Thanks for replying so fast. 
  Look, I understand that Wikipedia doesn't try to add to knowledge, and only reports on what already exists. I brought up all of my little scenarios about being a preacher or author or internet essayist to prove a common point- it's not like an idea has to be written down to exist.
  I just wrote a lengthy counter argument but then realized that I was essentially restating what I had said before, and so the whole thing would be of no aid.
  Let me just say this- you think that my interpretations aren't commonsense, but I do- both make absolute perfect sense, but you're just sitting there right now like, "uh, no." I mean, angel means messenger, so how is it impossible that some Biblical passages concerning angels aren't actually speaking about human messengers? Tell me. Prove me wrong. If angel means messenger then how can it perhaps not sometimes be referring to human messengers? Say something better than "the onus is on you", because the argument is airtight- I already proved it. If I didn't then simply say what is illogical in my reasoning. I think that my contributions were blocked mostly because you don't agree with me.
  And I think Wikipedia's sourcing policy is illogical. I know that if I were to write a book with my opinions in it and then quote it on Wikipedia saying, "page 10 of John Smith's book says..." it would not be blocked, because it is 100% true that my book would have those contents. But if I type something here then it is original research and is therefor invalid. Well, either way I'm the source of the material.