Talk:Angels in Christianity/Archive 1

Zoroastrianism
A mention of Zoroastrianism is in order here, even if only to deny that such elaborations, so utterly unlike anything outside apocalyptic literature, are Persian in inspiration.Wetman 17:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Everyone needs to understand that these are archangels, not arch-angels. The archangels (one word) were in the lower sphere, while the arch-angels (hyphenated) stood as gods right-hand-men and served outside of the 9 choirs. Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer (the ark-angel, another commonly misused term) stood as Arch-Angels, which caused the confusion over the aforementioned angels' position.

Style
This article seems to use : as a way of including references to actual biblical text. I'm not familiar with much of the Wikipedia that discusses the Bible or Christian theology; however, this seems like non-standard practice. I know I was confused for a while looking at it. My first thought was that it was a block quote or, perhaps, a reference cited above. I would suggest making the text full sized, and incorporating it into the article's prose. It seems like the content included in these comments is pertinant to the understanding of the topic, to me, at least. Since they all pull from the Gospel of Paul (Book of Paul? ...well, from Paul, anyway), perhaps they should be grouped together under "Evidence from the Gospel of Paul" or some such heading? — vijay (Talk) 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hierarchy
An illustrated, french language Wikisource document lists the Domiations and Principales in different orders: Is this source incorrect? (see end of first paragraph) – dogears (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC) "The angels are divided into nine choruses and three orders: the first order includes the Thrones, Chérubins, the Seraphes; the second: Dominations, Virtues, Powers; the third: Principalities, Archangels, Angels."

—French Dictionary of Architecture (1856) by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc]]

Merges
I have merged the angelic choir page into this one, since it seemed to repeat most of the information. However there seem to be several inconsistencies: the number of Choirs is said to be nine, but with Rulers and Authorities there seem to be eleven of them. Also the other page said that each Hierarchy was divided into three Choirs, while this page puts 7 Choirs in the second Hierarchy and only 1 in the Third. Jorge Stolfi 13:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems that Pseudo-Dionysius proposed a 3x3 scheme, while later theologians proposed alternatives with more orders, archangels in a different level, etc. I have temporarily deleted the table at right because it reflected only one of these classifications. If you decide to put it back, please create a similar table for the 3x3 classification too. Jorge Stolfi 14:19, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have tried ot consolidate in this page all information on this subject that was scattered (mostly duplicated) in other pages, including in demonic hierarchy, in Angel (twice!), in angelic choir, and another 4-5 single-sentence pages such as power (angel) etc.. Someone should clean up the redirects.Jorge Stolfi 14:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yikes! This page needs major work. The linked resources do not appear in any way authoritative; they make no mention of their own sources for the most part. Can we cite any source for the non-Pseudo-Dionysian version of the hierarchy? Unless we can provide historical sources for these, we might as well just make things up. The point of this page, presumably, is to provide information about the angelic hierarchy as elaborated by mediaeval and Renaissance thinkers, not Joe Random who set up a Web site... &mdash;Tkinias 12:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Tkinias. This page needs a lot of work still. One of the biggest issues about this topic is how disputed it is. A lot of the hierarchy (pretty much everything except seraphim, cherubim, archangels and angels) is drawn from really tentative evidence, but at least that is somewhat said. I think I'll do some work on this article myself at some point and clean it up a bit. It needs to be clearer on what each line of thinking is based on, and then a pop culture section can be included at the end as long as it's made clear that the source is popular fantasisation. The citation of Johnny Tatum is also tentative. None of his writings are sourced, and I can't find anything to back up what he says. I'm guessing Johnny Tatum was the "Joe Random" that Tkinias was talking about. You might as well cite your grandad's ramblings after a few beers. Just cos it's written in an intelligent manner, doesn't mean it's any kind of fact. Minyana 03:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Entry for Highway to Heaven
I've removed some of the text about Highway to Heaven and Michael Landon, as it seemed a little untidy and didn't really add much to the definition of an angel. I'm not entirely sure that it should be there at all, but I've left the reference in.

ahpook 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"In mortal form as Michael Landon, after filling roles as an actor and writer, he could resonate the word of God to the common person with the show Highway to Heaven."

Michael Landon was an angel spreading the word of God via a TV show? Wow.

kris 20:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just removed this again by reducing it to a sentence about portrayal of messenger angels in popular media. Let's see if it resurfaces. Seems somebody is hellbent on spreading their personal belief that Michael Landon was a literal angel. I mean, come on, he was a good guy, but an angel? Sheesh. --QuasarTE 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Principalities and Dominions should indeed be switched; It stands to reason that Angels preceiding over (lower) angels are higher in hierarchy then angels that are concerned with countries. Also, inspiring angels or angels concerned with philosophy (second sphere) can easily be viewed of a higher standing then angels concerned with human affairs directly (third sphere)

--145.53.133.162 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Daan

Second Sphere?
Why are there no names of Angels in the Second Sphere?

Isn't there a scource or scripture that talks about Angels in the Second Sphere? --Anker99 8-10-06


 * The 3x3 hierarchy of angels is not Scriptural. The main Christian source for it gives no names at all, other than casual mentions of those already known from the Bible. Perhaps there are other sources that might provide a few names here; I don't know the more esoteric Jewish or angelogical sources well. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Citations
There are almost no citations in this article, or pretty much any specific angel or demon article. Granted that angelogy has always been speculative given the lack of canonical source material and agreement among noncanonical sources, most of the hierarchy came from medieval theologians desperately trying to impose a feudalistic society onto the Kingdom of roman with the Abrahamic god as its king, but there really needs to be more work into this article. This page isn't even internally consistent. For example, Uriel is listed twice. Beelzebub is separted out from Lucifer. Didn't John Milton invent that along with Satan living in a castle called Pandamonium because he wanted an unholy trinity as a literay counter to the Holy Trinity?

Granted I'm biased against most of this, because there's slim to no scriptural basis for the vast majority of this, but we can at least cite whatever medival theologian, 17th century author, or Sam Butcher, or who ever. 67.188.7.78 07:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Christo-Centric
This article is awfully Christo-centric. The Kabbalah has it's own hierarchy of angels, 10 choirs of angels each led by an archangel. I'll dig up my sources and add it. Harvestdancer 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jewish ideas are covered in a different article. See Jewish angelic hierarchy. By that scheme, this article should probably be renamed to Christian angelic hierarchy and a dab page placed at the original title. Unless you mean the occult version of the Kabbalah such as was adopted by theosophy, Golden Dawn, etc. In that case I don't know that an article devoted to it exists, but I strongly believe that such things should be compartmentalized from the genuine traditions from which they were derived, in order to avoid reader confusion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the Jewish angelic hierarchy is the bsis of the occult Kabbalah version, and the occult Kabbalah version is the one I was speaking of. You are right that this might be a good disambiguation page, unless we do merges and divide the merged article into sections based on tradition. Harvestdancer 23:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It could go either way. Personally I have no preference. The Jewish-centered article was added some time ago specifically to balance this one. The religious traditions tend to be rather more reticent than otherwise on the subject of angels, while from what I've read of occult usage there may well be a considerable amount of detail that should be added to properly cover it. If the articles were to be merged, the content would be rather lopsided. But that also means the religion-based articles will each be fairly brief in and of themselves. So...?


 * I really don't know that there's much interest in developing the Jewish article. There's been no significant work on it since November. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I should add the Kabballistic hierarchy there, and I think your move and disambig suggestion has serious merit. Harvestdancer 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, went to that article. Did some editing. Now we need to move this article. Harvestdancer 15:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael as a seraph
I had always understood Michael to be the head of the military aspect of the angels, since the Bible has him guarding Satan. Wouldn't that then place him more accurately as the archangel of the cherubim or thrones? --Estrill5766 03:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he's an archangel. But regardless, this isn't the kind of thing we figure out on our own. If you have a source that places him in a different order, or perhaps in more than one order simultaneously, then add that information and provide a cite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Under the heading of archangel the link for rapheal links to a page about a man, not the listing for the archangel

Angelic Hierarchy
For the sections detailing the angelic orders, I suggest reworking them and inputing data from guideangel.com. The reason I suggest reworking them is because the descriptions are sort of vague (as is the case with something as ethereal as this). steliart.com is also a good website. I will actually try and do it myself if I have time. þ 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Choirs" versus "hierarchy"
"Choir" is the term used specifically in the literature and this should be employed directly in the article title, not "hierarchy". Choir denotes a choral system and community; hierarchy is an ill-informed paradigm that reflects the socio-political view of medieval scholarship. Many 'angels' were members of multiple 'choirs'. There is no inconsistency. Inclusion, not exclusion is key. I invite scholarship to inform this article and iterate as appropriate in due course. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Greek names
My own researches led me to this table of mine. I do not read Greek and I am not an angelologist, so please correct me. Still, I think this may be of interest:

I would like to add it to the article, but I prefer much more knowledgeable people than me to review and correct it first. I understand that some categories should not have any Hebrew name (except modern translation of the New Testament into Hebrew) of, since they do not belong to judaism. David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 18:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

Unsourced statement removed
I have removed the following statement as it has been marked "citation needed" for several months: If anyone can find a source for this statement, feel free to re-add it. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of their [i.e. archangels'] duties is to influence who amongst living things will rule.

Watchers etc.
I was under the impression that the old hymn Ye Watchers & Ye Holy Ones listed teh Nine Orders of Angels. If so they would be Watchers, Holy ones, Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Princedoms, Powers, Virtues, Archangels. Well that's ten, futher confussing me. Am I just plan wrong or is there a correlations between this list and the more official? There is clearly at least alot of over lap.

Ye watchers and ye holy ones, bright seraphs, cherubim, and thrones, raise the glad strain, Alleluia! Cry out, dominions, princedoms, powers, virtues, archangels, angels' choirs: Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the hymn does list them, but you've misinterpreted the first line. The "watchers" are all the orders of angels, and the "holy ones" are the saints in the next verses.  The nine orders are then listed as seraphs, cherubim, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers, virtues, archangels, and angels, as the article describes.  Tb (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Community Opinion
For a site with so few citations, I'm surprised at "I'm afraid a one-volume biblical commentary is not a decisive source, and it's unclear what this adds" by Tb. I added: Thus four wings are used in reverence towards God and only two for locomotion. to the Seraphim section. I adds to the messages the Seraphim are giving: that of directing reverence to God. Does anyone else consider this unimportant? Thomas Kist (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If the sentence adds to the message, then it is more than is already there. Surely all the angels give reverence to God; but the sentence suggests more than that, that seraphim give two-thirds of their attention to God (what would that mean?) or that the author of the text intended to convey such a distinction.  A one-sentence comment without explanation in a one-volume commentary tells us what the unnamed author thinks (Jamieson? Fausset? Brown?) and not what the author of the text thinks.  Tb (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Video Games
I've noticed a great deal of change in this subject thanks to video games. Unfortunately people only believe what the see on the television and in fiction.

AM i being paranoid or are people here doing there job correctly. I am not trolling, i am seriously asking. If someone can reply back i would greatly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.208.156 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hierarchies and Zodiacal signs
I cut the following material from the article, since it was incompatible with the title. I paste it in here in case someone wants to start an article on the relevant subject. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible correlation of The Hierarchies, Angelic spheres and Zodiacal signs (?)
According to the Rosicrucians, each astrological sign in the zodiac represents one of the "Twelve Great Creative Hierarchies" that had, or have, a relation to mankind's evolutionary process. They are described as Hierarchies of Spiritual Beings, the Elohim, evolving in our solar system, God's habitation. The division below is adapted from the contents presented in Max Heindel's The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception or Mystic Christianity:


 * These two Orders of beings gave some assistance at the beginning of mankind's pilgrimage; they have already gone into liberation:
 * World of God
 * Aries ([[Image:Aries.svg|20px]]): Nameless
 * Taurus ([[Image:Taurus.svg|20px]]): Nameless


 * First Sphere, these Orders worked of their own free will to help man till the end of the involutionary period; they have also passed into liberation:
 * World of Virgin Spirits
 * Gemini ([[Image:Gemini.svg|18px]]): Seraphim
 * Cancer ([[Image:Cancer.svg|18px]]): Cherubim
 * Leo ([[Image:Leo.svg|20px]]): Lords of Flame: Thrones(Ophanim)? depicted in Old Testament: Heb. `owphan Eze 1:1-28;  galgal Dan 7:9;
 * De Coelesti Hierarchia refers the Thrones; The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception refers also that the Lords of Flame are the "Thrones": "because of the brilliant luminosity of their bodies and their great spiritual powers."
 * the Thrones in Dan 7:9, Heb. korce': "his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire."); they are the carriers of the throne of God, hence the name.


 * Note: from De Coelesti Hierarchia: "He also says that that which is always around God is first and is declared by tradition to be united closely and immediately, to Him, before all the rest."



Note: Heindel describes that the Lords of Wisdom (here equated as Elders(Thrones); Gr. thronos from New Testament) and the higher Lords of the Flame (equated as Thrones(Ophanim)) from Old Testament have worked together in a far past toward the development of mankind; nevertheless, they appear not to be the same class of Spiritual Beings (cf. depictions given in the New Testament whith those of the Old Testament).
 * Second Sphere, these Orders are active in the present period and assisted the previous hierarchies, during the involutionary period, with the task of starting man' subtle bodies:
 * World of the Divine Spirit (Keter?): Home of The Father, Who made His union with the first[higher] aspect of God: Will
 * Virgo ([[Image:Virgo.svg|20px]]): Lords of Wisdom: Elders(Thrones)?: (see concordance Greek/Textus Receptus),  (Gr. thronos mentioned also by Paul of Tarsus); related to the throne of God the Father (De Coelesti Hierarchia refers the Authorities [Powers?] & Summa Theologica refers Dominions [Lordships?] )
 * World of the Life Spirit (Chokhmah?): Home of the Christ, The Son, Who made His union with the second aspect of God: Wisdom
 * Libra ([[Image:Libra.svg|20px]]): Lords of Individuality: Dominions? (De Coelesti Hierarchia refers the Lordships [Dominions?] & Summa Theologica refers Virtues [Might (KJV); Elders(Thrones)?])
 * World of Thought, Region of Abstract Tought (Binah?): Home of Jehova, The Holy Spirit, Who made His union with the third aspect of God: Activity; the Third Heaven state of counsciousness:
 * Scorpio ([[Image:Scorpio.svg|20px]]): Lords of Form: Principalities? (De Coelesti Hierarchia refers the Powers)
 * this Order (Lords of Form) has special charge of the human evolution in the present period


 * Third Sphere, these Orders are active in the present period :
 * World of Thought, 4º region of the Region of Concrete Thought: the Abyss? (location of the human Mind, the focus of link [reversed reflexion] between the threefold Spirit [Spirit worlds above] and the threefold body [Matter worlds below]: the spirit mirrors itself in matter )
 * World of Thought, Region of Concrete Thought (Chesed?): the Second Heaven state of counsciousness
 * Sagittarius ([[Image:Sagittarius.svg|15px]]): Lords of Mind: Powers? (De Coelesti Hierarchia refers the Principalities)
 * Order (Lords of Mind) related to The Father (its highest Initiate)
 * Note: Powers would be consistent with both descriptions:
 * the theological views that describe the Powers as the celestial beings that are the bearers of conscience and the keepers of history;
 * the description provided in The RCC about the Lords of Mind and their home, the Region of Concrete Thought (lower region) of the World of Thought -- which is described the location of the human mind, being also this region the place where one of the three records of the Memory of Nature, covering the essence of a whole life or events, is kept-stored.
 * ("The Great Silence")
 * Desire World:
 * Capricornus ([[Image:Capricorn.svg|20px]]): Archangels
 * Order related to the Christ, The Son (its highest Initiate)
 * higher regions (Gevurah?): the First Heaven state of counsciousness
 * intermediate region (Tiferet?)
 * lower regions (Netzach?): the Purgatory state of consciousness
 * Physical World
 * Etheric Region of the Physical World
 * Aquarius ([[Image:Aquarius.svg|20px]]): Angels
 * Order related to Jehova, The Holy Spirit (its highest Initiate)
 * superior ethers (Hod?)
 * inferior ethers: (Yesod?)
 * Chemical Region of the Physical World
 * The Hierarchy of Pisces ([[Image:Pisces.svg|20px]]) is constituted, according to the Rosicrucians, by the Virgin Spirits: the current evolving mankind in the Chemical Region of the Physical World (the physical Earth: Malkhuth?).

Note: As it is presented above, only seven Orders of Celestial Beings (Hierarchies), or Choirs, are currently active [3 Second Sphere, 3 Third Sphere & mankind included].

Note #2, a possible interpretation? (using KJV: i.e. Vetus Latina/Vulgata [Latin] and Byzantine text-type/Textus Receptus [Greek] analysis-comparison would be welcome):
 * Colossians 1:15-20: "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (ordered list of Orders, from higher to lower);
 * Thrones [Gr. thronos; similar to the Elders, sat on their Thrones, from Revelation 11:16 (see link above)]
 * Dominions [Gr. kuriotes]
 * Principalities [Gr. arche]
 * Powers [Gr. exousia]
 * Ephesians 1:17-23: "principality, and power, and might, and dominion" (and: free list, or veiled order, of 'attributes'):
 * from Lower Orders:
 * Principality [Gr. arche: Principalities? Princedoms? Rulers?; higher] and Power [Gr. exousia: Powers? Authorities?; lower]
 * to Higher Orders:
 * Might [Gr. dunamis, a higher power (cf. pas dunamis; dunamis theos): Elders (sat on their Thrones) in The Revelation of Saint John the Divine "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty" (Rev 11:17)? Virtues?; higher] and Dominion [Gr. kuriotes: Dominions? Lordships? Leaders?; lower].
 * Note: They are translated (from root dunamis in Eph 1:21) as the celestial Choir "Virtues", in the Summa Theologica ; Quote on Virtues that seems to present "high rank" of these celestial beings: "The name of the holy Virtues signifies a certain powerful and unshakable virility welling forth into all their Godlike energies; (...) never falling away from the Divine Life through its own weakness, but ascending unwaveringly to the superessential Virtue which is the Source of virtue ..." (Dionysius the Areopagite)
 * Hierarchical inferred order (from higher to lower Orders; terminology denotes attributes of power):
 * Elders(Thrones) [also Might, Virtues]
 * Dominions [also Lordships, Leaders]
 * Principalities [also Princedoms, Rulers]
 * Powers [also Authorities]
 * The hierarchical order appears to be also distributed in groups of two Orders with affinity, as in 1 Peter 3:22 (inversed order displayed [from higher to lower Orders] related to the Second and Third Spheres):
 * Gr. dunamis: Might (Elders(Thrones) and Dominions)
 * mistranslated as "Powers" (see concordance, cf. concordance in Colossians 1:16 and Ephesians 1:21)
 * Gr. exousia: Powers (Principalities and Powers)
 * Gr. aggelos: Angels (Archangels and Angels)

Note #3: The correlations above established are merely a brief piece of individual research; nevertheless, Constructive comments are welcome! &mdash;--81.193.212.59 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rosicrucians?
This is an article about some Christian theology. How possibly do Rosicrucian ideas belong here? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind this: I thought that Rosicrucians were those who believed that "Elohim" were a race of aliens that created humanity. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but their teachings advocate the dualistic view: on one hand, they hold that man is a Spirit enfolding all the powers of God and that these powers are being slowly unfolded by a series of existences in a gradually improving earthy body; on the other hand, that this process of development has been performed under the guidance of exalted Beings -- the Elohim (gods) -- who are yet ordering our steps, though in a decreasing measure, as man gradually acquires intellect and will.
 * Anyway, you're welcome to express your own constructive point of view on the brief exposltion, in a section above, based upon some of the most elementary of Christian Rosicrucian teachings. Cheers. &mdash;--81.193.212.59 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed?
"Cherubim guard the way to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24) and the throne of God (Ezekiel 28:14-16).[citation needed]" What more citation do you need? The address to the bookshop where you can buy a Bible? What shelf it's on? 212.159.79.130 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Spheres"; also "liberated" versus "active"
The article states general purposes for each of the second and third spheres. But it says nothing like that about the first sphere. I wonder if someone qualified to do so could provide that. Also, the table at the bottom refers to the first sphere as "liberated," and the second and third as "active." But there's no explanation of that. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Wings
Although I can't confirm the number of Satan's wings I can say that certain of the higher Seraphim did have more then the six wings, the Metatron was said to have thirty-six. The six wings on your average Seriphim were meant to be positioned in pairs, one pair on the back like in most illustrations another two were situated on either sides of the head and the last pair from the feet (Similar to Apollo's winged helmet and sandals)
 * It needs to be confirmed if it's to be in the article. You also need to specify in which tradition this is believed. Metatron is not known to, for example, Christianity, which holds that we do not have the names of any of the seraphim.


 * You are incorrect about the arrangement of the seraphim's six wings. They cover their feet and faces with a pair of wings each; that's not where the wings are supposed to be attached. (In fact, their bodies never appear in art and it's never terribly clear where the wings are attached.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * YOu are/may also be incorrect, they don't cover their literal "Feet" they cover their genitals, which were referred to using "feet" as an idiom, in the same way that we might refer to our genitals as a third leg, or head, or balls etc.....

At least, that what it says in my bible's footnotes.... Kairos (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Archangel as title, not as choir
Regarding this passage:

"It is possible to make a distinction between archangel (with a lower-case a) and Archangel (with an uppercase A). The former can denote the second-lowest choir (arch-angels in the sense of being just above the lowest Choir of angels that is called only "angels") but the latter may denote the highest of all the angels (i.e., Arch-angels in the sense of being above all angels, of any Choir. The seven highest Seraphim, Michael being the highest of all)."

Would it be possible to find sources for this concept of Archangel as "the highest ranking angels", as opposed to members of the 8th choir? I know this is the case in Milton's Paradise Lost, where the Archangels are all seraphim, but can't find any other source for this idea. This is a very common concept; surely there must be more references?80.30.247.199 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

-

I have read a few articles that claim that the order of archangels was conflated with the highest ranking angels as the words for both were translated as 'chieftain angels'. With the order being in charge of the armies of angels below them, and the highest-ranking angels having domination over all angels. But the capital-A Archangels would be better titled 'Great Angels'. (All the Great Angels are variously labeled Seraphim, Cherubim, or Thrones, with several being of more than one order.)

Requested move 24 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator as uncontroversial. Jujutsuan ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 16:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Christian angelic hierarchy → Christian angelology – Clear winner on WP:COMMONNAME (see here and here), and WP:CONCISE. The hierarchy is contained neatly within angelology, so this is also an opportunity to expand, without the new title restricting existing content.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 11:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 11:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Michael as guardian of Germany?
As I recall, Michael is often considered the protecting force of Germany, ever since the times of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, as a lot of Paintings and Sculptures show, which is the very basic of the idea of the "German Michel", the representing figure in modern times. Should this perhaps be mentioned? 92.209.19.139 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would belong in and is already mentioned at Michael (archangel). It doesn't really belong here.  He is a patron saint of Germany (among other places).  That doesn't really make him German, any more than Saint Nicholas is Scottish or Dutch.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thrones and Dominions
The article claims that the concept of orders of angels called "Thrones" and "Dominions" come from Ephesians 1:21 and Col. 1:16):

The "Thrones" (Greek: thronoi, pl. of thronos), or Elders, are a class of celestial beings mentioned by Paul the Apostle in Colossians 1:16 (New Testament).

The "Dominions" (Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16) (lat. dominatio, plural dominationes, also translated from the Greek term kyriotētes, pl. of kyriotēs, as "Lordships") or "Dominations" are presented as the hierarchy of celestial beings.

I've copied the verses below, and preceding verses, for context. (New International Version): Now, I'm not a Biblical scholar, but looking at those verses, I don't see anything to indicate that this is talking about orders of angels. The most plain-reading interpretation, to me, would be that it is talking about earthly kingdoms (and other translations, e.g. Wycliffe, seem to make this even more obvious). Now, I'm not disputing that medieval theologians interpreted this as being a discusion of types of angels, but is there any more information about how they actually came to that conclusion? Iapetus (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ephesians 1: 19-21
 * * 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
 * Colossians 1: 15-16
 * * 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Lucifer listed in Seraphim and Cherubim?
What's up with that? The Monster 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on legends concerning his status before he fell. These are often confused and inconsistent. It would be better cited anyway, of course. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

-

Lucifer is a Seraphim by the Christian church. Lets just leave it at that.
 * Well, Lucifer cannot be a Seraphim, because Seraphim is the plural of Seraph. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

-

Many angels belong to more than one choir. Choirs are more like jobs than species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.86.25 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is incredibly important but it is incredible bad.
I truly want this to be a good article. Unfortunately, it is filled with unsourced information and it is the kind of information that really must be properly sourced. So much of this article is based upon hearsay material and I have found many sentences that are sourced but the material in the sentences are no where to the found in the sources. I admit that while I am a skilled editor with more than 35 years of professional editing experience at the highest levels, I am somewhat out of my wheelhouse on the subject of this article. I have made significant changes and it is possible I have made errors. However, I have erred on the side of truth, determining that if I cannot find a straightforward source for what has been said then I have removed the information. There is no harm, given that the information remains in the article's history, but we should not return any of the information if proper citations cannot be found. The only sections where I have possibly made errors is with the etymology of words. For several of the words that have etymologies included I have struggled to find any source that backs up the information. The problem with the etymologies of the words is that much of the information about the subjects in this article are based on the words' origins. Again, let's not return the text unless we have published sources for the etymologies of the words. This is an important article. We truly must improve it and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Please, join me in my effort to make some sense of this article and take it out of the fantasy realm and into a proper encyclopedia article. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Powers
I heard that the Powers were those who had administration over Hell, but I can't remember a source. Is there any source or interpretation that says this?

---

From what my studies have revealed, the purpose of the Power choir is far from what is said on the page itself. According to Dionysius; "The Powers stop the efforts of demons who would overthrow the world", which roughly can be interperated as such that the Powers are the "soldiers" of the heavenly realms. The principal task of the Powers is virtually, to make sure that order is maintained on the heavenly pathways as well. In Excerpts of Theodotus, it is also said that the Powers are amongst "the first of created angels".

Powers are also among the few choirs that can be considered "evil", as a side note.

I do not know of ever hearing that Powers were an "Evil" choir of Angels, if so they would be fallen and therefore they would be demons. God does not work with demons. I think a more proper term would be "Powerful" as their name implies, they are poewerful, wrathful, strong, soldiers of God, you could say that some of our Soldier's have a pretty mean demeanor, but are they evil?

The chief is said to be either Samael or Camael, both angels of darkness.

Site that references the Powers "power" over Satan: http://www.catholic-church.org/grace/angels/nine-choirs.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.44.69 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Material removed from lede
From the comparative study of the Old Testament and New Testament passages, including their etymology and semantics, the above mentioned theological works (which contain variations), and esoteric Christian teachings, the descending order of rank can be inferred as following:


 * First Sphere (Old Testament sources)
 * Seraphim
 * Cherubim
 * Thrones/Ophanim (Gr. thronoi) (also New Testament sources)


 * Second Sphere (New Testament sources)
 * Dominions (Gr. Kyriotetai)
 * Virtues (Gr. Dynamai)
 * Powers (Gr. Exusiai)


 * Third Sphere
 * Principalities (Gr. Archai)
 * Archangels - Archangeloi
 * Angels - Angeloi

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio refers to these three, respectively, as the Epiphania, the Hyperphania and the Hypophania. The Choirs in the second and third spheres, of the present hierarchical list, appear to be also united in pairs. The existence of these pairs of Orders is inferred through their etymological proximity and the apparent affinity in the description of their work-activity : (clarification as to how this verse applies to pairs is required.) Note, however, that several variations of the hierarchical order may be found published through the last two millennia.
 * Thrones and Dominions (Might, Dynamais);
 * Principalities and Powers (Powers, Exusiai; );
 * Archangels and Angels (Angels, Angeloi).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern Protestant Angelology
The 2016 re-titling of this article (see the archive) broadened the topic from hierarchy of angels to angelology as a whole. The traditional pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy of angels was rejected by the reformer John Calvin and has been rejected by Protestant Christians. Beyond asserting that there is some version of rank and order the general consensus is that "There is very little definite and clear information on this subject." . Their focus in Angelology is more about the activities and behaviors of angels and demons in general, without respect to their organization. Could this page be reorganized after this fashion:


 * 1. Traditional Angelology
 * 1.1. First Sphere
 * 1.1.1. Seraphim
 * 1.1.2. Cherubim
 * 1.1.3. Thrones
 * 1.2. Second Sphere
 * 1.2.1. Dominations or Lordships
 * 1.2.2. Virtues
 * 1.2.3. Powers or Authorities
 * 1.3. Third Sphere
 * 1.3.1. Principalities or Rulers
 * 1.3.2. Archangels
 * 1.3.3. Angels
 * 1.3.3.1. Personal Guardian Angels
 * 1.4. Individual angels and demons from the choirs
 * 2. Modern Protestant Angelology
 * 3. See Also
 * 4. References
 * 5. Bibliography
 * 6. Further Reading

The Protestant section could include text of this variety: The Reformer John Calvin warned against the traditional heirarchy view: "... if we would be duly wise, we must renounce those vain babblings of idle men, concerning the nature, ranks, and number of angels, without any authority from the Word of God... None can deny that Dionysus (whoever he may have been) has many shrewd and subtle disquisitions in his Celestial Hierarchy, but on looking at them more closely, every one must see that they are merely idle talk." Following his perspective, most protestant theologians describe angels in general terms, limiting discussion to angelic nature, abilities, appearance, and the difference between angels and demons.

Yeshua (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, this whole page is ridiculous. With the new name, "Christian angelology", it's a little outrageous to put so much authority on the traditional view of Pseudo-Dionysius when so few modern Christians are aware of, let alone comprehend, this ancient schema. I'd support Yeshua's proposed structure, and would suggest renaming "Traditional Angelology" to "Pseudo-Dionysian Angelology", to make clear the source of this concept. Garnet Moss (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Name
From perusing the archived talk pages, its clear that this article has had a couple different names and suggested names over time, but why on earth hasn't it reached consensus to turn this page into "Angels in Christianity", much as Angels in Judaism and Angels in Islam are already designated? This strikes as being non-controversial, so I assume there must be something I'm missing? Garnet Moss (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)