Talk:Gabriel

• • • Vandalism Alert! ***

Several items in the introduction have been altered. "Sex Slaves" rather than "messengers", for example. These items are intact in the editorial window. Clearly this needs to be addressed.

Removing Material

"I am new here, I just wanted to say that it is mentioned in the article the Laylat-ul-Qadir or the night of power under section of Gebriel in Islam is in the last ten days of Ramadhan, I just would like to note that though most narrations from the prophet mohammed indicates so and it is likely to be in these ten days, but it is not 100% sure or believed by Muslims that it has to be in the last ten days of Ramadhan, and it may be at any other night through out the year ( you might consider modifying the sentence in the article, thank you)."

58.69.80.186 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC) The Archangel Gabriel is The Left Hand of God. He is the ruler of the Cherubim. He is one of the Four Angels of The Most High God on the four sides surrounding the throne of the Almighty(with Michael,Raphael,and Phanuel). He is seated on the left side of God's throne with Metatron. (According to the Book of Enoch)

The two sections on Gabriel in fiction:

• In the roleplaying game Gabriel Knight series by Sierra Entertainment, Gabriel is the name of the main character. In the third game of the series, Gabriel Knight: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned (1999), Gabriel's ancestor is a roman soldier that assists in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ later begging for Jesus' forgiveness and swearing the eternal service of his bloodline. This game also expanded on the theme of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail which first suggested the theory of Jesus fathering Mary Magdalene’s children many years before the Da Vinci Code.
• A character in "The Dead": a short story in the book "Dubliners" by James Joyce.
• A character in "The Satanic Verses" (Gibreel): a controversial novel by the Anglo-Indian author Salman Rushdie, infamous because of the fatwa imposed on him by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Gabriel may be used simply as a name, which then may play off this Gabriel, but unless the fictional character is actually intended to be this Gabriel, the reference probably doesn't belong here.The Dogandpony 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Announcement

"announce the imanent birth of their children". Unclear what is meant: Neither of the births were imminent according to the gospel.
S.

---

:In James Joyce's The Dead, the main character's name is Gabriel.

I don't see how this has anything directly to do with Gabriel the angel. --Kwekubo 20:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Almost none of that does. I think we should remove the section.--Cuchullain 22:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed a few things, vide supra. The Dogandpony 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Addition of erotic stores from ASSTR

• Please see Talk:Succubus#Regarding_addition_of_erotic_stories. If it gets put to a debate, it should probably affect my edits to this article as well. Danny Lilithborne 21:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments Made by Anonymous Poster

This amounts to vandalism. If you want to add that information, do it in an NPOV, manner, make it sound sane, and integrate it into the body of the article. Raving does not belong anywhere in a Wikipedia article, and in the introduction least of all. Neocapitalist 21:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How the Hell can Gabriel incarnate himself in human form if God refuses to let the Elyonim take the form of the tahtonim due to the incident with the nephilim? Furthermore, how can an Elyon desire a soulmate if the Elyonim only need the love of God? Yeah, this little spontaneity was nothing more than a passing reprieve. Jordan Yang 13:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted the last entry. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise religious beliefs in an attempt for "people to get to know angel Gabriel more intimately". This is an encyclopedia, please make pages accordingly. Cuñado - Talk 23:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that at Wikipedia, a neutral point of view treats Gabriel as having the same kind of reality as Apollo, neither more nor less. If you want to "get intimate" with Gabriel, please do it at Biblepedia. --Wetman 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

removed text

Until these are filled in, you can leave them here. Cuñado - Talk 07:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel in Hebrew Apocrypha

To be written

Gabriel in Christian Apocrypha

To be written

Jibreel as a Separate Page

Jibreel is huge in Islam, much bigger than Gabriel in Judaism or Christianity. I suggest creating an independent page for it. Had this been done in the past? This has a lot of precedence, eg Jesus and Isa, Moses and Musa.--JBJ830726 02:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Palm_Dogg 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up some of the redundant info in Gabriel and Jibreel, and moved Jibreel to Jibril, which is a more common spelling (try Googleing [angel Jibril] vs. [angel Jibreel]). I have also linked the article more richly, and added more info about the Arabic forms of the word. Now let's get some content added to the Jibril article! --Macrakis 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Seraph or Archangel?

In this specific article, it is stated very quickly that he is an Archangel, whereas he is listed as one of the Seraphs in the Seraph article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this matter can fix/clarify this.

The article Seraph should explain when names came to be applied to Isaiah's seraphim, and by whom, in the last subsection. The names are part of modern angelology. The inconsistency is simply inconsistent. --Wetman 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Quit messing with the music section!

the Gabriels Fallen (band) has relevence in this article! There was a debate over notablity of the band and the final outcome was that it was indeed notable enough to keep their page. Therefore by those same standards the Gabriels Fallen part in the music section should be kept.

Many users (including me) believe that the band is not notable enough for inclusion in an article about a religious figure. RexNL 08:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the page was kept (without consensus when it came to a vote) does not mean that the band is notable enough to be cross-referenced. Wikipedia isn't a place to push local bands. The "same standards" do not apply here. Danny Lilithborne 08:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is "pushing" local bands, they have many songs about the character of Gabriel, people who may want to see different views and theories deserve the option of finding out more information. There is no harm in this.

Regardless of if the band is notable or not (which I don't think it is), the band should not be included here. This page is about Gabriel the angel and it's references in music. Your band does not sing about Gabriel or about religion, as you specify on your page. Thus the consensus (the way Wikipedia works) is that your band should not be included. -- Jeff3000 13:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The band does sing about the angel Gabriel, but the band itself (members) is not religious as I specify on my page.

You need proof to show that, as your word is not Wikipedia:Verifiable. Furthermore your edits never potray that. Finally even if the band does sing about Gabriel, I feel it's still not notable enough in my opinion to have it on this page, as by that account any person who talks about Gabriel would have to be included in this page. -- Jeff3000 15:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But Sting covering an old song about Gabriel is acceptible? I call shenanigans.

Jibril

The Jibril article has been merged with this, as it contained barely any more data, and this article is already structured to receive it. Indeed, it was nothing more than an ill-conceived spin-off.Timothy Usher 09:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Timothy; I see you've launched your crusade (implication intended; how long was that Merge notice active? Two days?) I will await its results with sincere curiosity. — JEREMY 10:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to tell you before, you-who-are-ever-so-sensitive, is that your use of the term Crusade re editors you believe to be Christian is as offensive as if I said (and edit summaried) that you are on a Jihad. Do you think me so dense as to not notice?

There is a large discussion behind this, most of which is not so personalized as your comment above. Please do read it, across all threads - see also Talk:Isa (which has not and will not be merged despite your assumption on User talk:Anonymous editor - and respond to the specific points offered therein rather than this generalized, personalized, and arguably offensive notion that I am on a "crusade.") Your consideration in this regard is appreciated.Timothy Usher 10:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What I see on Talk:Isa is you POV-pushing, and a bunch of other editors objecting. Hardly the basis for a settled consensus. — JEREMY 11:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What's really needed here is a way to redirect to sections. The section syntax is accepted (see the redirect page), but doesn't actually work. This is data that really deserves to be in this article, and is not long enough to warrant its own article. Wikipedia should change the protocol so that we can redirect Jibril to the section Gabriel in Islam. That would be the optimal solution in this instance, and probably many more.Timothy Usher 10:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I found this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect . --Aminz 10:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Timothy, it say "Please note that you can redirect only to articles, not sections in them; although the syntax allows them, they don't work". --Aminz 10:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; section redirects don't work. And unless you want to become a developer, Timothy (how good are your LAMP skills?), they're unlikely to get a lot of priority in the near future. — JEREMY 11:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good argument Jeremy. We should solve this problem. --Aminz

Jeremy, I think you made a quick judgement. We all have good intention here. I am sure about Timothy's intentions. --Aminz 10:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you simply don't speak for all muslim wikipedians. I'll wait to hear what others have to say. — JEREMY 11:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

True, I am not. But please keep in mind that I have good intentions. I only want to avoid misunderstandings of Islam. That's it. --Aminz 11:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jeremy, so Muslim wikipedians (the only ones who count, I presume?) are to now hold a referendum as to whether I operate in good faith? Explain my hundreds of edits consisting of nothing more than creating templates for Qur'anic and Bukhari cites, then adding them to various articles, some of which (e.g. the Suras) no one of any faith has visited in months? An anti-Muslim plot, no doubt.

Muslims do not "own" Islam-related articles. You've no right to declare me unwelcome and call all Muslims to condemn me. We are supposed to be editors of wikipedia, but it's clear that you don't see it that way, and typically, don't really believe others can, either.Timothy Usher 11:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[S]o Muslim wikipedians (the only ones who count, I presume?) Certainly not, nor did I say that — although I can see how you might read that into what I said. (Please note the presence of punctuation; it provides valuable clues to sense.) Explain my hundreds of edits I don't know. Camouflage? Seriously, I think you're probably acting in good faith, but I know you're not considering all the potential problems your behaviour is likely to create. You've no right to declare me unwelcome and call all Muslims to condemn me. Indeed; nor have I. What I have done is to alert others to your hasty and ill-considered campaign, which has prevented it doing too much harm. We are supposed to be editors of wikipedia, but it's clear that you don't see it that way, and typically, don't really believe others can, either. Sorry; I can't parse this. — JEREMY 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Suppose I meant that, those who approach articles looking for a POV conflict (and who could be blamed for this, given the typical atmosphere on articles related to politics and religion?) might find it more natural to assume other editors to be motivated by POV, rather than general scholarship or literary style. Not that I deny *having* a POV, but it's not the motive behind most of my edits, except insofar as attitudes towards scholarship and style are themselves POV. When it's pro/anti/neutral vis-a-vis Islam POV, I see no reason to be shy about saying so. My redirects are motivated by my POV about how wikipedia should organize data generally, and I admit, underlyingly by the idea that we should not introduce religiously-based strife and confusion where none exists. Whether Jibril is, or is not, the same angel as Gabriel is a wholly artificial and ridiculous dispute, sustained by selective translation (or not), which ought be put to rest asap.

This text is duplicated in Gabriel in its entirety, and reasonably proportionate to the other sections. The only thing being "defended" here is the Arabic name Jibril.Timothy Usher 08:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

All the content in Jibril appears to be here. Does anyone object to merging and redirecting Jibril to Gabriel? If so, why? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Portal

Why should we have this portal here? The article is not about any saints. --Aminz 19:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, doesn't fit here. I've removed it. -- Jeff3000 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - Gabriel is considered a saint, and St Gabriel and Saint Gabriel both redirect here. San Gabriel also points here. Adding it back in. --evrik 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• But saints are supposed to be humans, aren't they? --Aminz 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No. All the Archangels are considered saints. --evrik 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in Protestantism. At least, I've never heard of it.Timothy Usher 20:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=saint+gabriel+presbyterian
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=saint+gabriel+episcopal&spell=1

--evrik 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess so. Thanks.Timothy Usher 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Makes no sense to me either, but the article states that Catholics consider "St. Gabriel the Archangel, the patron saint of communications workers," while he Saints article states that Eastern Orthodoxy includes angels as saints.Timothy Usher 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nor in Islam. But it would be a good addition to the article (Christianity section) "that in Eastern Orthodoxy, Gabriel is a considered as a saint". The portal at the moment is not well placed. Bringing it to the top might be considered as POV. Maybe it should be moved to the Christianity section or removed from the article.--Aminz 21:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Astrology

In the zodiac signs, each sign is "assigned" an angel, and aquarius's angel is Gabriel.Dogmanice 01:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this section from Astronomy to Astrology/ .

Come and Hear reference removed

The Talmud quote is accurate but links to a hate site masquerading as an unbiased source of information. Wikipedia would do well to avoid giving it any legitimacy or authority. In any case, the exact reference (much less a link to it) to Gabriel's speaking Syriac hardly seems a particularly necessary thing to document. ShalomShlomo 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Which Reference?

I have issue with the reference to Yoma 79A. I just read Yoma 79A and see no mention of Gabriel. Am I missing something, or is that reference just completely wrong? Clever_Kellom 17:48 15 Feb. 2007 (EST)

The Loose Use of the Term Cult

The section that describes the Latter-day Saint religion as a cult is unfounded and biased in nature and in no way reflects the religion as a whole. A cult, by definition, can be expanded to include any religion that is considered to be outside societal norms. Since this is broad enough that it could be used to define any religion that one does not agree with, it is clearly a word that has no place in a text such as this. Especially as it describes a religion that is so prominent throughout the world and more closely follows ancient organizations of Christianity than that of the more "accepted" Christian religions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.97.195 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Outside "societal norms" today might include the doctoring of documents, brainwashing indoctrination, the use of psychological pressure, manipulated cultural isolation, covert activities, induced fear, an atmosphere of implied threat, etc.. Almost all major Christian sects have been guilty of such violations at one time or another. "Cult", when it is not confined to "outward forms of religious practice"— its original meaning— must refer to these manipulative practices, or else it's a mere smear word and is an authentic violation of Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view. In such an atmosphere, unsigned posts by un-logged-in Users assering "bias" do not inspire confidence. --Wetman 10:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If the LDS had started up anytime before the 18th century and anyplace but America they'd have been exterminated as a heresy. While I wouldn't agree with the exterminatoin, I'd certainly understand the accusation of heresy: LDS doesn't look anything like Christianity. It's a new and seperate religion. In the same way, Christianity itself began as a heretical version of Judaism - the Jewish messiah was not and is not regarded as a literal "son" of God. Cults become religions by surviving and growing - someone once said, very cleverly, that a language is a dialect with an army behind it (meaning it that the group of people who control the power of the State will also control which of several dialects is recognised as the norm); the situation vis-a-vis cults and religions is similar. My point being, LDS is now laarge enough to qualify as a religion rather than a cult, but has departed too far from Christianity to be regarded as a Christian denomination. It needs a separate section.PiCo 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sonata Vox Gabrieli

Added a short bit about the Vox Gabrieli by Sulek. I think this is probably one of the most important music references. Are there any Trombone nerds out there that know more about this piece?

in the section where u say gabrial comes at last ten day of the holy month of ramdan in Lilat al qadar you translated it to the (night of power) when it is relly the (night of destiny)

Use in Fiction

Given the same discussion is being held on the page on Michael and on Uriel, I'd propose that its worthwhile to have a brief on Gabriels and the other Archangels appearances in fiction. While the article deals primarily with religious iconography and theology, the characters appearances in books I think is viable information, as not all "fictional" appearances are necessarily non-spiritual. Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinlong (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel a male name

I will remove this line saying that Gabriel is retrated as Women, thats sound nuts. If anyone have any question about this, take a look in the the Book of Daniel at 8:15 and you will se that Daniel see Gabriel "as the appearance of a man". Unless Daniel has something wrong in his understud of male and female we can say that Gabriel looks like a man, at least.

In the true, theres no "Women Angels" on Holy Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.97.82 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin-Gender

I think that there is a typo. At the top of the page, it lists the Latin form between Gabriel and Gavriel as "Gabrielus" but lower down where it lists the Latin forms, it has "Gabrielius" rather than "Gabrielus." I am not sure which is correct in this case, but usually in my research of names, the male versions are more apt to have an "-ius" ending than an "-us" ending.

Looking around the net, the Australians tend to use male versions of this name for girls. If it is straight from the Hebrew, there should be a "-ah" version of the name in the early forms "gavriel", "gabhriel" and (form used in bible) "gabriyel" because that is the Hebrew ending to make it a female name.

As far as the "like a man" stuff, this goes back to the name "Andrew" (brother of Simon) and its relation to the first half of the name Gabriel. The early forms of Andrew "Andreas" and "Andreios" were supposed to come from an Aramaic original but they are not sure what. But there was a big controversy because the Greeks translated both "bala" (meaning husband) and "gbra" (which can refer to either a father or a husband" as "andros/aner" - putting a link between the early forms of Andrew and the the early forms of the first half of Gabriel. Seems that the two geneologies in the bible are different because one is that of Mary's father (Joseph) and one is of Mary's husband (Joseph).

When you go through the rest of the definitions for both "andros" and "gbra" you find that "like a male" meant that one exhibited qualities deemed "masculine" - such as being "brave" and a "warrior" - and is not, like some websites say, a sign of early planetary visitors.

- / - gever, geber, gebher (heb) (from) gavar, gabar, gabhar (heb) (X/X) gavra, gabra, gbra (aramaic/ semitic)=(orig) adult male, man, (later) mighty man, strong man, protective male, warrior, champion, guardian, (later) male head of the household, person of special position, the power of fertility, (later) husband, father;

(I think that gebher originally referred to a rooster and acquired the other meanings because of two similar sounding words)

- / - andreios (grk) (from) andros (from) aner (from) anhr (grk) (X/X) gavra, gabra, gbra (aramaic/ semitic);

When names pass from language to language, sometimes it has no meaning in the new language so the only alteration is spelling for pronunciation. But most of the time, they either pick something that sounds the same or has a similar meaning as the original. Often in the former case, some punning is going on - sometimes flattering and sometimes decisively not. 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)~ ```23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)~

Reference to Satanic verses

A chief character in Salman Rushdie's Satanic verses is unmistakably Gabriel Farishta or Archangel Gabriel. Shouldn't this important piece be mentioned in references in art or in popula culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.242.187 (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the same angel Gabriel being referenced, but you need to get the correct spelling of the actor's name, which was "Gibreel Farishta".

The Satanic Verses uses many "biblical" names and even references the birth of Christ, which the Koran considers to be a minor prophet. Maher Arar and Monia Mazigh point out that the some of the same stories exists in both the Koran and the Bible, in reference to a different Joseph, Monia said "... he wanted her to know about the story of Joseph, which in Arabic we say Yussef but it is the same prophet." [1] Wonder if it would be better to list the biblical/koranic references on the SV page so that when you mention it here, it can link there for more complete information. 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)~~

Mention of Traditional Roman Catholics

I think it it important to make mention of Traditional Roman Catholics since they make up a significant minority here in the United States and Canada as well as in France, Germany, United Kingdom, and other places around the world. They continue to commemorate St. Gabriel the Archangel on his traditional feast day of March 24. AMC0712 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Those traditionalist Catholics who choose to use a calendar of the Roman Church between that of 1922 and that of 1969 do so. Anyone traditional enough to prefer an earlier calendar, even if they do not go back as far as the Tridentine Calendar do not. Surely it is enough to indicate in what calendars Gabriel appears and with what feast day. Lima (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Archangel & Pseudepigraphy Changes?

Archangel

Gabriel is considered to be an archangel, but the bible never refers to him as one. Michael is the only angel stated to be an archangel.

I'm going to go ahead and tweak the article to say "generally considered an archangel" instead of "is an archangel"

Pseudepigraphy

The last sentence in this section is...

"According to Enoch 70:11-16 states that Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel always travel with Yahweh when he moves from His Throne.[citation needed][original research?]"

First off, it's Enoch chapter 71, not 70. And It doesn't state they always follow him, it just says they followed him in that particular instance. It is not a bad generality, by most deductions of reason the head angels would follow God wherever he went, but the verse does not proclaim it as an "always", like the last sentence specifically states.

Therefore, I'm going to edit that sentence too and make it a bit more open.

Thanks guys Huper Phuff ^talk 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC).