Talk:Angel of the Lord

message: The Angel Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. From his words: "I am Gabriel, I stand in the presence of God."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.31 (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All the angels stand in the presence of God: Rev. 5:11, Matt. 18:10, Job 1:12, Job 2:7, 1 Kings 22:19, Dan. 7:9-10./Leos Friend (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: "In most cases, the angel is understood to be a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.". No. Build a more sensible and neutral base, and more sensible editors will come and work on this article.--Wetman (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Angel Gabriel

message: Couldn't Enoch/Metatron be counted as an Angel of the Lord, since Metatron is thought to be the King of Angels ? ADM (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "angel" is simply "messenger" of the lord, then the truest delivery of the message of God, via communication, would be his own very vessel with which to do so; Metatron and Sandalphon were prophets made archangels, who purportedly bear the arc of the covenant and by which one must commune with them (God's law) to relate or communicate with God in any manner, as his right and left hands. They may be removed on that account from being a perfect expression with his dynamic communication, as the law and his Logos may be considered blind if unguided by insight or inspiration; to Muslims it should be Mohammed as known to their sect, to Catholics the living vicar to messianic truths etc. The archangel Michael may be said to simply be the expression of God's will, and thus his communication as his highest angel (the angel after his own fashion; who is "like" God. Further its sensible to take the Mormon outlook of Michael as Adam Kadmon as our image and the intelligibility of revelation for our template); to Christians, Jesus is God's greatest "angel" i.e. messenger, being God expressed (mercurial) as object in the flesh, God's transcendence made immanent. The Holy Spirit is Gods presence and communication as subject and emotive immanence made to transcend the normal lateral limits; both Christ-savior his son and the Holy Ghost as his love and eternity are mercurial volition of God's willed communication par excellence and may be too thorough-goingly God as identical with himself to be considered plenipotentiaries of gods motives as angels are. Yet Christ & Holy Ghost are simply the subject and object of Logos by one manner of deduction (the value to which admittedly can be transposed and centralized as divinity originating into either constituent however, so trinity holds weight by my perspective evaluation) So barring those as angels however I'd say Michael, Metatron/Sandalphon (and maybe Satan if you have a greater plan considered or if  Satan/"Samael" isn't actively opposed to God; albeit a Dysangel rather than a Evangel) or if you want to get abstract or consider potentially blind divine philosophical forces unembodied by specific intelligences: then Logos broadly. Possibly love/agape, nous-theos (as Thoth is to Ra in Egyptology), duality/division as precursor to mercurial transference (and back to reconsidering privation as cause necessitating a tree of knowledge / emanation and considering Satan God's greatest angel yet again; but without whom angels would be unnecessary). The "king" of the angels would be God overly objectified, made dogmatic, Melek (Hebrew for 'king' and a title of God) throwback becomes Moloch (a chief demon-name from the archaic spelling for king in Hebrew with an extra letter as an obsolete title to God; God reified as naught more than kingly) and made un-unified, set against Satan as an equal. etc etc. So in Judaic consideration I am drawn to the Qabalah in light of such a question wherein I see Sephiroth, out of Ain Soph via Tzim-Tzum as the groundwork for all angels and demons just depending on how they mediate that framework/infrastructure; either toward vitality or stagnation. The ultimate angel is Kether or Ain Soph; divisible into all permutation as to its own very criterion (1 divides into all enumeration perfectly) or infinitely so divisible (zero goes an unlimited amount of times into any number). 67.171.248.22 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Enoch/Metatron

message: The Angel was worshipped by Jacob. Jacob exclaims, "I have seen God and lived", or something to this effect. By this we can assume that he would have professed some form of worship as a result of his understanding that this was not merely an "angel" but a theophany of God. Also, Abraham recognized the theophany as well. So, some of the patriarchs did indeed worship the angel, contrary to what the article asserts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.158.14 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriarchs Did Not Worship The Angel? 

message: If anyone has any meaningful WP:RS sources this maybe can go back in.
:Mystic views
:Various Judeo-Christian mystics have interpreted the angel Metatron (considered to be an archangel, who is mentioned only in the Talmud and Kabbalah) as the direct Shekhinah, which is considered to be an avatar of God the Father, his very countenance. Identifying further, with occurrences mentioning an Angel of the Presence, an entangled distinction of Metatron and the Holy Ghost.
Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do with that, when I first saw it in the article.  I saw that little section there, and so just re-worded some things.   It's an interesting piece.   And it arguably should be in the article, but it should be sourced.  That is true.  So instead of removing it like that, why not just put "citation needed" tags on it?  Because "Metatron" was viewed in some circles as probably the "Angel of the Lord", in Judaeo-Christian apocryphal and mystic literature.  It's worth noting, I would say. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you search Google Books for the two words "Metatron" and "Shekhinah", you get about 3020 hits; if you search for "Metatron" and "Shekinah", you get about 1470.  If someone thinks any of them are really reliable sources, they can put the information back in (as "according to ..."), along with the citation(s).  "Citation needed" tags are only a temporary expedient and, if they are not responded to within a reasonable time, the statement they are attached to not only can but should be removed.  There seems to be no essential difference between adding that tag and moving the unsourced statement to the Talk page, where it can be preserved for a much longer time for the notice of anyone who thinks the statement should be kept.  Esoglou (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I moved it here to Talk rather than just tag  was (1) because this Talk page (for once) is active, but (2) more because the sources I briefly browsed (such as Toward the millennium: messianic expectations from the Bible to Waco p220 footnotes which is a WP:RS, ed by Peter Schäfer, Mark R. Cohen - 1998 had "Regarding the symbolic association of Metatron and the phallus, see below, n. 60 . On the homologous relationship of Metatron and the Shekhinah, see Zohar 2:94a- b. In that context, Metatron is identified as the "body of the princess" as " ) didn't leap out and connect Metatron with Angel of the Lord. There may be some WP RS out there, but what I saw didn't easily fit what was in the article, so by all means anyone who can disentangle any source for what is above please go for it. More likely however I suspect if it belongs anywhere it'd be in Zohar article, 3 Enoch or some other article, not here. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true.  If the connection of "Metatron" to the actual "Angel of the Lord" is not solid in searched sources, then it's probably better just to hold off, on putting it in the article, an article that deals with "Angel of the Lord".  If the connection or identification is ambiguous at best, in any book, website, or source, then we should wait and see if there's a better or clearer source and reference for that. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodo :) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: unsourced OR paragraph moved to Talk

message: Sorry but reverted this edit. The article says the A o L is mentioned in NT. And the "generally" is that supported by the source given? Seems odd, given the NT uses. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A o L not mentioned in NT?

message: In the story of Balaam, the Angel of the Lord is Satan in the original Hebrew texts. Why not mention it here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.21.124 (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're slightly mixed up here. It's true that the Hebrew word satan (a common noun, not a proper name), shows up in this story, but saying "the Angel of the Lord is Satan" stretches the text beyond what it will bear. That's why you won't see any major translation endorsing your view. Alephb (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of Satan? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Angel of the Lord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150508184557/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0839/__P1K.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1K.HTM#$7B
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515223333/http://www.wlsessays.net:80/files/VogelAngel.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/VogelAngel.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified