Biblical Angelology

They look gangster af

>allowing some unknown group of individuals in the past who burned books and tortured people who disagreed with them to decide which surviving works should have value to you
whew lad

>Pseudo-Dionysius is what you're looking for.

Not quite.

bump

>unironically implying the biblical canon is any more "theologically supported" or reliable

>Le tip

Revelation. No "s". One singular Revelation of John on the island of patmos.

Angels are an odd subject. You can study them from a strictly Canontical biblical veiw, or you can dive into cultural ideas. Thats not even getting into Christophanies (apperance of Christ in the Old Testement) like Jacob wrestling with an angel. Was it an angel or was it Christ?

it's pretty much all made up, so it's not Biblical

>

Not exclusively biblical, but pic related + books by Andrei Orlov, James Davila, and Ithmar Gruenwald

1 Enoch is part of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon.

>implying

Go be stupid somewhere else.

Bump

bump. Angels are interesting.

Interesting fact: The angels commonly depicted in art-- the ones stereotypically depicted in human body with wings-- rank at the very bottom of the angelic hierarchy.

How's the hierarchy?

Enjoy, friend:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology

eldritch-looking biblical figures are pretty cool

>not interested in angels

Is that suppose to be a Cherubim?

This

actually its exactly what you are looking for. He wrote the celestial hierarchy.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Coelesti_Hierarchia

Damn, you were right all along, user. Sorry for being an ass. What should I read by him?

Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press, 1987) [The only complete modern English translation (and the only modern English translation of The Celestial Hierarchy)

I think the Celestial Hierarchy is his only work on angelology. He also wrote about metaphysics and other such subjects. If all you're interested in is the angels then I would just try and find an English translation of the celestial hierarchy.

ccel.org/ccel/dionysius/celestial

There are some interesting chapters on angels in the Guide for the Perplexed, if you want to the Maimonidean perspective.

link?

here. Thanks for defending me fellow goyim. If you don't mind Judaism then the Midrash and Kabbalah also talk about angels.

Anything you find will be wild speculation. To think that man understands the divine so clearly that we have documented hierarchical structures is absolutely ridiculous. Angels are an enormous mystery, anyone or anything claiming to have all the answers is essentially the same as someone saying they can tell you what God looks like.

I'm not an atheist. I was critiquing the idea of a canon, not religion itself.

I'm pretty sure Enoch was canon to early Christians and later was removed because it was 2weird

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Marcion_of_Sinope

This is the first one. Marcion was right and he did nothing wrong.

They are consistently referenced throughout the Bible, which was written with the Holy Spirit, you dipshit.

All the same, there is a certain degree of speculation in humanity's conception of the heavenly orders. There's a general assumption that Paul's listing of the Nine Choirs is what it's assumed to be, but we can't be absolutely sure.

About the only thing we can pin down is that there are three named angels--Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael--and that they're special. Beyond that there's a certain amount of speculation.

>About the only thing we can pin down is that there are three named angels--Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael--and that they're special. Beyond that there's a certain amount of speculation.

What about Cherubim, Seraphim, and Thrones, which are referenced in detail in both Testaments?

>Beyond that there's a certain amount of speculation.

Enough with your trite meme.

There are more named angels than that though
Uriel, Samael, Mastema, Sandalphon and Metatron to name a few

This