Talk:Angel

Non-Religious

Why are non-religious angels completely vacant from the Wiki angels page? Angels are common in fantasy fiction (especially stories intended for a female audience), so where are the sections discussing the non-religious depictions? More people will want to read on the fantasy depictions than the religious. (Considering both people who feature them in their religion and those not of those religions can enjoy seeing them in a non-religious context.) Maybe put it in an "in popular culture" section, or if willing to really look into it give it a linked over page of its own that goes into greater detail. (FYI to the over-religious, angels and demons exist outside of western religions.)

Its odd no one answered your question. The entire world isn't under the Atheistic religion/belief, so not all believe Angels aren't real. You shouldn't assume its a universally accepted idea. Frankly I find it hard to believe all things exploding from nothing isn't supernatural. Therefore I consider "Evolution" which is described as an intelligence being, although they outwardly say otherwise and actually have no explanation for, to be a religion/supernatural belief. I don't know what you mean by over-religious, but the Angels and Demons that are trying to be described under this article are the ones that exist, and not the pseudo-western culture idea of Angels and Demons. All the world believes in religions, including you, so don't count yourself out of "over-religious" people. FYI to you, science exists outside your western religion. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Gender / sexuality of angels

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

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

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

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

The part of this section that reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced section

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

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

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

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

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

Peer review of Judaism section

I'm not sure what "Biblical books" say that angels have free will. Can anyone source that or disprove it? I don't think it's correct.

The quotation from Maimonides' "Guide to the Perplexed" is unusually long for a Wikipedia article, especially considering that the opinions of other Jewish authorities are not quoted verbatim at all. It will take some work, but shortening and summarizing the quotation from Maimonides will make it more readable and more consistent with NPOV if other opinions can be quoted alongside Maimonides. Shalom ^Hello 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, no Biblical book specifies that. You're probably right that a summary of the quote will improve the article. ◄Zahakiel► 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was suprised to see that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Satan a "fallen" angel? Revelations 12:9 mentions Satan being hurled to earth with his angels...I don't know if you can take Revelations literally word for word though, because a lot of it's symbolism. I don't mean that it's faulty or anything, just that it can be easy to take it out of context. Anyway, I was thinking that if an angel could rebel then it wouldn't have free will.68.253.43.234 (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Angels and origin of Satan in Islam

I acknowledge that Satan in Islam was originally from the jinn, but wasn't he also one of the lines of angels before God casted him out of heaven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.136.33 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Persian and Urdu words should be avoided when talked about Islam

In the Qur'an, angels are referred to as "Malaaikah" (Arabic مَلَائِكَة) or "Farishtay" (Persian,Urdu فرشته).

Don't get me wrong. I don't have any problem with Persian (Iran, Iraq) nor people speak Urdu (Pakistan, North India). However, IMO, when talked about Islam, it should use Arabic for Islamic terms. None of the persian nor urdu words familiar to muslims except to those who speak the language.

If someone insist the Persian/Urdu words should appeared on the article, why not input the other languages such as Huáyǔ or some word from Balkan language? Kunderemp (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

'Christian beliefs' section removed here from article -- almost exclusively WP:SYNTH of the bible

[[Image:Raphael and Tobias.jpg|thumb|right|230px|[[Raphael (archangel)|Raphael]] and Tobias, after [[Adam Elsheimer]], c1610. The Archangel appears in nearly normal clothes; there is even the suggestion of trousers]]

New Testament references

In the New Testament angels appear frequently as the ministers of God and the agents of revelation (e.g. Matthew 1:20 (to Joseph), 4:11. (to Jesus), Luke 1:26 (to Mary), Acts 12:7 (to Peter)); and Jesus speaks of angels as fulfilling such functions (e.g. Mark 8:38, 13:27), implying in one saying that they neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mark 12:25). Angels are most prominent at the birth of Jesus and at Jesus' resurrection. The New Testament takes little interest in the idea of the angelic hierarchy, but there are traces of the doctrine. The distinction of good and bad angels is recognized. Good angels mentioned by name are Gabriel and Michael (Luke 1:19; Daniel 12:1). Scripture also mentions a tempter Satan, the scribes name the ruler of demons as Beelzebub, and the angel of the abyss Apollyon (Mark 1:13, 3:22; Rev. 9:11). Apollyon, (Hebrew Abaddon) a name for an angel mentioned in Revelation 9:11, is believed by some to be a good angel that guards the gates to the traditionally known hell. Revelation 10:1 describes another angel, although unnamed, some say it is Metatron. The Christian Greek scriptures also imply an angelic hierarchy; archangels (namely Michael, mentioned in both Daniel 10:13 and Jude 9, Gabriel, and Raphael), principalities and powers (Rom. 8:38; Col. 2:10), thrones and dominions (Col 1:16). The hierarchies of principalities, powers, thrones, and dominions are questionable by some Christian denominations due to the ambiguity of the context. Romans 8:38 May refer to other things besides angels if the context includes opposition beyond spirits themselves. The scope of Col. 1:16 covering "all things created" also extends far beyond angels by themselves. Other hierarchies accepted from the Old Testament include seraphim and cherubim.

Theological development

[[Image:The Wilton Diptych (Right).jpg|thumb|right|230px|Angels of about 1400, in the Wilton diptych]]

Since Saint Gregory and the Pseudo-Dionysian Celestial Hierarchy (5th century), Catholic theology has assumed nine orders of angelic beings; Angels, Virtues, Powers (called Lords), Principalities, Dominions (also called Kings), Thrones (Ophanim), Cherubim, Seraphim and Archangels, endorsed by medieval scholasticism (Summa Theologica). This is not official Church doctrine or dogma, however, and in general the faithful are not required to adhere to this categorization.

Angels occur in groups of four or seven (Rev 7:1). The Angels of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor are described in Rev. 1-3; the angels are the representative angels of the seven congregations. Daniel 10:12,13 also appears to depict angels in opposition (presumably fallen angels) to other angels, taking on the roles of prince-angels (of the order of Principalities) for nations, in this case the "prince of the kingdom of Persia." It is well-known that there are angels for nations, organizations, parishes, families, and individuals (angels presiding over individuals are called guardian angels.)

The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary in the traditional role of messenger to inform her that her child would be the Messiah, and other angels were present to herald his birth. In Matt. 28:2, an angel appeared at Jesus' tomb, frightened the Roman guards, rolled away the stone from the tomb, and later told the myrrh-bearing women of Jesus' resurrection. Alternately, in Mark 16:5, the angel is not seen until the women enter the already-opened tomb, and he is described simply as "a young man." In Luke's version of the resurrection tale (Luke 24:4), two angels suddenly appear next to the women within the tomb; they are described as being clothed in "shining apparel." This is most similar to the version in John 20:12, where Mary alone speaks to "two angels in white" within the tomb of Jesus.

Two angels witnessed Jesus' ascent into Heaven and prophesied his return. When Peter was imprisoned, an angel put his guards to sleep, released him from his chains, and led him out of the prison. Angels fill a number of different roles in the Book of Revelation. Among other things, they are seen gathered around the Throne of God saying the thrice-holy hymn.

Depiction in art

[[Image:Angel ivory Louvre OA5839213922.jpg|thumb|left|260px|A [[Gothic art|Gothic]] angel in [[ivory]], c1250, [[Louvre]]]]

While angels and demons alike are generally regarded as invisible to human sight, they are frequently depicted as human-like creatures with wings, though many theologians have argued that they have no physical existence, but can take on human form (the traditional Eastern Orthodox term for angels is asomata, "bodiless [ones]"). Descriptions of angels in their angelic form mention wings (as in Isaiah, Zachariah, etc.) however, when appearing in human form, they look like men, or as young men. Seraphim are shown in art as having six wings (in accordance with Isaiah 6:1–3), and Cherubim four, having a quadruple face of lion, ox, eagle, and man. Putto are often confused with Cherubim, although they are completely different.

Most theologians agree that angels have no gender (see more extended discussion below). Therefore, they usually appear as androgynous, although guardian angels appear more feminine and maternal. Their exceptional beauty was well attested in Scripture. The long plain dress or tunic traditionally given to most angels comes hardly altered from the Byzantine tradition, where it had, if anything, a male connotation. In the Renaissance these were shown often bright-coloured, but before and after were mostly plain white.

Byzantine angels were also often shown in military outfits, and, transmitted by icons from Crete in particular, this tradition was transferred to Western art, especially for Gabriel and Michael, who wear versions of Byzantine officer's armour and clothing into the Baroque period and later. The same archangels, when in attendance on Christ or the Virgin, wear the loros, a jeweled strip of cloth hanging vertically down the front of the body. This was worn only by the Imperial family and their bodyguard; the archangels were seen as God's bodyguard. They also often carry long white staves of office. Hence, when a high-ranking Byzantine in a visionary dream in 586 saw two men he took to be bodyguards of the Emperor, they subsequently turned out to be angels. For other scenes, the same angels must appear incognito to accord with, for example, their appearance to Abraham. However artists are very reluctant to depict them in normal clothes, or without wings. The wings represent the angels' role as messengers of God (cf. Hermes).

Angels are often shown making music in heaven, sometimes in bands of a fair size, or in depictions of the Book of Revelation, blowing trumpets in accordance with the text. In the 15th century West in particular, angels are sometimes shown wearing versions of contemporary clerical vestments, especially the alb and crossed stole. There was a theological comparison developed between the role of Gabriel in the Annunciation and that of the priest saying Mass.

In the Renaissance, the classical putto, usually naked, was first revived in secular and mythological subjects, but they soon appeared, often in great quantity, as newly-created angels, becoming almost the norm in compositions with a number of angels merely in attendance.

[End of removed WP:SYNTH Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) ]

Fallen Angels

Hello all. I believe the concept of the Fallen Angel should be addressed in some form. Currently, it appears in brackets without any explination of what a Fallen Angel is and without a link to the that article. I tried to add a small section, taken from the Fallen Angel article, but it was reverted without explanation. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Find a WP:RS.
2. Add material based on this RS to the article.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As there is already an article with the said topic of Fallen Angel, and it is up to Wikipedia standards, I don't believe it's out of line to add a short explanation on fallen angels and a link to the article where more information with WP:RS can be found by the reader. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Fallen angel (capitalised A redirects to the dab) is not "up to Wikipedia standards" -- it is a poorly sourced mess. Citation to WP:RSs in therefore necessary for any material copied from there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH of the Qur'an in 'Islamic beliefs' section

The 'Islamic beliefs' section appears to consist almost entirely of WP:SYNTH of the Qur'an. The only source referenced is, quite anomalously, JewishEncyclopedia.com. I am therefore removing it here. If reliable secondary sources can be found to verify this interpretation of the primary source, it can be re-added. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Main article: Angels in Islam

In the Qur'an, angels are referred to as "Malaaikah" (Arabic مَلَائِكَة). The belief in angels is central to the religion of Islam, which articles of faith includes Belief in God, Belief in Angels, Belief in Books (Holy Scripture), Belief in Prophets and Messengers, Belief in Qiyamah (Resurrection/Doomsday) and finally Belief in Qada and Qadar (Arabic القضاء و القدر) (predestination) beginning with the belief that the Qur'an was dictated to Muhammad by the chief of all angels, the archangel Jibril (Gabriel). Angels are thus the ministers of God, as well as the agents of revelation in Islam.

In Islamic tradition, angels are benevolent beings created from a Divine Light. They do not possess free will, thus are incapable of doing evil or disobeying God. Unlike the Christian tradition, the Islamic tradition considers Satan (Iblis) to be a jinn, not an angel. Jinn, like humans, have free will. With rationality this Islamic actuality affords Satan (Iblis) the opportunity to forego a command by God, causing his eventual fall from Grace.

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!
(Qur'an, ^{[Quran 18:50]})

Angels are wholly devoted to the worship of God. They are regarded as messengers of God, carrying out specific duties on His command. Angels are ranked and vary in their abilities and duties. Duties may include recording every human being's actions, placing a soul in a newborn child, maintaining certain environmental conditions of the planet (such as nurturing vegetation and distributing the rain), taking the soul at the time of death and more.

Angels are described as preternaturally beautiful. Having varying sizes and counts of wings.

Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs): He adds to Creation as He pleases: for Allah has power over all things.
(Qur'an, ^{[Quran 35:1]})

Angels are considered genderless .

Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names.
(Qur'an, ^{[Quran 53:27]})

Angels can take on human form, but only in appearance. As such, angels do not eat, procreate nor commit sin as humans do. Humans cannot become angels upon death or otherwise, nor can angels become human.

Unlike a Christian tradition, angels and not Satan guard the gates of Hell. Instead, Satan resides on earth, waylaying man until the Day of Resurrection, after which he will be cast into hell along with the unbelievers.

And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,- in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith,- and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the Believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the Unbelievers may say, "What symbol doth Allah intend by this ?" Thus doth Allah leave to stray whom He pleaseth, and guide whom He pleaseth: and none can know the forces of thy Lord, except He and this is no other than a warning to mankind.
(Qur'an, ^{[Quran 74:31]})

The archangel Gabriel is attributed with sending the message of God to all the Prophets, including the Psalms, Torah, Bible and Qur'an (as opposed to the Christian view that Gabriel is the angel of good news). Other angels include Mikail (Michael) who discharges control of vegetation and rain, Israfeel who will blow the trumpet at the Day of Resurrection, and Izra'il (Azrael), the angel of death . The angels Munkar and Nakir are assigned to interrogate the dead before Judgment Day, Ridwan ( Arabic : رضوان), is the angel guarding the Heaven's Gate while Maalik (Arabic :مالك) is the chief angel in charge of Hell (as opposed to a popular concept in Western folklore that Satan rules hell). A pair of angels known as Raqib and A'tid (called the Kirama Katibin (Arabic: كراما كاتبين) in the Quran) have the job of recording the daily actions of human beings, one assigned to good deeds and the other to transgressions. There are nineteen angels overseeing the punishments of hell (Surat Al-Muddaththir, 74:30). There are eight angels that support the Throne of God (Surat Al-Haaqqa, 69:17).

Imam `Ali explained the creation of Angels in the following words:

"Then He created the openings between high skies and filled them with all classes of His angels. Some of them are in prostration and do not kneel up. Others in kneeling position and do not stand up. Some of them are in array and do not leave their position. Others are extolling God and do not get tired. The sleep of the eye or the slip of wit, or languor of the body or the effect of forgetfulness does not affect them. Among them are those who work as trusted bearers of His message, those who serve as speaking tongues for His prophets and those who carry to and fro His orders and injunctions. Among them are the protectors of His creatures and guards of the doors of the gardens of Paradise. Among them are those also whose steps are fixed on earth but their necks are protruding into the skies, their limbs are getting out on all sides, their shoulders are in accord with the columns of the Divine Throne, their eyes are downcast before it, they have spread down their wings under it and they have rendered between themselves and all else curtains of honour and screens of power. They do not think of their Creator through image, do not impute to Him attributes of the created, do not confine Him within abodes and do not point at Him through illustrations."

[End of excised WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ]

…2:02 A.M. E.S.T. Not in any manner here to be rude, though at first galnce if a youngster was to read the evaluation of the main article, and rite at the beginning it mentions Christianity Judaism Islam. Well I myself reflect on the first things first and then evaluated unfortunetly for I as a researcher and somewhat experienced Knowlegdeabl understanding person I may relate to a Halting thought and think o ya that is just, yes that had to be when the thinking stoped, again not being rude, though Islam Judaism Christianity should perhaps go like that fore Christianity was adopted in some researchers before christ as in the sequence of a leadership inwhich fortified a people whom sacked and burned a Roman town, the leader was named Christian, ofcourse there is other and perhaps a stronger beliefe that the terming came to be for a christ reason, christ being a formal name for a high acomplishment in sort of leadership. Islam is a strategic establishing of early times and Judaism well my research continues though perhaps it is again after Islam, then again King David 1010 BC was of a Jewish aspect. Ok i just think things shall be in order like the nose and eyes are in their strategic way , why have involvment where there is no meant at all. Just trying to help. 2:12 a.m.David George DeLancey (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

D.G, Your not being rude, your simply being non-factual. There is no dispute in recorded history over the sequence of these three monotheistic religions... The latter two having very exact dates to their coming into existance, actually not that long ago, and each explicitely referring to their predecessors. Sorry.

By the way, I daily walk and see remnants from these periods, since I live in Israel. Pashute (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoration?

The current article, from which the material on Christianity has been removed to this discussion page, is completely unsatisfactory. The material on Christianity should be restored, I believe. 68.95.198.85 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not without WP:RSs, it shouldn't. Please read WP:OR, particularly WP:PSTS & WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Angels as human-like fugures with wings

Although the Hebrew scriptures mentions winged "angels," does not the familiar image of angels with wings come from Greek sources, such as their depiction on pottery of Eos, the rosy-fingered goddess of dawn?Jim Lacey (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably! :p Source it and then include it, that is important to have in the article. Gerald T. Fernandez-Mayfield (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the difference would be particularly meaningful to the reader lacking some information as to how the Greek depiction changed rather than merely gave shape to the conception of what angels looked like. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is entirely incorrect when it claims that Seraphim are the only angels who are said to have wings in the bible and I am changing that section accordingly. KJV: Exodus 25:19-21 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. Exodus 37:8-10 And the cherubims spread out their wings on high, and covered with their wings over the mercy seat, with their faces one to another; even to the mercy seatward were the faces of the cherubims. 1 Kings 6:23-25 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.38.105 (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain WP:SYNTH Use

Please explain WP:SYNTH as the reason for removing the "Christian Beliefs" and "Islamic Beliefs" sections from the article. The Judeo-Christian Bible and the Qur'an are the primary sources of ALL beliefs about angels. All other writings are commentaries on these primary sources. Angels are supernatural beings that have arisen from ancient religious belief. So, why the objection to ancient writings as sources for these beliefs? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are already sections in the article covering Christianity and Islam. And they reference the primary sources of those religions. I don't see the problem you are seeing. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Try again: What does WP:SYNTH mean in this context? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Try again: Why are the Bible and the Qur'an rejected as primary references? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." (WP:OR). Admittedly that passage is contained in WP:PSTS, but it is clearly describing the synthesis of novel WP:OR interpretation of the basis of a primary source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Angels

Angels rule —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.251.75 (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned comment on the top of the page has a point. The fact that this page is missing any mention of the popularly secular view of angels (as in "mommy died and went to heaven and now she's an angel") is a gross oversight. This would be a particularly interesting inclusion to contrast it from the proper Christian dogma on angels (in which angels are not deceased human beings, but a different type of being altogether) given popular Western culture's tendency to confuse the two. I'd put it in myself, but I'm not sure how to go about the research. Minaker (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific evidence of angels

I would request that those attempting to introduce unsourced material on this issue read Talk:Angel/Archive 2#RfC on the scientific evidence for existence of angels. There is a clear consensus against including such material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I am fixing the etymology of angel from the Greek aggelos. Obviously, the pronunciation of the first gamma as 'ni' in double gamma roots caused the confusion. I am adding a reference as well to the verb it stems from, aggelloo, 'bring a message, announce, report, notify'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laocoont (talk • contribs) 12:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The OED states: {{quotation|[An early Teut. adoption from L., (or, in Goth., from Gr.), afterwards influenced in Eng. by OFr. and L. With OE. {ehook}ngel:{em}angil, cf. OS. engil, OFris. angel, engel, ON. engill, OHG. angil, engil, Goth. aggilus for angilus; a. L. angel-us, or Gr. {alenisacu}{gamma}{gamma}{epsilon}{lambda}-{omicron}{fsigma} a messenger, used by the LXX to translate Heb. mal'{amac}k, in full mal'{amac}k-y{ebreve}h{omac}w{amac}h ‘messenger of Jehovah’; whence the name and doctrine of angels passed into L. and the modern langs. All other uses of the word are either extensions of this, or taken from the Gr. in the primary sense of ‘messenger.’ The OE. form engel, with g hard, remained to 13th c., but eventually, under influence of OFr. angele, angle (with g soft), and L. angelus, initial a prevailed; the forms in au- in 14-15th c. show Fr. influence.] }}

I am getting more than a little tired of the constant WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fiddling to this section. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so should not be going into such detail on etymology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Angels <-> Deceased humans

I believe that the pop-theological idea that when good people die they become angels is extremely widespread. AFAIK, this popular notion is completely at odds with the formal theological understanding of angels. Nevertheless, because it is so very common, I believe that some mention of this should be made in the article. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources for this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I may or may not bestir myself to search for reliable sources for this myself, but I continue to maintain that this notion is extremely widespread. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First approximation per Google (most of these are not reliable sources, but mention that the notion is widespread; i.e. that it's worth looking for reliable sources.):

- "The most common misconception about angelic beings is that we become one when we die." - http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/angels.html

- "Many people cherish the belief that angels are the souls of deceased humans, although few religions officially endorse the notion. The media has popularized this concept in movies and television series about dead people who ‘earn their wings’ as angels by helping and protecting the living." - http://www.watchtower.org/e/200608b/article_01.htm - This site claims to be "Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site", i.e. is probably a reliable source.

- "... angels are definitely not human beings - especially not dead human beings who "earn wings." This is the Hollywood image of "It’s A Wonderful Life," though the idea’s roots go back as far as the early Second Century A.D. (see "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" [1:39])." - http://archive.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=18 - from site of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA): reliable source

- http://www.truebiblecode.com/understanding190.html , http://www.truebiblecode.com/understanding50.html - Some discussion of this with scriptural references. I don't understand the theology here and don't know whether this is reliable source or not.

- "She has finally become what she always wanted to be: an angel." - http://www.whenangelsdie.com/obituary.html - Memorial page: I intend no disrespect by mentioning this page here.

- "Some mystics believe, that a soul is growing in steps from minerals, plants and animals to men. When the human body dies, a soul could become an angel." - http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Angel_-_Angels_as_a_development_step_of_the_soul/id/609124

Enough for starters, I think. To clarify, I'm not trying to argue that human beings do become angels, merely that many people think this, and that this should be mentioned in the article. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

- I've posted a note on this discussion to WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Christianity asking for the opinions of others on this. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming from the Christianity WikiProject, I have no objections whatever to seeing the material included, so long as it is reliably sourced. John Carter (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good to point out here that for most use of the term (in this vein) it would be more accurate to say (only) that deceased people (in heaven) are called angels, and not necessarly that they become angels-- just as people living in the United States are called "Americas" and not just "people living in the United States."--Carlaude ^(talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in briefly pointing out that this is not AFAIK correct according to any Christian system of theology, other than LDS. Technically people in heaven are saints according to much theological usage. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The topic is worth mentioning, notwithstanding whether it is theologically correct. I believe it to be widespread, or at least not uncommon. That's my $0.02 worth. Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 23:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is worth mentioning. I am not a JW but would accept their website as a reliable source on this point, as well as ELCA. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

LDS belief

I reinstated some edits, this time including references for the two additions:

• Pre-mortal beings = angels - see the Bible Dictionary reference where it talks about one type of angel being those who "have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone (unembodied)" as opposed to those who have lived, died, and await resurrection.
• Adam is Michael - "is now" doesn't work as the sources I've included indicate LDS belief that Adam was also known as Michael before his earth life.
• Nephite civilization in upstate NY - Some LDS would agree with this, but some would not - this variety of belief is evident from Limited geography model and Hill Cumorah#Archaeology. IMO the location is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and so being silent on the location is acceptable. Is there a reason anyone believe the location is relevant? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to the topic. It was just a way of just drawing out the concreteness of Moroni's Earthly life in the BoM.

I had already planned on dropping it, even thou it would seem Moroni "lived" in upstate NY even in the Mesoamerican limited-geography model because it requires that Moroni went there later in life to bury the golden-oldies in Palmyra, NY.--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@Carlaude - Maybe we're straining at gnats here, but I still don't understand you're reasoning why saying "Adam is now Michael" is superior/preferable over saying "Adam is Michael" in LDS theology. If I understand your edit summary, you're saying that "is now" is indefinite on whether he was or wasn't Pre-Eden. But since LDS Theology is explicitly definite that he was Michael Pre-Eden (and even during his mortal life - D&C 107:24), would not the more definite "Adam is Michael" be better? --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything said, can be said clearly.

"Adam is Michael" alluded to LDS theology on pre-mortalness, it did nothing to explain it. While I still like "is now" better, the text is more clear now with the bit about pre-mortalness added in the paragraph before. --Carlaude ^(talk) 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way to do this is to cite a theological textbook showing that angels are NOT dead people and/or a commentary on the passage where Jesus says the resurrected are "like the angels in heaven" to give the correct perspective. That (in a backwards way) covers the fact that there is such a belief (else there would be no need to address it).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the halo

What about the angel's halo, or is it called corrona?

Why isn't it mentioned?

Anyway I recently read about the corrona seen around your own shadow, caused by a physical phenomena, and then tried it out and it works! Pashute (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A section is needed

A new section is needed: Angels in books, movies and advertisements.

I just saw this and it got me thinking... (El Al advertisement) -- Pashute (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Angelism

There ought to an entry on the notion of angelism, which is defined as a theory of human existence that minimizes concupiscence and therefore ignores the need for moral vigilance to cope with the consequences of humanity's sin. It could also be described as a type of logical fallacy in which for something to be true, it quite literally has to be angelic, or at least morally unattackable, which puts impossible moral obstacles in the path of common human undersanding and acceptance of reality as it is. [1] ADM (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(i) The relationship of this viewpoint to the topic of angels is tenuous at best (ii) do you have any evidence that this is a prominent viewpint, to which WP:DUE weight should be given? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)