Talk:Archangel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Appearance

Cracked.com had an article about the appearance of angels, and I was wondering why that wasn't in here.

Article: http://www.cracked.com/article_18757_5-things-you-wont-believe-arent-in-bible.html Example (ring like angel): http://bible.cc/ezekiel/1-16.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.88.12 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia doesn't take fundamentalist positions about which religious traditions and myths are true or false, and does not insist that iconography cannot be metaphorical (as any medieval theologician would have responded to Cracked's discussion of angels). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

Do Zoroastrian's actually call their seven chief angels archangels? I mean no disrespect but Amesha Spenta and Ahura Mazda have their own articles. Why include them with archangels? --Canstusdis (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a very good point. We need to know how they (Zoroastrians) actually interpret this. » nafSadh did say 05:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Juniper Gnowell's additions are different from the Amesha Spenta article. This might take a while to sort out... --Canstusdis (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It really is a question of semantics, I'm not sure if the Zoroastrian theology matches up well enough to consider Amesha Spentas to be archangels. The terminology used within Zoroastrianism has the vast majority of heavenly being as Yazads (Worthy of Reverence), of those 7 are Amesha Spentas (Bounteous Immortals), and of those one is God / Ahura Mazda (Lord of Wisdom). As far as the section itself, if it's kept it needs a LOT of work. Several parts don't reflect Zoroastrianism as it was taught to me nor the opinions of the Zoroastrian scholars that I've read. If the section is kept, it will need some major citations on the parts about Ahura Mazda's shadow, and the "proper balance" of light and dark - both of which I had literally never heard of in a Zoroastrian context until reading this article. (Dalrymple (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Other beliefs concerning the Archangels

In the Latter-Day Saint aspect of the Chirstian faith, it is believed that the Archangels were given a chance at humanity. It is believed that the Biblical father of humanity, Adam, was actually Micheal. Also, Noah is believed to have been Gabriel. Raphael is still undiscovered as of right now, as still are the other four. But who knows what revelations the future may bring? 64.183.50.49 08:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Aaron Melancon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.50.49 (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

"it is believed that the Archangels were given a chance at humanity"- ? Per numerous sources easily found on www.lds.org, angels are either premortal people or resurrected beings and as such, no different than any other person except in mission. Please relook the wording of that statement as it's potentially misleading. Thanks :) On a similar note, I changed the word "common" to "doctrinal" on the main page in the LDS portion to eliminate amiguity. Bristus (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Yes, many worldy teachings do try to claim that angels are pre-mortal people, but the Bible makes it clear that angels are a seperate creation of God, distinct from humanity. 76.19.251.152 (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

76.19.251.152- Your comment is misplaced in wikipedia. Please review posting guidelines before commenting again and check the format guidelines as well. Thanks! Bristus (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, i was just wondering where archangel Raziel was included in the lists.

I have here a link to a wikipedia page about him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raziel Please look at this, as i was worried as to why he had not been included. Seen as he was Keeper of Secrets" and the "Angel of Mysteries." Also His famous Sefer Raziel HaMalach ("Book of Raziel the Angel") contains all secret knowledge and is considered to be a book of "magic." He stands close by God's throne, and therefore hears and writes down everything that is said and discussed.

I thought this information was important and should be included on this page. Feel free to disagree

2. CORRECTION: Satan's original name was NOT Lucifer Morningstar --- it was Lucibelle Shadow-of-Venus (translated: "reflection of the morning star").

• Actually Satan's orginal name is never said in the Bible. But there is passage: Isaiah 14:12, which many people believe is in referance to Satan. That is the origin of the name "Lucifer" (Latin for "Morning Star").

76.19.251.152 (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Apollonius's canon

I don't see why Apollonius's canon has been appealed to as indicating that φωνὴ ἀρχαγγέλου must mean "the voice of the archangel". Doesn't the canon indicate that "the voice of an archangel" will appear in New Testament Greek as φωνὴ ἀρχαγγέλου (unlike modern Greek, which having developed an indefinite article can say η φωνή ενός αρχαγγέλου)? Doesn't the canon indicate that "the voice of the archangel" will appear in New Testament Greek as ἡ φωνὴ τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου? Doesn't πρόσωπον ἀγγέλου in Acts 6:15 mean "the face of an angel", not "the face of the angel"? And doesn't ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν in 1 Corinthians 12:10 mean "the interpretation of tongues", not "the interpretation of the tongues"? Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Cultural References

Should this be cleaned up? It's just a bunch of disparate pieces of media that happen to feature angels, with no regards to significance or any overall structure. There are also only two citations. Dash1224 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Julian calendar trails the Gregorian by thirteen days, not the other way around....

... e.g. Christmas on the Gregorian calendar is December 25, while on the Julian calendar Christmas is January 7. (Hence, my edit of the respective dates of the Archangels' Feast Day on either calendar.) Manburger 486 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who use the Julian calendar celebrate Christmas on what is for them not 7 January but 25 December. Since the Julian calendar trails at present 13 days behind the Gregorian, the Julian 25 December on which they celebrate Christmas is already 7 January on the Gregorian calendar, 13 days after the date (which on the Julian calendar is only 12 December) on which those who use the Gregorian calendar have celebrated Christmas. Similarly, the Julian 8 November on which Julian calendarists belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrate the archangels is already 21 November for all (Eastern Orthodox or not) who use the Gregorian calendar; but it is the same day: 8 November on the Julian calendar, 21 November on the Gregorian, not the other way round. Esoglou (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Unequal treatment by Timothyjosephwood (Zoroastrianism vs me)

This is a direct copy (except for highlights}. (cur | prev) 16:08, 29 August 2016? Timothyjosephwood (talk | contribs)? . . (24,408 bytes) (-4,301)? . . (Undid revision 736750232 by Purrhaps (talk) Non encyclopedic treatment.) (undo | thank)

Please compare my deleted (good-faith, vital) 8-point entry with the 7-point entry "In Zoroastrianism" for the Archangel article. The prime difference is my use of references. Yet you allow their (by extention) Non encyclopedic treatment.

Your additions were definitely unencyclopedic. Your use of primary sources for minutia about the historical views of a minor denomination constitutes undue weight. The non-current views of a minor denomination certainly are not 'vital' to a discussion of 'archangels'. Your content was also poorly structured.

The fact that the section about Zoroastrianism (a religion, not a denomination) 'contains a numbered list' is where the similarity ends when comparing with the content you added about defunct JW beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I'm still waiting for Timothy's response.--Purrhaps (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

My 'opinion' is consistent with the relevant policies and guidelines. You have already been told by other editors that your edits were inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

JW view

User, Purrhaps has added extraneous detail about the view of Jehovah's Witnesses about the term 'archangel', with no attempt to discuss the matter. Having Protestant origins via Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses' view that 'Michael' the 'archangel' refers to Jesus is—unsurprisingly—the same as that of other Adventists. It is not necessary to add additional detail from JW primary sources (in fact, having a subsection separate to the Protestant subsection is scarcely warranted at all).--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My contributions are not extraneous. The article states that M=Jesus. However the WT has also published articles stating the following. And please show that "other Adventists" teach the following.

1. Michael is not the Son of God.

2. Michael is an angel that worships Jesus.

3. Michael is the Pope / the Antichrist., ,

4. Michael is the pre-human Jesus.,

5. Michael is the post-human Jesus., , ,

6. Michael is the post-human Jesus (who came for his Bride in 1874).

7. Michael is Jesus the Messiah.,

8. Michael is Jesus.

So this is my "attempt to discuss the matter". Comments???--Purrhaps (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias in favour of Jehovah's Witnesses

The article currently reads: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is only one archangel (Michael), based on the literal meaning of the Greek word ἀρχάγγελος: "chief angel". They also believe that the definite article at Jude 9 ("Michael the archangel") means there is only one archangel. Citing 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NWT), which says: "because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet", they conclude that Michael is another name for Jesus in heaven.{23]" ~ EVERYTHING after the 2nd sentence is unbalanced, sectarian propaganda about JESUS & should be transferred to the Michael page. ~ Otherwise, you should allow a comprehensive summary of information showing their full view of Michael. ~ Even they know better & admit in Awake 2002/2/8 (p17): “there is NO statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus”.--Purrhaps (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that they 'acknowledge' that the Bible doesn't explicitly state their view does not change what their view actually is. The article accurately states their current view. The article probably has too much content about the JW view, since they have the same view as other Adventists. (This is unsurprising since they are technically Adventists, with common 19th century origins.) I would fully support condensing and merging the JW view with the Adventist view. As you have been told previously, providing additional information about the JW view at this article is definitely undue weight to a minor denomination. This is especially the case in the absence of secondary sources discussing their view of the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Excluding WatchTower flip-flops (which disqualifies the WT as a Channel-of-Truth for anyone), TRUTH never changes -- especially GOD's TRUTH.

Member Beliefs are NOT Relevant It doesn't matter what the JWs, LDS folks, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, etc., BELIEVE. Wiki articles should only state what the Denomination / Religion, TEACHES. Let's say 55% of Catholics do not believe in HELL. So What! What matters to Wiki articles, is what the Denomination teaches.--Purrhaps (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the article can only provide information in terms of nominal belief. However, this does not invalidate the relative sizes of the denominations in question, and the proportion of Christians who officially believe in these 'archangels'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

WatchTower CHANNEL of TRUTH vs DEFUNCT JW beliefs

Jeffro77 wrote: comparing with the content you added about DEFUNCT JW beliefs. ~ A major point for Wiki articles (on 'archangel', 'Michael', etc), & a warning to readers is the difference between The WT & the JW. The WT claims to be God's sole channel for Truth. This = unbelievable arrogance based on a peculiar (one-of-a-kind) distortion of Mt.24:45. The WT asks & teaches: “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ~ The timely spiritual food we receive is proof that Jesus, the Head of the congregation, is keeping his promise to feed us. Through whom is he doing so? When giving the sign of his presence, Jesus said that he would use “the faithful and discreet slave” to give “food at the proper time” to his domestics. (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) That faithful slave is the channel through which Jesus is feeding his true followers in this time of the end. It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave. Our spiritual health and our relationship with God depend on this channel." Purrhaps (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. This article and its Talk page should not be used as a soapbox for arguments about JW belief or the denomination's leadership.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion = soapbox. ~ My opinion = vital-to-reader info. ~ A JW would be excommunicated / banned / disfellowshipped / ostracized / kicked out if they believed & voiced any DEFUNCT WT doctrine. Take care.--Purrhaps (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

JW disciplinary processes are outside the scope of this article, and Wikipedia is not intended as an instructional manual for JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Merged and reduced

I have reduced the material presented about the 'JW view'. The detail about Jude 9 is not at all distinct to JWs, and is already presented as the overarching Protestant view. JWs developed from the Millerite Adventist movement via the Bible Student movement, and their views on archangels are distinctly Adventist. I have retained the only unique point of belief stated in the article about JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Then to be consistent, the same merge-&-purge should be done in the Michael article also. --Purrhaps (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as though there should indeed be a reduction of both the JW and SDA subsections into a single Adventist section at the other article. I will not have time to do this until at least the weekend, but others are welcome to make a start before then.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archangel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207012031/http://www.westsrbdio.org:80/prolog/my.html?month=November&day=8&Go.x=13&Go.y=15 to http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=November&day=8&Go.x=13&Go.y=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Archangel Nathaniel

I just found out that there is Archangel Nathaniel which is new -- add these new archangels names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.218.200 (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic source did you find this information in? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)