Talk:Heavenly host

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I deleted the sentence that suggested that Satan has an army of "angels", this sentence states as fact that which is a highly contentious theory-that Satan is a fallen angel. Many (maybe even most) commentators don't ascribe to this theory-it is seen as a misreading of scripture.

It's a widespread belief among Christians that Satan is a fallen angel, thanks in part to Milton. But, either way, would Satan's alleged army qualify as a "heavenly host"? Maestlin 19:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as the same belief is his realm is hell, opposite heaven, making 'heavenly' most inappropriate for anything concerning Satan after his fall, it would rather be a satanic or hellish host. However, see also Evil Angels, that concept has a serious tradition Fastifex 10:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's no definite evidence that Satan was a fallen angel, but there there's a lot of probable evidence, and personally I'd say he was once a fallen angel. Not because of specific citings, but something I've come to in conclusion of my overall understanding of the texts, and some minor citings to support it. A lot of the popular belief is misreading of the scripture though, especially Ezekiel 28 where things such as "You were in Eden, the garden of God.", "You were the sealer of perfection, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." and "Your heart is proud and you said, “I am a god; I sit in the seat of gods, in the heart of the seas" etc and people think it's talking about Satan, and his fall. But people seemed to have failed to pick up on some massively important phrases such as when the entire chapter is designated to the "Prince of Tyre" at the start and "yet you are a man and not a god, though you think you are godlike.", "though you are a man and not a god" etc.
As mentioned by Fastifex though, fallen angels have heavy evidence to support their biblical existence. Whether Satan was originally an angel or not, he did seem to tempt one third of the angels away from God, and fallen angels are referenced to throughout the scriptures in demonic form (Those allied with Satan) and in what seems to be a renegade form (the grigori).
Oh and for a reference that Satan does indeed have "angels", see Revelation 12:9 where it states "the ancient serpent, the one called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world – was thrown down to the earth, and his angels along with him."
Anyway, in other news, I removed Fastifex's added phrase: "A strictly pacific term is choir of angels." because although that's correct in the Hierarchy of Angels, the divisions of the Heavenly Host seem to be very different, and not confined to the choirs. Minyana 23:10, 29 May 2006 (BST).

9 corps of angles?[edit]

Under angles in the aritcle, it cites Ezek.28:13-21, but when II follow the link to that passage I see no mention of any number of angels Ybbor 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is pathetic; what were the "heavenly armies" supposed to be fighting in the beginning? Kypzethdurron (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding some changes I made[edit]

Nothing in the Bible identifies Cherubim and Seraphim as being the same thing, any more than the Bible identifies Abraham with Moses. Seraphim actually appear more in the OT than just the one mention in Isaiah, they also appear when Moses is guiding the Israelites through the desert and they are attacked by fiery serpents. In fact, the word "fiery serpents" is translated from seraphim. The descriptions of the Cherubim do not have anything to do with fire or serpents. There is nothing in the OT about an imperial guard and any mention in the NT wouldn't exactly be positive (since the imperial guard most likely to be encountered then was a Roman one). There is mention in the OT of Cherubs/Cherubim being present at God's throne, as the ark of the covenant. Also, where is this book of I Paralip. stuff coming from? And Ark of the Testimony? Do we have someone using non-English sources (yes, the Bible isn't originally in English, but there are plenty of translations). That some parts of the article are so definate about stuff that really isn't definate makes me think someone has come to their own angelogical conclusions based on their own interpretation of the Bible (I hate it when Sola Scriptura gets used as "Sola Mea Interpretation.") Also, Eph. 3:10 was used to justify "that Archangels are angels in commanding positions or positions of great authority" when Eph. 3:10 only says "so that now to the rulers and powers in the heavenlies might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God," which isn't even a full sentence (which makes me think that this is a case of someone cherry-picking to justify their own personal angelology). Also, it's been deleted, but someone demanded a citation needed for Satan knocking a third of the stars from the sky refering to angels. This is a traditional interpretation, since elsewhere in Revelation angels and stars are used interchagably, and in Antiquity and the Middle Ages stars and angels continued to be conflated. I also tried to get rid of the dispensationalist, futurist, millenialist slant of the article. This article really needs to list all the various views of the heavenly host, the various Jewish and Christian views (yes, there are multiple Jewish views; yes, there are multiple Christian views). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge. -- StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Army of God (Bible) is a recent creation, presumably made without knowledge of the existence of this article. They are clearly about the same topic, but there is valuable content to be merged. StAnselm (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure but why does God need an army? Torquemama007 (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

drive-by tagging[edit]

Damiens.rf has slapped an "external links" tag on the article. which I reverted and he has edit-warred back in.

There was precisely one EL at the time that the tag was put on, to Jewish Encyclopedia: Host of Heaven. That is a fine article and a fine source. As I mentioned in my first edit note, it is bizarre to tag an article with one EL with a tag; either be WP:BOLD and delete the one EL that is there, or just open up a discussion on Talk about it.

I have now opened the discussion. As I said, I see nothing wrong with the jewish encylopedia source. There is no problem with the current ELs that needs a tag. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Note - I just noticed that the Tanakh section had no reference, so I just moved the EL above into that section as a reference and deleted it as an EL. now there are no ELs. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Damiens.rf it occurs to me that you may be confused about terminology. external links are different from inline citations or general references. but again, there is never an excuse to edit war. never. WP:BRD always applies. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)