Theology NA‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Great work Imadjafar! It is already great. But, I'll suggest to use Translit of Arabic for Islamic names, as they are majorly common with other Jude-christian angels and will also wiki link to the same, but transliterations will represent Muslim way, and I think it will not conflict policy. » nafSadh did say 12:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Satan" should be removed on the basis of Paul the Apostle claiming that he is not an angel. Twillisjr (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ONCE AGAIN, it doesn't matter what Paul said, this is JUDAISM. Paul has no authority over JEWISH teaching. BedrockPerson (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

We'd need some secondary and/or tertiary sources to support the claim that Christianity has not regarded Satan as an angel (even former) to say that he doesn't belong in the Christianity section. Christianity accepts the Hebrew Bible, which (particularly in Job), regards Satan as an angel (even if Revelation and later interpretations conflating him with Lucifer make him a former angel). Trying to interpret 2 Corinthians 11:14 as meaning that Satan masquerades as an angel (and therefor is not) is incomplete -- he masquerades as an angel of light (and therefore is not an angel of light, at least presently).

"Right" or "wrong", the majority of Christian interpretations do mark Satan is at least a former angel or fallen angel, but still as having been an angel at some point.

This template is not "unfallen angels that the Abrahamic religions regard as still in God's good graces," it's just "Angels in Abrahamic religions." Otherwise we'd have to remove Abaddon, since he is commonly interpreted as fallen or even demonic (despite Revelation describing him as binding Satan and punishing sinners). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson, would Metatron also belong to the "Apocryphal" section, as there is a question within the Book of Genesis, yet, not identified such as the Book of Job (in your response)? Twillisjr (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure why you moved just Semyaza to "Apocryphal," and not most of the others in either the Judaism or Christianity sections. While 1 Enoch (source of Kokabiel, Seraphiel, and Shamsiel) is rejected by Rabbinical Judaism, he does appear in the Zohar, which mentions many of the other angels mentioned in the Judaism section.

The only angels named in the Tanakh as accepted by mainstream Rabbinical Judaism are Michael, Gabriel, and Satan (who was identified as just an angel until the second temple period and even then as either just an angel or else as a former angel and not purely a demon until some Muslims began interpreting him as a jinn). That's it. The rest (like Metatron) are only mentioned in Rabbinical or Kabbalistic writings.

As it is, sorting into "individuals" and "groups" by religion (and going by the standard "appears in any accepted Biblical or angelogical work") is the cleanest. If we are going to sort by the status of the work they appear in, we'd have to divide Judaism into "Biblical," "Rabbinical," and "Kabbalistic;" and Christianity into "Canonical," "Apocryphal" (which would include Raphael), and a miscellaneous category. But if we start to do that, we'll have to move a few of the ones in the Christian section to the Judaism section, because Kokabiel, Shamsiel, and Seraphiel appears in 2 Enoch (a rather important work in Merkabah mysticism). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have a vote for a "Rabbinical" section? If so, I am somewhat in support of that. Twillisjr (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said "As it is, sorting into "individuals" and "groups" by religion [...] is the cleanest." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to represent that Rabbinic/Kabbalistic writings may impact this area, and updates will be required. Twillisjr (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Beings alleged to have/had Angel attributes:

• Afriron
• Kastimon