I bow before your greatness. Really. However, I feel that must point out a something which differs from what I've read.
Usually when it comes to theology, I like to see a little line-blurring (as in the case of Cassiel and Castiel)
I don't see any line blurring here; Cassiel and Castiel are two completely different entities in Angelology. Now I do indeed believe that Castiel isn't who he claims to be, but I honestly don't think he's Cassiel.
By the way, try looking up: Phanuel. That's another name which Uriel goes by.
Ooh, please, tell me what you know about Castiel vs. Cassiel, because all I was ever able to find out was that "Castiel" was sometimes used as a name instead of "Cassiel". I did quite a bit of research, and I'm going to feel pretty embarrassed if there is some obvious source I missed...but even my library didn't have anything on Castiel.
Actually, if they are night-and-day different then this could be incredibly interesting...something I wondered but couldn't include on account of the size of the post was what Uriel, an archangel, was doing putting up with lip from a lowly prince of powers.
Phanuel is interesting to compare and contrast against Uriel. The Book of Enoch is an endless source of questions for me. :)
Confusing Cassiel with Castiel is equivalent to confusing Anael with Ananel. As I told another friend of mine, that one letter makes all the difference in the world when it comes to the names of Angels.
First off, let's look at Castiel:
1. He's an Angel of occult lore. 2. He's the Angel of Thursday, and thus helps people on that said day. 3. He has never went by the name Cassiel.
And that's it. That's all we've got to work with. Now, let's look at Cassiel:
1. He's known for the watching the events of the universe unfold without interfering. 2. He's the Angel of tears and solitude who "shews forth the unity of the eternal kingdom." 3. Sometimes appears as the Angel of Temperance. 4. Is said to be one of the Angels of Saturday, along with Machatan and Uriel.
Big difference between the two.
And one more thing: Actually, if they are night-and-day different then this could be incredibly interesting...something I wondered but couldn't include on account of the size of the post was what Uriel, an archangel, was doing putting up with
( ... )
...oh my god. Yes. That totally makes sense. Well done, you!
I love that explanation of Castiel's identity and will definitely be keeping it in mind in the future.
Like I said earlier, upon my initial research of Castiel, the only mention I could find of him in several different sources was that "Castiel" was a common misspelling for "Cassiel". So, yeah. Not sure where that's happened, but apparently it has more than once.
Well, I guess I'm off to look into Uriel/Phanuel a little bit more. And Michael. :) Can't remember if I said this in the post or elsewhere, but I'm very new to angelology. I'm learning a lot. Now, demonology, I can do. So it will be interesting to see how the rest of season four plays out and to what degree both schools of thought are presented and perhaps combined.
Hmm, maybe...I don't have access to any of my sources or notes at the moment, and I haven't looked into sirens for upwards of a year. But I seem to remember...I could be very, very wrong, but aren't there female demons that have been identified as sirens? I'll have to look into that, and will comment back here if I'm mistaken. Which, honestly, could very well be the case.
My opinion regarding angels from NT times forward and their free will or lack thereof are similar to yours. I'm fairly certain that they can practice free will within their "orders" from God. However, I do think that there was a shift after the fall; God took action once the mutiny occurred, and we haven't seen anything like the Fall since. My biggest question at the moment is what His action was. What he did determines how much free will angels are currently allowed to mentally experience and physically practice.
But, hey, thanks for reading and the comment! This is all very new to me, so feedback of all kinds is awesome.
My reserch wasn't really about the sirens or even the Watchers I was reserching Rahab and Metatron for a story that (oddly enough) involved an Angel Posessing someone and a dead person taking over the body of a person in a veggitative state (I have to say that this week I'm glad that I have put the novel on hold
( ... )
I dunno how relevant this is, but I'm far too lazy to type up a meta for it myself, and you mention something that regards it, so I thought I'd throw it out there in case you're interested
( ... )
Thanks for the information. I actually grew up in the Church, both Lutheran (school) and Evangelical/Pentecostal (church), so I was kind of surprised at your comment regarding non-church-raised viewers.
Your documentation of the Ev. Church's stance on the whole angel issue is fantastic! It was largely what I understood their position to be on the subject. I'd always been taught (in both denominations) that angels are simply unable to sin, echoing your words. To me, that means they don't possess free will (according to these Christian teachings).
My personal belief? There is a measure of free will present. But there is a big, big jump between experiencing free will mentally (ie free thought) and actually physically practicing it. Maybe angels can think on their own, more or less, but aren't able to act on it. I have no academic sources to back me up on this, however. :) Not yet, anyway.
Please do not group all modern Christian teachings together. Angels have always had free will in my faith. Even those theologians and philosophers in the middle ages like Anselm, who were trying to prove man was superior to Angels, had to give Angels a type of free will. The main difference seems to be that when Angels exercising the choice to turn away from God, they do it knowing God, where as the Children of Adam do not. And since God is understood as pure goodness then to turn away from him, is to willfully turn toward evil.
Also Man was made in the image of God, is not the same as saying that free will is the main criteria to be made in the image of God. That is too simplistic for what is really a complex and many layered answer to what the image of God really means.
I'm sorry if you found my post offensive in any way. If there had been no word limit imposed by LJ, I would have included a disclaimer explaining what I was basing my observations on, but there simply wasn't room
( ... )
I'm not offended I just think your meta should have clearly stated that it was based on Lutheran and Evangelical theologies rather than Christian theologies. I think that is especially important as Kripke seems to be drawing from legends and depictions of heaven and hell common in the Middle Ages. By the time the 16th century came around and the Lutheran church was formed we were already in the modern era. So the primary sources for the legends Kripke is choosing is Judaic and Catholic myths and with a touch of Islamic tossed in for flavoring. Case in point Castiel is the work of 14th century publisher who hoped to make some money and has no basis in any doctrine. The myth of Lilith as wife of Adam dates back to a 10th century Jewish myth even though there were similar demons who existed as early as Gilamesh. Uriel comes primarily from the Book of Enoch which though probably written in about 150 BC was quite popular in the middle ages right along with such works as the Gospel of Thomas etc
( ... )
Comments 28
Usually when it comes to theology, I like to see a little line-blurring (as in the case of Cassiel and Castiel)
I don't see any line blurring here; Cassiel and Castiel are two completely different entities in Angelology. Now I do indeed believe that Castiel isn't who he claims to be, but I honestly don't think he's Cassiel.
By the way, try looking up: Phanuel. That's another name which Uriel goes by.
Reply
Actually, if they are night-and-day different then this could be incredibly interesting...something I wondered but couldn't include on account of the size of the post was what Uriel, an archangel, was doing putting up with lip from a lowly prince of powers.
Phanuel is interesting to compare and contrast against Uriel. The Book of Enoch is an endless source of questions for me. :)
Reply
First off, let's look at Castiel:
1. He's an Angel of occult lore.
2. He's the Angel of Thursday, and thus helps people on that said day.
3. He has never went by the name Cassiel.
And that's it. That's all we've got to work with. Now, let's look at Cassiel:
1. He's known for the watching the events of the universe unfold without interfering.
2. He's the Angel of tears and solitude who "shews forth the unity of the eternal kingdom."
3. Sometimes appears as the Angel of Temperance.
4. Is said to be one of the Angels of Saturday, along with Machatan and Uriel.
Big difference between the two.
And one more thing:
Actually, if they are night-and-day different then this could be incredibly interesting...something I wondered but couldn't include on account of the size of the post was what Uriel, an archangel, was doing putting up with ( ... )
Reply
I love that explanation of Castiel's identity and will definitely be keeping it in mind in the future.
Like I said earlier, upon my initial research of Castiel, the only mention I could find of him in several different sources was that "Castiel" was a common misspelling for "Cassiel". So, yeah. Not sure where that's happened, but apparently it has more than once.
Well, I guess I'm off to look into Uriel/Phanuel a little bit more. And Michael. :) Can't remember if I said this in the post or elsewhere, but I'm very new to angelology. I'm learning a lot. Now, demonology, I can do. So it will be interesting to see how the rest of season four plays out and to what degree both schools of thought are presented and perhaps combined.
Reply
Reply
My opinion regarding angels from NT times forward and their free will or lack thereof are similar to yours. I'm fairly certain that they can practice free will within their "orders" from God. However, I do think that there was a shift after the fall; God took action once the mutiny occurred, and we haven't seen anything like the Fall since. My biggest question at the moment is what His action was. What he did determines how much free will angels are currently allowed to mentally experience and physically practice.
But, hey, thanks for reading and the comment! This is all very new to me, so feedback of all kinds is awesome.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Your documentation of the Ev. Church's stance on the whole angel issue is fantastic! It was largely what I understood their position to be on the subject. I'd always been taught (in both denominations) that angels are simply unable to sin, echoing your words. To me, that means they don't possess free will (according to these Christian teachings).
My personal belief? There is a measure of free will present. But there is a big, big jump between experiencing free will mentally (ie free thought) and actually physically practicing it. Maybe angels can think on their own, more or less, but aren't able to act on it. I have no academic sources to back me up on this, however. :) Not yet, anyway.
Reply
Also Man was made in the image of God, is not the same as saying that free will is the main criteria to be made in the image of God. That is too simplistic for what is really a complex and many layered answer to what the image of God really means.
Zaz
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment