Talk:Angel

Archives
June 2005 – February 2006

I LOVE ANDREW??

• When I scrolled down to the "Sources" I noticed something that looks like childlike graffiti on the page. I'm not a member of wikipedia, and I noticed that the page is protected, so perhaps someone of better access can correct the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.5.237.18 (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Zoroastrianism came after Judaism?

• I'm just wondering how this is possible if Zoroaster was born (according to scholars) at least five centuries before Moses? Danny Lilithborne 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Read the Zorastrisism article. Seems like there was influence on Judaism. Zorastrisism is monotheistic , concepts of heaven and hell, flood/deluge, angels , baptisms, creation etc.--Jondel 01:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism Influence on Judeo-Christian Angelology Already Established by Jewish and Other Scholars

No, no, no, no---no-----with all due respect, user with IP address 66.251.27.92, (and other users too), you cannot use references from possibly biased, angry authors who wrote a book, or an article in the internet. [Specially], since the references provided to you are the preeminent sources on the subject, namely the Jewish Encyclopedia[1], AND the Bible Encyclopedia [2]. Both sources agree that while the idea of who introduced humanity to monotheism, Zoroastrianism or Judaism still is in debate, what according to them IS [clear], however, is the fact that angelology, demonology, introduction of the Prince of Darkness (the ultimate agent of evil, i.e., Satan) , apocalyptical, and many eschatological ideas were burrowed from Zoroastrianism via the Persian Empire, or at best such ideas [influenced] Judeo-Christian beliefs. Both encyclopedias, as well as, the Encyclopedia Americana, among numerous other sources agree on that. So, unless you have sources that are as valid as, or better yet, more valid than the Jewish Encyclopedia, AND the Christian Encyclopedia, you [should not] make edits. When and IF you have sources that supersede the opposing sources mentioned, then you can start an argument in the discussion section first, and wait to see what the consensus may be. In the mean time, I realize you may be frusterated, however, you should read Wikipedia`s policies before you threaten others, and before you may be blocked for possibly vandalism etc. You have to know that, just because you can edit in Wikipedia, it does not mean you can revert articles, so that they will sound more desirable to you. One of your sources--an angry author--states, “Note: Mr. Holding does a good job of debunking Acharya S. who makes a career out of trashing the Christian religion. But he himself is a devout Christian which will make him biased. I present him with no further comment to give the Christian side of the Zoroastrianism debate”. By Lewis Loflin.

One of the sources provided TO you is, from Encyclopedia Americana: "First, the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." By J. Duchesne-Guillemin, University of Liege, Belgium. Zmmz 22:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism influencing Judeo-Christian religions

There seems to be a bit of an edit war as to whether or not the following lines (or something equivalent to them) should be included in the introduction.

Some scholars now believe that humanity was first introduced to angelology as well as demonology, by the Iranian (Persian) prophet Zoroaster, through the Persian Empire, that would later influence Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Some scholars have wrongfully assumed that humanity was introduced to angelology as well as demonology through the Zoroastrianist religion. However, it is now clear that the opposite is true, as Zoroastrianism was greatly influenced by the Judeo-Christian faiths during the Persian rule in ancient Palestine, and angelology started appearing in Zoroastrian scripture centuries after the birth of Christ.

Both contain weasel words and bias. Various sources have been used to back up these claims:

• For Zoroastrian influence: [3] [4]
• Against Zoroastrian influence: [5] [6]

We need to reach a consensus on what is included, what is not included, and where in the article it should be. My suggestion is to revert the introduction to:

An angel is an ethereal being found in many religions, whose duties are to assist and serve God or the gods.

And move the section on Zoroastrianism and Judaism and Christianity to a subsection of the article (perhaps Angelology? Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Judaism?) where we can write a balanced, NPOV section that includes sources both for and against Zoroastrianism. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don`t agree wih that. I feel like the origin of angelology should be mentioned right there in the intro, so that the reader gets a clear picture of its roots. Currently, many don`t know where it came from. I do hope though that we [can] reach a consensus; I really do. I also hope no one was offended by the pro-Zoroastrian statement. As far as I researched they are factually correct. However, I don’t mind changing some words around, but I have a hard time not putting the info itself there, specially, since the sources are a Jewish Encyclopedia, and an international standard Bible Encyclopedia. I have numerous other sources as well, like authors and some religious books written by scholars such as the Orthodox Christian Francis Bishop, but I figured the encyclopedias were the more authoritative sources. I have to tell you though, it is hard to argue with those sources, don’t you think? I hope we can at least agree on that. Let me know what you think.Zmmz 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Here are some more sources written by Western scholars about the influence of Zoroastrianism on angelology, however, they don’t come nearly close to the references from the encyclopedias previously mentioned. This site has quotes and statements from Western historians [7]; this second one is from a book written by Kaufmann Kohler A. V. W. Jackson[8]. Finally, this last one (for now) is from a book written by the historian Mark Willey[9]. I hope this helps.Zmmz 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to tell you though, it is hard to argue with those sources, don’t you think? When there are a hundred sources against it, and a hundred sources for it, it is extremely easy to argue with sources. That is why it's best to just accept that there are multiple view points on the matter and write the article as such, with a balanced section the contains arguments for Zoroastrian influence, and arguments against it. Either way, the introduction of the article is not the place for it. I am very much for moving it to a subsection. Thanks for the sources. (PS: No, I wasn't offended :-)) Jude(talk,contribs) 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but, how many authoritative sources are against it? Cite some of them first please. I am not sure if the Jewish Encyclopedia, and an international standard Bible Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Americana can, or should be disregarded. How many encyclopedias do you know of that are being against these ideas? Democracy sometimes is not a good thing, just because it [may] drown some facts. As far as I can tell the encyclopedias mentioned are the foremost respected ones in the field, and are all written by Jewish and Christian scholars. That makes it immensly credible. Zmmz 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't researched the topic so besides the sources cited above and a quick google, I'm not going to provide any negative sources. I don't think any sources should be disregarded, even though with extreme bias. From the reliable sources page, However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views. Credible or not, we still want to have a balanced, well-represented article. I'll write up a subsection and put it up in my userspace so that we can make a decision and reach a consensus about whether or not to have the information in the intro, or the subsection, and what information to include. (PS: Can you please indent your comments? Use : multiple times. For example, I used it four times on this comment, so your comment, you would use it five times, and my next comment, I would use it six times.) Jude(talk,contribs) 08:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we can move it from the intro section, however, I do believe such a mention should not be burried somewhere in the bottom, we should make a new section perhaps titled origins or roots. And, we should get a consensus to see which point of view to use, thus we can avoid an edit war in that section. We should rephrase the sentence, yet, as I stated we cannot nor should ignore refrences such as the Jewish and Bible Encyclopedias, as well as, many other Encyclopedias that support the pro-Zoroastrian version/influence.Zmmz 20:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

a) I thought perhaps an Angelology section after the Etymology section.

b) In regards to the actual content, we want to be neutral, and using a specific point of view would not be neutral. Having a section which talks about the Zoroastrian influences is a good idea, with sources, but also in that section would be (not necessarily long, and definitely in neutral language) criticisms of Zoroastrian influence, along with sources (I've noted several negative sources down).

c) We should not, also, ignore the fact that there has been criticism (though not that the criticism is correct or incorrect); but yes, definitely not ignoring or disregarding the Jewish/Bible Encylopedias.

I'm currently working on a mirror of the article in my userspace, and when I've done fleshing it out, I'll post it here so we can make a comparison, survey who prefers what (perhaps a straw poll?), and then come to a consensus. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

After a quick survey of the article and this conversation, I think that the portion talking about the origins of the philosophy doesn't really belong right in the lead paragraph. As per WP:LEAD - The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It seems to me that the precise origin info presented doesn't belong here, but should be moved to a section immediately after the TOC (or after Etymology) about the origins of the philosophy, and that the lead needs rewritten to provide an overview of the entire article. - dharmabum 08:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good Jude, but please make sure we insert the pro-Zoroastrian sources perhaps as a suggestion as such, “According to the the Jewish and Bible Encyclopedias....... ”.Zmmz 07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I've done so far. Let me know what you think. I've included citations; I couldn't find the Jewish Encyclopedia link you gave (timed out constantly) so I haven't included anything from the Jewish Encyclopedia at the minute. I'm still working on the paragraph, though, and I'm going to do some work to the lead, as it's currently quite short and doesn't really give much information as to what the article is about (as per Dharmabum420's comments). Jude(talk,contribs) 13:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jude couple of points; first it had nothing to do with Mazdakism, it is only Zoroastrianism. Secondly, we must mention it is believed that the exiled Jews who were freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great came in contact with the Persian Empire and this may had profound influences on them. Thirdly, if you read the Jewish and BIBLE Encyclopedias they state that the ideas that may have influenced the Jews were one ultimate Good and an ultimate bad, the forces of light vs. the forces of darkness, and the ultimate agent of evil who was dubbed `Prince of Darkness`, known as Ahriman who later bacame Satan. Also, about angelology they were called Yazadas, they were God`s helpers and guardians of `Man`, and they had an hierarchial system. We need to mention that it is according to the Jewish and BIBLE Encyclopedias. Finally, if, and only IF we need to mention that Zoroastrians were the ones who were influence, we should point out that the oldest known Zoroastrian texts date back to before Christianity, because otherwise it would really seems as a kind of off-the-wall allegation. ThanksZmmz 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mazdaism actually is Zoroastrianism; Ahura Mazda is the principle deity of that religion, whereas Zoroaster is merely the most prominent prophet. I'll find a citation for that about Cyrus the Great--I'm pretty sure I noticed one while going through some sources earlier. I'll do some more editing and let you know when I'm done. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No Jude Mazdaism is wrong, and it may be confused with a sub-branch of Zoroastrianism that came about centuries later called Mazdakism. You may study Avesta related articles if you wish. Also, in regards to Cyrus the Great you may look in the Old Testament and the Bible as well.Zmmz 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Bookofjude/Angelology; Zmmz, your thoughts? I think I've included most of your comments about it--except Yazadas, which I can't seem to find any sources on, and the dating of Zoroastrian texts. If you have any sources for these, I'd appreciate them, and I'll incorporate them into my next copy. Also, just remember that this is about Zoroastrian influence on Judaism in regards to Angelology, so we want to stay relevant to the topic of Angelology. I'm sure there are other articles where Zoroastrian influence on Jewish faith are discussed. Jude(talk,contribs) 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The article still does not eloborate on the fact that Angels for the first time appeared in Zoroastrianism as God`s helpers, and they had a system of hierarchy that translates into today` angelology. Also, Satan was dubbed the Prince of Darkness, since the religion thought there was a fight between the forces of light and darkness. Finally, please mention that this is according to the Jewish and Bibel Encyclopedias, and when you write that it was the other way around, IF you think this should be written, then in parenthesis we should write; although the oldest Zoroastrian text discovered so far dates back to five centuries before the birth of Christ. In fact Jude, the `Three Wise Men from the East` that appear in our Christmass cards are Zoroastrian priests from Persia.Zmmz 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any links to specific sources? I've been looking through the Jewish/Bible encyclopedias for things about the heirachy, but I haven't found much. I've got Satan/Angra Mainyu/Ahriman comparison, but I think we should definitely include "Prince of Darkness", if we can find a source for it. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I already gave you the links but here they are again, plus an new link is added.

• [10]
• Here look under the `The Kingdoms of Good and Evil`, and the `Resemblances Between Zoroastrianism and Judaism` sections[11].
• Here look under summary[12].Zmmz 08:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• User:Bookofjude/Angelology. I've made additions: "Prince of Darkness", Angels as God's helpers, the hierarchy, and the refernces section specifically names the Jewish and Bible Encyclopedias. There's seven sources at the minute, and I think it is suitably neutral in its wording when a) presenting facts which mean Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, and b) presenting opinions that other people have about how Judaism and Christianity, in fact, influenced Zoroastrianism, but not stating arbitrarily that these are correct or incorrect. (PS: Sorry it took me a while to do this, I've been working on a Uni assignment.) Jude (talk,contribs,[[Special:Emailuser/Bookofjude|emai

Sounds fair Jude, but again, let`s please mention Christianity occured 5 centuries after the oldest Zoroastrianism. ThanksZmmz 07:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm having a quick look at sources, and I've found some timelines wherein the general consensus is the founding of Zoroastrianism at about 1500 BCE. However, in reading the actual section, I'm not sure that it clearly states its purpose:

In contrast, some critics believe that it was Judaism and Christianity that had an influence on Zoroastrianism, purporting that other similarities between the two were created to exalt Zoroaster and deter those of the Zoroastrian faith from converting to other religions.

I'll probably reword this, as it should read as though the critic belives the following: a) Zoroastrianism is an established religion, b) Christianity is currently gaining popularity, c) Zoroastrian priests 'steal' attributes of Christ and apply them to Zoroaster, thereby exalting Zoroaster, convincing those of Zoroastrian faith that Zoroaster is better than Christ, and thereby keeping them from converting.

I will include that source, though, about the foundation of Zoroastrianism. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Great job Jude, but in regards to Zoroastrianism`s specific influence on angelology, and demonology, the texts that mention such phenomenon date back to at least 5 centuries before the birth of Christ .Zmmz 04:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There we go, a final version. I haven't included:

Some sources purport that the the era of the prophet Zoroaster was around 1400 BC.

As I wasn't sure that it fitted into the text, or that it gave any more to the section, as the date of Zoroaster's lifetime is not in dispute, merely influence on Angelology and Judaism. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, actually the era in which it shows Zoroaster possibly lived, and definitely wrote the texts about Angelology dates back not to 1400 BC, rather 500-600 BC. Now, keep in mind, this is the earliest date that texts were found, that mention refrences to angels and demons. Here is the link again[13].ThanksZmmz 07:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I must be blind, sorry. I can't actually find any mention of Zoroastrian writings on Angelology dating to 500-600 BC in that source. Is it on that page, or is it on another page? I'm actually heading to bed soon, and I'll do a full read through of the section tomorrow sometime. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing...great job so far though.Zmmz 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read through that source several times tonight and can find no mention of angelological literature written by Zoroaster dating to 500-600 BC. Either I'm blind, or I'm not looking for the right thing. As it's actually a section on Angelology, I suddenly realised that it would probably be a good idea to include a little about what Angelology actually is, before writing about Zoroastrian influence, so I've added a few sentences and sources to it. I'm quite happy with it so far, and if I can actually find the source about the dating of Angelological literature, I'll add that in; either way, do you think it is suitable enough to go into the article, and for the sentence in the lead paragraph to be removed?Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism (and I think it clearly did) what you cannot claim is that Judaism was the one to influence Zoroastrianism. This is totally unsubstantiated Judeo-Christian apologetic. And the idea that even Christianity influenced Zoroastrian beliefs about Zoroaster is so outrageous, so baseless, we may as well say that the Buddha is based on Jesus too. The paragraph in the article that makes these claim does not even give a citation. I feel that paragraph should be removed immediately.-unsigned 12:43, December 12th, 2006

Lead paragraph, Angelology and Zoroastrianism

As per the discussion above, and User:Zmmz's comments on my talk page, I've implemented the following changes:

• Removed the following sentence from the lead paragraph.

Some scholars now believe that the introduction to angelology as well as demonology may have been through the Iranian (Persian) prophet Zoroaster, via the Persian Empire who had come in contact with the Babylonian Jews.[14]

• Implemented a new section following the Etymology section. Content of this section is as per User:Bookofjude/Angelology.

Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Great job on the compromise and the new section Jude. Zmmz 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, :-) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gender / sexuality of angels

What is known about the gender of angels in christian tradition? I think they are all considered male, because all their names are male, but art tend to show them genderless / asexual... So what's the official belief? --euyyn 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as Judaism is concerned, they are essencially little more than asexual robot messengers who are the physical manifestation of the will of G-d. SF2K1

In the Unification Church, all angels are male. God will make female angels at a later date (unspecified for now). Jude 1:6-7 hints that angels can engage in sexually immoral acts with human beings. This is a key to Unification Theology about the fall of man. --Uncle Ed 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic view (as far as I know) is that angles are Asexual. I think the names became Male after there use for angels, not befor.

Element disambiguation

I'm trying to remove links from the element disambiguation page (oops, just made another). I deleted the x-ref from this article, as there is no redirect that goes to element meaning "part". If you know of a better link, please make it go there. LeeG 01:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

See WP:CONTEXT Your page was targetted among others for overlinking by a user. You can see their work here [15] unfortunately no one thought to edit it. This was recently discovered and discussed with an admin. I'm attempting to clean-up the pages effected, unfortunately there are many. So I'm tagging them first in the hopes that some may be cleaned up by the time I get to them. Luckily this article is small compared to some of the others targetted. --Crossmr 07:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Posting by User:131.111.200.200

"An illustration was the thwarting of the London bombings on July 21, 2005, when only the detonator caps fired but none of the four bombs went off. This was a miracle of God carried forth through angels. There is not a single day on earth that angels are not working in some capacity or another"

What kind of garbage is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.200.200 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I just reverted it. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint as a subset of Christianity

Ignoring the arguements about Mormons being Christian, I think the section on LDS beliefs should go under Christianity as a sub-section. My arguement is that much of the discussion and examples of Angels in the Christian theology are also believed and taught in the Mormon faith. All of the Biblical refrences are as significant to Mormons as they are to other Christian faiths. The way the article is structured now, it looks like Mormons don't believe or use the Bible as a record of faith, which simply isn't true. 66.151.81.244 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Principalities

If you search for 'principalities' you get sent to the article on political principality with no disambiguation to lead you to 'angels'. Can someone fix add one?

Greek

Changed αγγελος to ανγελος... αγγελος spells "aggelos". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

- In the greek bible it is aggelos IIRC.

Needs more research

No angel in the bible has wings or flies, nor are they supernatural beings who are the "medium of God's power". Messenger is a title, much like your mail man is a messenger. Every kind of messenger in the bible was called that, even Elijah. Angels are not tall white males with flowing blonde hair and big wings. This entire article is a practice in copying traditional thought and putting it on paper(electronic in this case). I consider this article wholly incorrect.

response

Good point... Even Malachi the prophet name meant "My Messenger".

Though I would suggest angles were big... And to be feared... As well it seams the Biblically angels do seam masculine, and never feminine.

The one aspect I love the most is "Hark the Harold Angles Sing, Glory"

Where the Bible says "Luk 2:13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Luk 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

There is not a single reference to angels ever singing in the Bible.--phalcon 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"God (or Allah in the case of Islam)"

I have changed this slightly, as the wording could sound like Islam has "Allah" instead of "God". This is false and I believe is considered offensive by Muslims. "Allah" means "God". I left wording that keeps the relevent link to the word "Allah". Sukkoth 08:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As a Christian I find it offensive that Allah is consider the same as My God of The Bible. So whats your point? --phalcon 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If a Bible is translated into Arabic, Jesus will be saying that he is Allah. Cuñado - Talk 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok perhaps I should expand my reasoning... Typical in English We we say God (capital G) we mean the God of the Bible. When we say Allah we mean the god of the Muslims.

In reality, God and Allah are both names in different languages to mean "god".

In reality The god of the Bible, GOD and the god of the Koran, Allah... are two different monotheistic gods. --68.150.39.244 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect, and that's why I was pointing it out. "God" is used in English by Muslims and Christians to describe God, and "Allah" is used in Arabic by Muslims and Christians to describe God. Muslims claim that the same God that inspired the Bible also inspired the Qur'an, and acknowledge Christianity as a valid religion. Christians however want to believe that Islam is not inspired by God, and pretend that they worship a different God. This is the basis for ignorant prejudice, and that's why I brought it up. I'll get off my soapbox now, because we're not talking about page content anymore. Cuñado - Talk 00:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Angelic Beliefs in Scientology

Somebody should add Scientology's beliefs in angelic beings. Their views are just as legitimate as Islams'.

Angel of the Lord

• Against merger. The article refers to a specific biblical character, not just an angel. It also documents important theological ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elatanatari (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

POV?

This paragraph doesn't seem POV to me, but I don't have a great enough understanding to rewrite it:

In early Hebrew thought, God appears and speaks directly to individuals (Gn. 3:8, Ex. 12:1). He also intervenes in human affairs, often acting violently and punitively (Gn. 22:ff.; Ex. 4:24, 14:4; 2Sm. 24:1: Ps.78 :31ff.) God's savage nature reflects the mores of a nomadic, conquering tribe whose morality was based on ritual and taboo. Under the influence the prophets and postexilic writers under influence of Zoroastrianism, these earlier conceptions were revised to reflect an ethic based on social justice. A new theodicy explained evil without directly implicating God. As the result, God became both more distant and more merciful. Angels and demons replaced him in his encounters with men, and Satan assumed his destructive powers (cf. 2 Sm. 24:1 with 1 Chr. 21:1)[3].

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something? There are also some typos that I fixed when I copied it to this page. CKnapp 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Check "The Encyclopedia of Religion", volume 1, page 283. , ISBN 0-02-909700-2. You can find the complete article there.--behmod talk 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"First Seen/Last Seen"?

Was this vandalism? First seen:AD26 (by jesus and Satan) last seen:AD52 as Mary virgin mother of christ(by (saint)bernidete of lourds)

If not, it does not make any sense. If it does have any factual merit, it is horribly stated, and I have no idea what it is trying to say CKnapp 20:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)