Talk:Archangels

Can someone unlock this page please?
Serious spelling and grammar errors need to be addressed. -- MisterRandom2 05:39, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this needs to be unlocked. There's a random {recurring characters template at the beginning of the article that's just hanging there. -- MisterRandom2 23:56, May 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, this page stays locked....for now, at least. It's powers and abilities section is done perfectly, and Wiki contributors, and I KNOW they will, users will tamper with it unnecessarily. And it's opening is accurately preformed. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:05 PM, May 32st 2012


 * Uh, there's a "{{RecurringCharacters " thingy right at the very start of the article. If you won't unlock this article, would you at least delete that particular elephant in the room? -- MisterRandom2 00:16, June 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- MisterRandom2 00:21, June 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * There a abysmal grammar errors throughout. Please, let me fix them. I have no intention of making unnecessary edits. I only want to make this page better to look and read by fixing these grammatical errors. Please. SilverRain (talk) 17:08, October 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Why can't this page be unlocked? There are grammar errors abound and the powers and abilities section needs to be update with the "Nigh-Omnipotent" power. I mean, the individual Archangel pages has it, so why not this one too? But seriously, this page has to be unlocked so that these errors can be addressed. SilverRain (talk) 04:17, November 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * SilverRain has a good point. This page has several grammatical errors that need to be fixed, and I don't see why this page was locked in the first place. I checked the history, and there has been no incident of consistent vandalism prior to its "lock-up". Savannah   Star  04:48, November 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with Savannah, the page does indeed need to be unlocked as it hinders maintenacing it. ImperiexSeed wanting to keep the page locked due to his belief that users will unnecessarily tamper with it as he stated above is absurd. 108.247.158.61 05:04, November 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and unlocked the page per the reasoning above. As a general rule, we do not lock articles except in the case of persistent vandalism (which is exceedingly rare) or for administrative reasons (e.g. the Mainpage). Otherwise, all articles are open for editing, change, and improvement. Cheers, Calebchiam {{sup|Talk}} 07:57, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

Speculation?
I know Michael and Lucifer are the first and second oldest Archangels, but was it confirmed in the show that Raphael is the third oldest and Gabriel is the youngest; or is that just speculation? 'Cos I am against unsupported speculation on wikis. TroopDude (talk) 16:03, October 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not speculative, it's fact. It's officially stated in a novel called something like, 'Supernatural Season 5 companion guide'. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:58 PM, October 23rd 2012

Misinterpretation of Gabriel's Quote

 * "No one makes us [implying / indicating their power and authority] do anything"
 * —Gabriel


 * I have always thought this line means that it is always ourselves who ultimately make the choice (referring to the thematic free will), and not others. Hence, Gabriel implying that if Lucifer really wants to kill him, it will have been Lucifer's decision, and not because his younger brother made/influenced him to.


 * Suggesting removal/replacement of quote. FTWinchester (talk) 05:52, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

+Metatron
Do the admins have guidelines on how and where to include Metatron on this page (i.e., do we wait for more information, etc.)? FTWinchester (talk) 03:41, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

I would include him after Gabriel for now at least until we can determine his age, seeing as he is the fifth archangel revealed. By the way, just to let you know, admins do not decide giudelines, the wiki community does as a consensus. 108.225.238.181 04:22, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

I will start adding the stuff for Metatron on the page. SilverRain (talk) 04:24, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Who is your best Archangel, mine is GABRIEL, he is so creative and funny.

As far as I know, it hasn't been confirmed that Metatron is indeed an archangel in the Supernatural universe, so I strongly say that he not be officially listed in this article as an archangel based on speculation, until it is officially confirmed. TroopDude (talk) 19:21, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

He has been confirmed as a Archangel, in "A little Slice of Kevin" Kevin refers to him as the "Archangel Metatron", from reading of the word of God. He is a Archangel. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:57, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Realistically, you have no right to argue ANYTHING pertaining to the Eight Season if you haven't seen Season 8. It was, indeed, affirmed in "A Little Slice of Kevin", that Metatron is an Archangel by Kevin, while reading a tablet containing a Holy document of God. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:01 PM, January 10th 2013

Seeing as you IGNORANTLY deemed Metatron being an archangel as speculation, I have to agree with ImperiexSeed. As you admitted you had not watched Season 8, than the wise move would have been to give the benefit of the doubt that it had indeed been officially confirmed and do  research as to whether that was the case  before making any edits at all. 107.194.23.156 00:04, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Archangels and their vessels
Alright, so we all understand that when Lucifer was using Nick as his temporary vessel, was not a full power and that Nick was decaying due to him not being of the Cain and Abel bloodline. When Lucifer had Sam, he was (as we have been shown to understand) many times stronger than when he had Nick. When Michael had Adam, does that mean he was not at full power because he didn't have Dean? If so, that would mean that Michael is very powerful given that he, in complete confidence, thought that he could kill Lucifer using a weaker vessel. It would be silly to say that Adam and Dean are of equal strength to each other for Michael, well, for obvious reasons. What do you guys think of this matter? SilverRain (talk) 23:46, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Leviathan?
can we really say that Archangels are the most dangerous enemies faced seeing as its not been confirmed who is stronger. I mean both can really only be killed by one weapon. Both have a weakness such as holy oil/ borax to take advantage of them. and both can overpower pretty much every other creature. so really we cant say one is more dangerous than the other.

Magic-wise, the statement is true. Although the point you raise is legitimate--the sttement is more or less an opinion instead of canon fact. FTWinchester (talk) 15:24, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yes we can, look a sheer destruction and carnage tehy can cause simply by whim, only Death himself can top what they can do, and up to date he's never been an antagonist (willingly) plus Leviathans can also be killed by eating themeselves or each other. Its not opinion, comparing a leviathan to an archangel is like comparing a shark to an earthquake. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:29, February 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the series, is Death going to be a Big Bad. Cause, he's too powerful to act as an opponent. The biggest, yet believable, baddies in-verse, are: Jesse, Lucifer, Raphael, and Eve/the Mother of All. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:34 PM, February 17th 2013


 * you cant really compare by saying leviathan can be eaten because archangels can kill eachother too so its irrelevant. Plus the leviathans (like lucifer) would have killed equally as many people. so really its still a matter of opinion.


 * Well, as a neutral stance I kind agree with both FTWinchester and General. I think, not completely accurate to state the Archangels were the most DANGEROUS, one of completely true. But, look at the Leviathans. one they are above Angels maybe even Seraphs as their are immune to their powers. (Which, is the one of only two reason why they are above.) The other is they are in some ways even harder to kill, than Archangel in a certain sense. I mean, minus them eating themselves or one another only the Bone with three VERY specific bloods can kill one. Archangels, can be killed by an Archangel's Blade, most likely by Death's Scythe, maybe even Jesse Turner a Cambion, also they can be taken down in combat like how Godstiel overpowered Raphael but that was a season plot so doesn't really count. Now, if it is ever directly stated in canon that an Archangel's power do work on the Leviathans I will agree completely that, they are more dangerous.


 * And there is even some theory evidence. Godsiel he was no matter, where on scale was an Archangel in power. And, despite ALL the Leviatthans inside of him, he kept them in for a long time. Makes you think, if they are truly immune, they could have just taken over his host. But, also maybe all the 30-40 million souls, inside might also have something to do with why they couldn't I am not sure. But, here is something I just thought. Lets say for a second they are immune to Archangel's power. Does that mean, completely immune to their area effect powers. Like, I mean, how Archangels can make the whether be chaotic. Do that mean, the wind or lightning doesn't affect them. I think, the immunity of Leviathan have two parts. One direct powers like Telekinesis maybe even White Light, might not work on them directly. Also, they can penetrate that aspects that protect an Angel from being killed.


 * In summation, the Archangels are the most destrucitve of all the enemies faced yes. And one of the most dangerous. And the Leviathans are one of the most dangerous as they equally as hard to kill if not more so, when you a hunter and not something really powerful. And the fact, they can kill some orders of Angels, which is one of the strongest supernatural races.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 14:29, February 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fascinated that everyone seems to be taking dangerous to mean indestructible, because really I see little corrilation between the two. Now say we use dangerous to mean dangerous, lets surpose this senario, a single Leviathan can do exactly how much damage? Sure it could kill a lot of people, but all it takes is one hunter to throw Borax at it, chop its head off, and throw the head into a pit, and the things harmless. Now lets ask are selves how much damage one Archangel could cause? Coupled with the fact that there is next to no way to stop one, and I think your see just how silly this argument is. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:27, February 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * I TOTALLY agree with you, General, 100%. But let's settle down and deal with this calmly. It's that easy to defeat Leviathan - as I recall, it was near-to impossible to stop one before those vulnerabilities we introduced. Now, do I believe they're stronger than the Archangels, NO! But, they are older, but not necessarily smarter. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:19 PM, February 18th 2013


 * Again, I am agreeing with the magical capabilities of archangels as superior but I do not also want to underplay the threat the Leviathans could cause--one alternate future Chronos saw was one entirely covered by black goo. So there's that--Leviathans as the ultimate rulers of earth. Not deities, not demons and certainly not angels (and that's not even with their flying capabilities seen in Purgatory). They are not just indestructible--they are also still very dangerous on their own. Also, since absorbing Castiel's memories they had the knowledge of pretty much most of information only heaven had access to previously. FTWinchester (talk) 00:20, February 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying there not dangerous, sure they can do all that, but there still not on Archangels level (in fact they were so badly handled its difficult to make up your mind on what level they are on) Archangels are still far more dangerous, and harder to stop. General MGD 109 (talk) 00:43, February 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Leviathan ARE indestructible EXCEPT by the Bone of a Righteous Mortal Washed in the Three Bloods of the Fallen. And, they ARE dangerous, and clever, as described by Death. Flying, that's not an impressive feat. Angels, Seraphs, Archangels, Cupids, Dragons, Pixies/Tinks, and Eve - they can all fly. But, compared to Archangels, Leviathans are no match for the Archangels of the Creator of the Universe. I've said a few times, that Edgar could easily par with Gabriel, but NOT Raphael, AND Dick could successfully fight Gabriel or Raphael. But, no Leviathan could compare to the Devil or the Great Archangel Michael. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:00 PM, February 18th 2013


 * There is nothing in canon to prove that statement. Michael and lucifer might be able to incinerate leviathans or the leviathans might be able to use the archangels as chew toys. theres nothing to prove either. for that reason there is nothing that proves they are more dangerous than leviathan. so we shouldnt state that they are. [unsigned post]


 * The question is, dangerous to whom? If we're talking humanity on the whole, Archangels. Easily. A Leviathan could eat a few people, maybe even a whole city, but eventually a hunter is going to catch on, come along, and chop its head off. An Archangel, on the other hand, isn't limited by the physical presence or capability that go along with being a physical creature (like the levis). An archangel could wipe out a country, or even a continent, before a hunter even became aware anything was wrong. The fight between Mike and Lucy was projected to kill 1/3 of humanity. That's over 2 billion people, just from one fight. Lucifer was going to destroy humanity, if left unchecked. Everybody. Oh, and probably every single demon, too.
 * I think people are overthinking this. The question isn't "who's more invulnerable" or "who would win in a fight" The question is who can cause the most widespread damage. From everything we've seen in the show (like Raphael blacking-out the entire coast), Archangels are capable of doing the most amount of damage in the least amount of time. KevinTheDestoryer (talk) 22:31, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly that was my point, everyone seems to be overthinking or misunderstanding the question, no one can denie that Archangels can cause more damage, and thus are more dangerous, thank you Kevin. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:35, February 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * The Leviathan's capability to eat anything, in regards to the Archangels, is left vague BY THE SHOW, visually and or audibly. But an inference CAN, and should, be made. The Archangels, being imbued with unimaginable immeasurable power, are, clearly, comprised of intense holy energy. Now, imagining a Leviathan digesting that. That would surely leave a tear in the Leviathan's form, if not destroy it completely. See what trying to say? -- ImperiexSeed, 10:58 PM, February 20th 2013

Can we do away with this bit?
"Lucifer was God's most beautiful and beloved angel, Michael his mightiest warrior, Gabriel his greatest messenger, and it is unknown what Raphael was."

It seems really unnecessary and it does not add much, and it was never stated in the show's canon that Gabriel is God's messenger. That's another instance of real lore being presumed as in-show fact without any canon grounds. Plus, the whole thing just seems really skewed and half-baked when we have titles for only three of the angels and say that "it was unknown what Raphael was." Ensephylon (talk) 00:09, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly. SilverRain (talk) 00:11, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I have felt the same about the unnecessity for some time, so I agree to doing away with it as well, Ensephlyon. 107.201.16.187 01:50, May 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Gabriel is called "God's greatest messenger" in the Season 5 companion guide, and also, that's where it's said that Gabriel's the youngest. So either they're both canonical or none of them are. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:43 PM, May 17th 2013

Metatron
In "A Little Slice of Kevin" he calls him "Archangel Metatron" but then in a later episode Metatron tells Sam and Dean that he is nothing more than a normal angel. So is he an Archangel or not? 125.236.132.149 07:53, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

He isn't. He said that he was a normal/regular angel who was brought into the limelight by God. Most probably an error on the part of the writers. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  09:12, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

It was a cheap move. You could not imagine how much crap we had to go through reverting all the articles on archangels when Metatron finally revealed he wasn't an archangel. FTWinchester (talk) 12:30, July 21, 2013 (UTC)