; perhaps the rabbis introduced it here to preclude such a dangerous interpretation. As they understood it, the first sentence refers to the discomfiture of Babylon's heavenly champion, the second to the downfall of Nebuchadnezzar. In a similar way they understood the third proof text: "My sword hath drunk its fill in heaven;"
That confirms that "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" is probably simply what it looks like, an editorial note in the brief Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion entry on Satan, expressing the Jewish view, namely "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" = "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" it doesn't mean that any Jewish source considers Is.14.12 to be about fallen angel Satan in the later Christian sense. This is a 4th-5th century Christian innovation - see any standard academic study of Satan.
Marc Michael Epstein Dreams of Subversion in Medieval Jewish Art and Literature 1997- Page 141 "The earliest [i.e. Jewish] source for the fall of Satan is 2 Enoch 29:4-5: "One from the order of the archangels [identified as 'Satanail' in manuscript P) deviated, together with the division that was under his authority ...This angel was called Lucifer by the church fathers, due to a misapplication of Isaiah 14: 12. See Davidson 1967: 176. 19. Bereshit Rahbah 19:1 (Midrash ...
That confirms again that "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" = "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" an inserted bracketed comment, relating to Christian belief not Jewish. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the Lucifer section to after Revelation, added Origen as the originator, and placed a dubious tag on two statements - one being this idea based on "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" that there is any mention in the Pseudepigrapha of Isaiah 14:12. I don't have either Charlesworth's OTP or DSS to hand at the moment but I am pretty certian Isaiah 14:12 doesn't even appear in the indexes, and if it did it would be in terms of general cosmology consistent with Bamberger above. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
In Wikipedia you must stick to what reliable sources say, not write on the basis of your own ideas.
Augustine's Tractate 35 on John is given on pages 204-207 of this source, where it is divided into 9 sections. In which section does Augustine speak of "Christ-Lucifer"? I cannot find it. In fact the only mention of Lucifer that I find in all the tractates is on page 21 of the same source, where Augustine speaks, not of Christ, but of an angel who became a devil and whom Augustine links with Isaiah 14:12. In any case, the writings of Augustine, who became a bishop in 395, were not "very early Christian texts". It is no good making claims such as "Lucifer was a title of Christ up till the 3rd or 4th Century", if you cannot produce reliable sources that support them.
Your claim that only as "a 4th-5th century Christian innovation" was Isaiah 14:12 interpreted as referring to a fallen angel (do I misunderstand you?) is contradicted even by a source that you yourself have quoted above: "The earliest [i.e. Jewish] source for the fall of Satan is 2 Enoch 29:4-5". Most scholars place that Jewish writing long before the fourth century. Whether as an editorial note or not, the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion does say the Jewish writers of Jewish pre-Christian pseudepigrapha did the linking of Isaiah 14:12 with the idea of Satan cast out of heaven as a fallen angel. The Jewish Encyclopedia, also, says that what it calls the Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan "in the pre-Christian century". Not one source contradicts these sources. You seem not to have understood that Bamberger is speaking not of pre-Christian Judaism, some strands of which understood Isaiah 14:12 as referring to Satan, but of later Rabbinic Judaism.
If, as you say, Origen was the first Christian to identify the morning star of Isaiah 14:12 with Satan, he may have called Satan Morning Star (ἑωσφόρος, φωσφόρος in Greek), but he did not call Satan Lucifer: Latin was not the language in which he wrote. Esoglou (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The mini article in ODJR is less than a page, is badly written and does not say what you are reading that "the Jewish writers of Jewish pre-Christian pseudepigrapha did the linking of Isaiah 14:12 with the idea of Satan cast out of heaven as a fallen angel." This is you reading this not the mini article saying it.
In any case we don't need to go to an ambiguous passing comment in a short dictionary entry when we have reference works like Charlesworth. If anyone wants to substantiate anything relating to the OTP then Charlesworth is the first place to look. And this claim isn't there.
Augustine is not Jewish. Origen is not Jewish. The problem here is the claim that theses Christian teachings were found in Jewish pseudepigrapha. This is the problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Jewish pseudepigrapha.. Lucifer" claims[edit]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────User:Esoglou In any case the article needs a rewrite to remove effectively fraudulent claims that the Christian identification of "Lucifer" with fallen angel was found in Judaism.

In Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, he appears as the chief evil figure, "ruler of a demonic host, influencing event throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel". ref name=ODJR/ Later texts present him as destined to be conquered by the angels or the messiah. ref name= ODJR {{bibleverse||Ezekiel|28:11-19]], which speaks specifically of the king of Tyre, and calls him a "cherub", has been applied to Satan by those who interpret Isaiah 14:12 as referring, not to a king of Babylon, but to a being called Lucifer or Satan. ODJR

I've cut out this section as it is anachronistic, mish-mashing Christian myths back into Judaism. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion surely falls within the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. What it explicitly states surely merits mention in Wikipedia, even if an outweighing source were also cited, something that has not been done.
You have put "Hebrew Bible" under "Primary sources". If nothing in it was ever presented as related to a fallen angel, it is not a primary source for that idea. So I have added an indication of how it has been presented as such. The ODJR says that treatment of the Hebrew Bible is found in Jewish apocrypha. We cannot, as you seem to do, attribute to the ODJR a statement that the passages (plural) in question were part of the original text of those Jewish apocrypha. Patmore, who also merits citing, says the idea of the fall of Satan is found in apocrypha (plural), without qualifying them as Jewish, Christian, or mixed, and also in rabbinic literature. Esoglou (talk)
Yes the Gen 6:1 fall of the angels is found in the pseudepigrapha
No the Isaiah 14 fall of Lucifer is not found in the pseudepigrapha
This is the point.
We'll talk more later. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
By all means add, with citation, the information that no pseudepigraphon says Is 14:12 is about a fall of Satan (unless the document is in Latin, it will not use the name "Lucifer"). ODJR does not say any pseudepigraphon cites Is 14:12 for the fall of Satan: only that the idea of the fall of Satan arose from a misinterpretation of Is 14:12. I think Is 14:12 is the only place in the Hebrew Bible that speaks of someone falling from heaven. The verse that comes nearest to doing so is Is 34:4. Gn 6:2 and the apocrypha inspired by it seem to speak instead of a voluntary arrival on earth, not of being cast down or falling. Am I wrong? Unless you understand "fall" metaphorically, Is 14:12 may be the only verse of the Hebrew Bible that could have inspired the idea of a fall of Satan. If that is so, ODJR may be right. Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've removed this from "Hebrew Bible" (CAPs for the reason why)

Historically, some passages of the Hebrew Bible have been interpreted BY CHRISTIANS as referring to Satan as a fallen angel. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that Satan appears in Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, as "ruler of a demonic host, influencing event throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel", and ascribes the idea of Satan as a fallen angel to a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12. It expresses no judgment on whether the appearances in Jewish pseudepigrapha of this picture of Satan were in the original texts or were Christian interpolations.
  • The pseudepigrapha isn't the Hebrew Bible we don't need to say what the pseudepigrapha does in the Hebrew Bible section, we can say in the pseudepigrapha section. But using a decent source, Charlesworth not ODJR in this case: it is a short entry in a tertiary source and shouldn't even be mentioning Is14:12 when no Jewish source does. Frankly that looks incompetent. If we want to say something about fallen angels in the pseudepigrapha we need more competent sources - which we have, so don't need to use ODJR's passing reference at all.
  • I've removed the Christian material on Ezekiel 28 from Hebrew Bible too and reinserted in the Christian section. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW - the title of this article is fallen angel not fallen Satan. The fall of Satan based on Jesus "beheld Satan fall as lightning" is a Christian idea, the fall of angels in Gen 6.1 is a Jewish pseudepigrapha idea. No Jewish pseudepigrapha or DSS text uses "fall" of Satan nor counts Satan as one of the Gen 6.1 angels. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved "Hebrew Bible" ahead of "Second Temple period"[edit]

The first section should be in chronological order. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source[edit]

In ictu oculi, I keep saying that the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion is a reliable source for the sentence: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that Satan appears in Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, as 'ruler of a demonic host, influencing events throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel', and ascribes the idea of Satan as a fallen angel to a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12"; and that, if you wish, you may add to it a citation of some source that outweighs it. You keep removing the sentence on the grounds that what the ODJR states "is a short entry in a tertiary source and shouldn't even be mentioning Is 14:12 when no Jewish source does", and that, "if we want to say something about fallen angels in the pseudepigrapha, we need more competent sources".

Should we bring the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see what others think? Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculi, I see you have been quite active on Wikipedia since I posted the above yesterday morning, but have not replied here. Perhaps it is indeed best to consult others. Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
This section is getting distorted. Why does the Hebrew Bible section have links to the King James Bible? Also, the Oxford Dictionary Jewish Religion does not strictly support the initial sentence. It talks about how Satan is described (which we can and should include), but it doesn't say Satan is specifically not an angel or fallen in that citation; there is some WP:OR going on here. We should be summarizing what the sources say, not adding interpretation of our own. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. But since discussion on a matter closely related has not yet been formally closed (although consensus seems to be emerging), I have thought it best to wait a little more. Still, there is good reason to indicate what are three places referred to. The Bibleverse link to any one English version provides a link that leads also to, I have forgotten how many, other English versions. But if you prefer to have the reader search among the even more numerous versions in various languages, that can be arranged too, as you see. Esoglou (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't say that I know which primary texts should be linked for this, if any. I'm not suggesting we should send a reader on a wild chase. Not knowing what text the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion was ultimately basing their interpretations on means that we could be pointing to a translation or tradition or historical era directly at odds with what they're saying. It would be less of an issue if the sentence was more like Satan is mentioned in the Hebrew bible in three places (a, b, c). but as it stands, we're connecting our suggested links to specific interpretations of those passages. I won't futz with it now, as it might be re-written or re-structured to remove my concern...
Because regardless of how the discussion turns out, that encyclopedia entry is built on other mostly available secondary sources; [8] [9] [10] [11]. Ultimately we can probably improve this section to better reflect what the academic sources say, with better balance and context rather than picking out a single argument or a single interpretation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)