Jump to content

Talk:List of angels in theology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The purpose of this page is to provide a quick reference for the names of angels in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition and various other sources. Although the entry for angels contains a number of examples, a situation analogous to the demons/list of demons has arisen, and since the original entry is not meant to function as a reference, this page may serve that purpose akin to the Hierarchy of angels entry that is also separate from the main Angel article.

If you choose to add an entry, please follow the convention of the existing names: name (with Wikipedia link if it exists) and then origin if it is known. This will provide a starting point for individuals seeking to know more about the names listed in the article. ◄Zahakiel► 22:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodel

[edit]

I can find literally nothing regarding Asmodel in Norse mythology. The closest it gets is Marvel. Why is this included as a culture hosting angels? The closest gotten in Norse mythology is either the valkyrijur or Nornir, but even then... not really. I really think that ought to be removed for accuracy's sake.--2604:B840:115:1C0:610F:89C8:3A95:AAD7 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer

[edit]

Shouldn't Lucifer be added to this page? He was an Angel before he fell. I'll add him now but you can always remove him again later. ≈ Seraph 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike many fallen angels and demons, there are references in religious literature to Lucifer before his actual fall, (e.g., Isaiah 14) so I think it is an appropriate entry for this list. ◄Zahakiel► 21:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he was never an angel. He was jinn Mailien89 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he was an angel before he fell. He was the perfect angel and was charge of worship in heaven. The Bible tells us that this king was a created being and left the creative hand of God in a perfect state (Ezekiel 28:12-15). And he remained perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him (Ezekiel 28:15b). What was this iniquity? We read in [Ezekiel 28:17], “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.” Lucifer became so impressed with his own beauty, intelligence, power, and position that he began to desire for himself the honor and glory that belonged to God alone. The sin that corrupted Lucifer was self-generated pride since he thought he could handle the Glory of God. Infinite2323 (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced

[edit]

Is it necessary to keep a {{Unreferenced}} tag? Please responed, Keep or Remove--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 10:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, As it is a list and it only lists links to articles, references are not compulsory in such list --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 10:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, since references belong in each of the specific articles listed here. Glen Worthey (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would assume that any entry without a link has no references to give.LutherVinci (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrean-Judeo-Christian

[edit]

What is Hebrean-Judeo-Christian supposed to mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? I've never heard that, and found in no where except this article. Gadreel - who is actually a fallen angel is mentioned in Jew and Christian sources, so it shall be Judeo-Christian. Hebrean relates somewhat to Hebrew, and Hebrew is so much about Jew. So no need to call it Hebrean. » nafSadh did say 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justification

[edit]

For those of you who need a more fuller explanation of my recent deletes to the list, here are the reasons:

  • Anaelachiem: This is just a rewriting of Anaheim, a baseball stadium in Los Angeles. Being that "Los Angeles" translates to "The Angels", this entry was obviously added as a practical joke.
  • Angelus Novus: This is a highly speculative copper etching, not at all theological. Thus disqualifying it from the list.
  • Ecanus & Ezekiel: All three of the "E's", (Eremiel, Ecanus, & Ezekiel) all link to the article, Apocalypse of Zephaniah. In this article, the name Eremiel appears, but other than that there is no indication that Ecanus or Ezekiel are in the book. Thus, without any external sources for Ecanus or Ezekiel, they can be assumed to be unreferenced.
  • Ireul: I could only find one reference to him as theological angel, and that was a website on Wikipedia's blacklist. So, without reputable sources or a Wikipedia article to his own, this entry is unreferenced.
  • Jundallah: The Jundallah (or "soldiers of God") are an Islamic terrorist group, not Angels.

LutherVinci (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ian.thomson

[edit]

I'd like to ask ian.thomson to read before deleting. There is a book; Encyclopedia of Angels: By Richard Webster online, which I use for my citations on this page: http://books.google.com/books?id=eWyN0PkuhdEC&pg=PA149&dq=peliel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NxK7Uc-FJJWy4APEioDADA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=peliel&f=false | These deletions are very provocative and unfriendly. Twillisjr (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite them for the material you add, or someone else will certainly remove them. You have shown you know how to, to try to make me cite them for you when you have access to the book and know how to cite them is nothing but trying to make me to your work for you as an act of petty revenge. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of angels in theology, right? So Twillisjr, why do you think a psychic with an interest in past lives and people's guardian angels is an author who passes our criteria for reliable sources at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY as an expert on theology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm References are valid sources?

[edit]

hafapea.com looks like someones personal website dedicated to all things supernatural. Can an admin or mod confirm these sources are valid?

Luvodicus (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2020

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 00:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– The list of theological angels and demons clearly takes precedent over the fictional angels and demons based on them as they have existed longer in mythology. Per WP:CONCISE, the "in theology"/"theological" is not necessary. Hatnotes can solve the problem of people looking for fictional versions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. In the first nom, the target has five valid entries, so the dab page should not be deleted. Also, there is no strong argument for PTOPIC, especially considering that there is no proof of the non-fiction state of theological demons. They might all be figments of hyperactive imaginations. So where PTOPIC is concerned, more evidence than just implying that theological angels and demons are not fiction is needed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long-term significance criterion would mean that even if the theological angels are all complete fiction, they would still be primary over modern, fictional angels from a TV series or the like, similar to the other mythological figures. As for the other dabpage items, they are WP:PTM and really should not be there.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some fictional angels listed at List of angels in fiction have hundreds of years of significance as well (from Paradise Lost). And LTS is just one issue that editors analyze to determine PTOPIC. So it still seems unconvincing. The title of the dab page is "List of angels", so on one hand all the entries might be PTMs, OR each entry might also be referred to by some as just a "List of angels" when used in certain contexts. So on the other hand they might not be considered PTMs, at least not anymore than calling the Mississippi River just the Mississippi or Quanta Magazine just Quanta. I think it's a valid dab page with five entries and should not be deleted even if there is consensus to support your PTOPIC issue. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I slightly agree with the opposing view. Angels in theology denote angels in religious context (like the angel Gabriel of Abrahamic tradition) versus angels made for fictional works such as books and TV shows. Wouldn't moving the article title make the scope broader? cookie monster (2020) 755 04:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As all of the fictional angels in the list are derived from the religious angels (either in name, theme or both), that makes it the WP:PTOPIC and therefore unnecessary to disambiguate. List of car brands is not called "List of car brands in real life" to disambiguate from the fictional cars, because that is obvious. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the title is needed to prevent constant drive by addition of fiction. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We used to have List of demons with a hatnote saying it was only for demons believed to exist by religions, it was a mess and a continual effort was needed to keep fictional demons out of it. Moving it to List of theological demons, creating a list of fictional demons and making List of demons a dab page between them has worked much better and it would be a mistake to revert that. As for the assertion by the nominator that mythological demons are clearly more important than fictional ones, individual religions may be important topics on Wikipedia, but once you create a list that is sourced from multiple religions you are getting into the niche topic of comparative religion. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Asmodel

[edit]

Why is Asmodel listed as a "Old Norse" Angel, as far as i can recall Old Norse Theology lacks anything we would call angels as far as we know about it. I can't find anything explaining what an Chariot of Asgård is and the same goes for "One's of kadosh seggurot's". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slidderislusk (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its also unlikely that Norse, Hindu, and Abrahamic religions share one entity. The suffix -el points at Hebrew origin, probably it is some angel adapted later by European Christians? There is no source and no link, the "angel" should be removed all together. Hinduism and Norse mythology doesn't even feature angels as you corretly state. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eylül K

[edit]

Eylül K is mentioned without Religion, link, or type. Only: "The Most Beautiful of Them all", I think this is a user-entry that does not belong here. Lily Elbe (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castiel

[edit]

The angel of Thursday. 168.92.227.101 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_angels_in_theology&oldid=1251238635"