>>51233308if you say that all heavenly beings are angels as to make a theological point, like pseudo-dionysius, that all heavenly beings are messengers of attributes of god, then who am i to argue.
but no one ever says that. what they say is that cherubim, ophanim, and seraphim are "biblically accurate angels" as to imply that there are some "inaccurate" angels going around somewhere, though angels described as men far outnumber any other kind and are surely accurate.
no one ever brings up the creatures from ezekiel and isaiah except in the form of a supposed correction to a misconception that isn't actually a misconception in the first place. that's the only context any one ever calls these things "angels" in and it doesn't even enjoy the bare minimum victory of being technically correct.
