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 of john smith's book says it would not be blocked because it is 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