Talk:Angel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Graffiti?

• When I scrolled down to the "Sources" I noticed something that looks like childlike graffiti on the page. I'm not a member of wikipedia, and I noticed that the page is protected, so perhaps someone of better access can correct the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.5.237.18 (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Zoroastrianism came after Judaism?

• I'm just wondering how this is possible if Zoroaster was born (according to scholars) at least five centuries before Moses? Danny Lilithborne 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Read the Zoroastrianism article. Seems like there was influence on Judaism. Zoroastrianism is monotheistic , concepts of heaven and hell, flood/deluge, angels , baptisms, creation etc.--Jondel 01:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism Influence on Judeo-Christian Angelology Already Established by Jewish and Other Scholars

No, no, no, no---no-----with all due respect, user with IP address 66.251.27.92, (and other users too), you cannot use references from possibly biased, angry authors who wrote a book, or an article in the internet. [Specially], since the references provided to you are the preeminent sources on the subject, namely the Jewish Encyclopedia[1], AND the Bible Encyclopedia [2]. Both sources agree that while the idea of who introduced humanity to monotheism, Zoroastrianism or Judaism still is in debate, what according to them IS [clear], however, is the fact that angelology, demonology, introduction of the Prince of Darkness (the ultimate agent of evil, i.e., Satan) , apocalyptical, and many eschatological ideas were burrowed from Zoroastrianism via the Persian Empire, or at best such ideas [influenced] Judeo-Christian beliefs. Both encyclopedias, as well as, the Encyclopedia Americana, among numerous other sources agree on that. So, unless you have sources that are as valid as, or better yet, more valid than the Jewish Encyclopedia, AND the Christian Encyclopedia, you [should not] make edits. When and IF you have sources that supersede the opposing sources mentioned, then you can start an argument in the discussion section first, and wait to see what the consensus may be. In the mean time, I realize you may be frusterated, however, you should read Wikipedia`s policies before you threaten others, and before you may be blocked for possibly vandalism etc. You have to know that, just because you can edit in Wikipedia, it does not mean you can revert articles, so that they will sound more desirable to you. One of your sources--an angry author--states, “Note: Mr. Holding does a good job of debunking Acharya S. who makes a career out of trashing the Christian religion. But he himself is a devout Christian which will make him biased. I present him with no further comment to give the Christian side of the Zoroastrianism debate”. By Lewis Loflin.

One of the sources provided TO you is, from Encyclopedia Americana: "First, the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." By J. Duchesne-Guillemin, University of Liege, Belgium. Zmmz 22:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can't the Greeks get mentioned in the 'Jewish' section? Everything's backed up by Aristotle. Seems more like the Greco-Jewish view. 213.217.216.126 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism influencing Judeo-Christian religions

There seems to be a bit of an edit war as to whether or not the following lines (or something equivalent to them) should be included in the introduction.

Some scholars now believe that humanity was first introduced to angelology as well as demonology, by the Iranian (Persian) prophet Zoroaster, through the Persian Empire, that would later influence Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Some scholars have wrongfully assumed that humanity was introduced to angelology as well as demonology through the Zoroastrianist religion. However, it is now clear that the opposite is true, as Zoroastrianism was greatly influenced by the Judeo-Christian faiths during the Persian rule in ancient Palestine, and angelology started appearing in Zoroastrian scripture centuries after the birth of Christ.

Both contain weasel words and bias. Various sources have been used to back up these claims:

• For Zoroastrian influence: [3] [4]
• Against Zoroastrian influence: [5] [6]

We need to reach a consensus on what is included, what is not included, and where in the article it should be. My suggestion is to revert the introduction to:

An angel is an ethereal being found in many religions, whose duties are to assist and serve God or the gods.

And move the section on Zoroastrianism and Judaism and Christianity to a subsection of the article (perhaps Angelology? Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Judaism?) where we can write a balanced, NPOV section that includes sources both for and against Zoroastrianism. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don`t agree wih that. I feel like the origin of angelology should be mentioned right there in the intro, so that the reader gets a clear picture of its roots. Currently, many don`t know where it came from. I do hope though that we [can] reach a consensus; I really do. I also hope no one was offended by the pro-Zoroastrian statement. As far as I researched they are factually correct. However, I don’t mind changing some words around, but I have a hard time not putting the info itself there, specially, since the sources are a Jewish Encyclopedia, and an international standard Bible Encyclopedia. I have numerous other sources as well, like authors and some religious books written by scholars such as the Orthodox Christian Francis Bishop, but I figured the encyclopedias were the more authoritative sources. I have to tell you though, it is hard to argue with those sources, don’t you think? I hope we can at least agree on that. Let me know what you think.Zmmz 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Here are some more sources written by Western scholars about the influence of Zoroastrianism on angelology, however, they don’t come nearly close to the references from the encyclopedias previously mentioned. This site has quotes and statements from Western historians [7]; this second one is from a book written by Kaufmann Kohler A. V. W. Jackson[8]. Finally, this last one (for now) is from a book written by the historian Mark Willey[9]. I hope this helps.Zmmz 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to tell you though, it is hard to argue with those sources, don’t you think? When there are a hundred sources against it, and a hundred sources for it, it is extremely easy to argue with sources. That is why it's best to just accept that there are multiple view points on the matter and write the article as such, with a balanced section the contains arguments for Zoroastrian influence, and arguments against it. Either way, the introduction of the article is not the place for it. I am very much for moving it to a subsection. Thanks for the sources. (PS: No, I wasn't offended :-)) Jude(talk,contribs) 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but, how many authoritative sources are against it? Cite some of them first please. I am not sure if the Jewish Encyclopedia, and an international standard Bible Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Americana can, or should be disregarded. How many encyclopedias do you know of that are being against these ideas? Democracy sometimes is not a good thing, just because it [may] drown some facts. As far as I can tell the encyclopedias mentioned are the foremost respected ones in the field, and are all written by Jewish and Christian scholars. That makes it immensly credible. Zmmz 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't researched the topic so besides the sources cited above and a quick google, I'm not going to provide any negative sources. I don't think any sources should be disregarded, even though with extreme bias. From the reliable sources page, However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views. Credible or not, we still want to have a balanced, well-represented article. I'll write up a subsection and put it up in my userspace so that we can make a decision and reach a consensus about whether or not to have the information in the intro, or the subsection, and what information to include. (PS: Can you please indent your comments? Use : multiple times. For example, I used it four times on this comment, so your comment, you would use it five times, and my next comment, I would use it six times.) Jude(talk,contribs) 08:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we can move it from the intro section, however, I do believe such a mention should not be burried somewhere in the bottom, we should make a new section perhaps titled origins or roots. And, we should get a consensus to see which point of view to use, thus we can avoid an edit war in that section. We should rephrase the sentence, yet, as I stated we cannot nor should ignore refrences such as the Jewish and Bible Encyclopedias, as well as, many other Encyclopedias that support the pro-Zoroastrian version/influence.Zmmz 20:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

a) I thought perhaps an Angelology section after the Etymology section.

b) In regards to the actual content, we want to be neutral, and using a specific point of view would not be neutral. Having a section which talks about the Zoroastrian influences is a good idea, with sources, but also in that section would be (not necessarily long, and definitely in neutral language) criticisms of Zoroastrian influence, along with sources (I've noted several negative sources down).

c) We should not, also, ignore the fact that there has been criticism (though not that the criticism is correct or incorrect); but yes, definitely not ignoring or disregarding the Jewish/Bible Encylopedias.

I'm currently working on a mirror of the article in my userspace, and when I've done fleshing it out, I'll post it here so we can make a comparison, survey who prefers what (perhaps a straw poll?), and then come to a consensus. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

After a quick survey of the article and this conversation, I think that the portion talking about the origins of the philosophy doesn't really belong right in the lead paragraph. As per WP:LEAD - The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It seems to me that the precise origin info presented doesn't belong here, but should be moved to a section immediately after the TOC (or after Etymology) about the origins of the philosophy, and that the lead needs rewritten to provide an overview of the entire article. - dharmabum 08:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good Jude, but please make sure we insert the pro-Zoroastrian sources perhaps as a suggestion as such, “According to the the Jewish and Bible Encyclopedias....... ”.Zmmz 07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I've done so far. Let me know what you think. I've included citations; I couldn't find the Jewish Encyclopedia link you gave (timed out constantly) so I haven't included anything from the Jewish Encyclopedia at the minute. I'm still working on the paragraph, though, and I'm going to do some work to the lead, as it's currently quite short and doesn't really give much information as to what the article is about (as per Dharmabum420's comments). Jude(talk,contribs) 13:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jude couple of points; first it had nothing to do with Mazdakism, it is only Zoroastrianism. Secondly, we must mention it is believed that the exiled Jews who were freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great came in contact with the Persian Empire and this may had profound influences on them. Thirdly, if you read the Jewish and BIBLE Encyclopedias they state that the ideas that may have influenced the Jews were one ultimate Good and an ultimate bad, the forces of light vs. the forces of darkness, and the ultimate agent of evil who was dubbed `Prince of Darkness`, known as Ahriman who later bacame Satan. Also, about angelology they were called Yazadas, they were God`s helpers and guardians of `Man`, and they had an hierarchial system. We need to mention that it is according to the Jewish and BIBLE Encyclopedias. Finally, if, and only IF we need to mention that Zoroastrians were the ones who were influence, we should point out that the oldest known Zoroastrian texts date back to before Christianity, because otherwise it would really seems as a kind of off-the-wall allegation. ThanksZmmz 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mazdaism actually is Zoroastrianism; Ahura Mazda is the principle deity of that religion, whereas Zoroaster is merely the most prominent prophet. I'll find a citation for that about Cyrus the Great--I'm pretty sure I noticed one while going through some sources earlier. I'll do some more editing and let you know when I'm done. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No Jude Mazdaism is wrong, and it may be confused with a sub-branch of Zoroastrianism that came about centuries later called Mazdakism. You may study Avesta related articles if you wish. Also, in regards to Cyrus the Great you may look in the Old Testament and the Bible as well.Zmmz 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Bookofjude/Angelology; Zmmz, your thoughts? I think I've included most of your comments about it--except Yazadas, which I can't seem to find any sources on, and the dating of Zoroastrian texts. If you have any sources for these, I'd appreciate them, and I'll incorporate them into my next copy. Also, just remember that this is about Zoroastrian influence on Judaism in regards to Angelology, so we want to stay relevant to the topic of Angelology. I'm sure there are other articles where Zoroastrian influence on Jewish faith are discussed. Jude(talk,contribs) 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The article still does not eloborate on the fact that Angels for the first time appeared in Zoroastrianism as God`s helpers, and they had a system of hierarchy that translates into today` angelology. Also, Satan was dubbed the Prince of Darkness, since the religion thought there was a fight between the forces of light and darkness. Finally, please mention that this is according to the Jewish and Bibel Encyclopedias, and when you write that it was the other way around, IF you think this should be written, then in parenthesis we should write; although the oldest Zoroastrian text discovered so far dates back to five centuries before the birth of Christ. In fact Jude, the `Three Wise Men from the East` that appear in our Christmass cards are Zoroastrian priests from Persia.Zmmz 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any links to specific sources? I've been looking through the Jewish/Bible encyclopedias for things about the heirachy, but I haven't found much. I've got Satan/Angra Mainyu/Ahriman comparison, but I think we should definitely include "Prince of Darkness", if we can find a source for it. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I already gave you the links but here they are again, plus an new link is added.

• [10]
• Here look under the `The Kingdoms of Good and Evil`, and the `Resemblances Between Zoroastrianism and Judaism` sections[11].
• Here look under summary[12].Zmmz 08:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• User:Bookofjude/Angelology. I've made additions: "Prince of Darkness", Angels as God's helpers, the hierarchy, and the refernces section specifically names the Jewish and Bible Encyclopedias. There's seven sources at the minute, and I think it is suitably neutral in its wording when a) presenting facts which mean Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, and b) presenting opinions that other people have about how Judaism and Christianity, in fact, influenced Zoroastrianism, but not stating arbitrarily that these are correct or incorrect. (PS: Sorry it took me a while to do this, I've been working on a Uni assignment.) Jude (talk,contribs,[[Special:Emailuser/Bookofjude|emai

Sounds fair Jude, but again, let`s please mention Christianity occured 5 centuries after the oldest Zoroastrianism. ThanksZmmz 07:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm having a quick look at sources, and I've found some timelines wherein the general consensus is the founding of Zoroastrianism at about 1500 BCE. However, in reading the actual section, I'm not sure that it clearly states its purpose:

In contrast, some critics believe that it was Judaism and Christianity that had an influence on Zoroastrianism, purporting that other similarities between the two were created to exalt Zoroaster and deter those of the Zoroastrian faith from converting to other religions.

I'll probably reword this, as it should read as though the critic belives the following: a) Zoroastrianism is an established religion, b) Christianity is currently gaining popularity, c) Zoroastrian priests 'steal' attributes of Christ and apply them to Zoroaster, thereby exalting Zoroaster, convincing those of Zoroastrian faith that Zoroaster is better than Christ, and thereby keeping them from converting.

I will include that source, though, about the foundation of Zoroastrianism. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Great job Jude, but in regards to Zoroastrianism`s specific influence on angelology, and demonology, the texts that mention such phenomenon date back to at least 5 centuries before the birth of Christ .Zmmz 04:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There we go, a final version. I haven't included:

Some sources purport that the the era of the prophet Zoroaster was around 1400 BC.

As I wasn't sure that it fitted into the text, or that it gave any more to the section, as the date of Zoroaster's lifetime is not in dispute, merely influence on Angelology and Judaism. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, actually the era in which it shows Zoroaster possibly lived, and definitely wrote the texts about Angelology dates back not to 1400 BC, rather 500-600 BC. Now, keep in mind, this is the earliest date that texts were found, that mention refrences to angels and demons. Here is the link again[13].ThanksZmmz 07:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I must be blind, sorry. I can't actually find any mention of Zoroastrian writings on Angelology dating to 500-600 BC in that source. Is it on that page, or is it on another page? I'm actually heading to bed soon, and I'll do a full read through of the section tomorrow sometime. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing...great job so far though.Zmmz 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read through that source several times tonight and can find no mention of angelological literature written by Zoroaster dating to 500-600 BC. Either I'm blind, or I'm not looking for the right thing. As it's actually a section on Angelology, I suddenly realised that it would probably be a good idea to include a little about what Angelology actually is, before writing about Zoroastrian influence, so I've added a few sentences and sources to it. I'm quite happy with it so far, and if I can actually find the source about the dating of Angelological literature, I'll add that in; either way, do you think it is suitable enough to go into the article, and for the sentence in the lead paragraph to be removed?Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism (and I think it clearly did) what you cannot claim is that Judaism was the one to influence Zoroastrianism. This is totally unsubstantiated Judeo-Christian apologetic. And the idea that even Christianity influenced Zoroastrian beliefs about Zoroaster is so outrageous, so baseless, we may as well say that the Buddha is based on Jesus too. The paragraph in the article that makes these claim does not even give a citation. I feel that paragraph should be removed immediately.-unsigned 12:43, December 12th, 2006

Lead paragraph, Angelology and Zoroastrianism

As per the discussion above, and User:Zmmz's comments on my talk page, I've implemented the following changes:

• Removed the following sentence from the lead paragraph.

Some scholars now believe that the introduction to angelology as well as demonology may have been through the Iranian (Persian) prophet Zoroaster, via the Persian Empire who had come in contact with the Babylonian Jews.[14]

• Implemented a new section following the Etymology section. Content of this section is as per User:Bookofjude/Angelology.

Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Great job on the compromise and the new section Jude. Zmmz 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, :-) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Element disambiguation

I'm trying to remove links from the element disambiguation page (oops, just made another). I deleted the x-ref from this article, as there is no redirect that goes to element meaning "part". If you know of a better link, please make it go there. LeeG 01:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

See WP:CONTEXT Your page was targetted among others for overlinking by a user. You can see their work here [15] unfortunately no one thought to edit it. This was recently discovered and discussed with an admin. I'm attempting to clean-up the pages effected, unfortunately there are many. So I'm tagging them first in the hopes that some may be cleaned up by the time I get to them. Luckily this article is small compared to some of the others targetted. --Crossmr 07:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Posting by User:131.111.200.200

"An illustration was the thwarting of the London bombings on July 21, 2005, when only the detonator caps fired but none of the four bombs went off. This was a miracle of God carried forth through angels. There is not a single day on earth that angels are not working in some capacity or another"

What kind of garbage is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.200.200 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I just reverted it. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint as a subset of Christianity

Ignoring the arguements about Mormons being Christian, I think the section on LDS beliefs should go under Christianity as a sub-section. My arguement is that much of the discussion and examples of Angels in the Christian theology are also believed and taught in the Mormon faith. All of the Biblical refrences are as significant to Mormons as they are to other Christian faiths. The way the article is structured now, it looks like Mormons don't believe or use the Bible as a record of faith, which simply isn't true. 66.151.81.244 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the LDS church should be considered a subsection of Christianity, I'm not sure it works in this particular article, as the principle LDS Angel, Moroni, is not mentioned in the Bible. Furthermore, LDS Angels have specific characteristics and definitions (appearing as men, without wings, clad in white, and so further), which are outlined in Mormon primary texts but not found in the Bible. In this particular article, they should be at least distinct. MrKeith2317 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Principalities

If you search for 'principalities' you get sent to the article on political principality with no disambiguation to lead you to 'angels'. Can someone fix add one?

Greek

Changed αγγελος to ανγελος... αγγελος spells "aggelos". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

- In the greek bible it is aggelos IIRC.

The previous poster's recollection matches with the http://www.olivetree.com/bible/ Greek/English Interlinear version of the Greek bible, at least. So in this case, it appears the transliteration is what needs to be changed, the transliteration would be "aggelos", as mentioned above, not "angelos", unless there is some source that indicates that αγγελος was given a non-standard pronunciation in ancient Greek, in which case perhaps that source could be cited. 71.206.189.172 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gamma has an "n" sound when grouped with other letters. γγ is pronounced like "ng," γχ is pronounced like "nk," γξ sounds like "nx," etc. This is standard pronunciation for that letter (like oo sounding like "ooh" in English, rather than o-o) and doesn't require a special note. ◄Zahakiel► 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, a gamma nasal, I had forgotten about that, thus my confusion. Shows how long it has been since I last took Greek. Many thanks for the clarification. 71.206.189.172 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs more research

No angel in the bible has wings or flies, nor are they supernatural beings who are the "medium of God's power". Messenger is a title, much like your mail man is a messenger. Every kind of messenger in the bible was called that, even Elijah. Angels are not tall white males with flowing blonde hair and big wings. This entire article is a practice in copying traditional thought and putting it on paper(electronic in this case). I consider this article wholly incorrect.

response

Good point... Even Malachi the prophet name meant "My Messenger".

Though I would suggest angles were big... And to be feared... As well it seams the Biblically angels do seam masculine, and never feminine.

The one aspect I love the most is "Hark the Harold Angles Sing, Glory"

Where the Bible says "Luk 2:13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Luk 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

There is not a single reference to angels ever singing in the Bible.--phalcon 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

comment

"big angles"? obtuse ones, I assume?  ;-)

This response highlights a lot of the problems with the article. It's full of suggestions, but written as if fact.

"seems masculine/feminine"? Greek & Hebrew have gendered nouns. So any noun could 'seem masculine/feminine' on that basis. Please deal with verifyable fact in this article.

"no reference to angels singing". Again, please understand the context of the language it was written in. "saying" in Greek could mean "singing" in English, depending on context.

"God (or Allah in the case of Islam)"

I have changed this slightly, as the wording could sound like Islam has "Allah" instead of "God". This is false and I believe is considered offensive by Muslims. "Allah" means "God". I left wording that keeps the relevent link to the word "Allah". Sukkoth 08:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As a Christian I find it offensive that Allah is consider the same as My God of The Bible. So whats your point? --phalcon 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If a Bible is translated into Arabic, Jesus will be saying that he is Allah. Cuñado - Talk 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok perhaps I should expand my reasoning... Typical in English We we say God (capital G) we mean the God of the Bible. When we say Allah we mean the god of the Muslims.

In reality, God and Allah are both names in different languages to mean "god".

In reality The god of the Bible, GOD and the god of the Koran, Allah... are two different monotheistic gods. --68.150.39.244 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect, and that's why I was pointing it out. "God" is used in English by Muslims and Christians to describe God, and "Allah" is used in Arabic by Muslims and Christians to describe God. Muslims claim that the same God that inspired the Bible also inspired the Qur'an, and acknowledge Christianity as a valid religion. Christians however want to believe that Islam is not inspired by God, and pretend that they worship a different God. This is the basis for ignorant prejudice, and that's why I brought it up. I'll get off my soapbox now, because we're not talking about page content anymore. Cuñado - Talk 00:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Angelic Beliefs in Scientology

Somebody should add Scientology's beliefs in angelic beings. Their views are just as legitimate as Islam's. (unsigned)

Or indeed any other views, it seems, except the obvious ones! Mike0001 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Angel of the Lord

• Against merger. The article refers to a specific biblical character, not just an angel. It also documents important theological ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elatanatari (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Agree. Many scholars believe them to be quite different personages. Don't merge. StAnselm 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Im gonna remove the tag.68.42.172.103 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Against merger. The angel of the Lord, while considered an angel, is very much separate and involves a much more important role in Christianity and Judaism, and so should not be merged, as stated above. MrKeith2317 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

POV?

This paragraph doesn't seem POV to me, but I don't have a great enough understanding to rewrite it:

In early Hebrew thought, God appears and speaks directly to individuals (Gn. 3:8, Ex. 12:1). He also intervenes in human affairs, often acting violently and punitively (Gn. 22:ff.; Ex. 4:24, 14:4; 2Sm. 24:1: Ps.78 :31ff.) God's savage nature reflects the mores of a nomadic, conquering tribe whose morality was based on ritual and taboo. Under the influence the prophets and postexilic writers under influence of Zoroastrianism, these earlier conceptions were revised to reflect an ethic based on social justice. A new theodicy explained evil without directly implicating God. As the result, God became both more distant and more merciful. Angels and demons replaced him in his encounters with men, and Satan assumed his destructive powers (cf. 2 Sm. 24:1 with 1 Chr. 21:1)[3].

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something? There are also some typos that I fixed when I copied it to this page. CKnapp 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Check "The Encyclopedia of Religion", volume 1, page 283. , ISBN 0-02-909700-2. You can find the complete article there.--behmod talk 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"First Seen/Last Seen"?

Was this vandalism? First seen:AD26 (by jesus and Satan) last seen:AD52 as Mary virgin mother of christ(by (saint)bernidete of lourds)

If not, it does not make any sense. If it does have any factual merit, it is horribly stated, and I have no idea what it is trying to say CKnapp 20:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Angelology anyone?

I believe angelology should be it's own page; I believe even believe in making it into a portal. If anyone especially agrees on the latter leave me a message on my talk page. Lighthead 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Bible citations (clever vandalism)

Some of the bible citation pages have been changed. Someone with a Bible should go look them up. {Slash-|-Talk} 01:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask where and when?

I looked through the first few Bible references on the page, all of which were correct. After realizing that would be terribly inefficient, I began diffing edits. Thus far, (I've gotten through March) the only edit related to a Bible reference was a clear case of vandalism "2 Samuel" became "Angel", which is not even a book in the Bible. CKnapp 01:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What Is This 'mehico' Thing?

About the paragraph before the list of contents: I could make no sense of the last few lines. If anything could be understood, could it be something in an attitude too biased? I wanted to edit, but maybe someone should look at it first.AMSA83 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Angel/fairy?

In the introduction it's said that in "some cultures" angels are powerful fairies. Can anyone tell me what these cultures are? Becuse I've never heard such a thing... I don't think angels can be compared to fairies, but if I'm wrong, please be more precise and describe this bizarre cultures which have fairies as angels (or vice versa). Thankyou so much (whoever you are), Hades87 10:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "some cultures," but some belief systems like Theosophy consider all things, both living and non-living, to be in a state of evolutionary change. This includes not only human beings, but also spiritual beings (that are on a different path) planets, stars and so on. In that philosophy, the alternate path for living creatures includes such stages as nature-spirits, fairies, angels, devas, and nature gods. ◄Zahakiel► 16:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I found Zahakiel's statement interesting, but I'm afraid it doesn't really answer the question; which, I believe, is essentially: What cultures believe that angels are "the most powerful type of fairy"? Either some citation needs to be provided for the statement, or it needs to be removed. Personally, I don't think it belongs in the introductory paragraph at all. If someone does find a reputable citation to justify the statement, it should probably go under the "Other religions" header.

MishaPan 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to me what on a different path and alternate path mean above? The distinction between angels and fairies seems a particularly nice one! What about grumbdlynqs and ezkalogues? Are they angels too, or fairies? Mike0001 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanakh section

I believe this section needs some heavy cleanup. A discussion of angels in the Tanakh should feature, primarily, discussions of "angels in the Tanakh," not what secular scholars believe about the development of the text. It is a valid issue, and should be mentioned, but not as the major thrust of the section. ◄Zahakiel► 15:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I started with a bit of clean up. Since the term "Tanakh" is used for this section, are we primarily interested in the Jewish views of these scriptures or the views of Christians and Muslims as well?--Nowa (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientific section needed

OK? Mike0001 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you open up a request for comment on adding the "scientific section" in order to get consensus. Generally speaking, scientific "evidence" is not usually discussed in articles on religion in this, or any other, encyclopedia, as this can lead to POV very easily. If you don't get consensus on this, I don't think any changes you make along those lines are going to stick, and I say this just so that both you and other editors of this article won't waste a lot of time skirting around the 3RR rule. ◄Zahakiel► 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Religion article already has such a section. Mike0001 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Science and religion" section is extensive and well-referenced; do you intend to expand the single statement you've added? My concern is this: if it looks like just a skeptic's POV for the sake of being skeptical, without really contributing to the knowledge of the topic, it's out of place. ◄Zahakiel► 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been an interesting conversation going on at Talk:Golden plates abouta similar proposal. In religious topics is there a value in stating a scientific view or one that says the topic does not exist. It appears that if it is referenced it is of value and should be maintained for balance. It would help if this section were expanded, but it also is a valid addition. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any objection to a scientific view that attempts to bring balance to the topic. The statement I removed, however, was basically just, "Science doesn't confirm that angels exist." I think that using the "Religion and science" section of the Religion article is a valid template, but that's not what was there before. ◄Zahakiel► 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

there's no scientific evidence that love exists either. so what? it's like trying to bake a cake with a piano. they're completely unrelated topics. Anastrophe (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that people who look here will actually believe what is written, and that is bad for society as a whole. Without a balanced view, namely, also including the rather obvious statement that nobody has really seen an angel, we promulgate the POV that this stuff is real and not invented. One could wander round the religion pages quite a lot without noticing that they are presenting just one POV. Unless there is a Criticism section which presents the views of probably a majority of rational scientists, there is no balance struck between reality and fiction.

All matters should perhaps be open to rational debate, else as societies we make dreadful mistakes. The Inquisition, Fascism and Communism spring to mind. We are at a similar juncture now with the three middle eastern religions.

I would compromise by at least linking each of these pages back to some serious page such as the Religion and science page from a criticism section. That would at least restore some semblance of balance.

As for the love, piano and cake discussion, love exists as a certain brain pattern in some minds, as does religion. The scientific viewpoint is certainly relevant here and science and religion are definitely related. For instance, suppose that lesions (maybe experimentally induced) in a certain part of the brain caused a creature to lose all feelings of love? Perhaps (artificial or natural) stimulation of other parts caused the creature to see angels? Surely that is relevant and related?

Suppose that a religion told us that after death we would see and recognize all our friends and relations? Is it not relevant that the correct functioning of a certain part of the brain is requisite for face recognition? Mike0001 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all very, very, POV Mike, and that's why I removed your statements. Yours is not a "balanced" view, for you are "concerned" that people will "actually believe what is written," as if a Wikipedia editor had any such responsibility. This is why I would have you open an RfC about this matter... you have merely been introducing statements for the explicit purpose of being critical, to prevent people from believing what you consider "fiction" rather than a genuine belief of some people. This does not at all add to knowledge of the topic, it's just a tacked on "nuh uh" at the end. The "suppositions" upon which you're operating are some pretty blatant O.R. and this has no part in building the encyclopedia. ◄Zahakiel► 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least try to be civil? Where is the balance at present in this article? I am merely trying to bring some common sense to this article. I have given above the balanced scientific view, completely impartial, of this topic, and possible reasons why people might believe in angels. Are you disputing investigations in neuroscience now? If so, proceed to the relevant pages in WP and comment there first! Beliefs are not genuine unless there is evidence. There is none for angels. Mike0001 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not being uncivil. I am pointing out a bias that you actually admit, i.e., "fictional." That's your viewpoint, hence my statement about POV above. What you are is a skeptic, and that's okay... but you seem to be almost trying to excuse it by saying, "I'm just trying to bring common sense/balance to this issue." You're actually not, and your section is inaccurately titled. As a scientist myself, I know that "science" does not have a "view" on angels. In fact, one of the tenets of experimental science is materialism, and as such to say, "there is no scientific evidence for the existence of angels" is absolutely unnecessary, and does not contribute to an undersatnding of the topic at hand, "angels." The statement, "Beliefs are not genuine unless there is evidence" is completely incorrect. Who determines what is a "genuine" belief? A belief is something someone believes, and that's as far as we are able to comment on it. We are certainly not, as Wikipedians, the judges of the qualities of faith. And no, I'm not going to get into neuroscience on you, I'm going to cite Wikipedia policy, OR (Original research) is not allowed to influence the content of our articles. Your statements are, in fact, hopelessly POV, and I'm not being uncivil, just accurate, by pointing this out. ◄Zahakiel► 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Za, the motivations of an editor have nothing to do with edits made. We measure the validity of an edit on its own merits. For example, personally I find topics of faith to be just that...a topic in which some group has put their faith. They should never be presented as fact, but simply group X believes in Y. Attempting to take a topic of faith and turn it into science just seems like one of those DUH moments. It is not science; it is faith. However, Wikipedia polices guide us in what is allowed and not allowed. A section about science not able to verify the existence of angels, god, Jesus, the process of transubstantiation, etc. is acceptable as long as the statements are accompanied by reputable references. You and I might not like it, but I can find no policies that say these types of statements should not be allowed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stormrider, all due respect, but I don't think you are following what is going on here very closely. I do not disagree with anything you just said, or what you said in your previous comment. In fact, your statement, "I find topics of faith to be just that...a topic in which some group has put their faith" is almost exactly the point I made in response to Mike's statement about some faith's being "genuine" and others not. We do not have any disputes about that matter. Further, I am not questioning Mike's motives, in fact I say "that's fine" to whatever view he holds. Mike has already stated his motives; he doesn't want people to believe what's written here, because he thinks it is "bad for society." That's his motive, and I don't question it - it's stated.

When, however, those viewpoints an editor holds affects the articles he or she edits in ways that I consider inappropriate (whether or not the motive is at fault), it is my freedom to speak to that impression. I believe that is what happened here. I agreed with you above, and do again, that "A section about science not able to verify the existence of angels, god, Jesus, the process of transubstantiation, etc. is acceptable as long as the statements are accompanied by reputable references." To repeat again: that is NOT what is being added to this article. All we have is a single, self-referential, "Science doesn't seem to have any evidence," and one book where some guy says so. This is not a properly and reputably sourced addition to the knowledge-base of this topic, as it is (I agree) in the scientific criticism of the Religion article. It is not a matter of personal taste, on either of our parts, but the standard to which we hold controversial viewpoints in ALL the articles in Wikipedia. Now, if you and I disagree on how policy is to be applied, that's okay... let's talk policy. But as of this moment right here we are talking past each other. ◄Zahakiel► 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will find a few more reputable references to add to the section. I have given above my reasons why science is relevant to religious experience; at least, the cause of the experience if not the actual feeling; and why a belief is not just a belief, period. Have a good night! Mike0001 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i see that my point about baking a cake using a piano was deftly avoided. and my point was ignored. if we're to add a section to the article pointing out that there's no scientific evidence for the existence of angels, then i guess i'll suggest that we should also add a section pointing out that there's never been a verified instance of an angel baking a cake using a piano. it's absolutely true. are we to just throw crap into the article because someone decides that their measure of reality is the only one that's valid - that the article must mention their measure even though it is inapplicable to the subject of the article? note for the curious: i don't believe in angels. Anastrophe (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe, if you look above you will see that I did answer your point. If you want to then you can add the cake-baking angel too, to go with the sex-of-angels and other nonsense. I don't see evidence as crap actually. What I am saying really is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of angels, that is all. As evidence-based reasoning impinges upon all of our activities, including the study of the workings of the brain, I don't see it as irrelevant at all. If you are arguing that the article on angels is to be treated in the same vein as a study of Zeus, say, ie, that we can study angels as antique beliefs, then let us say that up front, I am all in favour of that! I am afraid however that there are many people who still believe in angels, djinns, etc, so that puts us in another ball park. I feel it is the responsibility of any encyclodaedia, and of WP in particular, to point out the lack of evidence for the existence of angels. From the standpoint of a NPOV, all beliefs are not equal! Some have substantial evidence supporting them, whereas others do not.

If I said that my religion entailed the belief that whites were superior in all ways to blacks, I could hardly expect an impartial article in WP! Yet if my religion makes claims so ephemeral as to be unverifiable then I can expect a respectful nod from WP and treatment on a par with belief that atoms exist! This is NPOV gone crazy! How crazy does a belief have to be before we say "Hang on, we can't include that without questioning it"? What measure of reality allows belief without evidence? Psychotic! Mike0001 (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the beginning, you need consensus to add sections with which so many other editors disagree. A number of editors (I count about 4) have reverted your proposed change, and I don't think it was uncalled for, nor is it vandalism as you claim. You need well referenced and relevant data if you are going to add a "criticism" section, and I have to agree with the last editor that since the article does not say "angels exist" outside of the religious traditions cited, a "science cannot prove it" statement (and it was a statement you added, not a "section") is not necessary. As I also state above, if there is an actual section to be added, with an intelligent discussion of criticism of the topic and adequate referencing, that is one thing, but the current consensus is that your statement is unnecessary and does not bring balance/common sense, etc. to the article. BTW, making statements like "crazy" and "psychotic" is not going to help you gain that necessary consensus for the changes you wish to see made. Please read WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Please note that the article does not violate this policy, since it says "in these belief systems" the concepts of angels exist; and that is a verifiable fact, not an opinion. ◄Zahakiel► 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was using psychotic in the technical scientific sense, eg, little green men talking to you. Religious beliefs fit this definition, I am sorry if you cannot see that. Maybe crazy was too emotive a word for you, but I did use it to describe NPOV, not editors.

I stand by my view that an argument against the psychosis of belief in angels is entirely necessary and appropriate to a balanced article. Perhaps believers could explain their reasons for believing too.

I have posted a RfC. Mike0001 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the best course of action, the RfC. In the meantime, did you happen to read the soapbox page? It's indicated there pretty strongly that the wording you use (whether applied to beliefs or individuals who hold them) is entirely inappropriate for this community. I will comment on the RfC when it becomes available. I am also considering whether or not to request an IP check on 86.149.32.64 since this account appears only to edit the articles you do, and only in support of your statements. I think it recently reverted a change on the Angel page just when 3RR was about to be violated by your account. If I am mistaken in my belief that this is a sockpuppet of yours, please let me know. ◄Zahakiel► 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it was my reversion! Only found out I wasn't logged in when I was sent to my talk page. Doesn't look like I can change it now. The IP is a public address of a private network. Mike0001 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

reverting edits and marking them as vandalism when they are not is highly inappropriate. please cease this highly uncivil behaviour. please visit the convenient wikilinks i've embedded in this reply if you need further clarification. oh, my personal opinion? militant antitheists who feel they have a mission to "inform" the faithful that they're psychotic really ought to take a good hard look in the mirror. i'm just saying. not directing that at anyone in particular. it's merely my personal opinion. thankfully, i don't feel compelled to dump that opinion into the actual article space whenever it strikes my fancy to do so. Anastrophe (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The term militant atheist was invented by theists to excuse their own behaviour. Even Richard Dawkins is not a militant atheist, his arguments are logical and persuasive except to the most closed minds. His view is that beliefs deserve no special protection unless they are justifiable, and I agree with him.

I will ignore the thinly veiled insult. Mike0001 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

please note, i said antitheist not atheist. most of those who identify themselves as atheists these days are actually antitheists. but we digress. Anastrophe (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Anastrophe, Mike you are ignoring consensus, accusing other editors of vandalism, and soap boxing. Overall, your conduct is disruptive, and if this continues, you could be blocked. Addhoc (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That being the case, Mike, (your response to my statement above re: IP 86.149.32.64) you are in violation of the 3RR rule. Please be careful in the future about that... In terms of the RfC at hand, since it was joined to the section above in which I have already commented, I won't add much more for now except a re-iteration of linking to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SOAP. Ordinarily, as Storm Rider pointed out above, an editor's motives and personal views are not an issue if he/she can separate those opinions from edits. In this case, however, it's pretty clear that this is not being done, and it appears that it is going to be a continuing pattern of behavor, as evidenced by your recent creation of the [apparently now deleted] "Quackery" category, defined (in the WP article on quackery itself) as a derrogatory term applied to religious beliefs. I contend that it is entirely inappropriate in a consensus-based community for editors to have free reign to partake of such intolerant behavior and veil it under the heading of "the scientific viewpoint." The scientific viewpoint about religious beliefs is silence. ◄Zahakiel► 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Mike0001 (talk)Sorry about antitheists/atheists goof. Yes, I guess Dawkins is antitheist, but certainly not militant. (He has no intention of shooting or bombing them all!) Think of sticks, stones and words. If you think words are evil, then so do I. Religious texts are blatantly so, also disruptive and soap-boxing. How could anyone deny that? As for the consensus, I thought it was that we find better references, which I added? Oh, and where did the RfC go? Mike0001 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite; I said you would need better references in order to gain a consensus for a criticism section. The current consensus is that such a section is not needed. I don't know where the RfC went, but I'm going to ask you again to cool it with the derrogatory comments, such as that "religious texts are blatantly [evil (or militant? unclear which you meant)]." That's going to get you blocked pretty quick for incivility. ◄Zahakiel► 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, Sam Harris quoted 5 pages of incitation to violence in the Koran. The OT is just one litany of violence. If you think my talk uncivil, try reading those! Mike0001 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Koran is not being cited in this article as the "balanced view," nor is it being applied to Wikipedians. By the way, don't confuse "militant" for "military"... shooting and bombing is not necessary for that description to be accurate; from Militant: "The word militant has come to refer to any individual or party displaying serious comment or engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat, usually for a cause." That certainly applies to the individuals you're talking about. ◄Zahakiel► 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

militant adj. & n. adj. 1 combative; aggressively active esp. in support of a (usu. political) cause. 2 engaged in warfare. n. a militant person, esp. a political activist. militancy n. militantly adv. [Middle English via Old French from Latin (as militate)]

From the Oxford Dictionary, a rather better source. If you actually read The God Delusion you would see that it is full of (a) reasoning, and (b) light humour and parody of beliefs that lack evidence. This is hardly militant. Richard is a good man, eager to make sure that people use the right criteria when choosing their beliefs.

On a slightly different note, I am not IP 86.149.32.64! I remembered that earlier I had made an edit while not logged in, but then on checking our IP address I discovered that this could not have been me. Thus I did not infringe 3RR. Sorry to mislead you. Oh, and sorry to insult your religious cult, I only just found out about it on reading your home page.

The scientific viewpoint about religious beliefs is silence. Not so. Science has a great deal to say about the workings of the human brain, and why people cling to beliefs in the face of all evidence. One could also claim that the religious viewpoint of the natural world is silence. Once people start to claim that miracles happen they enter the realm of science and verification. If they claim that gods and angels exist then we must question their use of the word exist in view of what we normally mean by it. Mike0001 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not insult my "religious cult," although since you now characterize it that way I am going to give you a last warning here about civility before I make a formal report about your abominable choice of words. You've been warned repeatedly by other editors, and at least one administrator, and it's getting tiresome. I say that Science has nothing to say about "religion," and you reply with "Science has a great deal to say about the workings of the human brain," equating the two as your own opinion dictates. To a great many people, myself included, religion exists outside of the human brain. It's clear you don't agree with that, and that's your choice, but to use it to browbeat others who do not share your particular view is going to give you a very short shelf-life in this community. I am also familiar with Dawkins and his book, and I don't agree with your assessment, for what that's worth. ◄Zahakiel► 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zahakiel, I've blocked Mike for 24 hours, because of his unacceptable conduct. Addhoc (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Zahakiel, I don't equate consciousness with the working of the brain, but clearly without the latter there is none of the former. There is clearly also not an equivalence between computational ability and consciousness, else any Universal Turing Machine would be conscious! What I am claiming, with loads of scientific evidence, is that the workings of the brain govern our thoughts: we are mere passive observers. Electrodes inserted within your brain could switch your belief on or off! 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike0001 (talk • contribs)

Then kindly refrain from inserting said electrodes. Now, back to the issue at hand: the article. I see that you are right back into it again per your comment at the RfC below with loaded words that are either designed to incite negative responses or the most massive miscalculation of a diplomatic invitation to a discussion I've seen in a while. Neither of these possibilities has you coming across very well... but it suggests (to me, anyway) that you haven't learned much from your previous block, and that is unfortunate. I really don't believe you are going to get consensus for the kinds of changes you wish to make, so I would suggest you take a step back, look at the way Wikipedia actually operates, and then make some informed computational decisions based upon that. For the record, in case you're interested, one of my areas of research is artificial intelligence and neural networks, so I know more than enough to recognize your last comment re: consciousness and observation as a load of... misfired synapses. Not everyone is so easily bamboozlable as all that. ◄Zahakiel► 09:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the electrodes is to point out that the brain activity governs what we think. Making a cheap point gets us nowhere.

Since you are being combative and using words like bamboozlable may I question your imputation that I do not know what I am talking about? I was studying AI probably before you were born! If you understand the subject then you know that the behaviour of the net is governed by (a) its structure and (b) what it learns. The scientific approach is to regard religion as a possible meme, possibly acquired in the infancy of mankind, and probably past its usefulness to mankind. (It has virtually died out in the UK and Western Europe but is frozen by a state of fear in Islam!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike0001 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

in order to be consistent, i trust that you will add this same needless commentary to articles such as, say, I Believe I Can Fly, so that poor chilluns won't be hurt by believing that they can fly. it's very important work for society, so please do add "there is no scientific evidence that people can fly" to that article too. and of course, be sure to add important caveats to Hamlet, advising people that the story is a work of fiction, thus when Hamlet addresses the skull of Yorick, he's not really talking to a dead person, because of course you can't talk to dead people. this encyclopedia will be so much more useful if you add these important caveats all over the place. yes, yes, i realize i'm being uncivil. there's only so many times one can hear fatuous comments like these and not respond. if we were to follow mike001's methods, most children should be institutionalized as psychotics, because most children believe in the palpably not real, such as the tooth fairy, moomins, babaar, etc. Anastrophe (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... it's just a continuing Soapbox, and I don't see it clearing up any time soon. ◄Zahakiel► 09:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points, but most childish beliefs we grow out of. And nobody believes Hamlet really happened! As for I believe I can fly, I agree it deserves this treatment. I can't believe you are making these comparisons to your article!

Read! and this! Mike0001 (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming increasingly fragmented, combative, and apparently pointless. Could we refocus, please? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is more than enough discussion here for a section on the investigation of the way angels impinge on the natural world and the likelihood of said possibility. Mike0001 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

it appears that it is going to be a continuing pattern of behavor, as evidenced by your recent creation of the [apparently now deleted] "Quackery" category, defined (in the WP article on quackery itself) as a derrogatory term applied to religious beliefs. Zahakiel, can you at least explain where this comes from? Mike0001 (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC on the scientific evidence for existence of angels

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are there any scientific reasons why angels can/cannot exist? Would an adult seeing the Archangel Gibreel be seen now as a psychosis? Mike0001 (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Angels are explicitly supernatural beings. Science is the study of the natural world, and includes methodological naturalism as one of its precepts. One would therefore not expect to find "scientific evidence for existence of angels" -- this question is a bit like asking "how much red is there in this black and white picture?" It is quite simply an irrational question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why have Templeton funded Oxford to the tune of $4m to study religious belief? (Oh, and the white in your picture certainly contains red, by the way!)

Because "religious belief" is not supernatural -- as can be seen from churches, Muslims praying toward Meccca, and all manner of other observable, natural, phenomena. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The category mistake you make is that supernatural is of changing definition. Once, earthquakes and floods were described as supernatural, but nobody would so classify them now. Once supernatural impinges on the natural world, say by angels appearing in it, supernatural becomes natural and subject to scientific investigation.

No. Earthquakes, floods and lightning are, and have always been, natural phenomena. That once, in pre-scientific times, their cause was believed to be supernatural is neither here nor there. Science no more studies Zeus-who-throws-lightning-bolts than it studies angels. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The second point to make is that there is now good scientific evidence that all of our behaviour and beliefs are governed by the workings of our brains, which would bring religious belief, and belief in angels in particular, firmly into the natural world. We can study the effects of artificial stimulation of parts of the brain on consciousness, thus understanding how ordinary brain patterns would affect consciousness.

This point is decidedly off-topic, and most probably WP:OR as, as far as I know, no WP:RS discuss angels and science in the same breath. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thus the irrationality of the question seems far from obvious. One cannot argue that angels lie completely outside our world, as in that case they would be an irrational belief, subject to challenge like any other irrational belief. On the other hand, if angels do impinge on our world, they become a natural phenomenon just like any other. Mike0001 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is most emphatically irrational -- asking for scientific evidence of something that is explicitly outside of science's remit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact it rather demands the question of "what the hell would 'scientific evidence of angels' look like?" Angels are supposed to be spiritual beings, so you most likely would not turn up the corpse of one, or even capture one. Photographs can be faked (even assuming that it is possible to photograph a 'spiritual being'). The list of caveats is endless, and the topic idiotic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is most emphatically irrational -- asking for scientific evidence of something that is explicitly outside of science's remit. As I have demonstrated above, investigation of angels becomes possible the moment they impinge upon the scientific world, as in several cases they appear to in religion, eg, in the nativity story, in the revelations to Muhammad. At that point, one asks the usual scientific questions about relevance and verifiability of witness statements, and then one considers all the evidence against such things having happened, and reaches a conclusion. A NPOV would do that, but this article is not written from a NPOV.

The other thing you have again ignored is that there is a scientific view that belief in angelic happenings is an epiphenomenon of brain activity. Again, this possibility is not even entertained by the article. Mike0001 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Angels no more "impinge upon the scientific world" than "Zeus-who-throws-lightning-bolts" does -- both are merely mentioned in ancient texts and stories. A hallucination (or other such "epiphenomenon of brain activity") of an angel no more makes angels a topic of scientific investigation than a hallucination of a pink elephant would make pink elephants a topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The RfC should be rephrased. The question posed is:

Are there any scientific reasons why angels can/cannot exist? Would an adult seeing the Archangel Gibreel be seen now as a psychosis?

I propose, however, that the question you should be asking is instead

Are there any reliable sources (i.e., scientific papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals) which present scientific evidence on the existence or lack of existence of angels?

There may or may not be. If you can present some sources, then maybe this RfC could move foreward. Until then, the question is basically asking other editors to do the research for you. If its something you find interesting and worth researching, then go ahead and do it. Then there can be a more meaningful RfC. Otherwise, without having any sources present, there is really nothing to talk about. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the comment above regarding staying on the topic of the article, it is NOT a common scientific view that the belief in angels (which is not even about angels themselves) is an aberration in brain activity. A large amount of sources would be necessary to demonstrate that this has a wide base of acceptance, and the paltry sources proposed so far by this single user doesn't even begin to cut it. Hrafn is absolutely right that this is an irrational (and further degenerating) issue being pushed in violation of WP:SOAP. This is a minority view that has no place in the article, see WP:FRINGE, particularly as it identifies ideas "which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus." The inclusions that Mike0001 wish to make to the angel article have neither the consensus of the scientific community nor the Wikipedia community and in the absence of considerable sources demonstrating otherwise, as Silly rabbit states just above, that's all there is to it. ◄Zahakiel► 16:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:PROVEIT applies here, supporting the above editors' comments: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you want discussion of scientific evidence for/against angels, you must first present verifiable evidence from reliable sources. Until then, it's all just WP:OR & WP:SOAP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is another rule, which says Wikipedia:Ignore all rules! ALL scientific evidence is against supernatural occurrences. Do you want me to quote the lot??? Mike0001 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, and I hate to keep bringing this up, but the reminder seems necessary, you need consensus to even attempt to invoke WP:IAR; this keeps nonsense out of the articles. Your statement is also absolutely false; there is no "evidence against supernatural occurences," there is simply no evidence that some/many (choose your poison) scientists accept in favor of it. This is a logical error on your part; a lack of accepted evidence for something is not evidence "against" it. You will always find one or two outliers that say, "Yes, we have evidence that the supernatural is not true," but that isn't going to give you any base of support here. ◄Zahakiel► 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, we conduct our lives daily in the sure and certain knowledge, based on much experience, that an angel isn't suddenly going to pop up and zap us! Just one reliable outlier will kill a scientific theory, agreed, but billions of bits of data will question the reliability of one outlier! (Or two.) We live by statistics, not superstition! Mike0001 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Proof by experience, Mike? Come on, now... And this isn't at all addressing what I said about the policies regarding article content. I'm not going to get into philosophy with you, and it appears the content issue is reaching something of an impasse; you believe the content should read a certain way, every other editor who's commented on your RfC seems to believe differently. ◄Zahakiel► 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it needed a bit of clarification. There is overwhelming evidence, for instance, that the law of gravity holds universally. Thus, this is evidence against someone suddenly rising into heaven. That is the sort of evidence I meant. Mike0001 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Got stuck in an edit conflict there! None of the comments has addressed lack of NPOV. Mike0001 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they did... please read WP:FRINGE, if you didn't the first time I mentioned it. ◄Zahakiel► 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never saw science described as a fringe theory before, but you may be right! LoL Mike0001 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have deliberately mischaracterized my statement. I am not going to continue this discussion further, it's not conducive to article improvement. ◄Zahakiel► 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to get silly. As far as I can see there is a consensus that:

• Nobody knows of any WP:RS relating angels and science.
• There is no expectation that such sources will be found.
• Lacking such sources, it would be inappropriate WP:OR to try to introduce the topic into the article.
• Further discussion on this issue would be mere WP:SOAP.

I know Mike disagrees with most/all of the above, but does anybody else disagree? If not, we can probably close this RfC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement with any of those on my part. ◄Zahakiel► 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement from me. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement here. Anastrophe (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement. Many thanks to Hrafn and Silly rabbit for this rephrasing. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. — Scientizzle 06:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't these things remain open for a month? I suppose the good thing is that barely half a dozen people actually read this article, so whatever it says is not going to have any impact! Mike0001 (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, on the RfC administration side, "Discussions will be removed after one month, or if they have no recent comments", but there is no restriction against closing the RfC if a clear consensus on the point under discussion is arrived at sooner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, disagree! So there is no consensus. Mike0001 (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unanimity isn't required for a consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it more succinctly: 6 editors + WP:NOR beats 1 editor + WP:IAR every time. You haven't got a leg to stand on, and your continuing to flog this extremely dead horse looks more and more like disruptive editing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categories

This notice is on the 'Category:Religion' page:

"This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large.

It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories. Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories when appropriate." [Bold in original]Editor2020 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that while it is true that categories and the articles they contain should be carefully managed, the above editor is proposing to remove the Religion category from the article on Angels because it is a sub-category of a sub-category. I do not believe this is at all reasonable, since Wikiproject:Religion is one of the supporting projects of this article and for ease of reference (if nothing else) the "Angel" article belongs in the immediate list of entries associated with that over-arching theme. It is true, again, that we have to be careful to avoid having any and every article that is under an umbrella term from making an unreadable list in the category's main page, but that is decidedly not the case when discussing Angels from a religious point of view. This is not, in my opinion, one of the cases in which it is "appropriate" to relegate a major article on a religious theme to a sub-sub-category. ◄Zahakiel► 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

Tanakh (Hebrew Bible): Template -- this entire section is WP:SYNTH of a primary source (i.e. the Bible))

Please explain?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It contains ubiquitous interpretation of a primary source, the Bible. Per WP:PSTS such interpretation requires a reliable secondary source. (Both WP:SYNTH & WP:PSTS are part of WP:OR.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the section is mostly, and may I say copiously, providing reference to occurrences in the primary source of the "angel events" if I may use that very OR term. I'll have a read again and see what I can do in supplying secondary and tertiary references although the use of primary sources is here necessary to establish the article, i.e. point of reference.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me offer an example from the very first sentence of this section -- nowhere in the Bible does it state that "The Biblical name for angel, מלאך ("mal'ach"), obtained the further signification of "angel" only through the addition of God's name" -- this is clearly an "interpretation" of the Bible, and equally clearly is WP:SYNTH of the Bible, without a secondary source to make that interpretation for us. The rest of the section continues this pattern throughout. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I had done some editing here, but have not read the article in its entirety. Given what I found in other "articles" on angels, this section can be described as solid truth ;o)

Still, I take your point, and I will have a look (though not today) because I'm sure it does not need to be discarded wholesale as the proverbial "baby"

I am curious how it got rated B--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean -- the Zoroastrian articles on angels are a complete shambles. But I do not think that a section that seems to cite two Bible verses per sentence on average, but no other sources is much of an improvement -- for one thing it makes it visually ugly & difficult to read. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that given the verses are references to original manuscripts they need only be cited in brackets and not as actual references for the reflist. However in other articles I have used them as such when too many require citation in a single small paragraph for the sake of not over-populating the content.

I have to say that my interest in angels is primarily from my interest in Kabbalah, so I may not be able to do much on the articles outside this scope unless I can find online sources to cite. The other problem is time....something I'm sure we have in common. Still, given the fascination with the subject in the general population (just a thought, is the tooth fairy an angel?!), it ought to be brought to some standard of adequacy, maybe B? ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per above discussion (and continued failure to materialise of any secondary sources), I've cut this whole section from the article & pasting it. If you want any of it back in the article then find reliable secondary sources for it, to replace the ubiquitous and impermissible WP:SYNTH of the Bible.

Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)

Jacob Wrestling with the Angel. Gustave Doré, 1855

The Biblical name for angel, מלאך ("mal'ach"), obtained the further signification of "angel" only through the addition of God's name, as "angel of the Lord," or "angel of God" (Zechariah 12:8). Other appellations are "sons of God", (Genesis 6:4; Job 1:6 [R. V. v. 1]) and "the holy ones" (Psalm 89:6–8). Mal'ach can mean any sort of messenger, even a king's emissary. (Genesis 32:4)

According to Jewish interpretation, 'Elohim is only sometimes reserved for the one true God; but at times 'Elohim (powers), bnēi 'Elohim, bnēi Elim (sons of gods) were general terms for beings with great power (e.g. judges). See also: Names of God in Judaism

Angels are referred to as "holy ones" Zechariah 14:5 and "watchers" Daniel 4:13. They are spoken of as the "host of heaven" Deuteronomy 17:3 or of "Adonai" Joshua 5:14.

According to historical scholars, in early Hebrew thought, God appears and speaks directly to individuals (Genesis 3:8, Exodus 12:1). He also intervenes in human affairs, often acting punitively and violently (Genesis 22ff.; Exodus 4:24, 14:4; 2 Samuel 24:1: Psalm 78:31ff.) God's nature reflects the mores of nomadic people. Under the influence of Zoroastrianism and by postexilic prophets and writers, these earlier conceptions were revised to reflect a new theodicy which explained evil without directly implicating God. As the result, God became both more distant and more merciful. Angels and demons replaced him in his encounters with men, and Satan assumed his destructive powers (cf. 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1).

Prior to the emergence of monotheism in Israel the idea of an angel was the Malach Adonai, Angel of the Lord, or Malach Elohim, Angel of God. The Malach Adonai is an appearance or manifestation of God in the form of a man, and the term Malach Adonai is used interchangeably with Adonai (God). (cf. Exodus 3:2, with 3:4; Exodus 13:21 with Exodus 14:19). Those who see the Malach Adonai say they have seen God (Genesis 32:30; Judges 13:22). The Malach Adonai (or Elohim) appears to Abraham, Hagar, Moses, Gideon, etc., and leads the Israelites in the Pillar of Cloud (Exodus 3:2). The phrase Malach Adonai may have been originally a courtly circumlocution for the Divine King; but it readily became a means of avoiding anthropomorphism, and later on, when angels were classified, the Malach Adonai meant an angel of distinguished rank. The identification of the Malach Adonai with the Logos, (said by Christians to be the Second Person of the Trinity), is not indicated by the references in the Hebrew scriptures; but the idea of a Being partly identified with God, and yet in some sense distinct from him, illustrates a tendency of Jewish religious thought to distinguish persons within the unity of the deity. Whilst some Christians say that this foreshadows the doctrine of the Trinity, Kabbalist Jews would show how it developed into kabbalistic theological thought and imagery.

Once the doctrine of monotheism was formally expressed, in the period immediately before and during the Exile (Deuteronomy 6:4–5 and Isaiah 43:10), we find angels prominent in the Book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel, as a prophet of the Exile, may have been influenced by the hierarchy of supernatural beings in the Babylonian religion, and perhaps even by the angelology of Zoroastrianism (it is not, however, certain that these doctrines of Zoroastrianism were developed at so early a date). Ezekiel 9 gives elaborate descriptions of cherubim (a class, or type of angels); and in one of his visions, he sees seven angels execute the judgment of God upon Jerusalem. As in Genesis, they are styled "men"; malach, for "angel", does not occur in Ezekiel. Somewhat later, in the visions of Zechariah, angels play a great part; they are sometimes spoken of as "men", sometimes as malach, and the Malach Adonai seems to hold a certain primacy among them Zechariah 1:11. The Satan also appears to prosecute (so to speak) the High Priest before the divine tribunal (Zechariah 3:1). Similarly in the Book of Job the bnei Elohim, sons of God, appear, and amongst them, Satan (Hebrew ha-satan), again in the role of public prosecutor, the defendant being Job (Job 1, 2. Cf. 1 Chronicles 21:1). Occasional references to "angels" occur in the Psalter (Psalms 91:11, 103:20 etc.); they appear as ministers of God.

Psalm 78:49 speaks of "evil angels" (Authorized Version) or "angels of evil" (Judaica Press). "Evil" here is not meant in the moral sense, but in the sense of opposition.

The seven angels of Ezekiel may be compared with the seven eyes of God in Zechariah 3:9, 4:10. The latter have been connected by Ewald and others with the later doctrine of seven chief angels (Tobit 12:15; Revelation 8:2), parallel to and influenced by the Ameshaspentas (Amesha Spenta), or seven great spirits of the Persian mythology.

During the Persian and Greek periods, the doctrine of angels underwent a great development, partly, at any rate, under foreign influences. In Daniel, c. [160 BC], 71 angels, usually spoken of as "men" or "Angel-princes", appear as guardians or champions of the individual nations, defending them as God sits in council with them over the world; grades are implied, there are "princes" and "chief" or "great princes"; and the names of some angels are known, Gabriel, Michael; the latter is pre-eminent (Daniel 8:16; Daniel 10:13, 20–21), he is the guardian of Israel's leading Kingdom of Judah. Again in Tobit a leading part is played by Raphael, "one of the seven holy angels" (Tobit 12:15).

In Tobit, too, we find the idea of the demon or evil angel, although one should note that the Book of Tobit is not accepted into Jewish or Protestant canon. In the canonical Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures, angels may inflict suffering as ministers of God; but they act as subordinates to God, and not as independent, morally evil agents. The statement (Job 4:18) that God "charged his angels with folly" applies to all angels. In Daniel, the princes, or guardian angels, of the heathen nations oppose Michael, the guardian angel of Judah. But in Tobit, we find Asmodeus the evil demon, τὸ πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον, who strangles Sarah's husbands, and also a general reference to "a devil or evil spirit", πνεῦμα (Tobit 3:8, 17; 6:7).

The Fall of the Angels is not properly a scriptural doctrine, though it is based on Genesis 6:2, as interpreted by the Book of Enoch, although there is no evidence that the bnē Elohim of that chapter are angels or superhuman beings, the only such assumption being made on the use of the Hebrew 'Elohim' .

Appearance

Gothic revival angel in a cemetery in Metairie, Louisiana.

In the Hebrew Bible, angels often appear to people in the shape of humans of extraordinary beauty, and often are not immediately recognized as angels (Genesis 18:2, Genesis 19:5; Judges 6:17, Judges 8:6; 2 Samuel 29:9). Some fly through the air, some become invisible, sacrifices touched by some are consumed by fire, and some may disappear in sacrificial fire. God, "the Angel of the Lord" appeared in the flames of the thorn bush (Genesis 16:13; Judges 6:21–22; 2 Kings 2:11; Exodus 3:2). They are described as pure and bright as Heaven; consequently, they are said to be formed of fire, and encompassed by light, as the Psalmist said (Psalm 104:4): "He makes winds His messengers, burning fire His ministers." Some verses in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical works depict angels wearing blue or red robes but no such reference occurs in the Protestant books.

Though superhuman, angels can be perceived in human form; this is the earliest conception. Gradually, and especially in post-Biblical times, angels came to be imagined in a form corresponding to the nature of the mission to be fulfilled—generally, however, the human form. Angels have commonly been depicted as human who, as the same nature of typical angels, have "wings" and can fly. Angels can be depicted bearing drawn swords or other weapons in their hands—one carries an ink-horn by his side—and ride on horses (Numbers 22:23, Joshua 5:13, Ezekiel 9;2, Zechariah 1:8 et seq.). A terrible angel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 21:16,30, as standing "between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand". In the Book of Daniel, reference is made to an angel "clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude" (Daniel 10:5–6). This imagery is very similar to a description in the book of Revelation. Angels are thought by many to possess wings. This has arisen from references to their ability to fly (Daniel 9:21). Both cherubim and seraphim are depicted with wings in the Bible, and they are both traditionally associated within both the Jewish and Christian hierarchy of angels. They are commonly depicted with halos.

Detail of angel from nativity windows at Trinity Church, Boston, designed by Edward Burne-Jones and executed by William Morris, 1882

In Christian iconography, the use of wings is a convention used to denote the figure as a spirit. Depictions of angels in Christian art as winged human forms, unlike classical pagan depictions of the major deities, follow the iconic conventions of lesser winged gods, such as Eos, Eros, Thanatos and Nike.

Angels are portrayed as powerful and dreadful, endowed with wisdom and with knowledge of all earthly events, correct in their judgment, holy, but not infallible: they strive against each other, and God has to make peace between them. When their duties are not punitive, angels are beneficent to man (Psalms 103:20, 78:25; 2 Samuel 14:17,20, 19:28; Zechariah 14:5; Job 4:18, 25:2).

The number of angels is enormous. Jacob meets a host of angels; Joshua sees the "captain of the host of the Lord"; God sits on His throne, "all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on his left"; the sons of God come "to present themselves before the Lord" (Genesis 32:2; Joshua 5:14–15; 1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:6, 2:1; Psalm 89:6; Job 33:23). The general conception is the one of Job 25:3: "Is there any number of his armies?" In the Book of Revelation, the number is "a thousand thousands, and many tens of thousands".

Though the older writings usually mention one angel of the Lord, embassies to men as a rule comprised several messengers. The inference, however, is not to be drawn that God Himself or one particular angel was designated: the expression was given simply to God's power to accomplish through but one angel any deed, however wonderful.

Angels are referred to in connection with their special missions as, for instance, the "angel which hath redeemed" (Genesis 48:16); "an interpreter" (Job 33:23);"the angel that destroyed" (2 Samuel 24:16); "messenger of the covenant" (Malachi 3:1); "angel of his presence" (Isaiah 43:9); and "a band of angels of evil" (Psalm 78:49).

When, however, the heavenly host is regarded in its most comprehensive aspect, a distinction may be made between cherubim, seraphim, chayot ("living creatures"), Ofanim ("wheels"), and Arelim (another name for Thrones). God is described as riding on the cherubim and as "the Lord of hosts, who dwelleth between the cherubim"; while the latter guard the way of the Tree of Life (HE, Psalm 80:2, Genesis 3:24). The seraphim are described by Isaiah 6:2) as having six wings; and Ezekiel describes the ḥayyot (Ezekiel 1:5 et seq.) and ofanim as heavenly beings who carry God's throne.

In post-Biblical times, the heavenly hosts became more highly organized (possibly as early as Zecharaiah 3:9, 4:10; certainly in Daniel), and there came to be various kinds of angels; some even being provided with names, as will be shown below.

Purpose

In the Bible, angels are a medium of God's power; they exist to execute God's will. Angels reveal themselves to individuals as well as to the whole nation, to announce events, either bad or good, affecting humans. Angels foretold to Abraham the birth of Isaac, to Manoah the birth of Samson, and to Abraham the destruction of Sodom. Guardian angels were mentioned, but not, as was later the case, as guardian spirits of individuals and nations. God sent an angel to protect the Hebrew people after their exodus from Egypt, to lead them to the promised land, and to destroy the hostile tribes in their way (Exodus 23:20, Numbers 20:16).

In Judges 2:1 an angel of the Lord—unless here and in the preceding instances (compare Isaiah 42:19, Hagai 1:13, Malachi 3:1), a human messenger of God is meant—addressed the whole people, swearing to bring them to the promised land. An angel brought Elijah meat and drink (1 Kings 19:5); and as God watched over Jacob, so is a pious person protected by an angel, who cares for him in all his ways (Psalm 34:7, HE). There are militant angels, one of whom smites in one night the whole Assyrian army of 185,000 men (2 Kings 19:35); messengers go forth from God "in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid" (Ezekiel 30:9; the enemy is scattered before the angel like chaff (Psalm 35:5–6).

A Christian putto; angel from the Melbourne General Cemetery

Avenging angels are mentioned, such as the one in 2 Samuel 24:15, who annihilates thousands. It would seem that the pestilence was personified, and that the "evil angels" mentioned in Psalm 78:49 are to be regarded as personifications of this kind. "Evil" is here to be taken in the causative sense, as "producing evil"; for, as stated above, angels are generally considered to be by nature beneficent to man. They glorify God, whence the term "glorifying angels" comes (Psalms 29:1, 103:20, 148:2; compare Isaiah 6:2 et seq.).

They constitute God's heavenly court, sitting in council with him (1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:6, 2:1); hence they are called His "council of the holy ones" (Psalm 89:7, R.V.; A.V.: "assembly of the saints"). They accompany God as his attendants, when he appears to man (Deuteronomy 33:2; Job 38:7). This conception was developed after the Exile; and in the Book of Zechariah, angels of various shapes are delegated "to walk to and fro through the earth" in order to find out and report what happens (Zechariah 6:7).

In the prophetic books, angels appear as representatives of the prophetic spirit, and bring to the prophets God's word. Thus the prophet Haggai was called God's messenger (angel); and it is known that "Malachi" is not a real name, but means "messenger" or "angel". In 1 Kings 13:18, an angel brought the divine word to the prophet.

In some places, it is implied that angels existed before the physical creation (Genesis 1:26; Job 38:7). The earlier Biblical writings did not speculate about them; simply regarding them, in their relations to man, as God's agents. Consequently, they did not individualize or denominate them; and in Judges 13:18, and Genesis 32:29, the angels, when questioned, refuse to give their names. In Daniel, however, there occur the names Michael and Gabriel. Michael is Israel's representative in Heaven, where other nations—the Persians, for instance—were also represented by angelic princes. More than three hundred years before the Book of Daniel was written, Zechariah graded the angels according to their rank, but did not name them. The notion of the seven eyes (Zechariah 3:45, 4:10) may have been affected by the representation of the seven archangels and also possibly by the seven Amesha Spenta of Zoroastrianism (compare Ezekiel 9:2).

[end of WP:SYNTH cut from article Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC) ]

Well and good, but it would be nice to have those pictures back in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this -- as long as they don't go into sections that already have plenty, or ones where they're inappropriate (Christian images in non-Christian sections). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. In the meantime, I have copied the text that was removed to my sandbox page, and will source/copy-edit it from there pending reintroduction, possibly instages. If anyone would like to help me source the material (because it's all very easily sourcable, or rewordable to sourceable material, it's just a matter of my finding the time to do so) feel free. The link is here. ◄Zahakiel► 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

The "Etymology" section should be primarily focused on a discussion of the English word "angel" (the topic of this article). If there is going to be an etymological discussion of words related to "angel" or of non-English words meaning "angel," may I suggest that those secondary discussions be placed in a subsection(s) of this section? I will rewrite this section after any comments here. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The English word angel is argued to be derived from the Greek, but no-one has actually identified its origin. Considering that the Greek written records only date from the Iliad, and that there was a certain interaction between Semitic speakers and the Ancient Hellenic populations in a core-periphery relationship, as can be deduced from the very use of Semitic alphabet for as long as seven centuries, I would suggest that there was a significant degree of borrowing from the Semitic vocabularies by the Ancient Greeks. However, this is taboo subject, and IF I was to even suggest this in academic literature I would be attacked because this contradicts the basic premise on which much of IET is based in the first place. For lack of third, or even secondary sources, it would be considered OR.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, but I've reverted your changes to that section. What is uncertain (according to the dictionary you quoted) is only how the word originally came into Greek. How the word got from Greek into Latin and from there into the modern European languages is entirely transparent and not contested at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology is not concerned with logistics, but with meaning--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I suggest you leave the discussion of etymology to people who actually know about it. From our earlier encounters, I severely doubt if you are qualified to judge what etymology is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't know when the word entered the Latin language from Greek, or from what source (other then the obvious), and we know the the form and meaning have not changed significantly over time (contrary to expected), so exactly what is the point of talking about it? The earliest I can trace the usage in Latin is from Vulgate (Luke), so there is a nearly 1,000 year break in transmission form Iliad. This suggests a very late borrowing, probably during translation of the Septuagint to Vulgate. Romans didn't have angels, so why would they need the word.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh again? Your point being what? Of course your guess is correct, the word (basically, with apparently some marginal earlier exceptions, speaking of some kind of pagan demons) entered Latin through early Christianity. So what? What's your point about the form and meaning not having changed? What "break in transmission"? (Do you think there is no documentation of its use in classical Greek between the Iliad and the bible?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you derision, but I would appreciate if you have any sources that place usage of the Greek word in the Latin vocabulary before Christian era (outside of the Septuagint)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I might take the trouble, if I understood why that would be relevant? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently the impression in the article is that the word is derived from Ancient Greek, to Ancient Latin, to Romance languages.

The reality is that the transmission was precipitated by the translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Septuagint (3rd–1st centuries BCE) by Jewish translators, then into Old Latin versions (2nd/3rd centuries CE), then into Vulgate sometime in the 4th century, and finally into Old English English (7th/8th century CE). The entire transition was therefore, as I see it, had a translation from Hebrew as a catalyst, and once the translation was made, and copied, no significant change took place in the word form or use.

The Greek word is in fact attested in the Odyssey (I was told) so several centuries of Greek paganism went by, and then their conquest by Rome, with no borrowing into Latin, until the word was chosen by Jewish translators. However, in the Jewish version there are many different words for spiritual beings, so why use that one? As I see it the Greek language lacked the angelology in the first place, and the word picked was the only one suitable. Its the "how many words for snow do Eskimos have" issue.

Now, even the Wikipedia one of the epithets for Hermes, the messenger is Diaktoros which doesn't sound very much like anggelos, so it leaves one wondering what the word angel really means--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So what? Yes, of course, the translation from Hebrew was the principle cause that άγγελος got its specialised religious meaning in Greek and was then borrowed on into the other languages in that meaning. It had previously meant simply "messenger" in a literal sense in classical Greek. (As, I understand, mal'akh can also do in Hebrew.) All that doesn't change the fact that the etymology OE encgel < Lat angelus < Gk άγγελος is beyond doubt correct. It also has absolutely nothing to do with your previous apparent idea that the uncertain ultimate (pre-Greek) etymology somehow detracts from the certainty of the OE < Lat < Gk part of it (which was the only thing I corrected in the article). Where's the problem? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you object if I incorporated "the transmission was precipitated by the translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Septuagint (3rd–1st centuries BCE) by Jewish translators, then into Old Latin versions (2nd/3rd centuries CE), then into Vulgate sometime in the 4th century, and finally into Old English English (7th/8th century CE)." into the etymology section?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The two of you are vastly more erudite than I. I was simply proposing something along the lines of:

(Use current heading - Etymology)

The word "angel" in English (from Old English engel), French (from Old French angele), in turn derived from the Latin angelus, itself derived from Koine Greek: άγγελος, angelos, "messenger" (pl. άγγελοι). The ultimate etymology of that word in Greek is uncertain.

(New sub-heading - Non-English languages)

In German, Spanish, and many other Romance languages the etymology follows a similar path: from Latin, and in turn derived from Greek.

In Hebrew the primary term for the word angel is Malakh, but others are used. Another word used is Hebrew כרוב kruv described as young children, from which the English word cherub is derived. Yet, another word for angels in Hebrew is Gil-Gulim, meaning revolving, because they are depicted as wheels with wings, and this is derived in meaning from Gal-Gal, "the rotation of fortune, change" , as in Hebrew ani-gal, (Eng. I have changed)."

The following paragraphs currently in the Etymology section would have to find a home in a different section or be deleted:

Angelology (from Greek: άγγελος, angelos, "messenger"; and λόγος, logos, "study") is a branch of theology that deals with a hierarchical system of angels, messengers, celestial powers or emanations, and the study of these systems. It primarily relates to Kabbalistic Judaism and Christianity, where it is one of the ten major branches of theology.

Some secular scholars believe that Judeo-Christianity owes a great debt to Zoroastrianism in regards to the introduction of angelology and demonology, as well as the fallen angel Satan as the ultimate agent of evil, comparing him to the evil spirit Ahriman. As the Iranian Avestan and Vedic traditions and also other branches of Indo-European mythologies show, the notion of demons had existed long before.

If the two of you (or others) want to elaborate on the text in more detail, feel free. For example, is the Old English based on the Old French? That seems unclear in the current version.

My main concerns are structural - (1) separating English from non-English etymology, and (2) removing non-etymological material from this section. Reactions please. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the structure of the etymology section as it is (based on chronology), although on reflection I can agree that Angelology is largely about itself rather then etymology, and can be moved elsewhere.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, let's start by moving the Angelology material out first, and then continue the discussion in a bit about the rest of the Etymology section. I'll put that Angelology material here on the Talk page, and let's see where would be a good place to put it. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Angelology material

The following material is being placed here for further discussion:

"Angelology (from Greek: άγγελος, ''angelos'', "messenger"; and λόγος, ''[[logos]]'', "study") is a branch of [[theology]] that deals with a hierarchical system of angels, messengers, celestial powers or emanations, and the study of these systems. It primarily relates to [[Kabbalah|Kabbalistic]] [[Judaism]]<ref>p.168, Kaplan, Aryeh, Safer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation,</ref> and [[Christianity]],<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/am-ani.htm | title = Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary | publisher = Theosophical University Press | accessdate = 2006-03-17}}</ref> where it is one of the ten major branches of theology.<ref>{{cite web | title = Angelology The Doctrine of Angels | url = http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=712 | author = J. Hampton Keathley, III, Th. M. | accessdate = 2006-03-17}}</ref>

"Some secular scholars{{Fact|date=April 2008}} believe that [[Judeo-Christianity]] owes a great debt to [[Zoroastrianism]] in regards to the introduction of angelology and [[demonology]], as well as the fallen angel [[Satan]] as the ultimate agent of evil, comparing him to the evil spirit [[Ahriman]]. As the [[Iran]]ian [[Avestan]] and [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic]] traditions and also other branches of [[Indo-European religion|Indo-European mythologies]] show, the notion of demons had existed long before.<ref name="The Encyclopedia of Religion">, volume 1, page 283. , New York (1986) ISBN 0-02-909700-2 (retrieved [[18 Feb.]] 2007)</ref> <ref>[http://www.religion-encyclopedia.com/A/angels_in_christianity.htm "Angels in Christianity,"] at the [http://www.religion-encyclopedia.com/ Internet Encyclopedia of Religion]</ref>"

Where would be the right place for the above? GiveItSomeThought (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity importance

This article currently has an importance rating of None—but it would seem that it should be higher. Could someone rate it? I'd do it myself, but I think it's better left to someone who maintains this article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

These ratings are generally given by members of the project, as it is rating the article's importance to that project, rather than article-editors generally. If you are a member of WikiProject Christianity, you are qualified to give it a rating. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The current introduction does not appear to meet the standards of WP:LEAD. That WP policy states:

The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

The following earlier version had consensus support to begin the lead:

"An angel is a supernatural being found in many religions. In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they typically act as messengers from God."

I understand that there is a controversy about the origin of the concept of an angel, and which religious tradition can claim to be the oldest source of that concept - however, that controversy should not dominate the introduction (nor should it be the first and only sentence in the lead).

I am proposing that the current lead section be replaced by the prior consensus, and that we build from there in a balanced way to develop a "short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." GiveItSomeThought (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- particularly as the current is chock full of unsubstantiated chronological claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Further proposal

OK, first change made. Expanding a little bit (to turn this into a paragraph or two), how about continuing with the following:

"An angel is a supernatural being found in many religions. Although the nature of angels and the tasks given to them vary from tradition to tradition, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they typically act as messengers from God. Other roles in religious traditions include acting as warrior or guard; in modern Western culture, the concept of "guardian angel" is a popular concept. In most religious traditions, angels are viewed as emanations of a supreme divine being, sent to do the tasks of the divine being. Traditions vary as to whether angels have free will or are restricted in their actions. While the appearance of angels also varies, many views of angels give them a human shape."

Further paragraphs will address other topics in this article. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick copy-edit:

An angel is a supernatural being found in many religions. Although the nature of angels and the tasks given to them vary from tradition to tradition, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they typically act as messengers from God. Other roles in religious traditions include acting as warrior or guard; in modern Western culture, the concept of a "guardian angel" is a popular concept in modern Western culture. In most religious traditions, angels are viewed as emanations of a supreme divine being, sent to do the tasks of the divinethat being. Traditions vary as to whether angels have free will or are restricted in their actions. While the appearance of angels also varies, many views of angels give them a human shape.

[Replacement text underlined] Also "restricted in their actions" is rather vague in the context. I would suggest replacement with "mere extensions of the supreme being's will" or similar.

I like the proposed changes. How about the following:

An angel is a supernatural being found in many religions. Although the nature of angels and the tasks given to them vary from tradition to tradition, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they typically act as messengers from God. Other roles in religious traditions include acting as warrior or guard; the concept of a "guardian angel" is popular in modern Western culture. Angels are usually viewed as emanations of a supreme divine being, sent to do the tasks of that being. Traditions vary as to whether angels have free will or are merely extensions of the supreme being's will. While the appearance of angels also varies, many views of angels give them a human shape.

GiveItSomeThought (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)