Talk:Archangel/Archive 4

Samael
Samael "is an important archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore" according to the page of the same name. It's a bit odd that he's not mentioned on this page since the term archangel appears 11 times in the text of the Samael page. Comments in an earlier section of the discussion, above assert that Samael doesn't sound like a Holy Angel but a member of the Host of Satan. It's a bit complicated (comments on the Samael talk page are quite extensive!) but it would make sense if some mention appeared on this page, I think Arided (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Samael is a complex figure. Sometimes the name is rendered as Camael when referring to the angel instead of the fallen angel.  Sources conflict (because this is dealing with subjects that are the opposite of empirical), but it's not our job to try to resolve those conflicts if no resolution appears in sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

ความเชื่อ ของเทวทูต
.. Kanom pung11 19:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanom pung11 (talk • contribs)

Angles as the forces of nature.
All the angels were the planets and stars and forces of nature before they were changed into beings without physical bodies. However, this is all just window dressing. The Angels are the Deva of the Rig Veda and the gods of the Greeks and Romans, etc. This is all glossed over here perpetuating the erroneous idea that Angels were not originally gods and planets. This is not what the ancients thought and this caused the rise of so many false religions where the adherents thought that divine beings were talking to them, such as Gabriel who is the Spirit of the Moon. In this post modern post occult age everything called the occult is now labeled as fantasy and the even more fantastic notions are accepted as orthodox. It is quite stunning how ignorant this article is of the truth behind the reality of the angels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Translation of Archangels vs the archangel order
So I have read a few times a hypothesis that the reason the order of archangels is second to bottom, but angels like Gabriel and Michael are both 'Archangels' and Cherubim or Seraphim, is because the order of archangels, and the title given to the Great Angels or Angels of the Seal, were both translated into 'Archangel' from the Hebrew, but were actually not the same thing. The order of Archangels were the 'chief angels', and the Angels of the Seal were 'great angels'. This really does seem to make sense, given the context that the 'Great Angels' already belong to Angelic orders - they're all Seraphim, Cherubim, or Thrones. Why would they also have this very low rank? But if it's a different and separate title that is not an order, that would make more sense to me. 142.114.185.218 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The 4 most common Archangels are Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel
I added this to the introduction... The four most common archangels are Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel. 2601:583:681:8430:7C7F:5036:7E68:1A86 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

°«}%°×°%{»° — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.159.237.17 (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Archangel
Archangel 2601:240:DE80:1610:4995:BA79:20F5:A588 (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)