Talk:Michael (archangel)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit war over categories

Michael is the highest archangel, for example as seen in the War in Heaven, also check the Jewish Encyclopedia and Catholic Encyclopedia entries. How does this not qualify for Category:Superlatives in religion? User:History2007 claims this category has been overapplied? There are currently 32 entries in this category, how is this in any sense "over application"? Why do I feel that I'm just being pushed around because I choose to remain an anonymous editor? Is this how anonymous editors are encouraged to start a named account? 75.15.194.45 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

P1. Michael is an archangel.

P2. Archangels are lower than seraphim.

C. Any seraph is higher than Michael.

That solves the issue of this page being in the category. But aside from that, I wholeheartedly agree with History that this category has been overapplied in the last couple days. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I had not thought of the seraph issue, and do not recall the details. But you probably know that topic better, so that should settle the issue on this page. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are two references that should settle the issue of whether or not Michael is considered superlative:

Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Michael the Archangel: "Regarding his rank in the celestial hierarchy opinions vary; St. Basil (Hom. de angelis) and other Greek Fathers, also Salmeron, Bellarmine, etc., place St. Michael over all the angels; they say he is called "archangel" because he is the prince of the other angels; others (cf. P. Bonaventura, op. cit.) believe that he is the prince of the seraphim, the first of the nine angelic orders. But, according to St. Thomas (Summa Ia.113.3) he is the prince of the last and lowest choir, the angels. The Roman Liturgy seems to follow the Greek Fathers; it calls him "Princeps militiae coelestis quem honorificant angelorum cives". The hymn of the Mozarabic Breviary places St. Michael even above the Twenty-four Elders. The Greek Liturgy styles him Archistrategos, "highest general" (cf. Menaea, 8 Nov. and 6 Sept.). "

Jewish Encyclopedia: MICHAEL: Michael and Gabriel: "It is quite natural that, owing to his position with regard to the Jews, Michael should be represented in the Haggadah as the most prominent of the archangels. He is called by Daniel (Dan. xii. 1) "the great prince," and his greatness is described at length in later Jewish writings. He was one of the seven archangels first created (Enoch, xc. 21-22; Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxxiv. 6 gives only six), but among these seven four excel, and Michael is the chief of the four. Both he and Gabriel are called "great princes"; but Michael is higher in rank thanGabriel (Ber. 4b; Yoma 37a). He is the viceroy of God, who rules over the world (Enoch, lxix. 14 et seq.), and wherever Michael appears the Shekinah also is to be found (Ex. R. ii. 8). Michael is on the right of God's throne, while Gabriel is on the left ("Haggadat Shema' Yisrael," in Jellinek, l.c. v. 166; Targ. to Job xxv. 2; Enoch, xl. 9). Four armies of angels sing in praise of the Lord, the first being that of Michael at the right hand of God (Pirḳe R. El. iv.; "Hekalot," in Jellinek, l.c. ii. 43-44). A similar tradition is given in "Seder Gan 'Eden" (l.c. p. 138): Michael's place is by the first river, Pison, while Gabriel's is by the second, Gihon. It is Michael who, on account of his occupying the first place near God, receives the prayers of men from the angels and presents them to God (Baruch Apoc. Slavonic, xii.). His position makes him the companion of Meṭaṭron (Zohar, i. 149b)."

75.15.194.45 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your references primarily demonstrate that no one can decide which is the highest of the angels, so clearly Michael should not be in the category, if the category should even be used at all. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The majority assert a position of superlativeness to Michael. Roman Liturgy: "Princeps militiae coelestis quem honorificant angelorum cives", Greek Liturgy: "Archistrategos", Judaism: Right Hand of God. A minority deny superlativeness. Why does the minority opinion rule here? 75.15.194.45 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the refs, but regardless of those I think the article is not about "oneupmanship of Michael" in any case. And look you have 3 people objecting to it now. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a credible encyclopedia or is this just all one big inside joke? 75.15.194.45 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not talking about major content issues here, just a category that does not really affect content. I see this as a minor issue. History2007 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just out of idle curiosity, how did people first work out all these hierarchies and titles? PiCo (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the overall category structure in Wikipedia. The answer there is simple: "first come, first served". Whoever edited it added a Cat. The issue is a major technical one, however, and is formally discussed in the context of Ontology (information science). Some of the early success of Yahoo came from their ontology design, all hand crafted by much effort. I have for long wished that Wikipedia would use Wordnet's ontology as a basis, given that it was a formal scholarly project. But then I know that this is the wild, wild west of scholarship... History2007 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The wild wild West of scholarship ... very good! PiCo (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox and Michael

Where it says "Protestant denominations generally recognize only two archangels, Michael and Gabriel,"- I understand that Gabriel is mentioned in the Bible only as a messanger and not an archangel. Where does the reference to archangel come from? 213.44.68.21 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello History, yes, I see that. One question though, is the Eastern Orthodox view of Michael so much different than the Roman Catholic Church's? And even so, the way the section was before had BOTH, as you know now, and so why couldn't the section simply say both in the name? Or if not, why couldn't there now be a separate section of "Eastern Orthodoxy". There isn't any now. And really, there should be. If you want to make Roman Catholicism section alone, I do understand that actually. But wouldn't it be good and necessary now to at least have Eastern Orthodoxy with its own section in this article? I mean, it's a major church. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what would be nice is if you could write a section on EO. I do not know EO that well, but I do know that in many cases they differ from RC. So a section on EO is a good idea if you have time to write it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, I'll try. But again, my point is that the way the section was before, the contents made clear mention of both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. My question is why was Eastern Orthodox even mentioned also in the section to begin with? I would presume that whoever put it originally way back knew that that was the view of the Eastern Orthodox also. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote that section some time ago, and it was my error not to remove EO as I cleaned it up. That was all. If you can write an EO section that will be nice. I will not have the time for several more months. So help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodoxy section for Michael article

To Esoglou. Hi. If you notice, in this Michael Archangel article, there is no clear section for Eastern Orthodoxy. But for everything else there is, basically. Since you're very well-versed, it seems, in the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and probably their views in the area of Michael also, I was wondering if you could maybe make a new section on the Michael article for Eastern Orthodoxy, since one is lacking. I'm sure RC and EO views on Michael are similar, but probably not 100% exactly the same. So I would think this Archangel Michael article warrants an EO section. What do you think? Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In return for an assurance by another editor that he would cease inserting attacks on the Catholic Church based on hostile comments by non-Catholics, I have undertaken to avoid inserting information based on faithful Eastern Orthodox sources about the Eastern Orthodox Church, for which I have the highest respect and affection. The most I will do in response to your request it to place some information here for you or others to select from and elaborate on for insertion in the article by you or by other, not by me.

Eastern Orthodox

Eastern Orthodox calls Michael the "Archistrategos", or "Supreme Commander of the Heavenly Hosts". In line with this Eastern Orthodox interpretation, Michael first appears in the Old Testament in the book of Joshua's account of the fall of Jericho. Though Michael is not mentioned by name in the text, it is said that Joshua "looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand". When the still unaware Joshua asks which side of the fight the Archangel is on, Michael responds, "neither...but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come" (Joshua 5:13–14)

In the book of Daniel, Michael appears first to help the Archangel Gabriel defeat the Persians (10:13). In a later vision it is revealed to Daniel that "at that time [the end times] Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then..." (Ch. 12). Michael thus plays an important role as the protector of Israel and later of his chosen people, the Church.

The Church Fathers also ascribe to Michael the following events: During the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt he went before them in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night; the power of the great Chief Commander of God was manifest in the annihilation of the 185 thousand soldiers of the Assyrian emperor Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:35); also in the smiting of the impious leader Heliodorus ({{bibleverse|2|Maccabees|3:24-26); and in the protection of the Three Holy Youths: Ananias, Azarias and Misail, thrown into the fiery furnace for their refusal to worship an idol (Daniel 3:22–25). Through the will of God, the Chief Commander Michael transported the Prophet Habbakuk from Judea to Babylon, to give food to Daniel in the lions' den (Daniel 14:33–37). The Archangel Michael disputed with the devil over the body of the holy Prophet Moses (Jude 1:9).

In later times, according to a story found in the Athonite Paterikon, and in the Life of St Neophytus of Docheiariou, Michael miraculously saved a young man cast into the sea by robbers with a stone about his neck on the shores of Mt Athos.

Perhaps his most famous miracle was saving the church at Colossae, which a number of pagans tried to destroy by diverting the flow of two rivers directly into its path. However, the Archangel appeared amongst the waters, and, carrying a cross, channeled the rivers underground so that the ground the church stood on would not be destroyed. The spring which came forth after this event is said to have special healing powers.

Michael also has been associated with healing in other cases, as well as his primary role as leader of the Church Militant. He has been said to appear to Emperor Constantine the Great (d. 337) at Constantinople, to have intervened in assorted battles, and appeared, sword in hand, over the mausoleum of Hadrian, in apparent answer to the prayers of Pope St. Gregory I the Great (590-604) that a plague in Rome should cease.

Russians in particular have a special veneration to Michael, along with the Theotokos. According to OCA, "Intercession for Russian cities by the Most Holy Queen of Heaven always involved Her appearances with the Heavenly Hosts, under the leadership of the Archangel Michael. Grateful Rus acclaimed the Most Pure Mother of God and the Archangel Michael in church hymns. Many monasteries, cathedrals, court and merchant churches are dedicated to the Chief Commander Michael. In Rus there was not a city where there was not a church or chapel dedicated to the Archangel Michael."

Iconography

There are three icons of the Archangel Michael in whose composition he is said to have personally intervened: Archangel Michael of Mantamados in Mytilene, Archangel Michael of Panormitis and Archangel Michael of Nenita. Each of these icons are different.

More typically, he is represented as the Chief Commander of the Heavenly hosts, holding a sword in one hand; in the other he often carries either a shield, a date-tree branch, a spear, or a white banner (possibly with a scarlet cross). Some icons show him holding an orb in one hand and a staff in the other. Inside the orb are often the superimposed Greek letters ΧΡ, the ChiRho symbol for Christ.

Michael is also represented in icons as standing on a horizontal body and with his left arm held high, holding a small image of a "baby". The body represents a human being at the time of his death and the image of the "baby" represents the soul of the deceased. This icon came about since the belief that the Archangel Michael takes the souls of the dead to heaven. This is typical of the miraculous and wonder-working Archangel Michael of Panormitis, in Symi of Greece.

In Russian iconography he is most likely to be wearing red. In many instances, Michael tramples the devil under his feet, which may be depicted as a dragon. This comes from the tradition that Michael was the main opponent of Satan in the battle for Heaven. Satan, previously called Samael, was always looking to discredit Israel, while Michael was its main protector. In the end, Satan attempted to drag Michael down in his fall from the heights, but Michael was rescued by God.

Hymns

Troparion (Tone 4) [1]

Commanders of the heavenly hosts,

we who are unworthy beseech you,

by your prayers encompass us beneath the wings of your immaterial glory,

and faithfully preserve us who fall down and cry to you:

"Deliver us from all harm, for you are the commanders of the powers on high!"

Kontakion (Tone 2) [2]

Commanders of God's armies and ministers of the divine glory,

princes of the bodiless angels and guides of mankind,

ask for what is good for us, and for great mercy,

supreme commanders of the Bodiless Hosts.

Oriental Orthodoxy

The place of Michael in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria is comparable to that of the Virgin Mary. He is seen as the one who presents to God the prayers of the just, who accompanies the souls of the dead to heaven, who defeats the devil. He is celebrated liturgically on the 12th of each month. In Alexandria, a church was dedicated to him in the early fourth century on the 12th of the month of Ba'unah. On the 12th of the month of Hatur is the celebration of Michael's investiture in heaven as a replacement for Satan, whereupon Michael became the chief of the angels.

I could add more, but you surely don't need even that much. Esoglou (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox material you added is actually enough for a new article, not a section. So I think we can turn what you entered here into an article, add a few more refs and then have a section here that points to it via a Main. I really like the iconography section and can get the icons for it- pretty nice section. The Coptic material will make a good section. Really nice addition Esoglou. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To Esoglou, if you're referring to "LoveMonkey", I'm curious, whatever happened to him? He hasn't been around in a while. I presume you're referring to him, as to the on-going problems in the past months. But lately he has seemed to have disappeared. Whatever happened to him? Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, let sleeping dogs lie. In particular the one who seems to have given up trying to persuade others that I have in some way broken the agreement. If I felt free, I would have tried to base the above EOC remarks (not edits) on more solid evidence. I have only reluctantly responded to your request to me to make some contribution. Esoglou (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I understand. But I was just wondering why he seems to have not been around in a while. If he maybe went on a hiatus or something. If you might know or whatever maybe. Because from what I remember or saw, he used to be somewhat active in editing. I was curious if he took a break maybe. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox section

As I was cleaning up refs etc. it turned out that it was verbatim from a website, so would have been copyvio. The iconography was similar. I commented them out they it can be rewritten in different form and references. The text also referenced Daniel 14, but Daniel ends at 12, etc. Anyway, will need work later. History2007 (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated, I provided material for others to work on, taken from OrthodoxWiki, which is not, in Wikipedia terms, a reliable source. If I had been free to edit the article myself, I would have provided sources - well, I did in fact add a couple that came immediately to mind, but without elaborating on them - and would have made the text correspond to the sources. Esoglou (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. I will get to it sooner or later. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WordPress

Can someone here please explain to us if www.wordpress.com is a WP:RS source? It is a blog site. Now http://scripturethoughts.wordpress.com is being used in the article as a source... History2007 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We can't always use "not reliable sources" as the convenient cop-out or alibi against putting material that you may not personally LIKE to come out. (It becomes clear real soon that that's really what's going on here.) Because I do become perceptive. Are you gonna say that Webster's Online Dictionary is so "unreliable? You're mentioning "wordpress" now though. I mean, yes, it's true, not all "sources" are as solid or "reliable" as others. But the problem with your position is that Spurgeon said these clear things IN HIS OWN BOOKS. To say that Spurgeon only believed Michael was a "higer angel of higher status" is a JOKE of an edit, and completely inaccurate. Of course many Baptists and Spurgeon supporters in supposedly "reliable sources" are gonna white-wash that. Because they don't like the idea of Spurgeon believing Jesus was Michael, even in a Trinitarian sense. But that's not what we're supposed to be doing, or catering to (unless you're personally in sympathy with covering up that fact). Especially when those clear statements are in Spurgeon's own writings.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be about hiding or suppressing points or facts, simply because some editors might find some of those (fairly clear and supported) facts a bit distasteful or surprising. Clear unambiguous quotes from Spurgeon’s own books where he calls Jesus “Michael” EXPLICITLY.... Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I will await further comments regarding WP:RS sources. To have a clear quote you need the Spurgeon book, ISBN and page number. Then it can be verified. History2007 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you gonna say that Webster's Online Dictionary is so "unreliable? Sorry, you failed to point out how THEY are not "RS". Re-read my comment above, please. Stop trying to suppress clear facts that you don't like. (I would never put up with it.) WordPress quotes Spurgeon's own books, as you know. The point again (the over-riding point) is that Spurgeon unquestionably called Jesus "Michael" (in a Trinitarian sense though). And there's enough sourcing to prove that. It's not hard to get ISBN and page numbers, by the way. So instead of removing, tag it maybe, or find the pages. Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We will discuss other sources later. This thread is about Wordpress. I will say no more until other users comment on Wordpress. I claim that "nothing" from Wordpress should enter Wikipedia, in this or any other instance. Period. Now we await further comments. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I got rid of the WordPress. Since it seems to be problematic. I now put in VERY RELIABLE UNQUESTIONABLE SOURCES. The book pdfs themselves, of Spurgeon's sermons, that state the points and quotes. There's no WP valid anything against refs like that. They're here and here. Ok, so there's no real excuse anymore. The point again is that Spurgeon said (clearly) what he said. He explicitly (not even something to inference, but unambiguously) said Jesus is Michael. (In a Trinitarian sense though.) And that fact should not be down-played or watered down or suppressed. But now better refs are there. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I never cared what Spurgeon said, but I was not going to accept wordpres. It is not WP:RS. Now:

• Do not use wordpress again, anywhere on Wikipedia.
• You do not need to put messages on my talk page every few minutes.
• Read the fine print at the bottom of the Webster site. It is adapted from sources such as Wikipedia by who knows... It is totally Non-WP:RS. Need to delete that until you find other sources for Matthew Henry and the other quotes.

So just use WP:RS sources. That is all. History2007 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I hope that's the case. The reason, by the way, I put it on your Talk is because I wasn't sure if you were coming back to this specific thread just now. But anyway, Wordpress seems to be an issue for various reasons, and the Webster thing you said got from this or that (but you can't really compare the Webster dictionary to Wordpress, I would think.)

The point though is that what you did was not find better sources to support what I had put in, but totally GOT RID of what I put in, and watered it down to something that wasn't even really accurate anymore. Spurgeon did NOT just think Michael was a higher angel, case closed. It went beyond that, as those PDF book sources prove unquestionably. So put yourself in my shoes for a minute. To see a total down-playing of the facts, just because the sources were a bit questionable? My point (that you didn't address) is why didn't you maybe remove the sources, but leave the statement, and find BETTER sources, or at the very least tag the statements for better sources? You can't escape that point...with the constant "don't ever use wordpress" again. You could have found better refs yourself, to support those previous statements, like I just did. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Burden. Everyone does their own homework. Else I will be cleaning up after people 72 hours a day. Now, do not use wordpress or that Webster site again. End of story. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's a dodge, sir. And dishonest. Because you did "homework" that was INCORRECT. You watered the statements down to garbage, basically, into things that were no longer accurate. You had time to do THAT kind of "homework". So spare me the cop-out excuses. (Yes, I'm annoyed with you now...for your evasions and dishonesties.) You took plenty of time and effort to re-work it into something not true anymore, and did "homework" for finding watered-down but "reliable" sources. When you could have easily found the PDFs that I found. So don't hand me that nonsense now, sir.

You disrespected and removed my edits, and put in dribbled down nonsense that was no longer accurate, put in refs to support the watered-down nonsense, instead of leaving the edits as they were (which were accurate), and instead of finding better sources to support THOSE previous statements. (Or at the very least tagging it.) You didn't. When you could have.

And you're just dodging that point again, with again repeating "don't use wordpress again". If you took time and effort to butcher the accurate statements, to watered-down untrue versions, you could taken the time and effort to simply find those PDFs that I found. End of story. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not respond to those statements for they achieve nothing. And again do not use wordpress or that webster site again. Now replace Websters or I ask if it is WP:RS. Simple. History2007 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course you won't, because you have no valid answer for that. Just being honest. I mean, I do (and have expressed) my appreciation for your work and time to all these pages, but I don't agree with you on this matter, obviously. Because you were trying to have it BOTH WAYS. Saying rude stuff like "I don't have 72 hours to clean up after people" (disrespecting my hard work as something that needs to be "cleaned up"), when you had (lol) plenty of time to remove the statements, put in watered-down junk that was no longer accurate, and find lots of "reliable sources" to support the watered down (but untrue) versions. THAT you had time and energy for. That's all I'm saying.

Spurgeon in his own clear writings, called Jesus "Michael" (in a Trinitarian sense.) If you took the time and energy to do what you did ("72 hours" huh?) then you could have theoretically found those PDF links that I found to support the previous statements. That's my only point.

As far as "Webster Dictionary" there, by the way, can you tell me how exactly that is so "unreliable"? I can remove that, no problem, as the statements are sourced now with the PDFs. But still not totally sure what's wrong with the Webster source. You mentioned something about "quoting this or that". But is that enough to dis-qualify it as a RS?? Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. It is a website compiled by some fellow... History2007 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, ok, but you didn't really elaborate much. You said "a website compiled by some fellow..." The problem though is aren't all websites basically "compiled" by some fellow or someone? The question is is it reliable? All websites and sources are obviously put together by "fellows" etc. So I was hoping for a bit more detail on what makes you think that Webster Dictionary thing was so unreliable or questionable.

The "fellow" that you mention is this guy:

--------Philip M. Parker is the instigator behind Webster's Online Dictionary: The Rosetta Edition (www.websters-online-dictionary.org). Phil is an avid collector of dictionaries and encyclopedias with a special interest in those published during the French Enlightenment. In addition to being a bibliophile, he is the author of the Cross Cultural Statistical Encyclopedia (which includes Linguistic Cultures of the World: A Statistical Reference, Greenwood Press), and Physioeconomics: The Basis for Long-Run Economic Growth (MIT Press). He is currently the Eli Lilly Chair Professor of Innovation, Business and Society at INSEAD (Fontainebleau, France & Singapore). He has taught courses and been a visiting scholar at Stanford University, MIT, Harvard University, UCLA, UCSD and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D. from the Wharton School of Business and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences from the University of Pennsylvania.--------

Now, I'll ask, in all sincerity, what the hell makes that "fellow" so "unreliable" in your mind?? He has enough credentials it seems. Again, the argument seems a bit weak that because the site is "compiled by some fellow" that that disqualifies the site. All sites are compiled by someone. So what? I'm not totally convinced that that Webster Dictionary page warranted removal. There is such a thing as being uptight and over-scrupulous much on Wikipedia. Telling me to to "Read WP:RS" is just a rude arrogant evasion, questioning my knowledge as if I never read WP:RS before in my life (which I have plenty of times), and is not addressing SPECIFICALLY what's so wrong or unreliable about that website.

I mean, this is a DICTIONARY...for goodness' sake. NOT some blog or something.

If you fail to give me convincing evidence or facts, I might just put the ref back. Otherwise I'll wait for consensus. Simply because "you don't like it" is not enough of a reason. You can't say in circular reasoning "it's not reliable because I say it's not reliable, because it was compiled by 'some fellow'". There has to be deeper grounds than that. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

websters-online-dictionary.org appears to use Wikipedia as a source. It seems not to be a good source for us to use. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You said "appears to use Wikipedia as a source". That sounds ambiguous or unsure. My point, again, is that that site is a DICTIONARY, for God's sake. NOT a blog or something. This is Webster's Dictionary Online. Also, the statements in question, from that website, were definitely NOT gotten from Wikipedia. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I was being polite. It's not a dictionary; it's a website. It uses Wikipedia as a source, and it's utterly unsuitable. Please don't try to cite anything to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Polite? That's why you reverted without settling it totally first in talk? And "not a dictionary"? That's why it's called Webster's Online Dictionary??? It's an ONLINE dictionary. All sites are put together by someone. So what? All sites that are considered "reliable sources" on Wikipedia are "websites". And compiled by "someone". My question is you said "appears to use Wikipedia as a source". Where do you see that exactly? And if it does, the policy is that that totally negates the source or site overall? Even if other parts are not quoting "Wikipedia"? Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Harrison. That website says it uses Wikipedia, which opens the door to circular references. Per WP:RS, end of story. And please do not cross WP:3RR Hashem. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If it does, then ok, but the point is that that specific statement was NOT quoting from Wikipedia. But are you saying that if a site quotes or uses even a little bit of WP that that negates the whole site. My point is why is it an online "dictionary" then, with the word "Webster's"? Hence the confusion. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I know the rules. It is miles from WP:RS. He could call it Act of Congress if he wanted. Enough of this. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you know the rules. I never questioned that. I even said above that I appreciate all the stuff you've done over the months. And we got along fine for months, if you remember. I was thinking that maybe there was an over-application of it in some cases. (That does happen.)

And I said I was not really against removing the ref if it could be talked out a bit in Discussion first. Because I was making the point that that guy seemed to be credentialed, and that it was called "Webster's Dictionary". It wasn't called "Philip M. Parker's blog" or something. Or "Parker's discussion forum" or talk board. That was why I was a bit confused.

Not sure why an online dictionary would quote Wikipedia. I guess Wikipedia is being considered a solid source by many lately. But if WP policy is against using that kind of thing, etc, then I understand. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here's the real Webster Dictionary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How about this one as well? In any case, Parker can probably sell his website in 2 years. That may be the motive. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Michael a saint?

All saints are human. Michael is an angel, not a human. Therefore Michael is not a saint. Many Christian churches venerate the angels and saints. Each is venerated in a way peculiar to its form; saints are venerated as saints; angels are venerated as angels. That both types may appear on lists as venerable is not to confuse their type; they are not consubstantial as it were. That Michael is sometimes called "Saint Michael" is not a sign of his saintliness or an indication of his humanity; it refers to his sanctity, his holiness; it is an etymological quirk, no more. No Vatican or other document can be produced to affirm that Michael is a saint in as much as any ordinary Christian human is a saint such as Saint Stephan. So he must be excluded from the saint categories. It's possible that a higher category is need such as "Saints and angelic beings venerated by Christians"; I'd be happy for Michael to be a member of such a category. But saints on its own - no. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that this is a theological argument, please provide a few serious theological WP:RS sources to support your initial premise that "all saints are human" - I would, however, exclude the John Trigilio book there. Speaking for the Catholic perspective, if the Catechism calls him "Saint Michael" they must be on to something. By the way, I would also suggest avoiding the term venerable in this discussion, given its various contexts. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, the angels are accorded the title of "Saint" in English, which translated in Greek is merely άγιος, or "Holy". The Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox have no qualms about calling him "Saint". The Oriental Orthodox appear a bit more circumspect in this regard; you may have a point with them. More reliable secondary sources are needed in this matter. As far as I am aware, the saints are all the holy ones of God in Heaven. The angels are holy just like the glorified souls of humans, and so in Greek we call them άγιος, in English, saints. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what the Lutherans teach, but from the Catholic perspective I agree with this characterization. History2007 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Vatican document Angels Participate in the History of Salvation of 1986 states "God at the beginning of time created from nothing both creatures together, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and thus he created human nature as having both, since it is made up of spirit and of body" (Const. Dei Filius, DS 3002). In other words, God created both realities from the very beginning - the spiritual reality and the corporeal, the earthly world and the angelic world.". So then,there is a divide between spritual beings and corporeal beings. It goes on to say that angels are a "community of personal beings who serve the providential design of God for man and with man.". Significantly, it also concludes, "Therefore the Church confesses her faith in the guardian angels, venerating them in the liturgy with an appropriate feast and recommending recourse to their protection by frequent prayer, as in the invocation "Angel of God." So then, angels are venerated. They have feast days, just like saints. Nowhere, however, does the document speak of them as being saints. The entire thrust of the document is about the reverence and significance of angels in their specific spheres or choirs. There is no confusion of the two spheres of activity. Saints have faith, believing without seeing; the same cannot be said of angels who see the face of God. No faith is required of them - they see Him face to face as a fact. They are Holy but not saintly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but we do have a "theo-gap" here. The document you refer to is one encyclical (I am familiar with it) that addresses one issue and is not intended as an all encompassing presentation of Catholic teachings, and hence can not be used as part of an argument from silence - a less than sufficient method of reasoning in any case. What I asked for were a few WP:RS source to support your assertion at the start that all saints are human. History2007 (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

From Science? Science has no opinion on the matter. A non primary source has the following to say. "Is this reference official Catholic belief, and are saints actually quite similar to angels? In a word, no. Those references are inexact or poetic attempts to describe the deceased’s closeness to God....In fact angels and saints are quite different. The saints....await God’s action of reuniting their spirits with their bodies in the resurrection of the dead. Their existence now as temporary bodiless spirits reminds us of the angels’ permanent existence as such, but it does not change the fact that the saints are humans, not angels. Although both angels and humans are personal beings created by God, each is a different order of being. ....the term saint applies to an angel only in a stretched sense of sainthood. (“101 Questions and Answers on Saints”, George P. Evans, 2007 Google Books) Would this suffice? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Link was to silence, not science. And your reference refutes your own point, given that on page 27 it starts by saying: "indeed some angels are counted and celebrated among the saints". History2007 (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your contribution said science, not silence. An understandable typo, but it should have been acknowledged in a note describing the change to the contribution. You are correct to state that the quoted sentence on pg 27 commences "Indeed some angels are counted and celebrated among the saints". From my contribution above, you'll note that I prefixed a quote using ..... So the unified sentence now reads in its entirety "Indeed some angels are counted and celebrated among the saints, but the term saint applies to an angel only in a stretched sense of sainthood.". So it's clear that there is no contradiction, let alone refutation. Unless you think that the author was so foolish as to refute himself within his own sentence? On the contrary, it's clear that the intent is to show that the title of "saint", when applied to angels, is more poetic than literal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I was party to a debate about this at Talk:Veneration#Angel=Saint? and here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article I used to argue my case: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm I hope you find it useful. Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As you can see in the article Saint, the term has a wide variety of meaning within Christianity. You can see that even Catholic sources will distinguish between the human saints and the angel spirits. In the Confiteor we pray "And I ask... all the angels and saints" and frequently you will find a formulation that mentions them together because they are separate concepts. However, the fact remains that angels are venerated under this title, have their cultus and feast days, and enjoy membership in the communion of saints. I see no basis on which to exclude them from categories which they are clearly entitled to, considering their status. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Elizium here, and note that the initial post to this thread contains a logical error, saying "All saints are human." That is not the case, as per the source Elizium provided. I have seen Michael specifically included in the Catholic calendar of saints, the Eastern Orthodox calendar of saints, the Coptic and Ethiopian synaxariums or calendar of saints, and elsewhere. And, yes, he is often popularly referred to as "Saint Michael." The logical fallacy that all saints are humans is I think the problem here. Most of those referred to as "saints" are humans, but I have seen any number of named "angels" of heaven included in various liturgical calendars as well, and often referred to as "saints", including some I don't remember having ever heard of before. Acknowledging that there is cause to differentiate somewhere between the "sainted" angels who have achieved heaven by never having been removed from it and the "sainted" humans who achieved heaven after their time on earth, I cannot see how describing any of those angels who are called "saints" to be removed from such categories, although I could, potentially, see some subcategories for angelic saints, if such were deemed called for. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and in fact page 27 of Laurel's reference also explicitly says that Michael is included in the calendar of saints. Anyway, I am tired of this brouhaha about a category, so I will stop. If we do not stop, this will continue until "the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet" is heard. I think I have heard the trumpet announcing the end of this discussion now. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

At no time have I said that the angels are not worthy of veneration as seems to be applied by ther above 2 contributions. They are worthy as angels just as saints are wothy as saints. To each his own due. The error, which most contributions so far have fallen into, is to say that because both are worthy of veneration that they are identical. This is not the case. Ther Cathechism of the Catholic Church, for example, at 1352, in speaking of the Eurcharistic prayer, says "In the preface, the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. the whole community thus joins in the unending praise that the Church in heaven, the angels and all the saints, sing to the thrice-holy God." Were there no difference between angels and saints, there would be no need to distinguish them; the common term "saints" would cover all. Yet the CCC makes a distinction. Elizem says that angels "enjoy membership in the communion of saints". This is only true in the most general of senses of those who enjoy the beatific vision (which is true of both categories). An encyclopedisa like Wiki demands much more precise categorisations. John Carter is moving towards such rigour with his nuanced suggestions for "sainted angels" and "sainted humans". I would support such a schema. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, end of debate is close. You have already conceded that "all saints are human" is false. But I do not buy the categories sainted humans - totally artificial, and not generally used. Page 27 of your own ref says that Church catalogues them along with the saints. End of story. History2007 (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Who died and made you Queen of the debate? I will not be frog-marched into a premature close. The debate ends when it ends. I did not make the concession above. You continue to pretend that pg 27 does not contain that important qualification. The important qualification is that "the term saint applies to an angel only in a stretched sense of sainthood". Everything else in pg 27 must be read in the light of that qualification. This debate is about calling a spade a spade i.e. that calling Michael a saint only makes sense in the stretched sense of sainthood. In the literal, precise sense, it is false. The largest artificiality introduced into this debate is the ongoing pretense that 2 distinct things are in fact the same thing. That I do not buy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Long and short of it is: "all saints are human" is false and you do not have a source that says that. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) I believe very strongly that at least one editor involved here should make a more visible attempt to abide by WP:CIVILITY and WP:TPG. I have, honestly, not seen the specific source provided for the quotation inserted above, but I note that at no time did I myself suggest or I think even imply that there should be a separate category for "Sainted humans". At best I was thinking that a subcategory of saints for angels (and presumably other entities, if any are called saints anywhere - I honestly don't know). A category for "sainted humans" would be much like a category for "hetersexuals" or other clear "majority" groups. It would become quickly unworkable and, honestly, not be all that useful to anyone attempting to use the category. I also note that only the Catholic perspective seems to be discussed, and not that of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, the Donatists, the Visigoth church, or any other groups which also have or have had veneration of saints. But I myself don't see any particular objections to creating a specific subcategory for "sainted angels" or "angels included in liturgical calendars" or however one might want to name such a category. And I also agree that the assertion that "all saints are human" has not been substantially indicated by sufficient reliable sources for such a blanket assertion.

We have one editor doing a really remarkable job dealing with content relating to Christian saints, and I note that he has so far not commented regarding this. I will ask for his input now as well. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Try this link and search for Michael on page 27. He is catalogued as a saint. If he is catalogued as a saint can be categorized as a saint. As for only the Catholic perspective, refuting the general statement that "all saints are human" requires only one counterexample. History2007 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to John Carter for his civilised comments. They are a welcome change from the attempts of other editors that, in attempting to orchestrate a premature close, have verged close to bullying. I for one will not submit to such tactics. I prefer to let arguments stand for themselves. And thanks also for the "remarkable job" comments. I will assume that they were made in good faith. Modesty forbids that I bring them to attention. But seeing as you bring it up, what exactly did you want me to comment on? Re counterexample, this would be true if we agreed on the common term. But as History2007 persists in pretending that there is only 1 term whereas I contend that there are 2 terms, then no common ground exists, hence no applicable counterexample. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought by remarkable job John meant Mannanan - who certainly knows the topic pretty well. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) I was actually thinking of the quotation "the term saint applies to an angel only in a stretched sense of sainthood" as being problematic, and note that the "remarkable job" is actually a reference to someone not yet involved in this discussion. I personally find the continuing snide commentary and possible refusal to get to the point of at least one editor involved to be possibly becoming seriously problematic. I have yet to see the evidence from independent reliable sources which is more or less indicated as per wikipedia policies and guidelines that there are "two terms" as one editor above seems to persist in asserting. I believe it would be reasonable that the sources be produced, not only for Catholicism, but for the other Christian groups which use the term. I have certainly found him listed in most if not all of the reference works regarding "saints," and I am far less than sure that they agree with that assertion. And I should also notice that I have found in various encyclopedia and web sources, including SQPN, that Michael is regarded as the "patron saint" of a rather staggering number and variety of locations, activities, and difficulties. That would I think provide further evidence that Michael can reasonably be counted as a "saint". And, to Mannanan, who I was referring to by my comment regarding "remarkable job," for what it might be worth this page, which I am now going to create based on a recent review of the sources indicated (admitting to only haven gotten to page 50 of Holweck) provides some evidence of patron saints of all sorts according to independent reliable sources. I have started another page based exclusively on the SQPN website, which I am still a long way from finishing. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I will attempt to be brief. The term "saint" derives from the Latin "sanctus" which in turn derives from the Greek "άγιος", meaning "holy". It is used very broadly by various denominations. In the instant context the following considerations might be helpful: First, a common definition is: A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth. (A secondary description mentions a person who has died and gone to heaven.) Second, Aquinas is clear that angels are part of the mystical body, they share with men the friendship of God, and with men are ordained to one end, His glory. In this they share in the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thirdly, there is Leo XIII's "Prayer to St. Michael", to which John Paul II referred in his Regina Coeli address of April 24, 1994. "Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against the evil spirits of this world." There is an Altar of St.Michael the Archangel in St. Peter's Basilica.[3]

Raphael, Gabriel, and Michael are invoked as saints since they have been introduced by name in scripture. The fact that angels and saints are occasionally listed separately insures the inclusion of all the unnamed Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, etc. Are angels created by, and therefore children of God? yes. Are they persons with intellect and will? yes. Are they worthy of veneration and capable of interceding for people? yes. Michael is a saint, at least apparently according to Rome. Pax vobiscum.Mannanan51 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51

You said it better than I did. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that either Michael or saints (except in the superficial figurative sense) actually exist. There is no definitive answer to this entirely subjective question. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the only content that can result from this discussion can be, essentially, "Source xyz says Michael is a saint. Source abc says he's not."--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's really as simple as that? So if I find enough sources that say the sun rises in the east then it's good content? Naturally the crazy views of Copernicus would find a footnote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is as simple as that. But there is significant difference between Michael is a saint and xyx believe Michael is a saint based on their interpretation of blah. Your example about the sun is not analogous as we have evidence about the sun.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, scientifically speaking, that is the case. But that is really a general discussion for a page such as spiritual being and applies to all of theological issues which are belief based rather than the results on laboratory experiments, etc., not just this case. History2007 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't necessary for editors to 'establish' (WP:SYNTH) whether Michael is or is not a 'saint'. If various sources indicate more than one view (which, apparently they do), then as far as it can go is for the article to present both views. If the views are based on denomination, then each (notable) view could be presented in a section specific to each denomination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This long discussion is not even about content, it is/was about category assignment! History2007 (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case you should be discussing at the category's Talk page about the scope of the category. e.g. Should this category include entities for whom the definition of 'saint' is disputed by different groups?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lovely,.... more talking. This has been an amazing waste of time already. History2007 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The alternative is leave him out of the category. There is no yes or no answer to the question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is, because the Vatican categorizes him as a saint by listing him as such, as discussed below. So for the RC case he is in. The more general question was rejecting the general theologically incorrect statement that "all saints have to be human". And that has been done. I am done here. History2007 (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more specific. There is no yes or no answer to the question of whether Michael is a saint. It may be that he can be categorised as a saint, pending discussion about the scope of the term at the relevant category's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just forget it... History2007 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking there is no evidence that he is an angel, that angles exist, that heaven or hell (except the DMV on a busy day) exist, that there is life after death, that God strikes people he does not like with lightning etc. This is really a question of "theology" not reality. And Mannanan's theological reasoning was sound. History2007 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What a disturbing thought for a (presumed) theist. If it's not a question of reality, then it's a question of unreality. So theology is unreal. Let us return to Mannanan51's exposition. I agree with the etymological origins (Latin "sanctus" which in turn derives from the Greek "άγιος", meaning "holy"). I agree with the "common definition". Commonly held views (e.g. the sun rises in the east), despite legal or other evidence to the contrary, can often be good enough in itself for content. I agree with the secondary definition. I agree that "angels are part of the mystical body". So much for agreements. Now for the disagreements. Firstly, angels are not "persons". While they have personality, they are not persons. A dog has personality but it is not a person. As they are not members of homo sapiens sapiens, they fail the first definition test. Angels are immortal. As they cannot die, they fail the secondary definition test. Thirdly, not all who "share in the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity" do so equally or in the same manner. Corporal beings share it with incorporal beings, each in its own way. This is not to assert that either group does not enjoy the beatific vision. An apple enjoys the state of fruitiness, as does an orange. This does not mean that an apple is an orange. It takes nothing the fruitly state of an orange to deny that it is an apple. Fourthly, Leo's prayer, though charming, adds nothing to this discussion and may be safely ignored. BTW, did you know that Manannan is the Celtic god of the sea and gave his name to the Isle of Man? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking, there are no supernatural phenomena, life ends at death, there is no heaven, no spirits, no angels etc. unless Maxwell's equations can describe them. End of that. And he used the term "person" carefully and correctly in the theological sense in his statement e.g. see the page about a well known person without a driver's license. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the above contribution greatly advances the debate. An angel is neither an homo sapiens nor an hypostasis. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that: Firstly, angels are not "persons" try this link anyway, then you will know that theologically they are. It goes as far back as Augie at least. Mannanan's statement that "Are they persons with intellect and will? yes." is theologically completely correct. But this is really a discussion for the Angel page anyway. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Summa Theologica asserts that angels are persons. They have being, intellect and will. Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Aquinas also said that. Theologically, they are persons for sure. And some are fallen and not saints, etc. What I have not looked into in detail is how the ideas since Tertulian took shape into Augustine, then Aquinas, etc. Rowan Williams has a book on it, but I will probably read that next summer, not now. He is usually a good read. History2007 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As the second sentence of the article states "Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans refer to him as Saint Michael the Archangel and also simply as Saint Michael..." that should be adequate to identify who it is that believes Michael the Archangel is a saint. Any number of sources may be provided that assert the non existence of angels, saints, or global warming. It was my understanding that for the purposes of this conversation it was assumed arguendo that angels and saints do exist, and that the question was whether an angel can be considered a saint. The etymology is not a small point; some angels are recognized as saints because they are deemed "holy". As for the term "person", this again may depend on context. (to wit: if a homicide is perpetrated against a pregnant women is it two counts or one, and if the latter, when?) I respectfully submit that in theological terminology its use is somewhat broader than Ms.Lodged would seem to allow. The RC tradition venerating Michael as a patron saint goes back at least 1500 years and is shared with the Anglican Communion and Lutherans. Finally, I would not be so quick to dismiss a papal statement just because it's charming. Leo XII was neither the first nor last Pope to mention St.Michael. In this, the terminology used is as illucidating as the substance. Analogous to this is Pius XII naming "Sanctus Gabriel Archangelus" patron of communication workers. AAS,1952, p216 I believe the Popes are generally considered an authoritative source for what constitutes Roman Catholic belief, and therefore, Michael may legitimately be placed in the category Saints. Mannanan51 (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51

I totally agree. And as John pointed out up upfront, he is of course catalogued as a saint on the Roman calendar of saints. So if the Vatican catalogues him as a saint, so should Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like reasonable criteria for the scope of the category. If anyone protests, you should probably discuss the matter further at the Category's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffro. I didn't really think that my lame analogy would get past your radar. I'm off to the category talk page now to take up your suggestion. Thanks again to all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The same discussion has restarted here now on the top level category page. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Add "Vodou" to "Religious Traditions"?

According to: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loa) St. Michael (archangel) has been syncretised into Hatian Vodou as a Loa spirit. In fact, the entry for "Loa" refers to this article on St. Micheal without going into any detail regarding "St. Micheal the Loa". As the majority of the Loa spirits mentioned on the wikipedia entry regarding Loa have links to their own pages, is there sufficient merit for adding a section regarding St. Micheal (archangel) within Vodou to the "Religious Traditions" section? St. Micheal is already associated with multiple religions in this section including Judiasm, Christianity, and Isalm. Furthermore Vodou is a very old faith and as of 2004 an estimated 60 million people or more practice voodoo worldwide (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0707_040707_tvtaboovoodoo.html). Since there are several people actively maintaining this page I thought it best simply to pose the question first and wait to see what happens.

50.99.43.77 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be sufficient detail about Michael in particular in voodoo practice to justify a mention at this article. The syncretism is already sufficiently covered at Saint#African Diaspora.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. History2007 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Historical Protestant and SDA section is poorly represented, as is the early 'fathers' views... needs to be updated.

The Historical Protestant and SDA section is poorly represented, as is the early 'fathers' and 'eastern' positions, and even the Roman Catholic views... needs to be updated.

Additions to be made/considered, Citations [the follwoing believed Michael Archangel to be pre-incarnate Word, Logos or Jesus]:

Charles Spurgeon [Baptist]

"Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through Him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows." [Charles Spurgeon; Morning and Evening Daily Readings; page 556; Morning Devotion; October 3 on Hebrews 1:14] - http://www.heartlight.org/spurgeon/1003-am.html

"Michael will always fight; his holy soul is vexed with sin, and will not endure it. Jesus will always be the dragon’s foe, and that not in a quiet sense, but actively, vigorously, with full determination to exterminate evil." [Charles Spurgeon; Morning and Evening Daily Readings; page 673; Evening Devotion; November 30 on Revelaton 12:7] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/spurgeon/1130pm.htm

John Gill [English Baptist Scholar]

"Another prophecy in Dan. xii. 1, 2, 3. represents the second and personal coming of Christ ; for he is meant by Michael, who is as God, as his name signifies, equal to him ; the great prince, the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers." [A Complete Body of Practical and Doctrinal Divinity, The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987 reprint, page 617; or A Body of Doctrinal Divinity; Book 7—Chapter 5; Of the Second Coming of Christ, and His Personal Appearance; section 1b2] - http://pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_7/book7_05.htm

"Yet Michael the archangel, &c. By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan. 10:21, 12:1; Revelation 12:7. So Philo the Jew {o} calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel. ..." [John Gill's Exposition Of The Bible; Jude verse 9] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/jude/gill/jude1.htm

"Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: by whom is meant not a created angel, with whom his name does not agree, it signifying "who is as God"; nor does it appear that there is anyone created angel that presides over the rest, and has them at his command. ..." [John Gill's Exposition Of The Bible; Revelation 12:7] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/revelation/gill/revelation12.htm

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, &c. The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who is as God, as the name signifies, truly and really God, and equal in nature, power, and glory, to his divine Father. ..." [John Gill's Exposition Of The Bible; Daniel 12:1] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/daniel/gill/daniel12.htm

Jonathan Edwards [Congregational; Theologian]

"When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and set himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of angels, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace the elect angels from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels, for thought he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable, state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. The elect angels joined with him, the glorious Michael, as their captain, while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined him, and then was that literally true that fulfilled afterwards figuratively. Revelation xii. “When there was war in heaven : Michael and his angels fought against the dragon ; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not ; neither was there place found any more heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world ; he was case out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”" [The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2, Banner of Truth, 1979 reprint, page 606] - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.xii.i.html

Matthew Henry [English Bible Commentator; Presbyterian Minister]

"Daniel 12:1 Vs. 1-4: Michael signifies, "Who is like God," and his name, with the title of "the great Prince," points out the Divine Savior. Christ stood for the children of our people in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the curse for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in pleading for them at the throne of grace. And after the destruction of antichrist, the Lord Jesus shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and He shall appear for the complete redemption of all his people." [Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary; Daniel 12:1] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/daniel/mhc/daniel12.htm

"Michael and his angels fight against the devil and his angels, who are defeated. (7-12). . . .Revelation 12:7 Vs. 7-11: The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments." [Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary; Daniel 12:7] - http://mhc.biblecommenter.com/revelation/12.htm

"I. Jesus Christ shall appear his church's patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, v. 1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, ch. 10:21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deu. 32:3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Revelation 1:5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it? But this is not all: At that time (that is, soon after) Michael shall stand up for the working out of our eternal salvation; the Son of God shall be incarnate, shall be manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Christ stood for the children of our people when he was made sin and a curse for them, stood in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the cure for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in the intercession he ever lives to make within the veil, stands up for them, and stands their friend. And after the destruction of antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type, Christ shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, shall appear for the complete redemption of all his." [Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary; Daniel 12 verse 1-4] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/daniel/mh/daniel12.htm

1599 Geneva Study Bible

"5:14 And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and {g} did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? (g) In that Joshua worships him, he acknowledges him to be God: and in that he calls himself the Lord's captain he declares himself to be Christ." [1599 Geneva Study Bible; Footnote for Joshua 5:14] - http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/gbnjoshua.htm

"Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels." [1599 Geneva Study Bible; Footnote for Daniel 10:13] - http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/gbndaniel.htm

"10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: {q} and [there is] none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. (q) For this angel [Gabriel] was appointed for the defence of the Church under Christ, who is the head of it." [1599 Geneva Study Bible; Footnote for Daniel 10:21] - http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/gbndaniel.htm

"The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel." [1599 Geneva Study Bible; Footnote for Daniel 12:1] - http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/gbndaniel.htm

"(14) Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod Re 12:5 . Also see Geneva "Da 12:1". In this verse a description of the battle and of the victory in the two verses following Re 12:8,9 . The psalmist noted this battle as did Paul; Ps 68:9 Eph 4:8 Co 2:15 ." [1599 Geneva Study Bible; Footnote for Revelation 12:7] - http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/gbnrevelation.htm

John Calvin ['The' Calvinist]

"... As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people. ..." [John Calvin; Commentary On Daniel; Volume 2; Lecture Sixty-Five [65]] - http://christianbookshelf.org/calvin/commentary_on_daniel_volume_2/lecture_sixty-five_.htm

John Wesley ['The' Methodist]

"Verse 14. As captain - I am the chief captain of this people, and will conduct and assist thee and them in this great undertaking. Now this person is not a created angel, but the son of God, who went along with the Israelites in this expedition, as their chief and captain. And this appears,

1. By his acceptance of adoration here, which a created angel durst not admit of, Revelation xxii, 8, 9.

2. Because the place was made holy by his presence, ver. 15, which was God's prerogative, Exod. iii, 5.

3. Because he is called the Lord, Hebrew. Jehovah, chap. vi, 2. My Lord - I acknowledge thee for my Lord and captain, and therefore wait for thy commands, which I am ready to obey." [John Wesley's Explanatory Notes; Joshua 5:14] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/joshua/wesley/joshua5.htm

"10:5 A certain man - Very probably Christ, who appeared to Daniel in royal and priestly robes, and in so great brightness and majesty." [John Wesley's Explanatory Notes; Daniel 10:5] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/daniel/wesley/daniel10.htm

"10:13 Michael - Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained - To counter - work their designs against the people of God." [John Wesley's Explanatory Notes; Daniel 10:13] - John Wesley's Notes on the Bible

"10:21 Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it." [John Wesley's Explanatory Notes; Daniel 10:21] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/daniel/wesley/daniel10.htm

"...so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. ... The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming." [John Wesley's Explanatory Notes; Daniel 12:1] - http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/daniel/wesley/daniel12.htm

Brown's Dictionary Of The Holy Bible [partially recognizes; Calvinist]

"MICHAEL, the archangel, at least sometimes signifies Jesus Christ. He is the person who is as God, and which this name signifies; against him and his angels, his ministers and followers, the devil, and the heathen empire of Rome, and their agents, fought in the way of reproach, laws, persecutions, &c. Revelation xii. 7. He is the great Prince ..., who,...shall raise the dead, Dan. xii. 1,2,3 ..." [Revelation John Brown's Dictionary of The Bible; page 95 "MIC-MID"; heading "Michael"] - http://books.google.com/books?id=V31AAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

James Wood Dictionary Of The Holy Bible [aka: Wood's Spiritual Dictionary; Methodist]

"MICHAEL, the archangel, at least sometimes signifies Jesus Christ. He is the person who is as God, and which this name signifies: against him and his angels, his ministers and followers, the devil, and the heathen empire of Rome, and their agents, fought in the way of reproach, laws, persecutions, &c. Revelation xii. 7. He is the great Prince ..., who,...shall raise the dead, Dan. xii. 1,2,3 ..." [James Wood Dictionary Of The Bible; Volume 2; page 165 "MIC-MIC" - page 166 "MIC-MID"; heading "Michael"] - http://books.google.com/books?id=Uzc8AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg [Lutheran; Dr. and Prof. Of Theology, Berlin]

"Michael is not mentioned again, after chap. x. 21, until chap. xii. 1, where it is said, "at that time shall Michael stand, the great prince, which standeth for the children of thy people." "The great prince" (equivalent to the King of kings in the Revelation), serves as the complement to "one of the chief princes." The rescue of Israel is here ascribed to Michael alone, and the subordinate task of Gabriel entirely vanishes. Bertholt supplies, in an arbitrary manner, "against the guardian spirit of the Graeco-Syrian kingdom." Michael has to deal directly with the imperial power. The personification is dropped, as a proof that it has no reality.

The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Revelation xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage..." [Christology Of The Old Testament And A Commentary On The Messianic Predictions; Appendix iii; page 304 and onward] - http://books.google.com/books?id=lFJGAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thomas Scott [Anglican; Priest]

"Daniel 12 Verse 1: Michael signifies, Who is like God? And this name, with the title of “the great Prince, which standeth for the children of thy people,” most clearly points out the divine Saviour; and cannot properly be understood of a created angel." [Thomas Scott [Anglican Priest; founder of the Church Missionary Society]; The Holy Bible Containing The Old And New Testaments, According To The Authorized Version, With Explanatory Notes, Pracitcal Observations And Copious Marginal References; Notes - Daniel Chapter XII. V. 1.; page 839] - http://books.google.com/books?id=drFUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thomas Haweis [Church Of England, Anglican]

"Daniel 12:1. Christ, the great Prince, shall stand up in the time of great tribulation, ... or at the great day when he shall come to complete the redemption of his people, and to execute final vengeance on their enemies, when all that are written among the righteous, and found in the book of life of the Lamb, shall be delivered from the power of evil for ever." [Thomas Haweis; The Evangelical Expositor, A Commentary On The Holy Bible; Daniel 12:1] - http://books.google.com/books?id=Q6BTYAAACAAJ&dq=Thomas+Haweis;+The+Evangelical+Expositor,+A+Commentary+On+The+Holy+Bible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UlHyUNf2G8H9igLWxoHADg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA see: http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/02/non-adventist-sources-confirming.html

Adam Clarke's Commentary [Methodist; Theologian]

"Michael, he who is like God, sometimes appears to signify the Messiah, at other times the highest or chief archangel. Indeed there is no archangel mentioned in the whole Scripture but this one. See Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7." [Adam Clarke's Commentary; The Holy Bible Containing The Old And New Testaments: The Text Printed From The Most Correct Copies Of The Present Authorized Translation, Including The Marginal Readings And Parallel Texts, With A Commentary And Critical Notes. Designed As A Help To A Better Understanding Of The Sacred Writings, Volume IV [4]; Daniel 10; page 343] - http://books.google.com/books?id=KoVUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Notes on [Zechariah] Chapter III. Verse I. And he shewed me Joshua the Highpriest] The Angel of the Lord is the Messiah, as we have seen before ..." [Adam Clarke's Commentary; The Holy Bible Containing The Old And New Testaments: The Text Printed From The Most Correct Copies Of The Present Authorized Translation, Including The Marginal Readings And Parallel Texts, With A Commentary And Critical Notes. Designed As A Help To A Better Understanding Of The Sacred Writings, Volume IV [4]; Zechariah 3:1; page 499] - http://books.google.com/books?id=KoVUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Verse 9. Yet Michael the archangel Of this personage many things are spoken in the Jewish writings "Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh says: Wherever Michael is said to appear, the glory of the Divine Majesty is always to be understood." Shemoth Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 104,3. So that it seems as if they considered Michael in some sort as we do the Messiah manifested in the flesh."

"Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels. The word Michael seems to be compounded of mi, who, ke, like, and El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." [Adam Clarke's Commentary; Jude 9] - http://clarke.biblecommenter.com/jude/1.htm

"Michael was the man-child which the woman brought forth, as is evident from the context; ... ... Michael, he is "the great prince which standeth for the children of God's people." Dan. xii. 1." [Adam Clarke's Commentary; The Holy Bible Containing The Old And New Testaments: The Text Printed From The Most Correct Copies Of The Present Authorized Translation, Including The Marginal Readings And Parallel Texts, With A Commentary And Critical Notes. Designed As A Help To A Better Understanding Of The Sacred Writings, Volume VI [6]; Revelation 12:7; page 927;] - http://books.google.com/books?id=E-A8AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Abingdon Bible Commentary

"The idea of the heavenly being who thus comes to view as a feature in old apocalyptic tradition is the source of the conception of the heavenly Messiah—the Son of Man. . . . We have already seen that the heavenly being 'like unto a son of man' of Dan. 7 was probably identified by the author . . . with Israel's angel—prince Michael; this angelic being was later, it would seem, invested with Messianic attributes, and so became the pre-existent heavenly Messiah." [Frederick Carl Eiselen; Edwin Lewis; David G. Downey; Abingdon Bible Commentary; page 846 [first link to mere book]; [also see; The Ezra-Apocalypse; page 284 [second link]] - http://books.google.com/books?id=TpsQz8m5RbcC&q=We+have+already+seen+that+the+heavenly+being+%27like+unto+a+son+of+man%27+of+Dan.+7+was+probably+identified+by+the+author&dq=We+have+already+seen+that+the+heavenly+being+%27like+unto+a+son+of+man%27+of+Dan.+7+was+probably+identified+by+the+author&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MlLyUJHIBOSDjAKjqYCICg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA and see http://books.google.com/books?id=9MUUAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lange's Commentary [Johann Peter Lange; German Calvinist]

"We have shown elsewhere that the Archangel Michael is an image of Christ victoriously combatant. Christ is an Archangel in His quality of judge; and He appears as judge, not only at the end of the world, but also in the preservation of the purity of His Church." [Johann Peter Lange; Lange's Commentary; A Commentary Of The Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal And Homiletical, With Special Reference To Ministers And Students; page 238; Revelation 12:1-12] - http://books.google.com/books?id=g5tBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wikipedia [The Free Online Encyclopedia]

"Some early Protestant scholars identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, basing their view, partly on the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Revelation 12, and partly on the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel. [38]"

"[38] John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048" [Wikipedia; Michael (archangel)] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%28archangel%29#Early_Protestant_views

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [comment by John A. Lees]

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Revelation 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel." - John A. Lees" [International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; comment by John A. Lees; section "Michael"] - www.bible-history.com/isbe/M/MICHAEL/

Vine's Expository Dictionary [William Edwy Vine]

"[* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 142.] In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the meaning seems to be that the voice of the Lord Jesus will be of the character of an "archangelic" shout"" [William Edwy Vine; Vine's Expository Dictionary; section "archangel"] - http://studybible.info/vines/Archangel

James Glasgow D.D. [Irish General Assembly's Professor Of Oriental Languages]

"This being 'a war in the heaven,' and waged by Michael, who is Christ (whose warfare is not like that of earthly kings), and by His messengers, is an intellectual and polemical warfare." [James Glasgow, D.D. Irish General Assembly's Professor Of Oriental Languages, Late Fellow Of The University Of Bombay, And Late Member Of The Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay; The Apocalypse; page 334, on Revelation 12:7] - http://books.google.com/books?id=cFFKAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia, Section “M”, subsection “St. Michael the Archangel” - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10275b.htm

"... We have had occasion to mention the Septuagint version more than once, and it may not be amiss to indicate a few passages where it is our only source of information regarding the angels. The best known passage is Isaiah 9:6, where the Septuagint gives the name of the Messias, as "the Angel of great Counsel". ...

... The Massoretic text as well as the Vulgate of Exodus 3 and 19-20 clearly represent the Supreme Being as appearing to Moses in the bush and on Mount Sinai; ... The person of "the angel of the Lord" finds a counterpart in the personification of Wisdom in the Sapiential books and in at least one passage (Zechariah 3:1) it seems to stand for that "Son of Man" whom Daniel (7:13) saw brought before "the Ancient of Days". Zacharias says: "And the Lord showed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan stood on His right hand to be His adversary". Tertullian regards many of these passages as preludes to the Incarnation; as the Word of God adumbrating the sublime character in which He is one day to reveal Himself to men (cf. Against Praxeas 16; Against Marcion 2.27, 3.9, 1.10, 1.21-22). ... The earlier Fathers, going by the letter of the text, maintained that it was actually God Himself who appeared. He who appeared was called God and acted as God. It was not unnatural then for Tertullian, as we have already seen, to regard such manifestations in the light of preludes to the Incarnation, and most of the Eastern Fathers followed the same line of thought. It was held as recently as 1851 by Vandenbroeck, "Dissertatio Theologica de Theophaniis sub Veteri Testamento" (Louvain).

... St. Augustine (Sermo vii, de Scripturis, P.G. V) when treating of the burning bush (Exodus 3) says: "... . . . Some maintain that he is called both the Lord and the angel of the Lord because he was Christ, indeed the prophet (Isaiah 9:6, Septuagint Version) clearly styles Christ the 'Angel of great Counsel.'" The saint proceeds to show that such a view is tenable though we must be careful not to fall into Arianism in stating it. ...

... As an instance of how convinced some of the Fathers were in holding ..., we may note Theodoret's words (In Exod.): "The whole passage (Exodus 3) shows that it was God who appeared to him. But (Moses) called Him an angel in order to let us know that it was not God the Father whom he saw — for whose angel could the Father be? — but the Only-begotten Son, the Angel of great Counsel" (cf. Eusebius, Church History I.2.7; St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:6). ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Section "A", subsection "Angels", part "The term "angel" in the Septuagint"] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm

There are also other "catholic" quotations as well, Irenaeus, Clement Of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Eusebius Pamphili, Tertullian, and eastern fathers as noted by the Roman Catholic Online Encyclopdia, etc all who also add to the historical positions, see also http://biblelight.net/michael.htm

The Seventh Day Adventist position, being the Historical Biblical position, is also severly in need of updating, as earlier given.

Facts are facts, and quoted, documented and cited facts even more so.

75.42.69.46 (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC) AWHN www.pearltrees.com/awhn http://awhn.webs.com/jesusinbookofdaniel.htm

Why would the user's presentation of solid information on Michael be removed and reverted from the "talk" section? The sources are well given, the citations are clear without prejudice or manipulation, and the links valid to those sources. The catholics (eastern and western), and the protestants, and other, seem to have a lot more to say in regards to this subject than the article currently shares. The article itself seems lacking in any real historical citations or depth on the subject and instead is heavily swayed towards iconography, worship of saints and traditional belief from sources other than the Bible.

@IP75.42.69.46 and similar: When you were reverted here you responded that holy men speak/write by the Holy Spirit, not myself. Alas your material does not seem to have originated from the Spirit. You need to read WP:RS and WP:DUE as a start. Most of your sources e.g. eword are not WP:RS and many are outdated. And your comments seem less than coherent to me, as another user told you as well. Your material is a long way away from encyclopedic. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Due on Seventh-day Adventists

The Seventh-day Adventists section is now larger than all other denominations, and runs against WP:Due given that they are a small denomination and can not over run the others in terms of real estate. There is a main link anyway. The IPs seem persistent and relentless. Unless they stop, the page will need will need Pending Changes. History2007 (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a seventh day Adventist but it seems a shame to remove information simply due to other sections being too small. If there is more about him, in context of other religions, that should be mentioned that wouldn't it be better to add to the other sections? Also if there is more information listed in this particular section than in others couldn't it mean he is just more important to that group than it is to the other so size of the Adventist may be an unimportant factor.--Drewder (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been trimmed back now, so it is almost ok. But no sourced information needs to be removed in such cases, just moved over to the Main page. There is a Main link and it is standard practice to have a short summary with a link to a Main page. That is what hypertext is for. History2007 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

'New name'

An anonymous editor (most recently as 24.79.38.15 (talk · contribs)) has twice made claims about JW beliefs that are not found in JW publications, apparently not understanding the actual JW belief on the matter. I have again removed the claim.

Specifically, the editor added the claim, They also reason that when Jesus is says [sic] in Book of Revelation 3:12, "the one that conquers" he will write "that new name of mine" he must have had another name to replace.[4] However, what JW literature actually says about their own belief about the 'new name' at Revelation 3:12 is: Finally, anointed overcomers have written on them Jesus’ new name. This refers to Jesus’ new office and the unique privileges granted to him by Jehovah. (Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation 19:12) No one else gets to know that name, in the sense that no one else has those experiences or is entrusted with those privileges. (Revelation—Its Grand Climax at Hand, page 65; bold added).

Thus, JWs do not believe that "new name" refers to Michael.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Patron saint of England

According to an exlanatory footnote I have read for Milton's Lycidas Michael is patron saint of England (alongside St. George of course)if that is true it should be noted, can anyone confirm its veracity? Hawjam (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Hawjam