Talk:Angels/Archive 1

Archive 1

So the original War in Heaven was fought between those angels loyal to God and Lucifer with his angel followers. Lucifer was defeated and cast out of Heaven by the archangel Michael. But what happened to the other angels loyal to Lucifer? All demons were orignally humans and not fallen angels. Besides Lucifer, the fallen angels we've encountered thus far, with the exception of Gabriel, fought for Heaven in the War and fell long after Lucifer was imprisoned. Has the show ever explained what happened to Lucifer's original army after his defeat?

Johns1836 23:24, May 17, 2012 (UTC) Johns1836

No, but the show doesn't exactly go 'by the book' either. In the show, Pestilence was the pale horseman and Death was the white horseman, even though it's supposed to be the other way around. Also Uriel isn't an archangel like he's supposed to be, and I do believe that Azazel was an angel kicked out of heaven and into the desert by Uriel, which was never touched on in the series either. Long story short, don't expect the show to deliver all the facts. (Leviathan657 23:55, May 17, 2012 (UTC))

Actually, and because im not an expert at all religions i'll say christianity, but according to christianity, demons arent humans, demons ARE the fallen angels that followed lucifer. So as stated by Leviathan657, the show adds it's own twists, while still maintaining some realism. Winchester7314 04:51, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

While it's never outright stated, I'm pretty sure they're dead. The other archangels don't seem like the type to suffer traitors, and remember when Cas fell? Eventually, he used up him power and because human. I assume Lucifer's angels did the same, then lived out human lives and died, after which they were sent directly to Hell. That, or they never existed to begin with. There's no direct mention of them in the show, and Cas said that the Bible gets just as much right as it does wrong, so it's possible Lucifer rebelled alone. Dragonlover553 (talk) 04:26, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Why is this locked?
Why is this page locked? -- MisterRandom2 01:43, May 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll certainly unlock it. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:05 PM, May 24th 2012

I'm unable to add a reply to the other topic directly for some reason.

One can assume that Michael, Raphael, Zachariah and all those who fought against Lucifer and his army killed every single angel. Seems like Lucifer was the last surviving angel as he was the only one thrown into Hell.L4D2 Ellis 01:46, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

What the.... Um, ok. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:12 PM, June 30th 2012

Naomi seraphim?
Shouldn't Naomi be listed as a seraphim as she is clearly must stronger than Castiel (who is confirmed as a seraph) and seeing as it's speculated that zachariah  is a seraphim.

Thats entirely speculation we have no idea what type of angel Naomi is, we count Zachariah as one as he gives a description of himself that matches the traditional description of a seraphim, plus I think he was confirmed as one by one of the producers. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:53, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Can you please send a link where the producers state that cause I'd like to see it. And lore is not reliable when comparing it to canon because facts in lore and canon are completely different.

Smite/Smiting
Having seen some of the previous seasons, I think that Molecular Combustion is an inappropriate term to describe the power Lucifer/Raphael used on Castiel, and Godstiel/Soulstiel used on Raphael, respectively. In canon, the move was described as 'smiting'. Perhaps we should start rewriting. FTWinchester (talk) 22:53, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

As of the latest episode (Heaven Can't Wait), I believe my earlier proposal was right. FTWinchester (talk) 02:52, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

Fallen Angels
All angels fell to earth. And now? Will they keep their powers? Were they turned into normal humans? I know their wings were burned when they fell, but they could hold their powers, right?

Well when angels fall, they lose there grace, and with it the majority of there powers, as shown with Castiel and Anna they still maintain some abilities, but these are simply echos of there true power, so in esesence all angels should be human. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:08, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

But when anna fell she personally ripped out her grace and when she retrieved it she still wasn't capable of going back to Heaven. Plus Naomi says cast out as Lucifer was cast out and, while that's still lucifer, he possessed all of his abilities. Plus when Castiel fell he still had some of his powers like anna. So it's possible that all angels on earth (except castiel) have the same power Anna had after she fell and after she retrieved her grace.

I don't think how you feel matters, Gabriel volunterely left and he still had all his powers, plus I don't think Archangels count, Lucifer was still as powerful as he had ever been despite being cut of from heaven for thousands of years. Like I said they may retrain some echo of the powers, but not much, unless they're seraphs, who seem more resilent. If they keep there grace, then there power will presumably slowly fade like it did with Castiel. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:25, May 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, at this point, it's ambiguous as to if Archangels possess a grace. They seem to possess innate, raw power. As mentioned, both Gabriel and Lucifer retained all of their power despite their "fall", unlike other Celestial beings. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:29 PM, May 20th 2013


 * Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't been said in the show that when Lucifer rebelled he took a number of fallen angels at his side? They do not count as fallen thanks to Metatron. Where are they now?Epakrios (talk) 17:07, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Seraphs.
Ok, can we please clear this up because many have brought up this point and no one has answered it. Why are we assuming that Zachariah is a seraph? The fact he says he has six wings and that seraphs in lore have six wings is irrelevant because the facts in canon and in lore are completely different. Examples: Archangels are the highest rank in canon, but they are the second lowest in lore. Azazel is a fallen angel in lore, but in canon he's a corrupted human soul. Leviathan is a giant sea monster in lore but is a species of monsters created by god in canon. See my point. So, stating that Zachariah is a seraph because he has six wings is speculation because nothing in the show states seraphs have six wings. Zachariah could be one of the numberous other ranks of angel or even a made up rank. So why are we calling him a seraph. The only confirmed seraph is Castiel. And even then there are clearly other ranks above that as Naomi is as strong than Castiel. So please explain.


 * Your point is validated. But Castiel isn't even a Seraph phisologically, but, as you said, he's the only one canon's explicitly named a Seraph. While there are some differences, the show's content largely hinges on lore. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:44 PM, May 21st 2013


 * To the OP, if I have read correctly there are two types of Archangels. Archangels with a capital A and archangel with a lower case a. The one with the lower case are the angels above regular angels. Archangels with the capital signify the highest of all the angels, being the seven most powerful Seraphs.
 * But what you have said about Zachariah is true. Until it is validated, even I'm sticking with him being a Seraph due to description. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 18:57, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I see him as a Seraph, but there will always be those skeptics and doubters who are willing to argue nonstop about it. He says, in his true form, he has four heads and six wings, and that matches the description of a Seraph to a T. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:01 PM, May 21st 2013


 * Not exactly. The six wings yeah, but the four faces are descriptions of Cherubs. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 19:11, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * But the point still stands that only Castiel has been confirmed as a Seraph (after he was resurrected) so it should not be stated that Zachariah is a Seraph and it is possible he one of several different types of angel.
 * Admitadly its a bit of hand weaving, but its not speculation, speculation is when you make up facts, this is simply connecting facts that the show didn't connect. As only Seraphs are confirmed to exist (along with Cherubs, which are far to weak, normal angels and Archangels) and he doesn't fit any of those catagories, saying he's a Seraph based on this, is simply a case of connecting the facts. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:33, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a little uncomfortable really because the show never mentioned him to be a Seraph,
 * but on the other hand, there were several implications throughout the series that A) he was no ordinary angel, B) was on a different class altogether, Tumblr_l0drytyVUd1qzm7yko1_500.jpg
 * and his description of his true form's wings really caused me to think of Seraph right on the spot (four faces of a Cherub is invalidated because of the presence of the cupids). If it is confirmed in an interview, then I accept its canonity. Could I see a link though, if possible? FTWinchester (talk) 02:05, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, that picture's creepy, but funny. I don't know if it's true, but last I heard about Zachariah's celestial status, Misha said that he was an Archangel. I don't believe that though. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 03:18, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because his rank has not been mentioned doesn't mean that we should just shove him into whatever rank fits. He may be of an angelic rank not yet mentioned. If you're saying Zachariah must be a seraph because he's not an archangel, cherub or normal ranking angel then by that logic Naomi should also be a seraph as she is equal to castiels rank if not higher. If someone can find firm evidence ( an interview or comment) that shows Zachariah is a seraph and not of unknown rank then I accept it but if it can't be proven it should not be stated and should be removed.

Humans... Angels?
If a Angel can become human, can the opposite happen? I mean, Anna was a human before regain her Grace, right? There should be a way to a human soul become in Grace.


 * No, a human soul cannot become a Grace - and an Angel's Grace cannot become a human soul. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:03 PM, June 3rd 2013


 * Of course it can. Castiel was given a soul in Season Gr8 finale. So what, they can't have both seeing as how Castiel is human now. Demons can become human, humans can become demons, Angels can become human, but humans can't become Angels? - Kesslerbeast


 * That's a bit different. For one thing, we have no idea how an angel gains a soul when they fall and lose their grace. I do no believe a human can become an angel unless God himself intervenes. Also you're supposed to sign your post with four squigly lines (~)  L4D2 Ellis (talk) 02:38, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * I would have but I'm on my phone - Kesslerbeast


 * No, Castiel's Grace was taken from him, and wouldn't turn into a soul. He would eventually generate a soul. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:26 PM, June 4th 2013
 * Whatever that's being discussed here is pretty pointless. The writers, if they have their way,         would even make a human an angel if they wanted to. RaghavD  The One and Only  16:34, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever that's being discussed here is pretty pointless. The writers, if they have their way,         would even make a human an angel if they wanted to. RaghavD  The One and Only  16:34, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, only because the current writers suck with their continuity problems. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 16:43, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, yes, the writers could do anything they want to with it. But to say an Angel's Grace turns into a soul, at this point, is flawed. It would be more accurate to say a depowered Angel generates a soul. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:44 PM, June 4th 2013
 * Yeah, we don't have much to go with. Should wait for Season 9. Again, I don't hope that we will be getting our answers, coz each season is being treated differently with the events and continuities of the previous season being totally forgotten by the writers. RaghavD  The One and Only  16:52, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we don't have much to go with. Should wait for Season 9. Again, I don't hope that we will be getting our answers, coz each season is being treated differently with the events and continuities of the previous season being totally forgotten by the writers. RaghavD  The One and Only  16:52, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

In Hammer of the Gods, when Gabriel dies, he says that he is the third oldest and that when the new baby came along Lucifer got jealous..so wouldn't that make Rapahel the youngest and not Gabriel?

Jemmaleena (talk) 21:20, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

I don't rember that line, give me a minute while I check the transcript. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:53, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Nope he never said that, he just didn't bring Raphael up in the converstation. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:57, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

How many angels fell?
I'm wondering how many angels were there that actually fell? I mean sure it looked like hundreds, but it was previously stated on multiple occasions there weren't that many angels left, following the civil war and soul enhanced castiel distroying all Raphael's followers. So how many do you think fell? Millions or simply a few thousands? General MGD 109 (talk) 22:00, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not millions. In fact I have doubts there were even millions in the first place when God first created them. Anyway, I'm pretty sure Naomi said there would be thousands of angels walking around on Earth if Metatron completed the spell. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 22:39, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Probably in the thousands somewhere. He Who Shall Not Be Named By Mortals (talk) 22:40, June 23, 2013 (UTC) Kesslerbeast

Well, in the show and after Castiel's killed thousands in Heaven. I would say several thousand, after all Naomi said, thousands walking the Earth, if Metatron could finish the spell. Now in real lore, most doesn't alure toward an exact number of angels. However, in one story there were countless angels, to ranging toward 7 million, in reference toward the number seven being a holy reference number. But, in the series, Castiel did say if I remember right their count weren't infinite, but called them the Armies of Heaven, early in season 4, the rising of the witness episode.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 23:15, June 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * We really don't know how many Angels God created. Really, we can't annunciate the exact number of Angels made - only guess. And there's no point in doing that. God made more than 1, and when Castiel had all the souls of Purgatory, he demolished a lot of them. And there's no way to, accurately, know how many fell. So, this question can't be answered. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:39 PM, June 24th 2013


 * Well not accurately, I was just wondering what sort of numbers there be dealing with, millions, thousands or hundreds. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:42, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, well if I were to hypothesize, I'd say hundreds. But again, there's no way of knowing the EXACT number of Angels. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:11 PM, June 25th 2013

Seraphs.
Ok, this has been argued for some time and has never officially been answered: why is zachariah considered to be a seraph? Many have said that because he states he has six wings that this proves he is because serpahs have six wings in lore. But lore and canon are completely different (eg. Azazel is a fallen angel in lore, in canon he's a corrupt human soul). Furthermore, he says he has four faces one of which is a lion, which in lore describes a cherub. So, either way, the fact he has six wings doesn't support the fact he is a seraph. The only angel in the show that can be confirmed as a seraph is Castiel after he is brought back (as it is stated). There are about nine different types of angel in lore and Zachariah could be any one of them. And even then, the shows creators could easily have made up a rank of their own. On top of that, if it is being assumed that Zachariah is a seraph, why doesn't the same apply for Naomi? The general view seems to be that seraphs rank directly under archangels, and Naomi is more powerful than Castiel (a seraph) so logically, if we're assuming that seraphs are the second highest rank, Naomi can only be a high ranking seraph. There is nothing on the show to suggest that Zachariah is a seraph. It's just a random assumption. Like saying that Alastair and Azazel are knights of Hell. There is no evidence in canon to support this idea. So, can someone please explain why it keeps being stated?


 * Ok, first of all, Naomi could be a Throne or a Wheel. Don't jump the gun, and just say, she's a Seraph. Zachariah gave us an insight into his form, while we know absolutely nothing about Naomi's rank. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:16 PM, June 27th 2013


 * That still doesn't support the idea that Zachariah is a seraph. I'm not saying that Naomi is a seraph but there is no reason to say that Zachariah is. Furthermore, Zachariah gives insight into his form but he never states that it is the form of a seraph. All that can be said about his rank is that he is higher than average angels but below archangels, which is the same with Naomi.


 * An insight into the physiology of an Angel points to their type. I think, to a degree, the writers are looking for us to connect the dots. I agree, Naomi is not a low-tier Angel, such as Rachel, but we really don't know what she was. But, presumably, Zachariah was a Seraph. So, it's either Zachariah was a Seraph or a Cherub. Zachariah couldn't have been a Cherub (because of where they fall on the Angel scale), unless he was like the admiral Cupid. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:46 PM, June 27th 2013


 * But there is nothing to imply he was either a cherub or seraph as there are about 7 other types of angel in lore and even then they flearly weren't following lore 100%. Just because seraphs have six wings in lore doesn't mean they do in canon. If you're saying that then you also have to accept that seraphs are the highest rank under archangels, therefore naomi can only be a seraph. Its possible zachariah is a seraph but again its like saying azazel is a knight of hell. Its a complete assumption and is never stated. The only confirmed seraph is Castiel and its not even stated he has six wings, so it's possible seraphs in canon don't possess six wings and four faces like Zachariah does.


 * Thats also speculation, plus the fact thats its made clear that in supernatural Canon Cherubs are the weakest of all angels, and Zachariah is the strongest non archangel angel so that leaves Seraph. Its possible she is a seraph but appart from her high Ranking position we never get any indication of that. Plus Naomi works in inteligence, rather than millitary so its difficult to compare the two. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:15, June 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * ::That makes no sense. You've just stated that "Cherubs are the weakest, Archangels are the strongest, Zachariah must be a seraph". ? Zachariah's clearly not a soldier either. Zachariah could be a throne, dominion, virtue, power, principal or some made up rank by the show. It's never stated he is a seraph or that he has the physical appearence of a seraph in canon. You can say he is of very high rank or that he answers to archangels but calling him a seraph is pure speculation. It's no different from saying that alastair is a knight of hell. There is no evidence for it and unless someone can supply confirmative proof that Zachariah is a seraph and not just a high ranking angel, it should be changed. Can anyone give such evidence?
 * Thats difficult to say, I was simply using the process of illimination, you stated his form could mean he was either a cherub or a seraph, I said it was impossible for him to be a cherub, leaving a seraph. Now your right, its never been officially been stated that the form he describes as his own, is what Seraphs look like in the shows canon. But its also never been stated that it isn't, as such until it isn't its more likely it does match the lore, as thats what the show is based upon. Now Seraphs are very powerful and high ranking Angels, as was Zachariah, that coupled with the fact this his description of himself matches what the contextual discription of a Serphium look likes counts as evidence he is. Until its proven that's not what Seraphs look like. We also have to take into acount the fact that the writters wouldn't have given him a matching description unless they intended him to be one. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:52, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't prove Zachariah is a serpah. That's just assuming that the producers intended him to be one, which again can't be proved. It could just be a coincidence. It makes more sense to assume that Zachariah is an angel until its confirmed that seraphs in canon have six wings and four faces, rather than state he is a seraph until its confirmed seraphs dont have six wings and four faces. It's not stated on canon, so it's wrong to assume it. You can call it connecting dots if you like but it's still not fact or suggested on the show so it shouldn't be stated on the pages.
 * Your claiming that the writers simply managed to get the description of a Seraph correct by accident and applied it to the strongest candidate for one in the show, by accident? That's got be the longest shot I've ever heard of. It also goes agaist the ammount of research the writting team generally do for the episode. Like I said it isn't specifically confirmed, however its as good as, and thats good enough for this wiki. Untill its proven he's not its more likely he is. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:51, June 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * If I may (pretty much repost what I said in a same discussion above), I am not saying Zachariah being a Seraph was stated in canon, but to say that he is just an angel would also contradict his abilities shown in canon which appeared to be vastly superior to what the other angels could do, as well as his organizational/political power shown in canon.


 * It's a Terrible Life


 * Dean: [...]  You're an angel , aren't you?
 * Zachariah: I'm Zachariah.
 * Dean: Oh great. That's all I need is another one of you guys.
 * Zachariah:  I'm hardly another one, Dean. I'm Castiel's superior. [...] After the unfortunate situation with Uriel, I felt it necessary to pay a visit. Get my ducks in a row.
 * The Monster at the End of This Book
 * Zachariah compels a prophet (and later on Sympathy for the Devil, implants a false memory on the prophet)
 * Granted, 'superior' makes it confusing with Anna Milton, but in the context of Zachariah, he explicitly mentioned he was hardly another one--which could plainly mean he was simply superior in rank, but we also have a description of him matching descriptions for Seraphs. Add that to the abilities he had demonstrated, and it's pretty obvious he's not an ordinary angel. The next question becomes what kind exactly? Now comes the request for the source/citation of Zachariah being a Seraph, which I hope someone would provide. FTWinchester (talk) 06:23, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * It was never explicitly stated inverse, that  'he's a Seraph' , so, he could be another type of Angel (Dominion, Virtue, Throne, or wheel). But, personally, I sincerely doubt it. No such Angel types have been even mentioned in the series, while Archangels, Seraphs, Angels, and Cherubs has. He's definitely not an Archangel, he's not a cupid, so that leaves a very high Angel or Seraph. And I think, given the dialogue in "It's a Terrible Life" and "Dark Side of the Moon", we can weld him into one of these two categories - a very high ranking Angel, or Seraph. Well, Alastair could be a Knight of Hell; he's extremely old. But that has never been intoned in the series. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:49 PM, July 1st 2013

Angels after the fall
Angels, after they had fallen, appear to be weaker. For example, they cannot seem be able to teleport themselves as they use to did, perhaps due to they no longer having wings.

Indeed, they do seem a lot weaker. I mean Ezekiel collapsed from physical trauma, Hael needed to use a board to overpower Castiel (who is now mortal) and couldn't heal or say in her vessel. Those Angels that attacked Dean seemed stronger, but they went down easier. I think the fall has had a bad effect on there powers. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:04, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that the degree of their strength (or what remained of it) is highly individualized. However, we do know that they at least retain a certain degree of supernatural strength, and almost intact angel radio telepathy and supernatural perception. FTWinchester (talk) 02:58, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Ezekiel
How was Ezekiel able to resurrect Charlie and Castiel if he is cut off from Heaven? Clearly he is of high enough rank to do so but unless we change the what's written on the page, it implies he is a seraph.

Indeed it does, unless there are ranks between a regular angel and a seraph. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:36, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Well if we assume there is then we can't claim Zachariah is a seraph and if we assume that there are only cherubs, angels, seraphs and archangels then Ezekiel should be listed as a seraph.

I was just speculating. But I think we should wait a little while, see what is revealed about Ezekiel before we jump to conclusions. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:53, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. Of all the freakstorm that has happened in Heaven and the angels (can you say steady decline?), from the deaths of angels during the skirmishes in Seasons 4-5, the civil war, Castiel's purge, Naomi's reprogramming, and finally angels being cast out of Heaven, it probably broke the natural order of how angels could access their powers from Heaven. Even their possession seemed different at times--the girl in the last episode did not receive a bright white light. Instead, she absorbed what looked like the actual Grace of an angel. Angels are looking for any compatible vessel instead of their intended vessel (i.e., Castiel could use the Novak bloodline), Angels keep on saying they don't have wings and yet Ezekiel had the remainder of his wings, etc. Although logically they should be weaker, perhaps all those changes have allowed even regular angels to revive people. But in the end, this remains to be my speculation. FTWinchester (talk) 01:01, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

Monster Possession?
Has it ever been hinted or implied that Angels, or demon's for the matter, can possess beings other than humans, such as Monsters?? I'm just curious as I'm sure demons would have fun running around in a vampire, or an angel asking the likes of a tame werewolf for consent. Do you think it would be possible?

Princepurple (talk) 00:39, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

An angel possessing a monster would probably simply kill the monster. As for demons, however, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe they can, but seeing as nobody has done it yet, and considering how demons in season 6 viewed monsters simply as beasts to be hunted, I think it's a matter of choice and pride on the part of demons. FTWinchester (talk) 00:56, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no; it has never been hinted or implied that Angels or demons can possess monsters. I am in agreement with FTWinchester's approach on the subject. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:24 PM, November 4th 2013

Angel Blades
Isn't it possible that angel blades are identical to archangel blades but are simply named differently because of who they belong to? Otherwise why would Dean attempt to throw one at Raphael as even hurting him would have been pointless as he could have simply healed and killed Dean and Bobby.


 * Thanks for posting on this subject. Raphael could've destroyed them from miles away in less than a millisecond. Anyway. Um, you could be right, but I thought the Archangels made this into a particular type of blade. It's shown that Seraphim don't have their own and instead carry a regular Angel blade. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:50 PM, November 28th 2013


 * I checked the Archangel blade page and it had the same queries. I believe that the two are still separate. However, from a previous discussion here (I can't locate the thread), I argued that what Dean had was a regular angel blade, used in desperation. My point is, there were only 4 archangels, and there was no explicit mention of Team Free Will ever acquiring one for their own. Archangel blades are powerful, and something like that would have garnered talk (e.g., the Colt, the Knife). Additionally, this blade was the same blade that Sam used against Castiel (God/Soulstiel), to which the latter noted "...the angel blade won't work...". FTWinchester (talk) 16:03, November 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * It did garner talk; Kali called it such. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:17 PM, November 28th 2013


 * That was not what I meant. If Sam or Dean or any other managed to procure an archangel blade for their own use (i.e., steal it from an archangel), it would have been mentioned. FTWinchester (talk) 16:20, November 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I can only see them getting one if they pry it from the dead Archangel's vessel. Assuming Lucifer held onto Gabriel's, they could've grabbed it from Nick's coat. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:24 PM, November 28th 2013


 * Yes, I understand that it is indeed possible. But like I said, the blade that Dean threw at Raphael (which fell to the floor when Raphael died) was the same one Sam used against Cas, which he described merely as an angel blade, not the more powerful archangel blade. FTWinchester (talk) 16:30, November 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think they blades are different as well. Doesn't make too much sense for a lowly angel to carry a weapon that is capable of killing an Archangel. Don't think the Archangels would want that to happen. It would be like a citizen carrying a nuclear bomb instead of an ordinary handgun. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 17:31, November 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case why bother having a blade that could kill themselves. They clearly don't need them as Michael and Lucifer didn't have one when they were about to fight. It would make sense if it's just the same blade which kills all angelic beings. Besides even if regular angels had a blade that could kill archangels they'd never get close enough to use it. So it would make sense if all angel blades kill all ranks of angel.


 * You raise a really good point, why would they create a weapon that can kill them? Hmm.... All else aside, Kali did refer to it specifically as "an Archangel blade." So, either it's called that when handled by an Archangel or it's a different blade. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:47 PM, November 28th 2013


 * It's clearly a different blade without a doubt. The rationality of archangels carrying a blade that could kill them is a different matter entirely, although the case of Lucifer as a fallen archangel does prove the point. Archangels needed their blades on the off-chance they ever needed to duke it out against each other. Archangels may have immense magical powers, but their blades are a sure-fire way to quell another one of their league (we can't say for sure that Michael and Lucifer did not have their blades with them--Gabriel did not reveal his own until he was confronted by Lucifer himself; the duel between the two eldest archangels also never even happened properly). Additionally, perhaps they needed their blades should they come across an enemy that may have developed immunity to magic. The latter points are more theory than fact, but those are beside the point of whether an archangel blade is different from an angel blade. Asking why archangels would carry their own blades is like asking why Eve would even create the Phoenix to begin with. We won't get a definite answer, unfortunately. FTWinchester (talk) 00:17, November 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not me forfeiting my position, he did raise a good point I had, previously, not heard of. Sure, Michael and Lucifer could've easily concealed blades in their vessel's coats to us, the audience. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:31 PM, November 28th 2013


 * I think saying "with out a doubt" is a bit of a statement seeing as this was brought up. It could be a different blade but nothing so far has shown there seperate blades. They look identical and one hasn't shown any powers over the other. It's just as likely that it's a regular blade but is known as an "archangel blade" as it is owned by an archangel. Plus if the fight between Michael and Lucifer was through the use of blades they had hidden in their coats then how exactly would that result in the planet getting roasted?


 * So what, it's a big statement? The name of the blade is very blurry. With that said, the dialogue seems to have made a distinction. Kali refers to Gabriel's as "a blade of an archangel." The significance of the wielder shouldn't affect the name of the blade. If a dinosaur holds a pencil it's still a pencil if a monkey holds it. If God holds a pencil it's still a pencil if a sloth holds it. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:44 PM, November 29th 2013


 * I'm a bit confued as to where Imperiex is right now, so this reply is directed to the anon. Like I said, I won't have answers to those things because the fight never happened. What we do know is that (i) archangels do carry their own blades, (ii) it has been identified as an 'archangel blade', (iii) that specific 'archangel blade' has been shown to effectively kill an archangel and (iv) other blades carried by other angels were described simply as 'angel blades'. Whether or not regular angel blades could kill archangels is beyond my knowledge, and whether Michael and Lucifer would use their own blades is also beyond me (I just pointed out that just because we haven't seen them pull out their blades, it does not necessarily mean they did not have any). You are however, right in pointing out that if there is indeed a difference, you would not have to ask the question. So now I consider the possibility that they may have been similar, although the fact remains that there has been several distinctions made between the two blades, at the very least by name. After all, the fate-killing blade also looked too similar to a regular angel blade, but clearly had a different function. FTWinchester (talk) 21:27, November 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, FTWinchester. An archangel holding an angel blade doesn't change the fact that it's an angel blade. Therefore, an archangel blade is it's own weapon. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:53 PM, November 29th 2013


 * Just noticed that Kal doesn't refer to it as "an Archangel Blade". She says "an Archangel's Blade from the Archangel Gabriel" so her emphasis is on the fact that Gabriel is an archangel rather than his blade is unique. So nothing really implies that Archangels have a more powerful blade.


 * Yeah, no. The fact that Kali uses the 'archangel' twice (especially to describe the blade) further implies it is special because it is owned by an archangel. Take note, Gabriel also said "That thing could kill me." It specifically points to his blade as capable of killing him. So, if the deities really want to kill archangels, they specifically needed to use a blade of an archangel, and not just a blade of a regular angel. Dean also coerces Gabriel to hand over his real blade. Specifically Gabriel's blade, to kill Lucifer. Another hint that they required an archangel's blade to take down Lucifer, an archangel, and not a regular angel blade. Archangel's blade, or Archangel blade. Potato potato. Same difference. The point remains a distinction was made to note that it belonged to an archangel. Several times. FTWinchester (talk) 15:51, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

When we talk about the blades of normal angels, we say angel blade, where as Kali said "Archangel's blade" meaning that it was owned by an archangel. If she said archangel blade, that would be be a different story, but she didn't. She is referring it to a blade being own by an archangel, the blade of an archangel hasn't been shown to do anything a blade of a regular angel can't do, and it hasn't been shown that a regular angel's blade wouldn't kill an archangel, so there isn't any evidence that there is a difference. Gabriel is and archangel, that is his blade, so technically, it is an "archangel's blade" which is what Kali said.....there isn't a known difference. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 16:30, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Go back to my last post, and read the emphasized words. FTWinchester (talk) 17:46, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry FTWinchester, but that isn't NEARLY enough evidence to support they are two different blades. Him saying that his blade could kill him is correct, but it doesn't mean the other blades couldn't as we'll. Also, Kali knew him personally, so it would be easiest for her to trick him, and get his blade. There isn't any evidence, or reason to believe that there is a difference between the blades, so as far as we know, archangels have regular angel blades... Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 17:53, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not much, but your side has what evidence, exactly? We have canon indicators that all emphasize the need to use a specific blade of an archangel to kill another archangel, while your side has squat. When have they ever tried killing an archangel with just a regular angel blade AND succeeded? On a scenario of few supporting arguments versus no argument at all, does one need wonder which is the better choice? FTWinchester (talk) 18:03, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Those "indicators" mean nothing. Just because Kali got an archangel's blade when she wanted to kill Lucifer, doesn't mean she couldn't have used a regular angel's blade. And Gabriel saying "that" thing can kill me, doesn't mean that the other blades can't kill him either. Your side lacks evidence to say there is a difference, and only archangel blades can kill archangels. It hasn't been shown that an angel blade can't kill an archangel, and the blade of an archangel hasn't shown to be able to do anything a regular angel's blade can't. There is not enough to no evidence that there is a difference. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 18:12, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

>I can't actually produce evidence so I'll just ignore the context of the whole episode and downplay it as absolutely and completely nothing at all. FTWinchester (talk) 18:24, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

The context of the episode isn't that only archangel blades can kill archangels. If someone held a rifle up to me, and I said "that thing could kill me" does that mean that a pistol would not be able to kill me? No.........same thing with Gabriel. He said his blade could kill him, which it could, but that doesn't mean the other blades can't kill him. Your other reason was that Kali got an archangel's blade to kill Lucifer, so that's what they needed. But Kali knew Gabriel and was close enough to him so she could trick him. He was the most convenient angel for her to grab. So by cannon, there is no known difference between and archangel's blade, and an angel's blade, because there is no evidence or reason why there is. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 18:37, July 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * The context of the episode isn't that only archangel blades can kill archangels. If someone held a rifle up to me, and I said "that thing could kill me" does that mean that a pistol would not be able to kill me? No.........same thing with Gabriel. He said his blade could kill him, which it could, but that doesn't mean the other blades can't kill him. Your other reason was that Kali got an archangel's blade to kill Lucifer, so that's what they needed. But Kali knew Gabriel and was close enough to him so she could trick him. He was the most convenient angel for her to grab.

Okay, noted, that is of course, possible. Unfortunately, your last statement is a fallacious jump into a conclusion. Similarities don't nullify any differences. Going by your own example, that would be like me saying "That rifle could kill me. But a pistol can too, so there is absolutely no difference between a rifle and a pistol. In fact, a knife can kill me, too. So, there are no differences among rifles, pistols and knives. Snake venom could kille me too, as well as cyanide, and a shark could kill me too, therefore, a snake venom, cyanide, a shark are all completely the same with a rifle, a pistol and a knife." Try again. FTWinchester (talk) 18:56, July 5, 2014 (UTC)



That wasn't a comparison to the archangel blade, it was saying that just because I say that particular thing can kill me, it doesn't mean that other things can't kill me too. I wasn't comparing that to the archangels and angels blade. I was making the point that just because Gabriel said "that thing can kill me" doesn't mean that it is the only one that can. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 19:27, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

If normal angel blades could kill angels, why on Earth would Team Free Will waste an entire season trying to find a way to kill Lucifer when they had an angel on their side already armed to the teeth with perfectly good angel blades from the start? They obviously thought an ordinary blade wouldn't work. More importantly, Castiel, an angel himself who would have more knowledge on the matter than they would (or than we do), obviously thought an ordinary blade wouldn't work. The only evidence that has ever been presented to the contrary is Dean lobbing an angel blade at Raphael in "The Man Who Knew Too Much", which he did in a moment of panicked desperation once he realized that Raphael and Crowley were on the verge of opening Purgatory.--NaiflidG (talk) 21:12, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

I totally forgot about that, very good point. However it still isn't evidence, and doesn't prove your case. The fact that they didn't know he could be killed by an angel blade doesn't mean he couldn't. There is no actual evidence that there is a difference between the blades. But there is however Dean throwing the angel blade at Raphael, which is the most evidence we have, and it is going towards my case. There is no evidence, and no reason to believe that there is a difference... Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 02:11, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Except it doesn't. It's been covered in the discussion above. Dean used it in desperation to stop Raphael. So its effectiveness against Raphael had the archangel not sensed it is unknown, and thus, speculative at best. Meanwhile, we still have actual evidence that an "archangel's blade" could actually kill an archangel. FTWinchester (talk) 02:26, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

The blade of an archangel being able to kill an archangel, isn't evidence that it is the ONLY blade that can kill one. THAT is speculative. Also, the fact you said dean only threw it at Raphael in desperation and as a last resort is pure speculation, and isn't fact. Therefore. There is no evidence that there is a difference... Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 02:37, July 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * Facts:


 * The angel blade appeared several times since Season 4.


 * Angel blades have always been called angel blades.


 * Sam and Dean always had access to angel blades.


 * The one blade that actually killed an archangel has been labelled with distinction, namely "archangel's blade".


 * Dean.winchestor.54 dimisses this as nothing.

Yeah, okay, cool. FTWinchester (talk) 02:48, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

1. Kali said "an archangel's blade" which means a blade owned by an archangel.

2. The only time the blade owned by an archangel was labed any different from an angel blade was when Kali said "archanfe's blade" Gabriel is an archangel, and that is his angel blade, so it is an "archangel's blade"

3. It has been confirmed that Gabriel isn't dead, so that point is useless, and once again, she said "archangel's blade"

It isn't evidence, just speculations, and FTWinchester dismisses that... Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 02:57, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

1. And "archangel blade" also basically means it is the blade of an archangel. Very minor semantic change that still largely means the same thing.

2. See 1.

3. You're seriously bringing up the stupid decision of the writers to say Gabriel is still alive even if currently, the show still makes it dubious? If that's the case, then for sure an angel blade definitely can kill an archangel and keep it dead then, if Gabriel's blade can't.

So says the guy whose only argument ever in this entire wikia is "Yeah, but your point is just speculation." FTWinchester (talk) 03:08, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Archangel blade and archangel's blade mean very separate things.......if Anna owned a pocket knife, Dean could said that it is an angel's blade, because she is an angel, and it is her blade, making it an "angel's blade". However if dean said it was an "angel blade" he would be wrong, because that is the name of a specific blade that can kill angels.... Archangel's blade and archangel blade mean separate things........and for the Gabriel thing, Gabriel raised his eyebrows after Castiel asked him if he was still alive, hinting that he was, and the writers even confirmed he is alive. There is no difference between the blades.... Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 03:18, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

No, if Anna owned a pocket knife, Dean would call it "a pocket knife," because unless she bestowed it with all the powers of Deux Ex Machina, it would just be a pocket knife with no special traits whatsoever besides that an angel happened to carry it. The term "angel blade" has only ever been applied to special kill-anything knives carried by angels, because they're the only blades angels consider worth carrying. The term "archangel blade" has only ever been applied to Gabriel's particular (arch)angel blade. Every little line of dialogue counts in a TV episode, in a movie, in anything that is produced to convey a story and only has a limited amount of time and lines available to do it. The writers had Kali refer to Gabriel's blade not as "an angel blade from the archangel Gabriel" or just "an angel blade" but as "an archangel blade from the archangel Gabriel," giving the blade itself a marked amount of notice, description, and thus importance. Few other angel blades get an introduction like that -- not even Uriel's non-verbal introduction of the angel blade into the series, or Castiel threatening Anna with his. That they felt the need to mark it as different by calling it "an archangel blade" (as opposed to how they classify even seraphs's blades as just "angel blades"), they seemed to have meant there to be a difference between the two. I don't understand the point that you are trying to make here.

You haven't refuted my point: if any old angel blade given out to any old angel had the power to kill even archangels -- which doesn't make sense, since archangels are way above said blade-wielders in station and power -- why didn't Sam, Dean, Castiel, Bobby, Crowley, etc., think to use any of the angel blades they had in their possession to strike down and kill Lucifer without even bothering with the Colt or anything else? You say that they might not have known, but that Dean knew by the time he threw one at Raphael. You seriously think that none of them thought to at least try it when they were up against the greatest archangel threat that they were ever going to face, during the end-all, be-all Apocalypse? When the heroes have even the slightest chance of something working on a threat, they take it: they shot vampires, demons, and archangels with the Colt going off a legend that might not have been true, they tried stabbing Abaddon, Alastair, Cain, and Lilith with the Kurdish knife (with varying results but all at least attempted), they collected phoenix ash and went after Eve with them based on a line in a book that said it'd kill her, they tried to kill God Mod Cass with an angel blade and then with Death himself, they stabbed the leviathan leader dead with a nun's bone washed in monster blood to kill him, they completed near impossible and frankly bizarre rituals to seal Hell with little to no idea of the consequences, and they drank demon blood and made deals with the Father of Murder to take down demon queens when it seemed like there was no other option. Point being that when they want something done, they try everything they can think of to do it. Obviously, they knew blades could kill angels, but since they never suggested on-screen to even try them on Lucifer, they either knew or suspected that they wouldn't work. You think that Dean had learned one season later that angel blades could kill archangels? How would he have known that then? He didn't kill any archangels between the end of Season 5 and the end of Season 6. He was desperate. The last archangel and the King of Hell were seconds away from opening Purgatory to unleash Lovecraftian monsters onto the world -- one of which they only managed to defeat because they had the luck to find the right book and had access to a time-traveling angel and a gun that could kill most anything -- to achieve their own ends -- the Apocalypse restarted by a god-like Raphael and a much more powerful Hell for Crowley. And all Dean had to stop them was an angel blade, which he probably hoped would be able to at least hurt Raphael and slow him down (similar to how the Kurdish knife hurt and slowed down -- but didn't kill -- Abaddon). So yeah, he threw it at Raphael, and you can call that evidence for your argument if you like, but it didn't work because it didn't hit Raphael so we'll never know what its effect would be. But going off my point above, about how they would have used an angel blade against Lucifer from the start if it could've killed him, I don't believe it would have. And seeing as how Dean had no experience in killing archangels with generic blades between Lucifer and Raphael, I don't think his throwing one at Raphael should be touted as evidence that the regular angel blades can kill archangels.--NaiflidG (talk) 04:14, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

You COMPLETELY misunderstood my pocket knight reference.....Anna is an angel....if she had a pocket knife, it could be call and angel's blade, because she is an angel, and she owns the blade.....it's the same thing with an Archangel's blade, and archangel blade....there is a difference between the terms.......when team free will actually found lucifer, they had the colt at that time, and that can supposedly kill anything, so they obviously would use that instead of an angel blade. And I'm not saying that Dean knew the blade would kill Raphael, I am saying that it is speculation to say that it was just a last resort. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 04:38, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't misunderstand your pocket knife reference at all. I addressed it as if it were an actual point worth addressing, which is what you're supposed to do in an argument, sort of like I'm doing now. Again, dialogue matters. If Anna had a pocket knife, it wouldn't be an angel's pocket knife; it'd be a pocket knife, because there's nothing to set it apart from any other pocket knife other than its owner. Let's turn this on its head--Sam and Dean own angel blades. We don't call them "Sam and Dean's blades" or "hunter blades." We call them "the angel blades which Sam and Dean own." Why? Because they're not just blades; they're angel blades, they're special, they are named specifically because you can't just classify things however you want. If Anna owned a pocket knife, we wouldn't call it "an angel's pocket knife" because that an angel owned it really wouldn't matter. It'd just be a pocket knife which an angel happens to own. That Gabriel's sword is called an archangel blade from the archangel Gabriel, as opposed to an angel blade, means that we are supposed to infer that it is not just another angel blade--that it is, in fact, different.

"when team free will actually found lucifer, they had the colt at that time, and that can supposedly kill anything, so they obviously would use that instead of an angel blade." You're not getting what I'm saying. If angel blades worked, Team Free Will would not have had to find the Colt in the first place. That they went to the trouble of digging it up implies that the angel blades would not have worked. That they had the Colt when they found Lucifer doesn't prove your point because that was the only weapon that they thought they had that would work on him. If they thought that an angel blade could kill him, they would have tracked Lucifer down from the start and tried to kill him, like they tried to do with Azazel once they first got the Colt, like they did with Eve when they got the phoenix ash, like they did with Dick when they got the bone. When they have a weapon they believe can kill a Big Bad, they go after them. That's what I'm saying. That they didn't even try to track Lucifer down when they were equipped with angel blades speaks to them believing that they weren't properly armed and weren't prepared to fight him, even though they had the angel blades. That means that they didn't believe that the blades could kill him. Since they had an angel on their side to keep them informed, they probably had good reason from a reliable source to believe this.

"And I'm not saying that Dean knew the blade would kill Raphael, I am saying that it is speculation to say that it was just a last resort." It is also speculation to upset the long-held status quo and insist that you are right in the face of widespread disagreement, while using nothing but a single scene open to various interpretation against something that is A.) well-established on this wiki, B.) accepted as true by pretty much every other user on this wiki, and C.) sensible. Edits on this wiki operate on consensus. If you are going to keep trying to change well-established wiki canon, you're going to have to produce better arguments than repeating yourself and saying that the other users are wrong without actually addressing their points. Unless you can find better evidence and make more convincing arguments, you are not going to have your way because you have not convinced anyone of what you're saying.--NaiflidG (talk) 07:29, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, you did misunderstand it...I'm not saying that there would be any reason to call Anna's pocket knife an angel's blade, and I'm not saying that Sam and Dean would. I'm saying it could be considered an angel's blade, and it wouldn't be incorrect if someone said that, because she is an angel, and it is her blade, making it an angel's blade........and wether or not Team free will knew the blade would work is irrelevant to the argument. They used the bone on dick, the ash on eve, the colt on Azazel, but they also used the colt on lucifer....ans your argument that, they didn't try to use it on lucifer so it wouldn't work, is ridiculous, and speculation....I am adressing every single one of your points, you however keep restated your points, and breezing over my counters..... Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 17:13, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

The crux of our argument is that a blade owned by an archangel, and labelled "archangel's blade" (whereas other blades were simply described as 'angel blades') killed an archangel, while your only argument is that we have never seen an angel blade used successfully against an archangel, so no one could say for sure if it works or not. Our argument is valid and canon. Yours however, is, so far, unknowable. No angel blade has been used successfully against an archangel, and to claim that it could (but we just haven't seen it) is an actual assumption on your part, because it could also go a complete 180 and not work at all against an archangel. Your choice to pick the part where an angel blade might work against an archangel is completely subjective, and thus, speculative. Until we find further proof that a regular angel blade can perform like Gabriel's blade (which again, was given a distinction by the writers, and actually worked), the only canon information we have is that only an archangel's blade can harm and kill an archangel. FTWinchester (talk) 17:30, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

By your logic, not even an archangel's blade can kill an archangel. You say that a regular angel's blade has never killed an archangel, so we can't assume that it can. An Archangel's blade has never killed one either, as it has been confirmed that Gabriel isn't dead. So by your logic, we don't know if any blade will work on them or not.... Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 19:10, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Dean.winchestor.54, your arguments hold no weight, and your usages of the words "assumption" and "evidence" are incredibly missive and don't mean what you think. You just continually throw out there, at their arguments, "That's an assumption, therefore incredulously my position is just right," which isn't the case. Your arguments as they've been worded, so far, make no sense. While their arguments suitably make sense. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:47 PM, July 6th 2014

Actually Imperiexseed, my using the words "assumption" and "evidence" are correct and my arguments do make sense, and counter theirs. Their arguments ARE assumption, because there is no real evidence to support them. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, because it makes perfect sense.....let me walk you through it.....they said that Kali said archangel blade instead of angel blade, so I told them that it doesn't mean a whole other blade, just one owned by an archangel "archangel's blade".....they said that they would have used it on Lucifer if it could kill him, so I said that just because they didn't, doesn't mean they couldn't, and to think that would be "assumption".....then they were desperate and said that Gabriel was killed by an archangel's blade, and no other archangel has been killed by an angel's blade, so there is no proof that it would work as well, so I told them that Gabriel has been confirmed not dead, so by their logic, neither of the blades work, because it hasn't been proven.....there is no evidence that there is a difference.... Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 01:00, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

That Dean was desperate is not merely baseless assumption. Nowhere throughout the entire lengths of Seasons 5 and 6 was a regular angel blade used successfully against an archangel. In several confrontations against Raphael, Castiel never once attempted to fight, using his own blade, his archangel rival. Castiel always had to resort to the power of souls or the weapons of heaven. Add this to the fact that Sam and Dean never once attempted to use an angel balde against Lucifer when they had access to them all along, and you have all these scenarios that implicitly point out that angel blades won't work, but blades of the archangels do. Again, you are ignoring context in arguing. You are right that the wiki must not contain speculations, but there are certain things that are heavily implied.

This is valid and true, at least until the show actually exposes Gabriel as truly and irrevocably alive. Hint: It hasn't yet. Only the meta information from the writers have. Even then, the retcon is unclear (not to mention it is an incredibly poor decision) as to whether the archangel blades were retconned as similar to angel blades, or if archangel blades still work but Gabriel merely managed to perform an act that saved him from it. Until the retcon is explained properly within canon, the distinctions to Gabriel's blade still exist. You cannot use the claim of retcon to an argument when the retcon hasn't happened within the show yet.

Lastly, you always claim we have no evidece that there is a difference. What is your evidence they are the same? FTWinchester (talk) 02:12, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Gabriel hinted he was alive, and it was confirmed by producer.....he is alive, so the blade of an archangel hasn't been shown to kill one either. And it IS speculation that Dean was only using the blade because he was desperate. Neither an angel's or archangel's blade both haven't been shown to kill an archangel. I am not saying I have evidence that they are the same, I am pointing out your LACK of evidence that they are different. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 03:16, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. You have NONE. We have but a few, yes, I admitted that from the start. But a few evidence versus nothing at all? The choice should be obvious. Problem is, you keep downplaying the distinction made. And do read my post again. That is meta information. The retcon has NOT YET HAPPENED within the show itself. So unless they specifically explain in the show that what several characters (Kali, Dean, and Gabriel himself) canonically said/implied about Gabriel's blade being able to kill Lucifer and actually managed to kill its owner, the distinction still stands. If you don't understand why, this is because we do not yet know how Gabriel was actually alive. There are several scenarios that could result into Gabriel being alive WITHOUT nullifying the blade's capability. Case in point, he was resurrected by God, or a spell from the tablet, or by other more powerful beings. So that would mean he actually died from the blade, but was only given life back. He could have produced another fake blade, just like what he did earlier. Now, I am not claiming these are the reasons the archangel is still alive. My point is, believing that just because Gabriel was alive means that the archangel's blade did not work when we do not yet know the true reason is subjective. This would be like claiming Rapahael's smiting power could not kill a lower angel simply because one target (Castiel) was resurrected, or that a hellhound attack could not kill Dean because the hunter was resurrected by angels. We do have evidence, no matter how little it is. That distinction was made by several characters in the show, not us. So if you really want to change the status quo, present some evidence for your side, and do not just downplay the actual script and context given to us by the show. FTWinchester (talk) 11:25, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by god-like when referring to Raphael? Is that referring to being like God (Monotheistic Deity) or any deity?

Jdogno7 (talk) 02:57, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

God-Like
The article uses the term God-Like when referring to Metatron. Is that referring to being like God (Monotheistic Deity) or any deity?

Jdogno7 (talk) 02:57, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Other types
Shouldn't be interesting to see the other 4 types of angels also? We have seen Cherubs(Gail),Guardians(various), Powers(Efraim), Fieries(Zachariah) and Archangels(Michael). I would like very much to see Authorities, Dominions, Principalities and Thrones.Epakrios (talk) 13:33, December 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, would really like to see some more angel types introduced, like Wheels, Thrones, or Dominions. However, I don't ever recall any information saying that Zachariah was a fierie. Not in any conversation in any episode, since season 1-8. From what the evidence suggests, he was a seraph. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:33 PM, December 1st 2013


 * Seraphim is a hebrew word and means Fieries in english, Wheels is another name for the Thrones(Thrones is cannon) and Virtues is another name for Powers(Powers is cannon).Epakrios (talk) 21:45, December 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, out of your entire list, only cherub, seraph and archangel are canon. And, no, Thrones/Wheels and Powers/Virtues are not canon as of yet. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:49 PM, December 1st 2013


 * I meant canon for the lore, not for the show. And it is written in this wiki that Rit Zien resemble the order of Powers in the lore.Epakrios (talk) 21:54, December 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. Then, yes. I know, but they were never called as such in the show. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:41 PM, December 1st 2013

Mind reading?
When have angels ever shown the ability to read human minds? The closest I can recall is when Castiel reads a Cherub's but he gave consent and was an angel. Archangels and Zachariah have been able to sense certain emotions but they don't actually extract information, and even that could simply be intuision rather than an ability. So when did they ever read minds to learn information? Zachariah did it once, but I don't recall Uriel ever doing so. Gadreel did do it in Season Nine and Castiel did do it in Season Eight, Though its possible its only Seraphs who can do it (assuming Gadreel isn't just a run of the mill angel). General MGD 109 (talk) 22:30, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * In Season 4, they do that plenty of times. Zachariah and Uriel did it if I'm not mistaken. Winterz (talk) 20:55, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Angels and reapers?
In "Stairway to heaven", Dean says to Tessa "I like you, for an angel". Does this mean reapers are a type of angel or are at least descended from them in some way?

Writers Buckner and Ross-Lemming have crapped all over reaper canon and now they are angels. Very few people like those writers, including me. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 17:55, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, so Azazel possessed Tessa's vessel like Crowley did with Sam? How could Azazel take control against an Angel, Crowley was probably more powerful and didn't stood a chance of taking over the vessel. What the hell are the writters doing.. Winterz (talk) 20:09, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Under Jeremy Carver, canon has gone downhill. Nobody but the extreme SPN fans actually like Buckner and Ross-Lemming. Many figure that they're only still on the show because Ross-Lemming is Singer's wife.L4D2 Ellis (talk) 01:18, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? I was stoked because Ross-Leming brought in many Buffy alums, but the script sucks usually. FTWinchester (talk) 01:31, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be a little biased with the Buffy alums, but on IMDb, all but like two people are practically demanding them to be fired. They've even been writing more episodes this season than usual and some are thinking that they're getting more episodes just to spite the fans. They've gotten a lot of hate for Taxi Driver and I'm No Angel. Lots. Many even wanted them to move onto the failed spin-off just so they can be rid of those two. They're dubbed "The Gruesome Twosome."L4D2 Ellis (talk) 01:48, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, even Shut Up, Dr. Phil wasn't that good. And my reaction "Really?" was more to the fact that Ross-Lemming is Singer's wife. Is that true? FTWinchester (talk) 01:59, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I misread that. But yeah Eugenie Ross-Lemming is Mrs. Robert Singer. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 02:05, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Now while, unfortunately, the show has gone to shi*, reapers are not a type of angel. In any sense or form. They were created by Death to assist him in maintaining the Natural Order. Dean could've meant a number of things by that, one being that she's an angel cause she's pretty. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:31 PM, May 14th 2014

That's just plain stupid. FTWinchester (talk) 00:55, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

How is that stupid? It's a compliment. Sure it's weird coming from Dean and going to Tessa but it could be. Honestly any reason that someone could come up with that isn't reapers being a type of angel is good to me. As stated already the lore right now is horrible. Bigmar6775 (talk) 15:07, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Interesting insight on Buckner and Ross-Lemming, come to think of it they have wrote some pretty unremarkable episodes. Unfortunately I think we're stuck with Carver and his writers until the end of the show's run, definitely not sure he'd have the skills to pull off a series finale topping Swan Song, which makes me and a lot of others sad, Supernatural should have ended on a high note. It's stretched out so far now, even the writers are unconcerned in keeping within the lore. Remember Carver said he HATED how the show was rooted in its own mythology, I believe he's unconcerned with what makes sense in the Supernatural world. It seems he only wants to concentrate on the emotional aspects. This makes sense considering he is of the series 'Being Human', but doesn't make it a good thing, he's been tramping all over the lore for medicore stories this season. We better gear up tho, same writers next season, be prepared for even more plot holes. Bkshadows (talk)

That's my exact same sentiment, Bkshadows! Carver is turning Supernatural into Being Human. Season 8 and 9 were chock full of supernatural creatures trying to live the human life (Benny, Castiel), even though this story is about humans fitting into the supernatural world, and not the other way around! This is what made the first half of Season 8 and much of Season 9 so gruelling, because everybody wants to escape the paranormal and be normal. And I also have that interview planted in my mind! Carver said he hated how heavy the lore got, but at least the previous eras made sense. His era is a confusing mess that contradicts not just the previously established lore but his own lore as well. He has so many retcons, the show is barely recognizable from the previous incarnations. Retcons are okay if they are few and far in between, but holy sh*t, if you do it every episode and even on backstories that are already well-developed, that's poor writing! You only retcon something that has only been shadowed or hinted before, and not something that has already been explained and expounded for several episodes, or worse, several seasons. At least that's something that Gamble more or less got right. Right now, the episodes are just cannon/fuel for fangirl service who only watch because of the show's actors or the shipping involved among them. FTWinchester (talk) 10:10, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Has any writers confirmed the reapers are angels? otherwise theres not enough proof, for one, how the hell would dean randomly know reapers were angels, given thier true forms are completely different, and also he could have mean 'celestial' with the 'angel' term, which would refer to all angel classes, reapers and the fates at least.

Princepurple (talk) 23:11, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Pieces of Heaven?
I'm not so sure that it was that the shard was able to kill Gadreel so much as it was the runes on his chest. They're supposed to focus the angel's energy on that particular spot so that when it is pierced (by anything, seemingly), it loses stability and explodes. At the very least, it was definitely the spell/explosion that killed him. Ensephylon (talk) 05:51, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing would've happened if they drew this mark and stabbed themselves with a regular weapon, because on every occasion we see them using an angel blade (or something of Heaven, in Gadreel's case). -- ImperiexSeed, 1:58 PM, May 21st 2014


 * Well, angels blades are sharp and readily in their possession. It's merely a convenience to use them instead of going out and finding something else for no particular reason. The runes draw the energy to that area, and slashing/piercing it is like lighting the fuse on a bomb because it releases that energy. Ensephylon (talk) 07:00, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ensephylon on this one. You'll notice that when had reel is carving the sigil into his chest, no white/blue light was emitting from the cuts, and you could not hear any enochian/celestial buzz coming out. Also, if there was the angel light coming out of him, the exact moment he finished the sigil, he would have blown up. But when the camera zoomed out, the sigil was drawn, but there was no light. It was only when he stabbed himself with the shard. I think the sigil makes the angel vulnerable to other sharp objects, if they are stabbed on the sigil. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 00:02, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Azrael?
In 'do you believe in miracles', I'm sure one of the angel heaven portal guards was called Azrael, but diddn't he die in the fall??

Princepurple (talk) 03:47, May 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * The angel who was guarding the heaven portal was not Azrael, but Asariel.Rakoon1 (talk) 09:58, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

"Common angel" isn't a class
There is no such thing as a common angel class. There are archangels, Seraphs, Cupids, Reapers, and Rit Zens. Archangels are obviously first class, and Castiel stated that Cupids are third class. Since seraphim are stronger than cupids, and weaker than archangels, they are second class. Therefore, there is no "angel" class between Seraphim and Cupids. That means we need to get rid of "angel" as a type of angel since I have proven it is just a generic term for all the celestial beings. This being said, Castiel was always a Seraph, and didn't become one after being brought back by God. When he said "new and improved" he meant he got his wings back. Also, this means that Seraphim cannot kill high-tier demons, as showed when Castiel (the seraph) could not smite Alastair. That means Seraphim, or anything below it cannot kill a knight of hell, as previously thought. I think we need to update the wikia so that it has all the correct information. Even the Admin Imperiexseed didn't believe it until I told him, and everyone knows how great an admin he is, and how he takes care of this wikia. We both think that all these pages need to be updated to the right info. Castiel was always a Seraph, there is no type of angel called common angel, and seraphim can't kill knights of hell or high-tier demons. --Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 06:22, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Castiel never said that Cupids are third class, just that they are a lower class of angels. He never gave a number. Also you saying that Castiel was always a Seraph makes no sense. He has shown himself to be more powerful after season 6 and Raphael had to resort to using an angel blade instead of just exploding Castiel as he originally did back during the end of season 4. Castiel also never referred to himself as a Seraph until season 8. It also makes no sense for a low level angel to go up against Raphael, an Archangel who easily killed him. Thinking that Castiel was always a Seraph doesn't work with what we've seen. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 17:04, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Actually Castiel DID says that cupids are third class. To quote him exactly, in the episode "My Bloody Valentine" he said "what human myth has mistaken for 'Cupid' is actually a lower order of angel. Technically it's a cherub, third-class." Those are his exact words. Again, proof that there is no common angel class, and it is Archangel>Seraph>Cupid>etc. Also, Raphael didn't just explode Castiel through season 6 because Castiel was being powered by over 50,000 souls. He had always been a seraph, which I have proven. Also, when Raphael killed him the last time he was a fallen angel and lost alot of his powers, this time he was back into Heaven, had his wings, and all of his heavenly powers. And it doesn't matter that he didn't say it until season 8, he just went by the term "angel" to Sam and Dean because it is generic. Now that I have proven it a second time, we need to update these pages. Don't even bother to debate...Me and the Admin ImperiezSeed had a long discussion/debate and he too now believes we need to update to pages.--Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 17:17, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

It was also never said how long those 50,000 souls lasted him. He was able to use them against Raphael that one time before their fights ended up being less even again. You have never proven that he was always a seraph at all. You just think he is because you don't believe there is an ordinary class of angels. When Raphael killed him the first time, Castiel was not fallen and cut off of Heaven at all. That happened afterwards when he was resurrected. Raphael killing him and his resurrection was the reason why he was later cut off from Heaven. Also your reasoning for why Castiel went by the term "angel" because it was generic doesn't work at all. Why bring it up after a few years when it would've made no difference? You have proven nothing. I will always debate because I don't care if ImperiexSeed agrees or not. I always debate him. Admins don't make you the be all and end all of debate in the wikis. In fact I was the one who made logical points on Death and God's lore that another admin had to step in to unlock both of their pages. Both God and Death had unfounded speculations on their wikis that needed removal. So no, your attempt to control me will not work. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 18:01, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

For the third time, I have proven that "angel isn't a class. Archangel is first class, and Cupid is third class, which only leaves ONE class in between, not two. That means it is archangel, seraph, and then Cupid, no middle class, you can't debate against this, it is just plain canological facts. Unless you are saying there is an angel class LOWER than cupid, and Castiel was one of those, there is no "angel class. 1. Archangel 2. Seraph 3. Cupid....there is no room between one and three for regular angels. And the power of souls don't "fade away" the 50,000 Castiel had with him would last until he got rid of it. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 19:16, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Well obviously Rit Ziens are not cupids nor do they seem powerful enough to be Seraphs. They have also shown that far more powerful angels are on another scale of their own. It makes no sense for Zachariah and Castiel to be in the same level when Zachariah has been shown to be much more powerful than Castiel ever was back in season 4.

And yet after Castiel used those souls on Raphael he still couldn't do anything against Raphael afterwards. Obviously something must've happened to those souls. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 20:06, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

As far as we know, Rit zens could be weaker than cherubim. Just because they have a special power because of their class, doesn't mean all their other angelic power outrank cherubim. They have a special smithing power that can kill other angels, but the rest of their power is probably weaker than cherubim. It's te same with cupids...they have the ability to make humans fall in love, something that seraphs cannot do. Just because they have that one ability that seraphs don't, does that make them stronger? And just because Zachariah was the boss of Castiel doesn't mean he was a completely higher class of angel. Castiel was in charge of Uriel, but they are the same class, shown as when they switched and Uriel was the boss then of him. The archangels placed Zacheriah about Castiel, not because of his class. He is the same kind of angel, just with more athority. He most likely took the place of Anna (the leader of Castiel's garrison) after she became human and fell. Also, Castiel used the power of the souls to banish Raphael, he then had an army of angels fight against Raphael and his angels (it wasn't just him) Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 20:25, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

I never said that Rit Ziens were stronger. But on the issue of Zachariah, he has shown himself to be much more powerful than Castiel, not just because he was Castiel's boss. Everything he has done has been shown to be more powerful. Zachariah has been able to create alternate realities in ways that are closer to what Archangels can do. Nobody in Castiel's garrison seems to even come close to Zachariah in terms of power. Then there was the case of Castiel losing his powers when he was cut off from Heaven in season 5, something that Castiel never showed after he stated himself to be a Seraph and that was when he was already fallen. None of it adds up to what we've seen. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 20:46, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Look, I know there are holes in the show, and not everything adds up together. I actually think that there SHOULD be a an angel class, but this wikia should not be on what we want to be true, it is on what is on the show, and on the show it is archangel>seraph>Cupid. There is no need to debate it, because in the end, it all comes back to that. Archangels are 1, Castiel said cupids are 3, and there can only be one 2, and that is seraph. That is what the show states and that is what this wikia will go by. I will debate further if you wish, but it will all come back to that. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 20:56, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

The only way I can think of to follow with what the shows says would be adding other lower levels of angels. Castiel did say that cherubs were a lower class of angel but not the lowest class. And at least you could've mentioned your personal views because your other points made it look like you only wanted what the shows says to be true. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 21:21, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

My personal views, I want seraph to be 2 class, angel to be 3 class, and Cupid to be 4 class. My thoughts aren't cannon though, archangel>seraph>Cupid is cannon. And you are right, there are angels lower than Cupids, there are Reapers, Rit Zien, and probably more. There could be an ordinary angel class below Cupid, but there is noting in the show that says that, so it can't be in the wiki. Also even if there was that class, Castiel wouldn't not be in it, because he is stronger than Cupids. That means he is and always was a seraph. You brought up a lot of good points, and I wish you were right, I do, but the show is saying that It is archangel>seraph>Cupid, and seraphim ARE the ordinary angel class. (It's kind of like dogs, as a species in whole, they are called dogs, but each breed has an individual name. There isn't one breed of dogs called dog, that would be confusing. It is the same with the celestials.) I know this is a confusing topic, and most people didn't put it together. Before, on the angel page, it said archangel was first class, and cherub was third, but then it put two in between which was inaccurate. If the show changes lore again (carver always seems too) and they add a class (messaging with cannon) then I will happily change it back, but for now, there is not angel class. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 21:30, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately Carver really sucks when it comes to canon upkeep. Especially when Singer's wife is writing them with her writing partner. I still refuse to believe that reapers are any form of angels at all.

But I don't recall the descriptions saying that Cupids were the third class, just that they were a lower class. I didn't't recall hearing Castiel giving them a number either and had to look for the episode's transcript to make sure that you weren't just hearing things or remembering that line wrong.

Also just to help, it's "canon" for the rules set within a story. "Cannon" would be those giant guns on steroids. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 21:50, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Lol, that was autocorrect. I know though, Carver is slowly ruining our beloved Supernatural. I hate that reapers and angels too, but it is canon, so I has to go up on the wiki. And he says they are third class in "my bloody valentine". He says it when they are looking at heart, and Sam notices Enochian marks. I already edited most of the pages that have the normal angel vs seraph information wrong. Thanks for the awesome debate, and sorry for all the confusion. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 23:45, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Watch the series again with great focus on what Castiel could do in the Kripke Era and the Gamble Era. Also, pay attention to Zachariah and his words when he first featured. "Third class" doesn't always literally mean that there are three classes. It could basically just mean 'lower status'. FTWinchester (talk) 23:52, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Actually FTWinchester, this isn't "ridiculous. Third class means third class. I already stated this many times. In between 1 and 3 (archangels and cupids) there is only one number, 2 (Seraphs). Yes, it appears Castiel has more power than when kripke was running things, but look how much other stuff the new writers have changed...Castiel seeming like he has more powers, isn't as much evidence as Castiel flat out staing that cherubim are third class. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 00:01, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

No I mean that the wikia pages never mentioned that he was third class until now. I wouldn't consider the debate awesome but it was fun while it lasted.

As for your autocorrect, turn it off, lest you wanna end up on the DamnYouAutocorrect website. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 01:53, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

While you (Dean.winchestor.54) have come up with a good theory based on canon, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. It's a little too incredible that all non-archangel, non-Rit Zien, non-reaper, non-cupid angels are the same class of angel. There's simply too much variance in power, rank, etc. -- e.g. the power levels between Samandiriel and Uriel, the difference in rank between Naomi's intelligence and reeducation division and Anna/Castiel's garrison of "grunt" soldiers. You yourself seem to find it a little hard to believe, but you also believe that it must be canonically true based off of Castiel's "third-class" comment. However, I interpret Cass's line a different way. He says: "Cherub, third-class." Isn't it more reasonable to assume that the cherubs themselves are divided into different classes? (Which could also explain the differences between "My Bloody Valentine"'s cherub and "Sacrifice"'s cherub.) Castiel's line could just as easily mean that the cherub featured in "My Bloody Valentine" was a third-class cherub. In fact, all the angel subtypes -- archangels, seraphs, "common angels," Rit Zien, reapers -- are probably divided into different classes, which would also explain the minor variances in terms of power or behavior within each group (such as Raphael and Gabriel's power compared to Michael and Lucifer -- they may be a lower class of archangel).--NaiflidG (talk) 20:38, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

I. On Assumptions

Pray, do tell me, which is the bigger assumption? That the term Castiel used to describe himself refer to angels that arent archangels, cherubs, rit ziens or reapers, or that the term only refers to angels most alike Castiel post-Swan Song? Which claim stretches the definition more? One could even argue that both are assumptions so neither are correct. Point is, you are also using assumptions to support one line of canon that by itself could be interpreted in different ways (look at NaiflidG's response above), and could easily have been retconned in the new eras. Even your response that Castiel was just trying to intimidate Zachariah was an assumption by itself. Castiel obviously couldn't. Otherwise, he would not follow it with "I won't ask twice." Castiel could have just patched the Winchesters himself AND kill Zachariah if he really felt like it, or even kill Zach first, then patch the boys after, if it really was in his power. After all, his friends are dying from stage IV cancer and lack of lungs, you'd think it would be his priority to get them to tip-top shape rather than intimidate a rival angel. Besides, he was drawing on the possibility that God himself revived Castiel as the main source of fear for Zachariah, and not by Castiel's own power, as evidenced by this conversation:


 * Castiel: How did these two end up on that airplane? Another good question, because the angels didn't do it. I think we both know the answer, don't we?
 * Zachariah: No... It's not possible.
 * Castiel:  It scares you. Well, it should. Now, put these boys back together, and go. I won't ask twice.

Might I also remind you that your dismissal to Zachariah's line "hardly another one", and Castiel's "new and improved" is about the same as us saying "third class" can have different interpretations.

'''II. Explicit vs. Implicit, Contextual Clues'''

While we don't have a solid explicit canon statement like your claim (which, again, could be interpreted variously as several members have shown in the talk page), there are several implicit cues that support the idea that there are several ranks for the 'ungrouped' angels.

Why point out Castiel was a Seraph? What was the need if it did not make him any more special than other regular angels (when he clearly was different and far more powerful)? Why stress differences between the intelligence angels and the regular foot soldiers? These gaps were already evident in Seasons 4 and 5, and although it was quite vague on how different angels were from each other, it was often stressed how someone belonged to 'senior management', and how someone was not. Season 8 reinforced and cemented those gaps. Also, take a look at Carver's statement regarding Naomi, whom he described as a "new breed" of angel we've never seen before. Are you going to ignore that commentary by the current, albeit poor and distasteful, showrunner?

Let's take a closer look at the powerful, non-archangel angels, shall we?

Zachariah  - was in direct communication with the archangel Michael, described as part of Heaven's 'upper/senior management', was extremely powerful, easily bossed lower angels around and was part of the mastermind plot that excluded the foot-soldier angels, easily obliterated demons that raided John's lock-up

Naomi  - was in direct communication with the archangels, was tasked by the archangels to debrief Metatron (then already a powerful angel himself), could program and reprogram angels, even powerful ones like the Seraph Castiel, leader of the 'intelligence division' and part of the heavenly host that held privy to plots not accessible to lower celestials, leader of one of the major factions vying control for Heaven, scared off a high-tier demon like Crowley, capable of using white light, succesfully devised a plan to rescue a Seraph from the home-turf of Leviathans, where plenty of Old Ones were prowling

"New and improved"  Castiel  - revived several times by an unknown power (but implied to be God), challenged an archangel's leadership, was considerably powerful, led half of the Heavenly host and even ruled the entirety of Heaven at one point, capable of using white light, could obliterate demons with ease, and even scared off a high-tier demon like Crowley, capable of standing up to Leviathans, literally the only one who explicitly described himself as a seraph

Metatron  - described himself as an ordinary angel but was elevated by God, and therefore was in direct communication with God, one of the few angels aware of the secret plans of the heavenly host for the apocalypse, ruled Heaven at one point, capable of using white light and scared off a high-tier demon like Crowley, has knowledge of how to destroy Leviathans (from writing down the word of God)

Considering these incredible feats and the similarities among these four in terms of strength against demons and leviathans and organizational power against their lesser brethren, and the fact that they alluded or called themselves far more powerful than other regular angels, I find it hard to believe they were all just Seraphs.

In the case of Metatron, he clearly said himself he was an ordinary angel BUT was elevated by God Himself, which allowed Metatron to go against Naomi, use the white light and perform other powerful feats. So, I will ask you again. Which is a bigger assumption? Using the term 'Seraph' to include only those similar to Castiel's status, or using it to describe the remainder of the heavenly host? FTWinchester (talk) 01:01, June 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * As per the wikia's policy on consensus, status quo must be maintained until the dispute is resolved. Admins, please revert the edits on the matter. From my count, NaiflidG, Imperiexseed and I have voted against the removal of the 'regular' angel class, L4D2 Ellis likewise voiced concern, and Calebchiam also said he wasn't fully sold on the matter. FTWinchester (talk) 01:45, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

In all previous seasons, an Angels true form has been pure blinding white light and is extremely large, according to Castiel.

So, is it just stupidity on the writers part that in season 9, the Angels true forms look like Demons, but white, not black...?

I know what you mean..I noticed it too and felt the exact same way. Instead of blinding white light, they are now blue/white smoke...now they also go into the vessels mouth JUST LIKE A DEMON! I personally think that Carver doesn't care about the fan base, and trying to make it his own show....you'll notice that now when an angel dies, it is no longer pure white light that comes out of their eyes and mouth, and brights up the whole building, it is now dim blue light that doesn't even light up the room....I like to think that it is because the angels are weakened from the fall. Since they are so weak, they can't take on their pure form, so they have to manifest as luminous smoke, and they are no longer pure white, but are blue. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 04:27, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

True form
In season 9 we see their true form as blue wisps that did not burn any person's eyes. But in season 4 episode 20, we saw Jimmy's possesion by Castiel ONSCREEN and there was not any blue wisp. Also the true form burnt Pamela's eyes(for example). Season 10 must be a season of careful and permanent corrections.Ikmeos (talk) 21:06, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Teleportation or Flight?
I think we need to discuss how an Angel actually travels on the show.

Regardless of the fact they can appear and reappear in the blink of an eye, I've always believed they actually fly rather than teleport. Plus, wings are used for flight. That's what they're designed for. In all other lore they also fly, so I'm of the opinion they fly in this show too.

Anyway, this is supported through scenes in the following episodes,

S9xE03... Castiel: "I would fly, but I have no wings. Not anymore"

S5xE18... Zachariah calls Michael down from Heaven after Dean says yes, yet it takes him a good while to actually arrive. You can slowly hear and feel his presence however the closer he gets.

S4xE18... After Chuck enters the Winchesters room and is now in the presence of Lilith, Raphael begins to descend. Yet again however he's not instantly there. We hear and feel his presence the closer he gets. (I understand this particular example can be explained by Raphael not wanting to kill Lilith and therefore ruin the apocalypse. However, is that more important than protecting what he thought was a prophet?)

Given these examples, (I'll try to find some more) I believe it's inaccurate to state on the wiki that Angels can teleport. I simply believe they fly so fast it seems like teleportation. Lightspeed perhaps...?

P.S. If I'm forgetting any scenes where it's explicitly stated that they teleport then please remind me. I can't think of any myself however. Toe Knee 17 (talk) 01:12, February 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly.

Angels powered by Souls?
It's one of my pet theories. The way I see it, Grace is essentially a mana pool. Souls generate said mana, as evidenced by the fact that both Castiel and Tamiel the Grigori feed on human souls to refuel themselves when they needed a boost. Or, in Tamiel's case, was cut off from Heaven. And according to Henry Winchester, the soul can recharge over time. I assume that one Nephilim was stronger than Cas because she had both a soul and grace - she could recharge her own power. Moving on, once Cas( and the Grigori) were cast out of Heaven, they lost their power source, which is either controlled by the Host, or somewhere in Heaven. What's Heaven chalk full of? Souls. There have been approximately 108 billion people on Earth up until this point. Even assuming most of those souls( a horrendously cynical viewpoint) are in Purgatory or Hell, that's  massive amount of power, especially when you weight in that Cas only absorbed "millions and millions" of souls from Purgatory, and then immediately one shotted an archangel. It's also worth noting that apparently only a being with a human soul could feel the full range of emotions, but the archangels( and Castiel, later on) seem to defy this. So here's my theory: Heaven itself sucks power out of the souls inside it, and distributes that power to the angels that haven't been cut off. Seraphs - who can recharge their own grace - have "proto-souls" that generate energy for them, while archangels have roughly the same, but better. Much better. To cap it all off is Tamiel's response to when Dean asked him "Since when to angels feed on humans?" He said "Since the beginning of time." Dragonlover553 (talk) 04:22, July 2, 2016 (UTC)