Talk:Archangel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archangels are superior or higher-ranking angels?

This is absolutely incorrect. The cited definition has been misconstrued. The choirs of angels place archangels as the second lowest in rank: Christian angelic hierarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.181.89 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! these are the Sar'im, the Chief Princes. I think called Archangels for there humility "be proud of you low position"

Dava4444 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Christanity section

I'm trying to do a clean up but the servers are a bit nuts just now.patiance please =)Dava4444 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

@24/11/2009 thanks for the help cleaning up @ Ida Shaw, hey thats my last name too :) any way I don't think Simiel and Sammael are the same It's more likely to be Joel The Hearld, as Sammael means Poison of God this doesn't sound like a Holy Angel but a member of the Host of Satan.

please help!

Dava

Dava4444 (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! isn't the part above the Catholic section that mentions "4 Gods" a bit blasphemous? there is premise to 4 cardinal points as in psalms 4 cherubim carry The Lord's Throne, but calling them Gods? GUH!

also I would like to do a section the Zoroastrian 8, has anyone got any research materials?

thanks

Dava4444 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lucifer

I cut the following, as neither reference was actually supported the statement: "Sometimes Satan (named Satanel in the Book of Enoch) is considered a fallen archangel whose original name was Lucifer, or "Son of the Morning".Isaiah 14:12". Note "Lucifer" in the KJV translation of Is 14:12 is a transliteration of the latin lucifer ('lucis-ferre' or light bringer), which is a translation of the original, and completely different, hebrew word. TrickyApron (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say anywhere that Lucifer was an angel and got cast out of heaven? Nomad13 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt, the most commonly cited passage comes from Isaiah 14, it is this 12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. The only problem with this is exactly what Trickyapron has said, Lucifer is NOT satan's name it is simply "Light Bringer" and in this analogy it is refering to Venus which is called the morning star because it becomes visible at dawn heralding the light as it attempts to rise. When the bible was translated into english this word was falsely believed to be a name or title, which in this case is being applied to the king of babylon who is the person this narative is being directed at, and it is intended as sarcastic mocking him for his hubris (this interpretation i read from albert pike, conspiracy theorist please enjoy!). John Milton popularised the notion of calling satan Lucifer because of the analogy between venus attempting to surpass the other celestial bodies only to be surpassed by the light (day). Another thing to note, the "Morning star" is NOT THE DEVIL it is jesus please read this reference Smitty1337 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PBUH

Not to sound like an Islamophobe but is it necessary to append the "Praise Be Unto Him" to the names in this article? I understand Muslims use this as a sign of respect after speaking the names, but is it appropriate for here? If it's required then should ALL of them have the PBUH? I ask because I only see it in one paragraph and it gives me the feeling it's just minor vandalism. Look at it this way, wouldn't "Allah Akbar" after each name be even more non-NPOV? I won't change anything till its been discussed. IMO it should be removed as not being part of the person's name, simple an honorific. Coradon (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's policy NOT to use them - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), which has a section on this: "recommended action is to remove" - and that's for articles on specifically Islamic subjects. So please go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Made those changes then began REALLY reading the article and this thing needs some serious grammer and sentence structure rewrites. It reads like it was written by someone who counted English as a 5th language. Bounces between different spellings of a word from one paragraph to another.Many cases of adding honorifics to a name e.g. The Most Holy Bible. Coradon (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucifer? first?

in the Orthodox section Lucifer is first...? what!!!?

it would be better to gave him a little section, with his (former) positions E.G. "Cherub of the Cherubim" "The Morning Star"

the Archangels mentioned are the Sarim 200 Chief Princes, 300 in the Day, they are called "archangels" for there humility, as this is there lowest Choir but still denotes there authority.Dava4444 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems someone gave Lucifer his own section, The Fallen. I object, however, to placing Lucifer in the Archangel page. No where in Christian belief is Lucifer considered an Archangel. (See Christian angelic hierarchy) Seraph or Cherub, or possibly even in the Celestial choir of Powers but not an Archangel. I removed this section. Canstusdis (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ArchangelS?

I heard that other angels than Michael is called archangel (for example Gabriel). Where does the Bible call other angels than Michael archangel? 145.236.117.31 (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nowhere, the Bible only identifies one archangel, Michael. Some Bible scholars believe that this means there is only one Archangel, although the Bible does not say that. 76.19.251.152 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Only one Archangel?

Hi everyone

I am puzzled by the idea that there can be more than one Archangel.... According to what I read and understand the word Archangel is defined as follows:

L.L. archangelus, from Gk. arkhangelos "chief angel," from arkh- "chief, first"

Does that allow for several archangels? I don't believe so.

The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority of his office, does so in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” It is, therefore, not without significance that the only name directly associated with the word “archangel” is Michael.—Jude 9; see MICHAEL No. 1.

So the way I understand it Jesus in his heavenly role is Michael and he alone is THE Archangel...

Maybe you have other points of view... I'd be intersted to hear them.

David Harvey80.43.61.236 10:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Harvey,

A good question. It is true that arch is translated as "chief" or "principal" from the Greek word, but this does not linguistically imply uniqueness. For example, there were several "chief priests," archiereus, among the Sanhedrin, (Acts 26:12) and "chief captains," chiliarchos, among the various dignitaries of the earth in Revelation's prophecies. (Rev 6:15) You are perfectly correct that Michael is the only named Archangel in the canonical Bible, but the Book of Daniel clearly states that He is one of a particular set. Gabriel describes Him as "one of the chief princes, [who] came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." (Dan 10:13) This is obviously, from internal evidence, speaking about divine beings, for there was only one human "king" of Persia at the time, but Michael here is one of the "chief princes," a phrase in Hebrew (h'sarim h'rishonim) that corresponds precisely with the New Testament term "arch-angel," remembering that "princes" and "kings" are being used in this context of spiritual figures.

Now, you'll probably notice that I capitalized the word "He" just now :) This is because I actually agree with your view of Michael as a pre-incarnation manifestation of the non-created Son of God... but this is based on other factors than the label that Michael is given, for example the intercessory role He takes, the fact that the "Captain of the Lord's Host/Yahweh Angel" received worship in Joshua 5, and that the name Micha-El means "One who is like God" (I do not believe any lesser being could truly be "like God" in the sense that a uniquely identifying name would indicate, and names represent characteristics in Biblical language). Christ was a "man," one of many, but not limited by that designation. He was a "prophet" in that He prophesied, and one of many, but not limited by that designation either. Therefore, to say that there are many archangels (as the language of Scripture would suggest) and that Michael was considered to be one of this class does not in any way restrict an interpretation of His Person to also be the One who would later become the Christ. If you have any further questions, because I don't want to stray too far from the issue of the article itself, feel free to post me at my talk page. ◄Zahakiel► 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zahakiel, From Michael (archangel)::In Hebrew, Michael means "who is like God"(mi-who, ke-as or like, El-deity), which in Talmudic tradition is interpreted as a rhetorical question: "Who is like God?" (which expects an answer in the negative) to imply that no one is like God. In this way, Michael is reinterpreted as a symbol of humility before God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstusdis (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT???? What kind of Oneness Pentecostalism are you peddling? Jesus was a man, possibly a nephilim, but not as you think. I used to go to Cavalry Chapel until they started pushing that stuff.--71.185.193.245 (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiya!

I checked out your other page... WOW! That's quite an impressive profile you have there! I'm afraid in the words of the scripts I am just an unlettered man... Never passed a worthwhile exam in my life.... just a baker by trade... and a simple would-be lover of God like yourself... So if I screw up linguistically or otherwise you'll have to bear with me! Thanks.

I know that this is slightly off topic but... I was puzzled that you say that Jesus, in his pre-human existence was the non created Son of God. Have I misunderstood Colossians 1:14 which states in my Bible.. (American Standard) that Christ is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"? And Revelation 3:14 where Jesus is spoken of as "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" And Proverbs 8: where my Bible says that Jesus as Wisdom personified was "brought forth" ?

I am off on holiday for a while tomorrow morning but I will check your reply when I return... Keep it as simple as you can... thanks.

David.

Since it is a bit off topic, I am posting the reply on my talk page. ◄Zahakiel► 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your confusion might be in equalting "chief" with "king". While there can only be one king in a kingdom, there can be many lesser chiefs. It is true that the Bible only names one angel as an archangel - Michael, but it does not say that he is the only one. Still, if he is the only archangel or the chief archangel, he is the commander of the Lord's Heavenly Host. Claims that Michael is the preincarnate form of Jesus, is highly unlikely however. The preincarnate form of Jesus is never named in the Bible (although many believe that the "angel" who visited with Abramham to tell him he was going to have a son was the preincarnate Jesus - but you'll note the Bible takes great care not to name him). Bottom line, there is nothing in the Bible to really suggest that preincarnate Jesus was named Michael. Jesus is God, not an angel.76.19.251.152 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OR & POV edit

Recent edits by relatively new contributor (3 edits) has massively changed the structure and aspects of this article.

• From lead to many other sections, original research is inserted.
• Zoroastrianism has given TOO much importance and it seams like, Archangels are majorly Zoroastrian subject.

I'm not reverting all edits but a lot keeping the improving bits. I'm not sure about the cardinal angels in Christianity if they fits well or not. They have been commented out. » nafSadh did say 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert it either, but considered doing so. It's not bad work, it just needs sources, wikification, and a little tone work. I need to grab some stuff from the library for Talk:Alchemy some time soon, and I have some stuff on angelology that could be used for sources (my copy of Davidson's Dictionary of Angels has seen better days). It's not really so much POV as undue weight. What the article should do is have basic overviews of the angelology articles for each religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the lead to previous, reverted the section ordering, most other edits are kept. Materials added in intro by Juniper Gnowell can be reworked to include somewhere in body. Inclusion of them on the lead is not a great idea I think. » nafSadh did say 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Juniper Gnowell has added similar contents, but did not attend any talk! » nafSadh did say 06:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Archangel etymology

The syllable "El" in Hebrew represents God.

So Raphael is from Rapha (healer) + El = Angel as God's healer

And Michael is Mi-kha-el (Who is like God) = Angel in God's image

And Gabriel is more difficult. Gavri is from the Hebrew for "Man-Like", but Hebrew for Angel is Malakh. So Gavri-El probably means an angel that appears as a man. For that reason, the Islamic tradition that God's messenger to Mohammed is often called ""Gabriel". This makes sense, since the Angel Gabriel was said to appear to Mohammed to give him messages from God in the form of verses called "Suras" Historygypsy (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please only post the same section once. Do you have any reliable sources (books, magazines, etc) to cite for this information? We do not accept original research or unsourced interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"is actually spelled djfkdjgkrhjyokrjoiejfadklsfjdf" has been added to the top of the article??? 87.115.81.242 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)