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 ^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.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (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)

Thermokinesis?

When did Lucifer display thermokinesis? Unless you include his ice breath but then it should be listed as thermokinesis not cryokinesis. 

Raphael and Gabriel relationship

Just thought I'd ask, do you think there is a good reason why Raphael and Gabriel never mentioned eachother at all? Raphael mentions lucifer and michael, Michael obviously had direct contact to raphael, them two being the only active archangels in heaven for a long time, ans michaels quite 'I won't leave you in a drooling mess like my brothers when im done wearing you' is clear reference to rapheal, Lucifer met and spoke with Ganriel before killing him, and Gabriel mentioned Micheal, but Raphael and Gabriel bore no direct reference to eachother.

Did they not get along? did Gabriel not consider him important due to Michael and Lucifer being the two main enemies, with sam and dean as their respective vessals? did Rapheal no longer care for his younger brother? could it just be because the writers forgot or did not deem their connection important?

Princepurple (talk) 20:29, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Well you have to remeber its been thousands of years since the two saw each other, Gabriel pretty much abandoned his whole family and legged it, so I doubt he's really on that good terms with Michael and Raphael, or even Lucifer for that matter. They hadn't heard from him for a very good terms, and its likely they have had no idea where he is or what he's been upto, as I doubt Gabriel would leave a trail for them to follow, his whole plan was to get away fromhis fueding Family. He didn't bring Raphael up, because he didn't come into the converstation. Raphael didn't bring him up, because he probably had no idea what happened to his brother, and preasumably expected him to come crawling back on his hands and knees after Michael killed Lucifer, not to mention Raphael was something of a sociopath and a nihilist, so not being that caring towards his little brother isn't that out of the question. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:48, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Eve

Well he couldn't stay with him the whole time, and he didn't want to kill the angel, as there was a chance he could convince him to join him. Eve on the other hand had no such ideals.

Utterly false. Eve planned to convince Sam, Dean (and by extension, Bobby and Castiel) into working for her instead of killing them. I was just pointing out that the logic that Eve had to clip Castiel's wings means she wasn't that powerful is wrong. That's like saying God created Purgatory to contain Leviathans because he wasn't powerful enough to kill them, or that God was afraid of them. The fact that she could easily depower a Seraph boosted by 50,000 souls and the weapons of heaven is a feat of incredible power by itself. She wasn't clipping Castiel to prevent the Seraph from killing her, but to prevent Castiel from harming her children. FTWinchester (talk) 21:27, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Also, 

Lucifer (like everyone, BUT God) can't be everywhere at once and if he wanted Cas dead, Cas would've dropped to the floor in an instant.

If Eve also wanted Cas dead, she could have done that as well. FTWinchester (talk) 21:29, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

How do we know? Its never stated he couldn't kill her. They didn't seem to know if he could or not, nor did she seem to know, so she wasn't taking any chances. Besides she didn't manage to do so by being more powerful than him, she described it as being down to "being older" than him and "knowing what made him tick" further more I have to ask did he really have all the weapons of heaven? He did when confronting Raphael, but what would the point be of hogging them all rather than giving them to his troops, who are actually fighting the battle. Plus if she could really see what all the monsters saw, she must have know that Castile had been helping Crowley and that alone is a good enough reason to kill him. She probably didn't because she at first wanted to try and convince Sam and Dean to find Crowley for her, and killing there best friend isn't a good place to start negotations. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:33, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Its never stated he couldn't kill her. Huh? He was depowered by her mere presence. How do you think he would be able to kill Eve? Sorry, but I stopped reading after that line. FTWinchester (talk) 21:37, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

When was it stated to be her mere presence, when she talked to him in the dinner she made it very clear it had been intentional. If she hadn't taken away his power we don't know if he could have or not, as it was never tested. Saying that without them he couldn't is obvious, its like saying if you took the bullets out of a gun, could you use the gun to shoot a target? General MGD 109 (talk) 21:40, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. But that logic works both ways. If Eve knew enough to unplug Castiel, and knew how "angels tick" in all its implied sense, that means she also knew most, if not all, tricks, angels can come up with and counter them effectively, and that she could go even further than just depowering him. Also, saying Castiel does not have the weapons with him and that he distributed them to his soldiers is baseless. We have more precedent that he has it with him than otherwise. 1) Castiel used them all by himself to threaten and intimidate Raphael. 2) Balthazar acts as one of Castiel's allies, and yet gave up Lot's salt to Castiel, instead of keeping the weapon with him. In no instance was it said nor even hinted that Castiel distributed the weapons, so the status quo is that he has it with them, especially since he is the only one powerful enough to stand up against his rival--and that Castiel can only do with the weapons with him. FTWinchester (talk) 21:49, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Well probably, but would knowing his tricks really make you immune to them? I might know how some one threw a punch but I don't know if I could block it if they tried. Its a simplistic example, but theres a great distance between knowing, countering and being immune. He had them then when he was facing Raphael, but that doesn't prove he kept them. Assuming Angelic warfare is similiar to normal warefare, what would be the benefitt of him hogging all the weapons? As powerful as he is, he is only one being he can't use them all at once and he's already stronger than most angels, keeping them would be a collosal strategic error and would offer his side pratically no benefit. Plus there is the fact next time he faced Raphael, he forced to flee suggesting he no longer had them and could no longer stand upto the Archangel (without the souls.) General MGD 109 (talk) 21:58, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. We could both speculate and intrapolate about Castiel or Eve's plan and power and this would never end. If we stick to what the series has actually shown, then it should be clear how Eve clearly was more powerful than Castiel (she also has access to souls in Purgatory, btw--which she clearly called her "supply"). This is the exact same reason why I understand most people think Azazel is more powerful than Lilith as opposed to the other way around or the two of them having around the same level of power--because Azazel had more screen time and has been developed better in the show--which the viewers see, as opposed to Lilith's off-screen feats. Character choices aren't always realistic, General. Like I said, there are two instances that support Castiel has the weapons to himself, as opposed to your scenario--which, while entirely probable, had no reference nor hint at all. FTWinchester (talk) 22:05, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed we could. My point is if she was so powerful, why did she need to strip him of his powers? Sure he could kill her Starships, but she could just create more, as she was do throughout the episode.  Really cause I only see one, and it still makes no sense for him to keep hold of them. If I was leading a side during a war and got hold of some heavy artilary, I wouldn't keep it all in my back pocket, I would keep one and give the soldiers the rest so that they could be used to there full potential. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:15, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really have an opinion one way or the other until FTWinchester pointed out that Eve was controlling the supply of Purgatory souls when she was alive. That reminded me of how Castiel used the Purgatory souls to effortlessly kill Raphael, an archangel. We don't know how a creature like Eve would naturally measure up to a seraph, but we do know that a seraph is weaker than an archangel, so Eve having the power (from Purgatory souls) to kill Castiel makes as much sense as Castiel having the power (from Purgatory souls) to kill Raphael. I'll have to agree with FTWinchester here; Eve could have destroyed Castiel if she wanted to.--NaiflidG (talk) 22:32, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

That is a very good point NaiflidG, I hadn't considered taht before. Okay but did she have all the souls, or did she have access to all the souls. There hers, because there all here children's souls, but Logically they couldn't be powering her, as then how did she create the alphas in the first place. So we to assume she had some power to begin with. Now following your line that she was tapping into the souls to give her her enhanced powers I would have to conceed. But it does raise a few interesting questions, for one how could she harness all the power of those souls? It doesn't appear that Demons or angels can do it directly, so could she? Could all that power be broadcasted across a dimension with nothing between? Why did she need to be summoned? And why bother trying to recruit Sam and Dean, with all that power couldn't she just storm into hell and kill Crowley? And why not make more Starships? General MGD 109 (talk) 22:40, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in right at this point makes it hard to start. First of all, Castiel could utilize multiple heavenly weapons at once in his teleportation ability. Like, easily. But, anyway, Eve said she can handle Crowley alone. So what, Eve could absorb all of Purgatory's souls and, at a thought, wring the Milky Way to bits. Whether or not she could contain the power is irrelevant by the fact that she could bring a great portion of the universe to an end. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:52 PM, December 30th 2013

I think she might (be able to tap into monster souls from Earth). After all, it looks like the ruler of Hell can tap into the souls in Hell for more power even when he's on Earth; otherwise, there'd be no difference between King of the Crossroads!Crowley and King of Hell!Crowley. As for everything else... I dunno, General. I could give you theories, but they're just theories. (Maybe she had to be summoned because she'd been imprisoned by angels for wreaking havoc; maybe she was stuck in Purgatory because she'd been "killed" by phoenix ash the last time she was on Earth, and that limited her ability to leave Purgatory on her own; maybe it's as simple as the portal between Purgatory and Earth is only accessible through that one specific ritual, even for creatures like Eve and the leviathan (except for reapers, of course). Etc., etc.) The facts are that Eve got killed off before we could learn more about her and that (let's be honest here) Supernatural characters often come off looking illogical because they have to act a certain way in the narrative (in other words, Eve couldn't kill Crowley right away because she needed to be killed by the Winchesters, and she couldn't kill/infect the Winchesters, Castiel, and Bobby right away because the plot wouldn't allow it) and the writers change their minds about things. Like, a lot. (See the numerous retcons on what Azazel and Lilith's plans were.)--NaiflidG (talk) 00:32, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

That is terribly flawed thinking! Just because the writers don't have characters do something in the story does not mean they can't. Did Kripke have Lucifer kill Meg? No, but that does not mean he couldn't, it just means it didn't take place in the storyline. Did Crowley kill Karen (a human)? No, but again, that does not mean he couldn't. No, Eve said in the episode she could've killed Crowley. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:41 PM, December 30th 2013

That's what I was saying. In-universe, Eve could've easily killed the Winchesters, Bobby, Crowley, and Castiel (hell, she probably could've killed Raphael just as easily!). But because the writers needed the Winchesters, Bobby, Crowley, and Castiel to survive and continue serving the plot, they wouldn't let Eve kill them--hence her not going into Hell and killing Crowley herself as General suggested even though it'd solve all her problems a lot quicker, not exposing Castiel for working with Crowley and killing him right away when she would've known from her children that they were in hoots (except the writers wanted to save the partnership as a plot twist for the end of the episode so it would lead into "The Man Who Would Be King"), and not immediately either turning Sam, Dean, Bobby, and Castiel to make them serve her straightaway (her usual approach) or simply killing them to get them out of her way. Them being the main characters completely changed how she reacted to them, and the plot needing to go a certain way (namely, focusing on Castiel and Crowley trying to crack open Purgatory rather than on Eve and her monsters conquering Earth) changed her approach; Eve was severely hindered by the main characters' Plot Armor.--NaiflidG (talk) 01:02, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I evidently misinterpreted what you were saying, 'cause apparently, we were saying the same thing. Hell no, she couldn't have killed Raphael. Raphael could've struck her with column of lighting for 80 hours, leaving nothing behind. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:15 PM, December 30th 2013

It's fine. I probably could've made myself clearer. But I have to disagree with you about Eve vs. Raphael. Castiel obliterated Raphael with a snap of his fingers because he had control of Purgatory's souls; Eve had control of Purgatory's souls, so she probably could have killed Raphael as well (or at the very least put up a fight). Agree to disagree, though.--NaiflidG (talk) 01:21, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well if she used Purgatory's souls, she could've destroyed Raphael before he could react in his vessel. I thought you meant by natural means, like her strength as it is without any additions. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:29 PM, December 30th 2013

Holy Oil

Why is it that the Archangels, creatures who can bend and shape reality and it's laws, be taken down by some holy fire? since Michael is the strongest angel, it seems very strange that non seraph cas can just throw a molotov cocktail of holy oil at Michael, no chance for him to react at all, and it worked perfectly, Michael could not remove the effect and was forced to retreat to heaven I guess and it kept him away for some time.

This makes me think, if it's so easy to do that, can't michael just be trapped in holy fire and tortured with holy fire and that gun made of an angel blade???

Princepurple (talk) 05:28, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

There could be an congregation of reasons why. Which, again, I'd attribute to some sense of plot security. If archangel blades stilled exist but holy fire either didn't exist or affect archangels, there'd be no way to take one down for any being (seraph, fairy, demon) but God and Death. An archangel could turn invisible and, from millions of miles away, chuck a storm of knives, decapitating two armies of Leviathan. Holy fire makes it possible to entrap, interrogate, or mouth off to them. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:23 PM, January 31st 2014

Well in all fairness, it worked because they caught Michael with suprise and he had no idea what it was. If you did manage to trap him in holy fire, he would simply walk through it, his legs would burn a bit but thats it. As for Raphael and Gabriel, it is clearly still lethal, but then how do you torture them? You reach over the flames, they just grab you and throw you onto the flames, then walk over you just as Castiel did. And once there free, well.

As for An Angel blade, its unlikely it would work, otherwise why would they have there own blades? All in all, I think it would be sort of like charing at a person on an anti-aircrat gun, with a butchers knife. Get close enough and it will work, but they could obliterate you from miles away. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:04, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

While it causes him momentary discomfort, Michael could just remove all sustained affliction to his vessel with a thought. It's relational to, like, why can Death reap God or how there can be a possibility of Death's Scythe being able to fully destroy Death of his brothers, where they'll only cease if their attributes disappear. If, for instance, there's only two people in existence who are fighting, War is unkillable. While seemingly impossible in what's called 'headcanon,' they're there as ports the writers can use later to prolong the story if needed. If ever, to the keep the story going, they needed to kill God, they can off of the statement in "Two Minutes To Midnight," even if it makes no sense. Where they're technically not marinating us in contradictions. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:47 PM, January 31st 2014

If Michael could just shrug it off, why did it cause to vanish for so long? he obviously wanted to be there to stop Sam much earlier, but it worked perfectly, banished the archangel to the point where it took him a good few minutes to remove the effects, so i'm guessing it impaired him for enough time.

Also, trapping Gabriel and Raphael seems to me, like the writers wanted to establish that it's a weakness of all Angel regardless of class.

Princepurple (talk) 01:31, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, you have to understand, my point was in comparison to the ammount. Michael in that situation was set completely alight, we could see his vessel burning away. On the other hand if he was in a ring of holy fire, he could presumably walk right through it, with only recieving a few burns to the legs. Which considering he could heal his whole vessel burning, shouldn't be more than just a momentary discomfort. General MGD 109 (talk) 01:40, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the ring of fire thing with Michael may be so, but still, if he is capeable of healing so easily and only causing discomfort, why did it take him so long to heal and return to earth??

Princepurple (talk) 03:26, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

If Adam theoretically died from that molotov, Michael would have to fetch Adam's soul from Heaven. From what we've seen from The Dark Side of the Moon, souls in heaven can avoid angels. Given Adam's predisposition with angels and being possessed by one, we could safely assume he tried to hide from Michael, which explains why it took so long for Michael to return to Stull cemetery. This is fan theory, of course. FTWinchester (talk) 13:56, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

As much as I like that theory, I have to wonder how Michael posessed him in the first place, knowing by that time that angels are bad, did Michael brake the rule and force entry? if this is the case them yea, im guessing he ran, though, sam and dean ran from zach, a seraph, you would think that michael could easily find him and somehow convince him to say yes, though if adam was killed by the molotov, wouldn't michael first need to ressurect adam? or can souls also be posessed? still, the idea of holy fire doing that to the great archangel shows that stepping out of the holy fire ring may cause a similar effect, if it effected archangels less, im sure Gabriel or rapheal would have left takking damage, while lucifer and michael may only but minor hurt, but the fact that two archangels could not leave, shows that it's likely that no angel can, unless Metatron wrote Gods word, therefore he can remove it, but it's like Eve being able to cancel out angels, using the term on a seraph, as if to state she was older than all angels, as Zaceriah said regarding Lucifer needing a vessal "He is still an angel' so that term is for Archangels too.

Princepurple (talk) 15:41, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Smiting a seraph

We know of course, the first time Raphael descended to face castiel, he snapped his fingers and wiped him out when he was a standard angel, Lucifer also did this, but in season 6, the newly seraph castiel fought raphael head on and I noticed the archangel did not even try to smite him..could this be because Archangels can't smite or explode seraphs, more along the lines of the younger two archangels, as Castiel was a far greater threat and in direct opposition in season 6, while in season 5, when Castiel was a normal angel and not that much of a threat to raphael by comparrison, raphael one shotted him..So if Raphael could of, why not just directly smite with killing touch, or explode the seraph castiel? would have saved him alot of trouble, sure raphael may have initially underestimated Castiel, but after he used the power of souls to blast Raphael away, plus he was directly in his way, what reason would Raphael have for not killing him so easily? instead he took the trouble of beating him up and tried using his angel blade on him, but why bother? couldn't he have simply touched the seraph quick and easy??

It's pretty clear that Michael could probably touch and kill a seraph, given what he did to Anna, she was directly in opposition to his plans like Castiel was to Raphael, and although Lucifer most likely could kill a Seraph, he was only shown killing a standard angel, while Gabriel, although pawning standard cas, also had no showings with a seraph, the only true, in show combat, was Raphael and Castiel.

Princepurple (talk) 02:15, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

He severely withheld himself from killing the seraph and prolonged the fight that long for him leaving Raphael in the flaming holy fire circle. He also used his blade at the end because smiting is an instant death while fatal blows from angelic blades hurt intensely as they die. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:25 PM, February 18th 2014

Reality Warping/ Universes?

When Gabriel puts the brothers in "TV land" did he actually create another reality or did he just create sets and actors and use illusions to reshape the warehouse they had just entered. Because if he did put them in another universe then how could he be trapped in the holy fire? If it was lit in an alternate universe it shouldve disappeared when he teleported them back to their universe. But if it was an illusion, does that mean Sam and Dean were experiencing several different "tv channel worlds" but they never left the warehouse? 

Unlock

Please unlock the page. Here's my revision http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Archangels?diff=131227&oldid=131226 under the powers and abilities section, which there's nothing wrong with, but EmpyreanSmoke kept removing it to put his http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Archangels?diff=131228&oldid=131227, creating the edit war. It's clear how strong the archangels are, but he kept undoing my edits to demean and humiliate them from how they're actually portrayed. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:10 PM, November 22nd 2014

Once again, ImperiexSeed is twisting what actually happened. A while ago, he revised the power section of the archangel page. Today, I changed a few things on that section, so that it resided more with canon. There was nothing wrong with my edit, but ImperiexSeed kept undoing it. I kept telling him that my edit was fine, and asked him to please stop the edit war. Thank you for locking the page, and please don't unlock it for now.

Do not edit the page further until you sort this out here. Empyrean, since you are already involved in this, you may post your replies to Imperiex on your talk page and an editor will move it here for you. Imperiex, if you continue reverting the page, you will be blocked as per the three-revert rule. To be fair, Empyrean's wording is more balanced as opposed to the previous version that positively gushes about archangels, and is more in-line with the neutrality expected of articles. Cheers. Calebchiam ^Talk 02:01, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

If I may add, Imperiex and Empyrean, you two have also started an edit war with each other just last month on Zachariah's page. It would really be nice if you two calmed down and did not go for each others' throats about things like this. I'm sure you guys are capable of civil discussion. FTWinchester (talk) 03:00, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for how I treated you a long time ago, Calebchiam, which I've already apologized for, but to be frank, you seem to have this malicious and nasty disposition towards me, even still, which reflects hideously on you. And, FTWinchester, as I've said before, EmpyreanSmoke constantly stalks and hawks my edits and spitefully undoes almost all of them. He chalks it up to "paranoia," which is completely erroneous, it's that he hates me and that's why he does this. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:19 PM, November 22nd 2014

It would really help if you guys provide citations so that we could avoid unnecessary arguments. Also, in a lot of cases, just a little tweaking of the phrases could mean so much. You both have points--Lucifer has killed a lot of pagan deities, but we also haven't seen them all. One way to reach a compromise is to say that "So far, no known deity has been seen to match the power of an archangel." I'm pretty sure there are other users who could phrase this better but my point is, we could state what happened in canon while still being open to possible changes or revelations in lore (remember my example about Knights being revealed to be immune to anything but the first blade?). About the "stalking" part, I suggest you talk it out. It's the only way to do it. That was the only way I managed to convince you before when I was new here, that I also was not challenging your edits as a personal agenda. And we seem to have reached closure then. I really hope you two could direct your energy together instead of against each other. It's a waste since you two are both considerably passionate about the show and the wiki. FTWinchester (talk) 03:30, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Who keep putting leviations as a weakness for archangels it is not shown neither is stated in the show that they are able to do such thing, even god cas ( which had all leviathans combined inside him including dick ) was afraid of mickey and lucy so please stop posting vague assumptions.

Leviathans...

Who keep putting leviations as a weakness for archangels it is not shown neither is stated in the show that they are able to do such thing, even god cas ( which had all leviathans combined inside him including dick ) was afraid of mickey and lucy so please stop posting vague assumption.

(Sorry for double post)

EmpyreanSmoke keeps putting it. Even Castiel, a seraph at the time, was able to knock the wind out of a Leviathan while they were fighting in Purgatory. But, yeah, they are weaker than archangels, because: 1) Leviathan can be approached and hurt by every-day household items, archangels can't and physical force or trauma won't affect them, 2) Leviathan need time to reattach severed limbs and heal, but if an archangel's vessel's limb was every severed, the limb would instantly reappear back in place, and 3) even if archangels can't outright kill Leviathan, they could, like you said, teleport, attain all the required items for the weapon, and appear behind one with it and kill them. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:44 PM, December 11th 2014

Leviathans can kill angels, and archangels are a type of Angel. There is nothing implying that archangels are excluded from this. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:46, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

Stop putting Leviathans and Eve as stronger than Archangels.. i mean come on It was God and ArchAngels that defeated Darkness not eve and Leviathans and i doubt that Leviathans and Eve can put up a fight against Micheal and Luci.. Maybe they are strong enough to cause trouble to Gabriel and Raphael but not mike and Luci.. Even the feats for Archangels are much greater

If people keep removing these weaknesses from the archangel, Michael, Lucifer, Raphael, and Gabriel pages, I am going to have to lock them. We can't keep having these back and forth undo wars. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 13:54, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

This would be unfortunately a necessary step, or at least block it for unregistered users, it's quit annoying and time consuming to always undo these changes. Lambda1 (talk) 14:05, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think locking it against unregistered users would be more conveinent, as they seem to be the only ones reverting it back. If it happens again, will will do so. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 16:29, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

The page should be locked to stop people from constantly changing the info, but the idea that Leviathans can simply just kill an Archangel was left in. This shouldn't be there, as we've never seen an archangel fight a Leviathan, and they never discussed it on the show. Instead of simply leaving the info that somebodey thinks is how it works, it should be removed until they either confirm this strength on the show, at a con or some other Q and A that is official. If this is your fan idea, it shouldn't belong here because I didn't think this is a Supernatural fan site. Maybe God will return, and use the brothers and both angels and Leviathans to fight the darkness and mention whose stronger. Otherwise its just a fan theory.

If Jesse could kill Archangels why didn't Sam and Dean use Jesse to kill Lucifer?Calvincambridge30 (talk) 23:36, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Death and Castiel have both claimed that Leviathans can kill "angels" (in the general, not class-specific sense), though, and that is canon. What we have to refrain from stating is how absolute or how easy it seems. But the capability of Leviathan to do so has without a doubt been mentioned in the series (unless retconned in Season 11, that is). FTWinchester (talk) 05:27, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

This page and wikia are becoming very innacurate due to EmpryeanSmoke abusing his power. This page is becoming inaccurate because you keep listing leviathan as a weakness but there is no proof whatsoever. You are just to stubborn to remove it. At the very least, you could write possibly.

Could someone please explain to me why these specific weaknesses are stated to only effect Raphael and Gabriel...? Kali's Blood spell, Heaven's weapons, and Souls. 

I don't see any reason whatsoever why Kali couldn't bind Michael and Lucifer.

I don't see why Heaven's weapons wouldn't harm or possibly kill Michael and Lucifer.

Lastly, I certainly don't see why any Angel while imbued with millions of souls wouldn't be able to harm them, or possibly kill them too.

Toe Knee 17 (talk) 21:07, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Then some users (I am neutral, but think Godstiel could kill them) argue:

• It was never mentioned in the show, that Soul- empowered Castiel could kill Lucifer/Michael, so it's speculation.
• It was never mentioned in the show, that the weapons of heaven could kill Lucifer/Michael, so it's speculation.
• It was never mentioned in the show, that Kali could bind Michael or Lucifer, so it's speculation.

That's the reason why. Lambda1 (talk) 23:06, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

It's also speculation that Souls, The Darkness and The First Blade can harm Death, yet they're all listed as "possible" weaknesses for him. I don't think it matters if it's speculation if it's worded well enough. Keep it neutral. Emphasize the fact that's they're POSSIBLE weaknesses and no one can complain either way. 

Given that Castiel with the Purgatory souls destroyed Raphael with a snap of his fingers, it's highly likely he could harm Michael and Lucifer. Given that one of Heaven's weapons harmed Raphael, and Castiel later threatened his life with ALL of them, it's highly likely they could also harm Michael and Lucifer. As for Kali's blood spell, there's nothing indicating that she couldn't bind them either. 

Toe Knee 17 (talk) 11:27, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Errors

This article as well as nearly ever other one on this wiki is in poor condition. There are errors scattered throughout and a few inaccuracies as well. The article states on two separate incidents casinos that Gabriel is still alive which he is not. Whoever keeps citing season 9 clearly hasn't watched the particular episode he appears in. This article needs to be unlocked so some changes can be made.

---

Could you sign your posts please ? Thank you ! It was mentioned by the actor of Gabriel and one of the show producers. http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1058547/supernaturals-richard-speight-jr-spills-his-gabriel-theories Lambda1 (talk) 20:04, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Archangel blades

It says in this article that regular angel blades can kill archangels, this isn't true, archangels have slightly bigger blades which aren't the same as regular angel blades. It seems as if regular angel blades can harm archengels but not kill them like it suggests in thsi article. I'm suggesting changing the second instance of "Angel blades" to "Archangel blades" as this rings more true.

Grace, Sovereign, M (message,talk) 16:35, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

In The Man Who Knew Too Much Dean thew an angel blade at Raphael and he made sure to catch it and not let it kill him. In The Devil in the Details, Castiel pulled out an angel blade on Lucifer and Lucifer made sure to take it away from him. In Into the Mystic another angel threatened to stab him and Lucifer put his hands up. The same angel said that Lucifer could be destroyed before attempting to stab him with it. Lucifer made sure to kill him before he could. This is more Han enough to say that Angel blades can kill Archangel's. Why would two angels and an experienced Hunter/Men of Letters go up against them with them if it wouldn't kill them? And why would they take precaution to disarm them and avoid getting stabbed if it couldn't kill them? Darchangel 66 'I the Light Beaer alone hold back the Darkness.' (talk) 00:04, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to add to this? Because I think we should make these changes. Darchangel 66-The Light which holds back the Darkness (talk) 21:13, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

If you have an argument against an angel saying that Lucifer could be destroyed when about to stab him with an angel blade, leave it here instead of just undoing stuff. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 20:43, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

I never heard that the angel say the Blade could kill him. Only that unlike the Darkness he can be destroyed. As to the blade, put something like Angelic weapons such as an Angel Blade can likely do harm to Archangels, as occurrences have shown Angels attempting to attack Archangels with them. This is the true canon information. It's unbias and notes only the canon parts.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 20:53, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

• Actually how the articles were before Darchangel changed it to say that normal angel blades can kill archangels would be correct, as it doesn't state a fan's interpretation of the show as canon fact. No archangel was shown to have been killed by a normal angel blade. Simply because an angel thought he could kill Lucifer with one doesn't mean he could. By that logic, an angel blade could kill Amara because an angel attacked her with one. Or a knife, since Dean tried to kill her with one as well (is she dead?). Trip391 (talk) 21:01, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

The angel said that Lucifer could be destroyed while attempting to stab him with an angel blade. Lucifer then killed him before he could. Anyone can see this means Angel blades could destroy him. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 20:56, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

The darkness is old, and mysterious, and nobody knows her weaknesses or mortality. Dean tried a knife and Cas tried an angel blade because they knew nothing about her. Angels know about archangels. They know their powers and weaknesses. If an angel on the show says that an angel blade can destroy an archangel, and two other people attack an archangel with an angel blade, that is enough to say it can. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 21:14, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Page is locked until I decide on what to do.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 21:20, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. And I'm sorry for keep reverting the page. I just think that when an on-show Angel (who knows more about archangels than us) thinks and states that an angel blade can destroy an archangel, and when Castiel brings an angel blade into the cage to fight Lucifer, and he disarms him, that it is most logical to write that Angel blades can kill archangels. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 21:34, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I wrote that angels blade can possibly at least harm archangels. It is neutral and a true information. However it is unknown if an angel blade can kill them even harm them. Never tested. Nithael never said that you Lucifer can be killed by an angel blade. He just knew that he can be killed unlike Amara. Angels were %100 sure that they could defeat Amara with combined smite. Nithael attacked with an angel blade because he had no other choice, known weapon to harm Lucifer. Archangels can't even be killed by holy oil, sigils hold them temporarily as Lucifer was able to erase them. It is certain that Archangel blades can kill them so let them be in destroying section.

Again, the Angels didn't know anything about the darkness, and thought she was weak enough for a combined smite to work. The Angels know what archangels are, they are their brothers. Lucifer didn't erase those sigils, Rowena set it up so that they would fail. She was in it with Lucifer all along. Also the holy fire only didn't work on Michael, we have no clue about the other archangels. It's not like Lucifer was threatening Nithael. He could have ran away and found something that would kill him, but instead he tried to stab him with his Angel blade, thinking that it would destroy him. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 21:56, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Lucifer erased those sigils. Watch the scene. He set the holy fire down. If angel blades would work on archangels, cas would just give an angel blade to dean at Abandon All Hope episode instead of colt. Cas knew Lucifer and he believed that Colt could kill him. Nithael was in the same situation.

Watch episode 10 again. Lucifer and Rowena were working together. She sabotaged the sigils. Castiel probably thought that Lucifer would tear Dean apart from that range. That's why he thought the gun had a better chance. That last part is just my speculation, but still. Anyways, let's just wait until more episodes come out to see. I think they have made it absolutely clear, but whatever. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 22:29, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Lucifer and Rowena were working together but its never been mentioned that Rowena sabotage the sigils. Even if she did, he was able to put down the holy fire. When Dean was holding Colt he was next to Lucifer, same range. Lucifer is able to stop that bullet. Cas said that if there is something that can kill him, it would be Colt. Not angel blades.

To me this all just seems like angel blades can harm an archangel (perhaps causes them to heal slower/causes more damage, but thta's speculation), but not kill them. If an angel blade could kill Lucifer why was he treating that entire scene like a joke. You'd still want to avoid being stabbed with a blade that can harm you as opposed to killing you. Plus, what else did the angel have to do than use the weapon he had? 

Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from Darchangel 66, much as I think that it's serious retconning if you're right (but that wouldn't be your fault). However, I don't think we can safely say with any certainty that an archangel can be killed by an angel blade. So unless we see it happen in show, my suggestion would be that we place it in the harm section (maybe with a caviat saying it's possible it can kill them even if just to prevent an edit war) and put Archangel baldes back in the kill section until it's confirmed either way.

Hope this made sense/didn't come off as rude.

Grace, Sovereign, M (message,talk) 00:29, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that Angel blades can kill Archangels. It's quite funny that it's even a debate given the evidence. Toe Knee 17 (talk) 13:03, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it, it's not like we've seen an archangel die from being stabbed by one, so far all we've seen is they don't want to be. Which could mean a tonne of things, so it's pointless to change the article unless we know. Grace, Sovereign, M (message,talk) 14:00, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 20:49, February 13, 2016 (UTC)

Vessels.

Given that Michael and Lucifer's "true" vessels are Dean and Sam respectively, due to them being descendants of Cain and Abel. Would that also mean that Raphael and Gabriel's true vessels would need to be descendants of Cain and Abel as well? Toe Knee 17 (talk) 02:30, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if Lucifer could also possess Dean, and Michael Sam; Michael said he could possess any member of the Winchester line when he possessed John in the past. Perhaps Lucifer could also possess John, or Dean, but that Sam is his "One True Vessel."  As for Raphel and Gabriel's true vessels, I really don't know. Part of me thinks that the descent from Cain and Abel has to do with Michael and Lucifer's particular brother vs. brother battle.

One other thought: I don't know if it's really right to list Jimmy Novak as an archangel vessel. Castiel told Novak's daughter that Jimmy died when the vessel was obliterated. The body is essentially Castiel's now, reconstructed as a body solely to house an angel. That's why the vessel is so strong. Perhaps Novak could have housed Lucifer in the same way Nick did, but Lucifer never possessed the body while Jimmy was still in it. It was Castiel's body, and no one else's; that factor alone made it uniquely suitable for Lucifer to possess.Rg.leonberger (talk) 00:51, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Wings

Has it been confirmed yet if Michael or Lucifer still have their wings? Or are they both fallen thanks to Metatron's spell? Kajune (talk) 06:39, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Well time travel requires wings and even a Seraph with broken wings isn't able to time travel. So archangels must have kept them. SeraphLucifer (talk) 13:03, March 29, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Primordial energies of creation ?!?!?!?!

"Archangels were harder to make and are harder to revive as they were formed from such powerful primordial energies of creation which no longer exist after the physical plane and universe were created"

I don't think that is right.

I think God just meant that Archangels are harder to create and harder to revive, because they are so powerful beings, not because some primordial energies of creation no longer exist.

Otherwise God would just made millions Archangels to beat Darkness in the first place.

Did God even ever spoke about primordial energies that no longer exist ?

If I remember correct he just said that its not option to revive other Archangels, because it takes so long (and Darkness was going to destroy Universe before he could do it). He also mentioned that they were primordial beings, but I think he just meant that he haven't created as powerful beings after primordial times.

Blomstar (talk) 18:11, August 18, 2016 (UTC)