On named angel-kin and titles

I've never thought of assigning an "Angel of___" title to myself, and I don't know how one would figure that out.

Then again, my memories of being an angel have been completely erased from my mind. At least for while I'm incarnated.

Yeah, yeah, Estelore. I'm not saying nuttin'.

Anetiel, I didn't assign any "Angel of ___" titles to myself. Since my angelic name is in books and is translatable Hebrew, the titles were given. Although I do know individuals who assign themselves titles, and I think that's groovy, too. If I could pick my own title, I think it'd be Angel of Broccoli. Because I like broccoli. And I like to see people smile at the nonsequitor. <3

Oh. Now I get what you mean.

I don't go by the textbook personally, because I feel a lot of it is human error, especially when it comes to interpreting the angelic hierarchies.

Sorry, Kizzy, if I'm credulous about your name.
However, "the angel presiding over those who rise" is a statement taken directly from the "Sandman" graphic novel series by Neil Gaiman. It seems a mite too convenient; that's all. I also have a hard time taking seriously any claims to be an archangel; the word itself literally means "Highest angel". It would be an incredibly narrow and selective group, and I don't see why any who fit in that category would spend much time mucking around in human bodies.

Mind you, I don't mean to insult anybody here by saying as much.

*little shrug*

Anetiel, that's a good, good thing. To not go by the textbook "personality". I actually disagree with half the titles I've found assigned to my name, vehemently, actually.

Estelore, no worries! You have every right to be credulous. I know I would be. First off, "Angel set over those who rise" is actually something Gaiman borrowed for his books, not the other way around. That translation and wording can be found in Davidson's "A Dictionary of Angels", which was first published in 1971, which was before the "Sandman", which I first read a year ago (I dreamt of the name "Remiel" nine years ago, now).

Second of all, I'm not THE Remiel. I'm a split off of him/her/it. I'd be more than happy to go into details on any or all of this, it just gets a bit confusing and might be best done via PMs so as not to bog down this thread.

Third, I don't put much stock into choirs. I believe the hierarchy we have now to be humanity's attempt at understanding the way things work. It never made sense to me how one second, archangels are the highest angels, and yet another they are only right above the choir "angel", with several others higher than them.

Fourth, if you look solely at the lore (which I don't fully buy), it makes sense to me that Remiel would incarnate here. He was an angel of mercy, that would take interest in humanity. Watchers DEFINITELY took interest. And as an angel dealing with death, what greater mystery would there be than life? Wouldn't you want to experience that mystery?

But that's just me. I'm not insulted, nor offended. And I'm more than happy to answer anyone's questions or address concerns. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s -->

If you guys want a specific thread for the discussion of specific personages from Christian mythos, specific angels/titles/etc. I'll be happy to split off the last few posts of this thread to make a new topic, or you can feel free to make your own. If the former, please let me or another staff member know what you would like the new thread to be called <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

I suppose Names of Angels would be a passable title, if you please.


Edit: Thanks. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Thank you for the split!

One more note as far as titles go. I could be wrong on this, but I think it has to do partially with translation. I'm not sure all angelic titles that can be found in lore are due to this, but I know some are. The suffix "-el," so common at the end of angelic names, is used to mean "God" in Hebrew (G-d). So if you then translate the first part of the word, you can get a title right there.

For example, let's take Raphael. Although not the only translation, one translation of "Rapha" is "Healing". So Rapha + El = Healing + God. So Raphael means "God's Healing". So one of Raphael's angelic titles would be "Angel of Healing".

I don't know Hebrew, so this is all from an outsider's vain attempt at understanding. But I know ancient Hebrew didn't have vowels the same way it does today. Which is partially why you get multiple, but similar, spellings for angelic names. For example, Auriel and Uriel. Remiel and Ramiel. Raziel and Reziel.

Again, if someone knows otherwise, please correct me.

Coming from a standpoint outside of JudeoChristian mythos. I often refer to my function as a title of sorts...but I by no means think I'm the only angel with said function/title. To think so would be beyond vain. I think a lot of people like to think they're super important archangels or the only angel with a certain function...and that's just silly to me.

Oh, before we jump too far ahead, I'd like to clarify what I'd already said in a previous thread: I don't see it as being a hard-and-fast rule that any one angel presides utterly over any single concept. It's more that several beings share one overall concept in the form of each taking a slightly different nuance of it.
Example: Estael is self-stating angel of empathy, as it pertains to understanding somebody. There are other angels in literature described as angels of empathy, but I would infer that they pertain to a different aspect or facet of the overall concept that is empathy.

Also, I'm an armchair linguist; most "book" angelic names are either Hebrew, Semitic (similar but different), Greek, or Latin in the title part of the name, and most of them end in "El" or "On" (like Abbadon, Gabuthelon, Metatron, Sandalphon). I'm inclined to believe that sometimes dissimilar names can apply to the same entity (Michael and Metatron are often shown as the same, for instance).

And to save time, one last bit:
I don't see choirs as ranks, just groupings of angels who share similar tasks. It's not a matter of superiority or authority over others, it's just an easier way to figure out who is "related" to whom.
However, I do believe
1. that archangels are a very small, specific group who encompass larger purposes and provide a system of organization for all the rest and
2. the word "angel" applies to ALL angels, kheruvim, seraphim, ophanim, and so on and so on. The difference between cherub, seraph, and so on is like the difference between races in human beings or in breeds of cat or dog.
Simply put, they are different because they see themselves as different and they choose to perform tasks that are not performed by those they consider different.
In analogy, the variations of skin colour, hair texture, and nose/lip proportions within just ONE race of humans is actually more dramatic than the variation between people who are extreme stereotypes of two different races.
That is to say... as I see it, the only thing "higher" than an archangel is God's own Self.

All that being said, it's up to the individual to believe what he/she will believe. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->