Talk:Angel of the Lord

Angel Gabriel

The Angel Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. From his words: "I am Gabriel, I stand in the presence of God." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.31 (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All the angels stand in the presence of God: Rev. 5:11, Matt. 18:10, Job 1:12, Job 2:7, 1 Kings 22:19, Dan. 7:9-10./Leos Friend (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I disambiguated some confusion of the use of "angel of the Lord" in the gospel of Luke; it's always been understood, as simply as "duh", that it was not THE Angel of the LORD that Luke's gospel indicated, at least from the Greek--yet also widely amongst the preaching Churches for many years, knowing that the inserted definite was an error; when the opportunity to conform the passage to the Greek arose, they removed the insertion; I plan to add several citations on this subject a bit later. TheResearchPersona

tooMuchData

12:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

"In most cases, the angel is understood to be a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.". No. Build a more sensible and neutral base, and more sensible editors will come and work on this article.--Wetman (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Enoch/Metatron

Couldn't Enoch/Metatron be counted as an Angel of the Lord, since Metatron is thought to be the King of Angels ? ADM (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since "angel" is simply "messenger" of the lord, then the truest delivery of the message of God, via communication, would be his own very vessel with which to do so; Metatron and Sandalphon were prophets made archangels, who purportedly bear the arc of the covenant and by which one must commune with them (God's law) to relate or communicate with God in any manner, as his right and left hands. They may be removed on that account from being a perfect expression with his dynamic communication, as the law and his Logos may be considered blind if unguided by insight or inspiration; to Muslims it should be Mohammed as known to their sect, to Catholics the living vicar to messianic truths etc. The archangel Michael may be said to simply be the expression of God's will, and thus his communication as his highest angel (the angel after his own fashion; who is "like" God. Further its sensible to take the Mormon outlook of Michael as Adam Kadmon as our image and the intelligibility of revelation for our template); to Christians, Jesus is God's greatest "angel" i.e. messenger, being God expressed (mercurial) as object in the flesh, God's transcendence made immanent. The Holy Spirit is Gods presence and communication as subject and emotive immanence made to transcend the normal lateral limits; both Christ-savior his son and the Holy Ghost as his love and eternity are mercurial volition of God's willed communication par excellence and may be too thorough-goingly God as identical with himself to be considered plenipotentiaries of gods motives as angels are. Yet Christ & Holy Ghost are simply the subject and object of Logos by one manner of deduction (the value to which admittedly can be transposed and centralized as divinity originating into either constituent however, so trinity holds weight by my perspective evaluation) So barring those as angels however I'd say Michael, Metatron/Sandalphon (and maybe Satan if you have a greater plan considered or if Satan/"Samael" isn't actively opposed to God; albeit a Dysangel rather than a Evangel) or if you want to get abstract or consider potentially blind divine philosophical forces unembodied by specific intelligences: then Logos broadly. Possibly love/agape, nous-theos (as Thoth is to Ra in Egyptology), duality/division as precursor to mercurial transference (and back to reconsidering privation as cause necessitating a tree of knowledge / emanation and considering Satan God's greatest angel yet again; but without whom angels would be unnecessary). The "king" of the angels would be God overly objectified, made dogmatic, Melek (Hebrew for 'king' and a title of God) throwback becomes Moloch (a chief demon-name from the archaic spelling for king in Hebrew with an extra letter as an obsolete title to God; God reified as naught more than kingly) and made un-unified, set against Satan as an equal. etc etc. So in Judaic consideration I am drawn to the Qabalah in light of such a question wherein I see Sephiroth, out of Ain Soph via Tzim-Tzum as the groundwork for all angels and demons just depending on how they mediate that framework/infrastructure; either toward vitality or stagnation. The ultimate angel is Kether or Ain Soph; divisible into all permutation as to its own very criterion (1 divides into all enumeration perfectly) or infinitely so divisible (zero goes an unlimited amount of times into any number). 67.171.248.22 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CHristian view=

The text claims that in the New Testament the specific "Angel of the Lord"never appears - then what about, for example, Acts 12:23? 21And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.

22And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.

23And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.185.189 (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 

It seems the Greek text says "an angel of the Lord". From Youngs Literal: "and presently there smote him a messenger of the Lord, because he did not give the glory to God, and having been eaten of worms, he expired." Greek: "paracrhma de epataxen auton aggeloV kuriou anq wn ouk edwken thn doxan tw qew kai genomenoV skwlhkobrwtoV exeyuxen". /Leos Friend (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)