Angels

[GuardianShua]

Wicked Willow's etymology was not conjecture it is fact. The word Catholic comes from Greek roots adopted into Latin that mean "universal" and it had nothing to do with snakes, pagan gods, etc. If you want to say that some Mediterannean forms of pagan worship found their way into early Christianity than I would agree with you 100% but the word "Catholic" has nothing to do with what you are saying. It is you who are making bizarre conspiratorial conjectures and inventing your own etymology.

That is correct, the word was adopted to mean "universal."

Cath or Catha: A sun goddess. The daughter of the sun. She was also a goddess of beginnings and the dawn, and was also shown rising from the ocean. Catha is from the Etruscan root cath-, meaning "the sun", and was also in use as a family name among the Etruscans.

The Greek word "Katholikos" which now days means "universal" was first used to refer to the Church founded in 107AD by St.Ignatius of Antioch.
Long before Ignatius used the term Katholikos for the church, Cath was in use for the name of that goddess. Cath is where we get the word catheter and cathode ray. It is also from the word katholikos that the word "catholic" comes.
St Ignatius wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word "catholic". But as you can see the Etruscan root cath-, meaning "the sun" was in use before St Ignatius used it.

The suffix -ic:
The Modern English adjectival suffix -ic was first seen as a suffix in English during the Middle English period. It was borrowed in words from Old French '-ique', which came from Latin '-icus', which came ultimately from Ancient Greek '-ικος (-ikos)'. There are some that contend that '-icus' was native to Latin and was cognate with rather than borrowed from Greek. The suffix -icus was very wide-spread by the Classical Latin period in native words as well as in words derived from Greek.
And again you can see that the suffix “ic” is part of the latin and Greek.

In the past and even these days Mary is worshipped as a sun goddess, and that is the reason for the halo and sun rays around her.
Constantine The Great was a sun worshipper, and he was also the pagan high priest. He proclaimed himself head of the Christian church, and not until he was on his death bed did he become a Christian. The pax cross was a tool and a sign of pagan sun worship.
I am a Judaic Christian.

 

[Wicked Willow]

That is correct, the word was adopted to mean "universal."

No. It meant "universal" to begin with. That are the roots of the term, and that were the roots of the term even when it was first applied to describe the church as "universal".

Cath or Catha: A sun goddess. The daughter of the sun. She was also a goddess of beginnings and the dawn, and was also shown rising from the ocean. Catha is from the Etruscan root cath-, meaning "the sun", and was also in use as a family name among the Etruscans.

Dear Michael, I'm a linguist. And what I'm telling you now is neither conjecture nor a theory: just because two words look similar does not mean that they are related. This is especially true if the etymological history of a word is well-known already, as in the case of the Greek roots of "catholic" from Gk. "katholikos - universal".
I know that it can be hard to let go of a cherished pet theory, especially if it chimes so well with what you want to believe. But ask yourself: in what fashion was this term used, both in the past and in the present? Did the church try to claim that it was universal, or was its intent to proclaim its allegiance to an obscure etruscan solar deity? True, the church wasn't loathe to assimilate pagan imagery, ritual, or even feast days. But it always did so with the explicit aim of replacing them, rather than turning into a continuation of the same. Statues of deities became statues of saints, celebrations of the winter solstice turned into celebrations of the birth of christ and so on and so forth. The last thing any church father could have wanted was to link the church directly to a pagan deity.

The Greek word "Katholikos" which now days means "universal" was first used to refer to the Church founded in 107AD by St.Ignatius of Antioch.

There's one problem, though: it meant "universal" back then, too. Check it in any Classical Greek dictionary, if you will.

Long before Ignatius used the term Katholikos for the church, Cath was in use for the name of that goddess.

True, although it's still a male deity, and mere similarity does not establish an etymological link.

Cath is where we get the word catheter and cathode ray. It is also from the word katholikos that the word "catholic" comes.

*sigh* More pseudo-etymologies? Will you never learn?

cathode 1834, from Gk. cathodos "a way down," from kata- "down" + hodos "way" (see cede). Cathode ray first attested 1880, but the phenomenon known from 1859; cathode ray tube is from 1905.

catheter 1601, from Fr. cathéter, from L.L. catheter "a catheter," from Gk. kathienai "to let down, thrust in," from kata "down" + stem of hienai "to send."

None of those reference obscure deities, but instead are terms that pretty much describe what the object's supposed to accomplish.

St Ignatius wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word "catholic". But as you can see the Etruscan root cath-, meaning "the sun" was in use before St Ignatius used it.

See above. Similar sounds do not an etymology make.

The suffix -ic:
The Modern English adjectival suffix -ic was first seen as a suffix in English during the Middle English period. It was borrowed in words from Old French '-ique', which came from Latin '-icus', which came ultimately from Ancient Greek '-ικος (-ikos)'. There are some that contend that '-icus' was native to Latin and was cognate with rather than borrowed from Greek. The suffix -icus was very wide-spread by the Classical Latin period in native words as well as in words derived from Greek.
And again you can see that the suffix “ic” is part of the latin and Greek.

Why do you keep posting this? It's plain to see that "catholic" is an adjective. In fact, you can even trace it back to the Gk. -ikos in this particular case. So, what do you want to tell me with this obvious fact?

In the past and even these days Mary is worshipped as a sun goddess, and that is the reason for the halo and sun rays around her.

The halo is pretty much a universal item of religious iconography throughout the world, and even with regards to Catholicism, it is hardly limited to Mary.

That said, it is quite likely that the church adopted and assimilated this imagery from Roman (rather than Etruscan) paganism. That does not link the word "catholic" to a sun deity, however.

Constantine The Great was a sun worshipper, and he was also the pagan high priest. He proclaimed himself head of the Christian church, and not until he was on his death bed did he become a Christian. The pax cross was a tool and a sign of pagan sun worship.

Do you want to dispute that Jesus was crucified, too? Ah, conspiracy theories - they never run out of creative ways to turn the most irrelevant details into parts of a sinister scheme spanning the centuries.

I am a Judaic Christian.

Why do you feel the need to repeat that, again and again? Has somebody disputed it?

 

[GuardianShua]

[/COLOR][/SIZE]No. It meant "universal" to begin with. That are the roots of the term, and that were the roots of the term even when it was first applied to describe the church as "universal".


Dear Michael, I'm a linguist. And what I'm telling you now is neither conjecture nor a theory: just because two words look similar does not mean that they are related. This is especially true if the etymological history of a word is well-known already, as in the case of the Greek roots of "catholic" from Gk. "katholikos - universal".
I know that it can be hard to let go of a cherished pet theory, especially if it chimes so well with what you want to believe. But ask yourself: in what fashion was this term used, both in the past and in the present? Did the church try to claim that it was universal, or was its intent to proclaim its allegiance to an obscure etruscan solar deity? True, the church wasn't loathe to assimilate pagan imagery, ritual, or even feast days. But it always did so with the explicit aim of replacing them, rather than turning into a continuation of the same. Statues of deities became statues of saints, celebrations of the winter solstice turned into celebrations of the birth of christ and so on and so forth. The last thing any church father could have wanted was to link the church directly to a pagan deity.


[/SIZE]There's one problem, though: it meant "universal" back then, too. Check it in any Classical Greek dictionary, if you will.


True, although it's still a male deity, and mere similarity does not establish an etymological link.


*sigh* More pseudo-etymologies? Will you never learn?

cathode 1834, from Gk. cathodos "a way down," from kata- "down" + hodos "way" (see cede). Cathode ray first attested 1880, but the phenomenon known from 1859; cathode ray tube is from 1905.

catheter 1601, from Fr. cathéter, from L.L. catheter "a catheter," from Gk. kathienai "to let down, thrust in," from kata "down" + stem of hienai "to send."

None of those reference obscure deities, but instead are terms that pretty much describe what the object's supposed to accomplish.


See above. Similar sounds do not an etymology make.


Why do you keep posting this? It's plain to see that "catholic" is an adjective. In fact, you can even trace it back to the Gk. -ikos in this particular case. So, what do you want to tell me with this obvious fact?


The halo is pretty much a universal item of religious iconography throughout the world, and even with regards to Catholicism, it is hardly limited to Mary.

That said, it is quite likely that the church adopted and assimilated this imagery from Roman (rather than Etruscan) paganism. That does not link the word "catholic" to a sun deity, however.


Do you want to dispute that Jesus was crucified, too? Ah, conspiracy theories - they never run out of creative ways to turn the most irrelevant details into parts of a sinister scheme spanning the centuries.

Why do you feel the need to repeat that, again and again? Has somebody disputed it?

If you were truly a linguist, then you would have also known that cultures often barrow words from others. Especially if they are in the same area. If you were truly a linguist you would not have made that mistake.

 

[Wicked Willow]

If you were truly a linguist, then you would have also known that cultures often barrow words from others. Especially if they are in the same area. If you were truly a linguist you would not have made that mistake.

Don't embarass yourself. Naturally, every language has its stock of loan words. It's also not much of a mystery that these change in meaning over time.

However, it is perfectly obvious and far from speculative that the term "catholic" is not derived from an etruscan sun deity, as it meant THE SAME AS TODAY in classical Greek, as well as when it was first used to refer to the church, many hundred years later. What part of that was it that you didn't understand, exactly? The Greek root "kata", forming the first part of "katholikos", meant "about", even in antiquity. Now, when loan words change their meaning, they usually either broaden the scope of the original meaning, or else narrow it down to refer to just one particular aspect of the same. Even dramatic shifts usually conform to this paradigm.

Now, can you show me why the Greeks should adopt the name of an Etruscan solar deity "Cautha", and then use it as the adjective "katha", meaning "about"? There is no link whatsoever. If it was at the VERY least an adjective meaning "divine", or "solar", you might have a point - but neither is the case. The two words are totally unrelated. They just sound similar.

 

[GuardianShua]

Don't embarass yourself. Naturally, every language has its stock of loan words. It's also not much of a mystery that these change in meaning over time.

However, it is perfectly obvious and far from speculative that the term "catholic" is not derived from an etruscan sun deity, as it meant THE SAME AS TODAY in classical Greek, as well as when it was first used to refer to the church, many hundred years later. What part of that was it that you didn't understand, exactly? The Greek root "kata", forming the first part of "katholikos", meant "about", even in antiquity. Now, when loan words change their meaning, they usually either broaden the scope of the original meaning, or else narrow it down to refer to just one particular aspect of the same. Even dramatic shifts usually conform to this paradigm.

Now, can you show me why the Greeks should adopt the name of an Etruscan solar deity "Cautha", and then use it as the adjective "katha", meaning "about"? There is no link whatsoever. If it was at the VERY least an adjective meaning "divine", or "solar", you might have a point - but neither is the case. The two words are totally unrelated. They just sound similar.

I see no reason for us to continue this conversation. Let it go.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I see no reason for us to continue this conversation. Let it go.

The dispute was settled a long time ago with the aid of an etymological dictionary. You were the one who insisted on repeating false claims and conspiracy theories, and threw in a personal attack to boot. But hey, if you want to leave it at that, I won't protest.

 

[GuardianShua]

The dispute was settled a long time ago with the aid of an etymological dictionary. You were the one who insisted on repeating false claims and conspiracy theories, and threw in a personal attack to boot. But hey, if you want to leave it at that, I won't protest.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Yep, that's what I thought when you insisted that I couldn't possibly be a linguist, as any TRUE linguist would naturally agree with your (ridiculous) pseudo-etymology.

I mean, hey, by your argument from similar sounds, we might just as well argue that the English term "luck", the German "Lücke" (gap) and Finnish "lukea" (to read) must all be references to the Celtic deity Lugh, as, clearly, they use similar sounds. And guess what - Lugh is a sun god, too!

 

[sidhe]

Yep, that's what I thought when you insisted that I couldn't possibly be a linguist, as any TRUE linguist would naturally agree with your (ridiculous) pseudo-etymology.

I mean, hey, by your argument from similar sounds, we might just as well argue that the English term "luck", the German "Lücke" (gap) and Finnish "lukea" (to read) must all be references to the Celtic deity Lugh, as, clearly, they use similar sounds.

I've got an even better one for that - the English word "loo", meaning toilet, is pronounced in approximately the same way as "Lugh", so therefore there's a connection.

I can't believe there was a Scotsman argument made concerning linguists.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I've got an even better one for that - the English word "loo", meaning toilet, is pronounced in approximately the same way as "Lugh", so therefore there's a connection.

You must be on to something there! Maybe it's a vast conspiracy, and people going to the toilet are ACTUALLY entering pagan sanctuaries and performing debased rites to appease the gods.

 

[sidhe]

You must be on to something there! Maybe it's a vast conspiracy, and people going to the toilet are ACTUALLY entering pagan sanctuaries and performing debased rites to appease the gods.

Well, the behavior of the Celts appalled Julius Caesar, so possibly going into the loo and urinating into the altar IS a pagan rite!

Ooooh, this is fun.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Well, the behavior of the Celts appalled Julius Caesar, so possibly going into the loo and urinating into the altar IS a pagan rite!

Ooooh, this is fun.

Yeah, and every time people say stuff like "Holy s***!", they're actual perpetuating a secret pagan mystery! It's a purification rite, naturally, but mixed in is the realization that death and decay are the flipside (and necessary element) of fertility. After all, excrement is a splendid fertilizer. All you need in order to make your crops grow is dung and sunlight - which, incidentally, brings us back to Lugh.

Lugh and loo - the link couldn't be any clearer.

 

[sidhe]

Yeah, and every time people say stuff like "Holy s***!", they're actual perpetuating a secret pagan mystery! It's a purification rite, naturally, but mixed in is the realization that death and decay are the flipside (and necessary element) of fertility. After all, excrement is a splendid fertilizer. All you need in order to make your crops grow is dung and sunlight - which, incidentally, brings us back to Lugh.

Lugh and loo - the link couldn't be any clearer.

...putting aside, of course, that Lugh being associated with the sun is a Victorian innovation based on flimsy linguistics, and that as his defining characteristics are being a man of many skills and considerable knowledge he was more likely a god of craftsmanship and talent than a solar deity. As Irish didn't undergo the "-k" to "-gh" shift of other Celtic languages, it is difficult to create a tie between the Irish "Lugh" and the Proto-Indo-European "*leuk-", which is what the solar reference was based upon. The fact that there is a goddess named "Ainne" who is overtly associated with solar activity also rather diminished the notion of Lugh as solar...

As "lugh" in modern Irish is used to refer to swearing, cursing, or taking an oath, it seems that he could be comparable to Mercury or Hermes, who also had contractual associations.

However, as that ruins the "Lugh"/"loo" comparison, let's totally ignore it.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Still, they are a fascinating phenomenon, especially given that they exist in all the Abrahamaic religions, but play slightly different roles in each of those.

They are not really a phenomenon nor is it too miraculous that they are in all Abrahamic faiths; all Abrahamic faiths developed from the first Abrahamic faith ''Judaism'' therefore it is quite reasonable that Angels would be passed down to the latter Abrahamic faiths. Angelic beings no doubt would have been present in Proto-Judaism and they do appear in other Semitic faiths (Abrahamic faiths are Western Semitic faiths remember).

So, how are angels described by your particular religion, what part do they play, and what do you make of them? Are they emanations of the One? A celestial bureaucracy? Exceptionally pious souls? Fiery snakes with wings? Creatures with free will or without?

There are no ''angels'' in my faith but we do have Bodhisattvas, who are beings on the path to full full enlightenment and use wisdom to help others to reach enlightenment.

 

[Arthra]

Some scholars I've read think that the concept of "angels" had a Zoroastrian origin.

See:

ANGELS: Zoroastrian

- Art

 

[Wicked Willow]

Some scholars I've read think that the concept of "angels" had a Zoroastrian origin.

See:

ANGELS: Zoroastrian

- Art

Personally, I lean towards this explanation, too, although it's hard to prove who influenced whom.
It is pretty clear, though, that Judaism borrowed its gradually evolving "Satan"-figure from persian dualism, where the "good" supreme deity was opposed by his evil offspring Ahriman.

 

[Stinker]

Whether the concept of immortal messengers from heaven was incorporated into the Old Testament, I do not know. They are mentioned a number of times in the New Testament as well. Throughout the entire Bible they appear in either in spirit form or fleshly form. Even we mortal beings are to be angels of God to fulfill certain tasks that He wishes to be accomplished:

Hebrews 13:2 (King James Version)
2Be not forgetful to entertain (show hospitality) strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.




They never are what we think we would see of such a person:

1 Corinthians 1:25-29 (King James Version)
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[HolyWarrior77]

In the Christian religion, Angels are messengers, protectors, warriors, and executors of wrath.

Lucifer used to be an Angel of Light, an Archangel. But he and his angels have fallen, some are here on earth and some locked up in Hell awaiting the final return of Christ.

You see there is only ONE drawback w/ Satan, he is powerless in the presence of the Lord. Jesus defeated Satan and took back the keys to Hell and was resurrected to Life. Jesus has ALL the authority in Heaven and on Earth. Draw close to Jesus and Satan must flee How cool is that?

2 Peter 2:4 (NKJV)
Doom of False Teachers
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;

James 4:7-8 (NKJV)
Humility Cures Worldliness
7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

Revelation 1:17-18 (NKJV)
17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

Matthew 28:18 (NKJV)
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

 

[Nooj]

There's one problem, though: it meant "universal" back then, too. Check it in any Classical Greek dictionary, if you will.

Here's mine if he was feeling too lazy:

καθολικός

καθολικός, ή, όν, (καθόλο&#965 general, ὕδερος Hp.Int.26; καθολικόν, τό, generic description, Stoic.2.74; καθολικά, τά, title of work by Zeno, ib. 1.14; ἔμφασις (v. sub voc.) Plb.6.5.3, cf. 1.57.4; κ. καὶ κοινὴ ἱστορία Id.8.2.11; κ. περίληψις D.H.Comp.12; κ. παραδόσεις Phld. Rh.1.126S.; κ. θεώρημα Cic.Att.14.20.3; κ. praecepta, Quint.2.13.14; -ώτεροι λόγοι general, opp. εἰδικοί, S.E.P.2.84, cf. Hermog.Meth. 5; κ. προσῳδία, title of work by Hdn.Gr. on accents; νόμος -ώτερος Ph.2.172; κ. ἐπιστολή an epistle general, 1 Ep.Pet.tit.; of general interest, BGU19i5(ii A.D.); universal, κ. τίς ἐστιν καὶ θεία ἡ ταυτότης καὶ ἡ ἑτερότης Dam.Pr.310. Adv. -κῶς generally, ἀποφήνασθαι Plb. 4.1.8; εἰπεῖν in general terms, Str.17.3.10, cf. Phld.Rh.1.161 S.; κ. εὑρίσκεταί τι Hermog.Inv.3.11; κ., opp. πληθικῶς ('in the majority of cases'), OGI669.49(Egypt, i A.D.); universally, Porph.Sent.22: Comp. -ώτερον Plb.3.37.6, Gal.18(1).15; -ωτέρως Tz.ad Lyc.16.

And because I was looking at Greek accentuations just today, see Aelius Herodian's περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας (on Prosody in General) for an example of its use. Granted the work postdates the period of Classical Greek, but it's still a good example of what it means. Catholic means general/universal and it meant that for a long time prior to Christianity.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Lucifer used to be an Angel of Light, an Archangel. But he and his angels have fallen, some are here on earth and some locked up in Hell awaiting the final return of Christ.

That sounds more like "Paradise Lost" than the Holy Bible.
You *do* know that "Lucifer" is a translation of the title "morning star", given to a mortal king, don't you? But not only that, the very same title is given to the Christ in Revelation 22:16.
Thus, the equation of Lucifer=Satan is dubious at best.
Here's what I don't quite grasp about Christianity's dualist elements, though:
Christianity is based upon the notion that God reigns supreme - that he's invested with unlimited power and authority, along with universal knowledge and insight. Now, do you want to suggest that this entity, this omnipotent and omniscient Creator, was incapable of creating a universe that wasn't teeming with corruption and mutiny? That he didn't know that Satan would rebel? And even more importantly, that he couldn't find a way of nipping the rebellion in the bud, of containing and mending the damage completely and effectively? See, even with what you wrote below, the problem remains.

You see there is only ONE drawback w/ Satan, he is powerless in the presence of the Lord. Jesus defeated Satan and took back the keys to Hell and was resurrected to Life. Jesus has ALL the authority in Heaven and on Earth. Draw close to Jesus and Satan must flee How cool is that?

Why would it take Jesus to defeat Satan - and after such a long time at that?

Let's have an analogy, shall we?
Imagine God as a president, the universe as a country, and the supposedly rogue angels as terrorist cells spread throughout the same, with some being contained in a Hell-Guantanamo. Now, president God knows *exactly* where the terrorist-angels are, knows their plans, their motivations, their support networks. In fact, he knew that they'd become terrorists even before *they* were aware of it. He detected their simmering discontent long before it erupted in a rebellion - possibly even before they were even created by him.
Now, he knows that they plan an attack that will ruin the universe permanently, so much so that even with several attempts at mending the damage (the Flood, the Christ), He will be forced to destroy it all (as per Revelation). He also has the means to prevent this from happening, in a myriad of ways. And yet, the Fall (of the twin towers) takes place, right in front of God's eyes.

How?

Why?

How could there be an opposition to an omnipotent, omniscient God to begin with - unless, of course, He wanted it? It just doesn't add up. In Christian cosmology, Satan is portrayed as a real adversary to God, a real challenge that persists throughout the existence of the universe and must be tackled time and again. And that, in my opinion, just doesn't work in a truly monotheistic setting.