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


Is this quote saying that Lucifer was counted among the seraphim correct ? I have seen an exact copy of this sentence on alot of sites, so I don't know if it originated here or if it was copied from somewhere else. I believe Lucifer is an Archangel. If any reference for this is needed, take a look at the following site :

Searching for more references shouldn't be more difficult.

-- Luisfelipe

Lucifer, as far as the Tanakh is concerened, doesn't exist. What christians call Lucifer is Helel Ben Shachar, or son of the mourning star (aka the light bringer). This is located in Isaiah 14:12 only, and concerns a worship of another God (Phaëton).

As far as christian mythology goes, Jerome's Vulgate translation of Isaiah 14:12 has made Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel, who must lament the loss of his original glory as the morning star. This image at last defines the character of Lucifer; where the Church Fathers had maintained that lucifer was not the proper name of the Devil, and that it referred rather to the state from which he had fallen; St. Jerome transformed it into Satan's proper name. SF2K1

Lucifer is a specifically Christian concept. I understand (I don't know this) Lucifer is regarded as a Seraph in the Christian angelarchy, but Lucifer does not appear in the Jewish angelarchy as a Jewish angel (at all). This is one of a number of differences between the two religions's perspectives on angels. Judaism doesn't interpret Isaiah 14:12 as a reference to Lucifer, this interpretation is a Christian one. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And not all christians, either! (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge this article with Hierarchy of angels[edit]

Some of this material could be used to amplify a section on seraphim in the Heirarchy of Angels article.

The linked list there links the reader here. --Wetman 21:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose merge. The Hierarchy of Angels article describes a specifically Christian angelarchy. But there's a Jewish angelarchy. Seraphim appear in both Judaism and Christianity, and are somewhat different in each, although with overlap. The Seraphim article mentions both Jewish and Christian (as well as New Age) perspectives. --Shirahadasha 04:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
To re-affirm: there is no hierarchy in a choir!
Wheels within wheels
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 09:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I worked too hard on this article for it to be merged! -- (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It mixes new age with classical tradition[edit]

The phrase:

The Seraphim are primarily concerned with vibrational manifestations which keep Divinity in perfect order. They have been described as being the angels of love, light and fire.

They help to carry positive energy through the orders of the angels to us in the physical realms.

Implies new age connotations to the biblical seraphim that do not actually exist. In a specialized section pertaining to the Christian doctrine of seraphim, this is out of place.

I agree, and the statement: "Seraphim, as classically depicted, can be identified by their having six wings radiating from the angel's face at the center" is just as bogus. What "classical" depiction is being thought of here? An album cover I imagine. --Wetman 00:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The "classical" depiction the author referred to is the Easter Orthodox iconographical tradition. Google search eastern orthodox icon seraphim and you'll get tons of examples.

The classical depiction they are describing is Ethiopian Iconography. And yes, it is classical. (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The name "Seraphim" does not come from charity only, but from the excess of charity, expressed by the word ardor or fire. Hence Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) expounds the name "Seraphim" according to the properties of fire, containing an excess of heat. Now in fire we may consider three things.
First, the movement which is upwards and continuous. This signifies that they are borne inflexibly towards God.
Secondly, the active force which is "heat," which is not found in fire simply, but exists with a certain sharpness, as being of most penetrating action, and reaching even to the smallest things, and as it were, with superabundant fervor; whereby is signified the action of these angels, exercised powerfully upon those who are subject to them, rousing them to a like fervor, and cleansing them wholly by their heat.
Thirdly we consider in fire the quality of clarity, or brightness; which signifies that these angels have in themselves an inextinguishable light, and that they also perfectly enlighten others. (Emphasis added)

The objectionable quote referenced "angels of love, light and fire." Aquinas directly mentions (note the bold text above) the nature of Seraphim being "fire" and "light," and he utilizes the term "ardor" which references intense love. (Run a quick [] search on ardor.)

Further, Aquinas references a penetrating action which rouses, clenses, and enlighten those subject to them; that sounds an awful lot like "carry[ing] positive energy" and "keep[ing] Divinity in perfect order."

Aquinas, beyond being a well respected figure in Christianity, can by no means be described as "new age." The Summa is certainly an acceptable reference, and I think the quote, with some revision, can successfully be integrated. Essjay 08:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Seraphim in popular culture[edit]

I reverted a deletion of this section because I believe deletion of a section like this should be discussed first. However, as things presently stand there is some reason to support such a deletion. The section is essentially unsourced. It consists of little more than lists of characters named or called "Seraph" who appear in various video games, with no discussion. No evidence that Seraph is anything more than a name (Analogy: characters named "Smith" and "Miller" aren't necessarily examples of the role of millers in popular culture.) --Shirahadasha 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was too precipitate in deleting this list of largely unlinked and irrelevant cruft. Seraphim in popular culture would make a neat package. We'll give it a header paragraph, repeat that paragraph here, with a link to Seraphim in popular culture --and "open the pod bay door Hal". Then those who want to diddle about with it may do so, and we don't have to watch. --Wetman 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The section seems rather long and rather pointless, I am in favor of deleting it. 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

Hello, removed this material to this talk page pending sources. Note that a similar list was removed in the Cherub article. Want to make sure that each entity is identified as a Seraph by some source, and that we identify the POV involved. The identity and nature of Biblical figures and angelic beings can be controversial so WP:A and WP:NPOV is especially important. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


could we please get some modern, scientific and theologically neutral etymological information on the word seraph? ive come across some claims elsewhere that it means something about fiery serpents. im sceptical and would appreciate any illumination. ƒaustX 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I agree. There doesn't appear to be any other etymology listed on the Internet than that 'seraph' is from srp = to burn FreezBee 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The word seraphim appears with the word nachashim (serpents) in Numbers (21:6) and Deuteronomy (8:15); to describe venomous snakes. In Numbers (21:8), seraph is used alone, in place of the word nachash to describe the image of a snake that Moses creates. So, while seraphim is certainly derived from 'srp'-'to burn' it did seem to acquire an association with snakes (especially venomous snakes), and on occasion became a synonym for the same. This was possibly due to the agony ("burning") of snake bites. Apart from the vision of the heavenly court, Isaiah uses the word Seraph twice (14:29 and 30:6), both times to describe a flying monster and both times in close association with words to describes snakes ('Nachash'-serpent, in 14:29, and 'Efeh'-viper, in 30:6). So, the association with serpents is not without merit, though this is probably not the origin of the word.ElijahBenedict 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blessings to Godde[ss] Serendipity[edit]

"Definitions: 'The Seraphim srpym (fiery winged serpents) are no doubt connected with, and inseparable from, the idea "of the serpent of eternity - God," as explained in Kenealy's Apocalypse. But the word cherub also meant serpent, in one sense, though its direct meaning is different; because the Cherubim and the Persian winged gruphes "griffins" - the guardians of the golden mountain - are the same, and their compound name shows their character, as it is formed of kr (kr) circle, and avb "aub," or ob - serpent - therefore, a "serpent in a circle." And this settles the phallic character of the Brazen Serpent, and justifies Hezekiah for braking it. (see II. Kings, 18,4). [....]' [Based on: T.S.D. Vol. 1, by H.P. Blavatsky (1999 edition), p. 364 (+ footnote)]. Associated spellings/words: srpym." Source: [1] (accessed: December 27, 2007)

NB: B9~hummingbird~hovering of naga totem offers this edit to the titans of primordial chaos, the Asura/Æsir. Left-handed Hummingbird is of the Old Gods. 108 svaha.

The Principality of Serendipity
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 09:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try a few. In my romanian language, the word "sireap" means "fast or untamed" horse who eats in mythology/fairytails only burning coal(carbune=coal). Also is the name of "alba"(white) star from the horses forehead. Another version: "S" could come from "sase"(six) while "arp" from "aripa"(wing)=6 wings. "Sarba" is folk dance with people joining hands and rotating. "Sarpe" means serpent. "A sorbi" means "to sip"(like horses are drinking water. Another similarity is "corbi"(ravens), birds associated usually with Odhin's/Saturn's throne in european myths. The "solar" Asura/Æsir is also a good connection. The Harpies could also be connected. Bigshotnews 04:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not insert your comments inside other editor's comments. Seraph is from a Semitic language, Romanian is an Indo-European language, so it's unlikely that Seraph has an Indo-European root. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

bizarre band description[edit]

it's right at the bottom of the page, should this really be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Trisagion vs. Sanctus[edit]

I corrected the article to say that the hymn that Seraphim chant is the "Sanctus" -- it had said "Trisagion," but this wasn't quite right, given that the Sanctus is the name for the hymn that quotes Ezekiel and Revelation and begins "Holy, Holy, Holy," whereas the Trisagion (as per the article on it) is somewhat similar but quite distinct, beginning "Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy Immortal One . . ." (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, Hearing Archangel Gabriel is not a reliable source???[edit]

NA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the reliable source guidelines. Hearing voices is not listed as a reliable source, regardless of whether it is Gabriel or not. At any rate, you didn't cite your sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


"They appear also in the Christian Gnostic text On the Origin of the World, described as "dragon-shaped angels".[5]"

That's a bit misleading, because the concept of dragon/draco/δράκων in late classical antiquity, the era of that text, didn't imply the winged, limbed, fire-breathing, rather dinosaur-like creature it does in the modern mind; it simply means a (usually large) snake or serpent. 'Dragons' in classical myth may be winged, fire-breathing, etc, but not particularly more often than other important animals (horses, bulls etc.) (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


@Jmcgnh: I don't understand why you reverted my edit. In the 300 years of English usage, the plural was (in my opinion) always "seraphim" (or "seraphims") and not "seraphs". And why did you remove my sentence about "seraph" being a back-formation? I did not say that it's forbidden to use it! Also, why did you remove my correction to the Hebrew, where it said that the word "seraph" is used in the Torah? It's not used, because it doesn't exist in Hebrew. (Actually it does exist, but it means resin.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen: Your edit did not introduce any sources to back up your changes. It struck me as original research WP:OR. I reverted the whole thing in order to more cleanly bring the discussion here to the talk page.
In my experience, Wikipedia has a bit of status quo bias, so that changes to a longstanding practice may need more justification and backup than was needed to put the original wording in place. By making your changes, you were asserting that a stylistic choice by an earlier editor had to be changed to a different stylistic choice.
If I were speaking of these entities, my own preference would be "seraphim" because that usage echoes the original language from which English took the word, but that might be considered excessively pedantic. Conscious of this criticism, I thought it would be better to sound out other editors to get consensus before allowing the changes to go through.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I note that at some point in November 2010, the singular "sarap" was being used in the section Origins and development. I would have to do more investigation to see if this subject has been considered in this article before. I also note here that you made a related change at English plurals.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Certainly, "seraphs" is a plural, though not the usual one: "Ye wingèd seraphs fly, bear the news, bear the news!" StAnselm (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: The fact that "seraph" is a back-formation from "seraphim" is in any dictionary, such as the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language or the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). I'm sure the OED gives citations showing that the plural was usually "seraphim" or "seraphims", not "seraphs" (as User:StAnselm says), but I don't have access to it. As for the fact that "seraph" is not the Hebrew word, just look in any dictionary or concordance. ("Sarap" is just a different way of transliterating the Hebrew word which I transliterated as "saraph".) I really don't see why we have to give references for every little fact. If you think it's not true, then you can put a Citation Needed tag, or even better, ask on the Talk page, but don't just revert! There was no citation for what was there before I corrected it, by the way (about the word "seraph"). I don't agree that we should leave articles the way they were, just because that's the way some previous editor decided to write them. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I do indeed believe we need to give references for every little fact. Demanding that helps make the article stronger.
I also believe this falls under the same sort of "respecting the choices of earlier editors" as does the choice of date styles or whether to use British or American spellings and vocabulary.
Given that there has been very little input so far, and no objections to your change (remember, it matches my own general preference as well, but I was conscious that it might be considered pedantic), I think you can declare that consensus has been achieved and proceed with your change. Just put in the appropriate cites and you won't hear any more complaint from me.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am happy for the plural in the article to be "seraphim" (per the proposed change), and for the comment about back-formation to be included if a source can be found. StAnselm (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)



Change ´sun´ to ´son/daughter/offspring´. There is no doubt of the tempora, the temperament, nor the temporary.

That what does not shine as brightly, is merely one trick of those whom ´mind´ away from that distinction, they themselves, being able to make that distinction, purely withing that what is their own ´mind´. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)