- 1 Drop the origin?
- 2 Much seems taken from classic mythology, not Supernatural canon
- 3 David Kaique please read this...
- 4 Season 7 Appearances
- 5 Registered User
- 6 BIokinesis vs molecular manipulation
- 7 Psychic Projection?
- 8 Better than his own kind??
- 9 Lucifer's Origin Lore
- 10 Archangels and Powers.
- 11 Lucifer is a poorly portrayed devil
- 12 Assbutt
- 13 Lucifer's Personality
- 14 Amara called him the First Son and God's Favorite
- 15 Edit War
- 16 Unlock the page
- 17 Lucifer can be injured by high voltage ?
- 18 Lucifer Alive?
- 19 Lucifer's Affiliation
- 20 Hallucifer
- 21 Names
- 22 Incorrect Quote
- 23 Michael
- 24 Why is it locked?
- 25 Killed by Dean Winchester...?
- 26 Quotes by Sam's hallucination of Lucifer in this article
- 27 Form in the Empty
- 28 Hand of God:
- 29 Pathokinesis
- 30 Elemental Control
- 31 Division of Lucifer
- 32 Lucifer's state after he ate Michael's angels
- 33 Lucifer's Creations
Drop the origin?
I might have skipped a scene where his origins were mentioned, but was it really stated that he grew arrogant and made other angels join him? If I remember correctly, he refused to bow down to human, and for beign rebellious, God had him cast down to Hell. There, he created Lilith, in which God actually sealed him where nobody could come near him. Unfortunately, I don't have any copies of the previous season at hand, so this is just from what I remember, but for me, it sounds like the Origin-section is taken from another information source, and not from what is canon in the series.
Granted, I might be wrong, but I wanted to make sure before I edit anything on his page.
Penamesolen 09:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
- It would seem that the origin mentioned in the article is not actually canon (according to the show), but rather from real world mythology and no doubt, the Bible. Can't completely recall whether there was any explicit mention of fallen angels following him though. I would support the removal of non-canon parts. Calebchiam Talk 12:53, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the story is the same, for if you recall, Azazel spoke of how he wandered the desert for years looking for Lucifer. Azazel was one of the fallen angels that was cast out with Lucifer, and was thrown into a desert to wander by Raphael. This was briefly alluded to in Lucifer Rising, where Azazel spoke of how he'd been "wandering the desert for years, looking for our father". What's more, Uriel also implied and spoke about the war in Heaven, amongst other angels throughout who have spoken of "the last war". Lucifer also spoke of the part in which he asked Michael to join him before his rebellion broke out in The End. With no backstory to go off of, this article would be pointless. Also, do not confuse the fact that most all of the Supernatural storylines are heavily if not entirely based upon their real-life mythologies. Lucifer1987 14:06, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
I support the data and information that Lucifer1987 gave. He or she was very explicit and this user stands correct in all of his or her statements. The scene statements were also very accurate; these statements came from canonical sources.
-- Anderson Writer, MAY 6th 2010 (UTC)
That's technically false, though. All the rules of that govern an archangel still applied to Lucifer. He still needed a (living) vessel and a consent. Even demons still considered him to be an angel. FTWinchester (talk) 22:40, November 24, 2013 (UTC)
Of course I understand that that's what the producers wanted him to be in the show. I just said what he should be considered. He does not represend good, because he is the source of all evil and, normally, angels are forces of good.Epakrios (talk) 22:47, November 24, 2013 (UTC)
It did make for an interesting twist, though. I mean most works describe him to be a fallen angel, but usually represent him to be entirely something else. Seeing him in this series still as an archangel (almost basically unchanged) made it a bit different from other literature of the same genre. FTWinchester (talk) 23:11, November 24, 2013 (UTC)
Much seems taken from classic mythology, not Supernatural canon
Did they ever mention in Supernatural that other angels fell with Lucifer (and became demons)? My impression was that *all* of the demon were corrupted humans. Lilith was the most powerful of them, and she was formerly human.
- First, sign your posts using four "~". Secondly, yes they allude at different points about the fallen angels, Azazel being one of them. In biblical lore, Azazel was one of the fallen angels that sided with Lucifer during the War in Heaven and was there when they were defeated. Raphael, the archangel, subsequently cast Azazel into a desert, where he wandered for years in search of his master and thinking of ways to taint humanity as his master had done. Azazel alludes to this in Lucifer Rising when he states that "I have been wandering the desert for years, looking for our father." This is just one of those instances. Uriel also speaks of Lucifer's rebellion and described him as a very beautiful angel shortly before he was killed by Anna Milton. Lucifer1987 16:46, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- It is technically never stated if Azazel is one of the fallen angels, and even if he was, neither is it stated that Raphael was the one to banish him. Angels and demons in Supernatural sometimes mock or mention that the Bible is wrong or different from how it truly happened, so for all we know, Azazel could be aware of the Bible's story of him and mentioned it in a way to mock it, since he was in a church.
- I'm not saying that it is completely untrue, but I think that it is possible. On the other hand, if Azazel really was an fallen angel, he would most likely be an average angel like Uriel; it is speculated that the Colt can kill normal angels, and if Azazel fell from being average angel, we know that average angels have equal or inferior strength to white-eyed demons and Lilith, thus it would make sense that the Colt was able to kill him, even if he was very high up in the list of powerful demons.
- I do agree that they mention a war in Heaven and all in a non-mocking situation, but unless the writers have mentioned something I've missed, we can only assume that Azazel did not joke when he said he wandered the dessert, and that it was Raphael who bansihed him.
- On the other hand, is it a reason why images from Paradise Lost are used here? While some terms about Lucifer from the book is used here, the images are never usd in the show itself, and seems to be there only to show the story. I don't really think they should be there, but it might just be my opinion. I'd like to write more, but I've got a bus to catch, sorry.
- Penamesolen 11:43, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Much of Supernatural is based upon the actual lore of the creatures, and I really don't think they're going to have Azazel mention his story in a mocking fashion if it wasn't true. He was after all noted in biblical lore to have been an angel, so we really have no reason to believe he was lying. To say so is to try to simply avoid it, which isn't a good policy.
- As to the pictures, they're very well-known images that are often associated with Lucifer, even on Wikipedia. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with using them, especially when we have history sections about the actual mythology of the creatures. I see no reason to remove them, especially considering that the show never shows us flashbacks of what happened. When you don't have much to work with, you have to use what you can if you want to have a very appealing article. Lucifer1987 15:51, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
David Kaique please read this...
Regarding the picture I specifically planted into Lucifer's character template, why did you (David Kaique) feel the need to revert it back? I mean, come on; first off, the one I inserted was, no offense, and I mean you no disrespect whatsoever, a lot better. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:50 PM, May 6th 2011
Season 7 Appearances
Does anyone know for a fact that Lucifer will be appearing after The Born Again Identity. It has not been confirmed at all if he will be appearing to Castiel. So why does he have all these appearances in upcoming episodes? Mr.Comatose 00:41, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
To prevent these pages from being tampered with by Wiki Contributors with their own varied opinions can you guys make it so only registered can tamper with pages, so you can know exactly who is doing it and why?Consus, the Erudite God (talk) 01:15, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
The Supernatural Wiki does fine with Wiki Contributers such as myself being allowed to edit on pages, so there is absolutely no reason to go such extremes as to restrict to registered users only. I have edited on this wiki for at least three years, I can honestly say your conern for the pages being tampered by those with varied opinions happens more often with registered users than it does with Wiki Contributers. 18.104.22.168 01:25, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
Anons can be anyone, plus if you add yourself it wouldn't change your work ethic. Besides registered users can easily be taken out. Anons are much more devious. I like this Wiki and I want to keepit safe from those who wish to treat it as a worthless space to clutter with theories, authorative aggression, and abuse of community privileges. Consus, the Erudite God (talk) 01:54, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
The fact is any trouble with Wiki Contributers is not frequent enough nor too extreme that would require editing on the wiki to be restricted from them in general. In addition, registion is not a mandatory policy on Wikia, so Anons should be free to contribute annonymously if that is what they prefer. You can not simply place such a restriction on a wiki to only registered users because a lone user does not want Anons to be allowed access as he/she finds them as a whole to be responisble for what the minority with malicous intent have done, when most others are actually helping to improve the wiki instead. With that said, I feel you are being too judgemental to unregistered users (including myself), seeing as this wiki often has edit wars between those who are registered as well as heated discussions on the talk pages that ocassionally can get too way out of hand, wheras I rarely see such devious Wiki contributers you speak of. If I may point out, you wanting to keep the Supernatural Wiki safe from users who wish to use it as worthless space to clutter with theories, authorative agression, and abuse of community privileges sounds more like displeasure towards ImperiexSeed for how he has adminstrated the wiki rather than trouble caused by Anons. 22.214.171.124 05:39, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
I have nothing against Imperiex, but I feel he has the potential to be an enormous threat. You anons have the choice to join and what exactly is stopping you. Because you like the feeling of being anonymous and don't want to be known but still contribute right? "Wheras I rarely see such devious Wiki contributers you speak of"? Of course you don't see them, but I do on the Wiki I primarily help on. All the same, besides you would have more free reign if you were registered anyway so what exactly is the problem with it? You feel you are being too judgemental to unregistered users (including youself)? No anon, I don't think I being judmental enough. Personal opinions are scattered across anons and registered users, and through unkown contributions it only makes them more complicated to regulate. I am not restricting your freedom, you can still edit as much as you could registered as you were unregistered, probably even more so. It's funny how you want to contribute but don't even put yourself as part of the community. It's one of the reasons why anons are so troublesome.Consus, the Erudite God (talk) 17:12, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
But these devious Wiki Contributers you see on the wiki you primary help on are irreleant to the Supernatural Wiki, so again, you can not you use that as a basis to restrict access from the Anons on this wiki.. 126.96.36.199 17:47, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
Like I said before (probably somewhere else) they are everywhere and I never said I didn't see them on this wiki as well as the one I work on, so don't even try to use that against me, Anon. In fact, I see on right now. Consus, the Erudite God (talk) 17:51, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
BIokinesis vs molecular manipulation
My stance, Molecular Manipulation > Biokinesis > Telekinesis. As while, both Molecular Manipulation and Biokinesis is a separate power from Telekinesis. It's at it's base form just a advanced form of Telekinesis, but depending on the user it can separate into a completely separate power from Telekinesis. Similar to how Pryokinesis is just the control of fire while, Telekinesis is movement of object and persons in general.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 02:02, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Don't you think that blood can be boiled through Thermokinesis?188.8.131.52 19:44, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Most definitely, I'd say. But only by holders like Death/the Pale Horseman/Hades, Michael and Lucifer (and, God, obviously). -- ImperiexSeed, 3:03 PM, February 14th 2013
- I never actually got the impression Lucifer killed by boiling blood. I just assumed he used Telekinesis to make Cas blow up by literally tearing him apart, like he did with the Pagan gods, only stronger.
- Though there are other ways it could have happened:
- Thermokinesis - Rapidly increase the temperature of the air in Jimmy's lungs. Would cause almost instantaneous expansion of said air.
- Thermokinesis - Boil Jimmy's blood. The release of gases would cause him to rupture.
- Molecular Manipulation - Change the polar charge of every molecule in Jimmy's body so they all repelled each other, causing him to explode.
- What I don't understand is how any of that would actually kill Castiel. Sure, all of it would destroy his vessel, but they're all physical deaths affecting a physical vessel. I don't get how it killed a spiritual being. KevinTheDestoryer (talk) 22:41, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Lucifer, too, is a Spiritual being. And Angel's powers affect each other, obviously. Now, while Angel forms and physiques don't have veins or tendons - they're bodies, nonetheless. Lucifer attacked Castiel's body, and killed it, in the form of Biokinesis. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:46 PM, February 14th 2013
- No, it's far beyond just biokinesis. Castiel said he was literally 'gone' or dead when he exploded--something else just brought him back. So, there is something else more powerful accompanying the biokinesis (which kills the vessel). The term Raphael and Dean used in 'Free to Be You and Me' was 'smite'. So, what Lucifer did to Castiel, and what Raphael did to Castiel, and what Godstiel/Soulstiel did to Raphael was biokinesis+smiting power. FTWinchester (talk) 22:49, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in Supernatural, the term "smite", is associated with Killing Touch. Or, so it seems. The word smite means to annihilate or destroy. Or, I guess, "end",(of something) could the appropriate term for "smite." -- ImperiexSeed, 5:54 PM, February 14th 2013
- And end did the lives of the target beings. I'm just saying the canon described the act as 'smiting', so we should label it as such, and rename the current 'Smite' as the killing touch. Or it is possible that both are the same, in the sense that they deliver a kill, just with differing magnitudes of power and range. FTWinchester (talk) 23:05, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- In THAT sense, yes - they're the same. But Killing Touch ("smiting") is not the same as imploding something. The result is, essentially, the same - death. But to say that Killing Touch and to blow something up are the same, in representing "smiting", is wrong. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:11 PM, February 14th 2013
- That is paramount to saying that the episode script and the writers are wrong.
- Chuck said in 'Sympathy for the Devil', "The archangel smote the crap out of him.'
- Raphael in 'Free to Be You and Me' said, "It is a testament to my unending mercy that I do not smite you here and now." To which Dean replies, "Or maybe you're full of crap. Maybe God will bring Cas back to life again and smite you and your candy-ass skirt."
- You forget two things. One, Castiel was all but human, he was basically human, until God restored him with new powers. Second, when an Angel or Demon possess someone. If certain conditions are met when the body is destroyed, it also kills the angel or demon. Also, 'smiting' is not a power per say, but around the lines as Rapheal and Uirel said smiting as this is what it means in my own words As a divine, holy, etc beings killing or passing judgement on lesser things."
- As far as killing touch. They are two kinds, ones that have an effect that can kill, and ones that possess the power of Death. Like with Reapers and Death. I mean, that Special Child in season 2, her power made people's hearts stop. But, that's not the same as a reaper which his'her touch is basically Death itself. As with those people, in Death takes a Holiday in season 4. Minus conditions like crossroad deals, and hellhounds, and maybe deals with angels. If a reaper is binded in an area, all death stop.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 00:30, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Castiel wasn't exactly human the first time he exploded like a balloon--and that's the scenario the dialogues I posted pointed out. FTWinchester (talk) 01:42, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't the reason Lucifer could talk to Azazel because Azazel performed some sort of ritual by sacrificing nuns and isn't Lucifer's hallucination due to the Sam's cage match scars? If so, how is that projection?
I could be mistaken, but I don't recall such a ritual was required to speak with Lucifer through his "cage door." If I'm correct, he killed the nuns for kicks. It wasn't revealed it was anything more than hallucinations, but in the companion guide for season seven, it says he could've been projecting a part of himself from the cage. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:19 PM, February 11th 2014
Azazel says "I'm not exactly the praying type but still I made the sacrifice, I got you a bag full of nuns, so can you hear me? Can you whisper through the door". Which implies sacrificing the nuns was what let Lucifer speak to Azazel rather than just meaningless kill. Which would make sense as Lucifer talks through the mouth of one of the dead nuns. Also, Sam's hallucinations being Lucifer projecting himself from the cage makes so sense, as the wall wouldn't help repress that and it would mean lucifer was projecting himself into castiel's mind as well as Leviathan Sam's.
Better than his own kind??
I am curious, sure, Lucifer had followers, but those that surfaced, led by uriel were likely all weaker than one of Lucifers own creations, a demon, one in example being Alastair, and being that Lucifer would likely use demons for his cause, if Uriel had survived and so did Alastair, wouldn't Lucifer have the more powerful demon in charge of his loyalist angels??
Alastair, who in all fairness seems weaker than by a wide margin than Cain or lilith, seems perfectly capeable of holding rank over lesser angels, and from what we saw, uriel, a standard angel, was in charge of the angel loyalists. It seems amazing to me that Lucifer can corrupt a human soul into a being more powerful than the second tier of his own race, the lowest being cherubs, but certain demons without doubt are far stronger than angels, given the fact that Sam killed Alstair, then did little more then make Liliths hair move kinda shows the power gap, where as Cain seems to have deity like powers and is much higher to a regular demon than a seraph is to an angel.
So I have to wonder, if Lucifer can produce beings stronger than angels, whats to say that he diddn't make one or two to be stronger than Seraphs? I mean he is capeable right?? and with Cains recent showings, I'm strongly in the impression that cain is one such demon, I think Lucifer initially wanted him as his destroyer class ultimate weapon, but during the apocalypse he was able to hide, if an angel can help the boys prevent archangels finding them then im sure the supirior, ancient, god like demon cain could aswel, I mean even seraph castiel couldn't click his fingers to teleport the king of hell or the winchesters from place to place, or silence anyone, i think the reason, they decided to shown off what cain can do was to clearly point out, that he is not a normal demon, he was made with a special purpose, to kill angels, with an angel blade or possibly his smiting, or at least casually overpower seraphs, when Lucifer made Lilith, it was his first attempt, like gods first was the leviathan, but Cain was Lucifers archangel Michael, his refined work, thats what I think anyway, thing is, the Archangel can make Angel thwarting demons so why not seraph thwarting demons???
Cain is indeed a worthy candidate, but like I've always said, speculation until proven in canon. Although I really don't consider Season 6 onwards to be canon anymore, but more like sometimes really good and sometimes absolute garbage fanfiction as its lore is vastly different from the established lore in the Kripke era. And I think you've already produced a better example on this matter in the past, which is the cambion. FTWinchester (talk) 17:44, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, first off, Uriel possesses the strength far beyond that of regular angels. He probably could've smote Alastair, or at least disfigure his vessel to where it'd be unidentifiable. I can't say I agree with gap perimeter. But, anyway. Sure, Lucifer could corrupt a human into a demon strong enough devastate seraphs. Lucifer stood as the demons' god while Lilith was their messiah-Cain is not a "demon god" in the sense that I'm talking about, although he could wreak any demon besides Lilith. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:50 PM, March 11th 2014
And why is lilith stronger in your mind? because she is older? leviathans are older than archangels but not stronger apparently, no reason why lucifer cant make a demon stronger than his first, if he wanted during apocalypse, i bet he could have created a new demon above liliths power, and why would you believe Uriel to be that powerful? sure he was a specialist but he was a regular angel just specialist at specific jobs, like destroying a town, from a spell or something that he perticularly excells at, that angel called Hael claimed that when she reached the grand canyon she would show him what she is capeable of, alluding to th possibility to causing some sort of disaster.
I'm sure Alastair would be fully aware if Uriel could pose a threat, he seemed perfectly confident he was stronger than both of them, and for good reason, sure uriel claimed he could turn sam to dust, but he was very arrogant, but sure a human, but in a similar way to how alastair was out right immune to smiting of an angel, he could also be immune to whatever vessal destroying powers uriel had, as uriel could smite lower demons, but it was no breeze, not like seraph castiel no problem smiting, uriel took time and concentration, i think alastair did his homework beforehand and knew what he could deal with, uriel, unable to successfully torture alastair did not seem to eager to try taking on alastair face to face, as sure, uriel beat cas, but not to the extremes and resiliance that alastair did, and with alastair being affected by the knife and cain not, i would say alastair was the weakest white eyed demon, but im sure, had the first battle continued, alastair would have dealt with both angels.
Lilith was described by Kripke to be like the "highest of the high"; meaning no demon idea could ever pass her without the writers contradicting themselves. And the neat thing about Alastair is his exceedingly high pain threshold, on a level probably close to angel. Like Gadreel said they could, even including Castiel, torture him for centuries and they'd still fail. No, no, no, no, no. And, no.... You're right, Uriel did take time and concentrated to smite Alastair's lackeys. I'll give you that. I think the "turn you to dust" thing should be taken at face value and something he surely could've done if he wanted to; he could've used a number of ways to do this, white light being one of them. And it's pretty amazing the fact that Uriel can nuke 'areas,' depending on what that means. However, take note that Uriel killed seven angels and quickly overpowered Castiel (and I wouldn't say, necessarily, that his promotion increased his angelic power). Hell, maybe Castiel was afraid if he disobeyed again with Uriel that he'd be demoted to Cherub rank. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:09 PM, March 11th 2014
Excuse me while I steer clear of the messy ranking debates yet again, I'm just here to offer a potential explanation as to why demons could be created to be stronger than regular angels. Souls themselves are extremely powerful sources of energy. Perhaps Lucifer knew how to imbibe those corrupted souls with a bit of his own power, hence allowing the combined power of the souls and Lucifer's whatever (torment/power/gift) to create certain demons that could overcome the power level of the lower angels. FTWinchester (talk) 05:11, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
Well for one, the white light power it's self in all fairness, seems very linked to the smiting power, so if Alastair is immune to smiting, there is room to say he could be immune to the white light too, and noticing how Malachi killed two angels easily with a surprise and highly accurate attack aswell as regular castiel overpowering Bartholemew, the fact that uriel overpowered castiel, may simply be because he was more skilled than Castiel at that time (he since became very active in terms of combat) and may have been more skilled than, or simply stealthily, or surprise attacked the others, he was certainly below anna at one point and by extension below zachariah, so i highly dount that uriel could do anything to far beyond a regular angel, and i highly believe he would have used some sort of spell and was well versed in the craft, as the only entity that has demonstrated the ability to destroy an area unaided is Death (Michael and Lucifer seems to be an effect from the battle)and no angel has ever shown the power to turn humans to dust, the Rit zhian even did not do such a thing, if it was that easy why would angels bother smiting, like when Gadreel smited kevin? surely it would be a faster death to turn him to dust.
Also, Lith being the highest does not neccasarily dicate that authority is equal to rank, and Kripke statement is now very old and was stated long before the likes of Cain being introduced, lilith may have been the most powerful in terms of raw power but not in resilliance as she seemed awefully terrified of a blade, maybe she diddnt wish to take chances, but was cain willing to? I think if a younger demon would knew that a knife could not kill him, then lilith would know full well of it, alastair by this logic likely being younger than cain.
And also, with Lucifer being comparable to a seraph as a deity is to a human, im assuming that if he wanted to, lucifer could easily and with good reason, create demons to not only overpower seraphs, but wipe out entire garrisons, as it does seem as if lucifer imbued an amount of his power into certain demons, perticularly the white eyed ones, explaining the white eyes and white light/smiting powers, and even a pinprick of any archangels essence is likely enough to wipe out every single seraph, so yes, im firm on the idea that Cain is white eyed and can kill seraphs.
But the amazing thing about cain is he would likely not do so unless it was required, his unique personality seems great and he seems like a demon who has been injected with tons of human blood, him being calm, more belevolent than most angels and extremely powerful and terrifying.
Would it be excusable if the current writers changed the names of Dean and Sam to Wilbur and Bo? If not, then it's not excusable to contradict Eric's quote, or he shouldn't have made such a specific statement and left it open for refiled determination down the road. What was Uriel more skilled at than Castiel at that time? To begin, that's really iffy whereas it was brightly indicated that he possesses a physical exertion level beyond regular angels. Certainly, he could've chanted a spell to wipe out an 'area' but he could've also likely just leveled it without the use of anything but his own power. I never mentioned him wiping out a whole state, like Death, I used his direct quote, where he used the term 'area.' Your gap placements are really foggy and unfounded, and I can't say I agree with them. Well, then why would you believe the statement that Castiel made about Jesse wiping out the Host of Heaven with a word but not Uriel's? And his terminology of 'area' could be just as drifting as 'specialist.' He could've been a angel who was weird in his strength and other capabilities-maybe it was something that, of his fellow regular angels, only he could do. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:40 PM, March 12th 2014
Lets be honest, if both Alastair and Uriel had survived it's much more likely Alastair and Uriel would have no connection at all. As much as Uriel loved Lucifer, he makes it quite clear he despises demons (much like Lucifer himself), so it'd be most likely that Uriel would gather the Lucifer loyalists and Alastair would command a faction of the demons and once Lucifer's plan was complete, Uriel and the Lucifer loyalists would have laughtered the demons together. Furthermore, Lucifer didn't create demons from scratch. He twisted and warped them into demons. And if he did create Cain as a special brand of demon that could wipe out seraphs, why not make all demons that strong? Hell, why make them to be weapons at all if he can destroy all angels (except Michael). Lucifer made demons as a screw you to God and as servants, not warriors like angels. And even then Lucifer must have some limitation on his powers, otherwise what would be the point in half his other creations? Why have the Anti Christ created when you can obliterate the host of heaven just as easy? Why spread the croatoan virus when you can just raise your hand and roast the planet? Also with regards to Lilith's power, the oldest beings are typically the strongest in Supernatural canon. I can't actually think of an exception. Plus logically Lilith would be scared of the knife as if she died then the whole plan would be ruined. And while Cain was on earth for thousands of years, Lilith was trapped in Hell for god knows how long so it's possible Cain had encountered such as weapon before where as she hadn't, especially given Cain's reputation. Also, while it's possible demons such as Cain, and maybe even Lilith and Alastair, can fight seraphs, it seems unlikely any demon could actually win. Alastair states he has no idea how to kill him and given that it would be a question of God's creations against Lucifers mockerys, I'd bet on seraphs.
Lucifer's Origin Lore
The idea of Lucifer being asked to bow down in front of God and the whole dialogue between him and God has been adopted from the Qur'an of Islamic lore. Could we add that somewhere perhaps in the trivia maybe? I don't know. Seems appropriate. Hold on, I'll show you guys what I'm talking about.
You know why God cast me down? Because I loved him. More than anything. And then God created...
You. The little, hairless apes. And then he asked all of us to bow down before you. To love you, more than Him! And I said, Father, I can't. I said, these human beings, were flawed, murderous. And for that, God had Michael cast me into Hell!
Now tell me, does the punishment fit the crime? Especially when I was right. Look what six billion of you have done to this thing. And how many of you blame me for it.
[Lucifer to Dean, Supernatural 5x4]
The dialogue seems extremely similar to that between the angels and God in the Qur'an,
And remember when your Lord said to the angels:
"Verily, I am going to establish mankind as My vicegerent on Earth."
"Will You place therein those who will wreak havoc therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and love You and sanctify You?"
"I know that which you do not know."
And He taught Adam all the names of all things , then He showed them to the angels and said:
"Tell Me the names of these if you are truthful."
The angels said:
"Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except what you have taught us. Verily, it is You, the Omniscient."
"O Adam! Inform them of their names,"
And when he had informed them of their names, He said:
"Did I not tell you that I know whatever is within the Heavens and the Earth and I know what you reveal and what you conceal?"
And remember when We said to the angels:
"Prostrate yourselves before Adam."
They all prostrated, except Iblis, he refused, prideful, becoming of the disbelievers – the Accursed Satan.
Archangels and Powers.
The only thing an Archangel loses from not being connected to heaven, is the ability to return to Heaven. Eric Kripke confirmed this as to why the apocalypse was needed. As Lucifer couldn't just return to Heaven after he was freed of the cage. But he also said it might because of Michael running heaven, thus the ruler of Heaven making the rules on Heaven. As to why in later seasons a fall angel Castiel could still go to Heaven[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:26, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
Lucifer is a poorly portrayed devil
Lucifer has father issues, aside from that he is a poorly portrayed devil because he is such a whiny boy. This is supposed to be the incarnation of evil ? - Laughable. He was supposed to be the devil but ended up as nothing more than a very powerful child with father issues. Annoying enough, they brought him back in season 11, let's hope the Darkness kills him soon. 184.108.40.206 04:52, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
Lucifer is the best! He's my favorite character and a lot of other people's too. He is the same as religion shows him - more Muslim I think though?
- I neither know nor do I care how islam portrayed him. I only hope the primordial Darkness - Amara, punishes that little boy. 220.127.116.11 05:06, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
You said that he he didn't portray the Devil well, then I showed that he is similar to the Satan in other religions. Plus I thought he was super scary! It makes me sad you think he was laughable.
- The devil is supposed to be the very incarnation of evil. But Lucifer actually still cares about his brothers and his father. That's not pure evil - not the devil. He almost cried as he killed Gabriel, - if he would be pure evil, he would laugh about it. Season 5 can never be undone, it was always be recognized as the worst part of Supernatural. 18.104.22.168 05:14, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
To you it will always be recognized as the worst part, but to almost every other fan it was the best season!!!!!!
It is just like it was shown in the episode. Castiel calls Michael an assbutt and hurls the holy oil molotov cocktail. RaghavD'"Look into my eyes. It’s where my demons hide" 18:14, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
No no, when Dean and Castiel were running towards Lucifer, Dean shouted "Hey, Assbutt", so technically Dean called Lucifer that, but here it states it was Castiel. Kajune (talk) 19:12, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
Okay I’ve seen a lot of hate about Lucifer acting all sarcastic and evil like Hallucifer, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Lucifer is now mentally unstable. Imagine being trapped ALONE for thousands upon thousands of years, with only one thing keeping you going; Knowing that there is a person who is guaranteed to understand and mirror you, and this person will one day set you free from your awful prison. Now imagine this person not doing that, and instead shoving you back into that prison. You have no hope of getting out this time, and now this person who trapped you in here AGAIN is with you, along with someone who wants to fight and kill you...
Lucifer had gone insane because what he considered his chance had been taken, and his “fate” had been completely changed. So yes, Lucifer is different. Lucifer has lost EVERYTHING and now he is on a lonely path with no mental stability or direction. The old Lucifer had a “fate” given to him and believed Sam would inevitably learn to understand him. When Sam threw him into the cage, the only thing keeping him grounded was murdered. So Lucifer developed. He was not changed to fit the plot's need or to be more evil, but a natural progression from point A to B. The Hallucination we saw in season 7 and the Lucifer we are seeing now is the Lucifer that Sam encountered in the Cage, after his destiny and hope was taken from him. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 23:06, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
Amara called him the First Son and God's Favorite
Does she mean as a metaphor for Archangels being the First Son or Species created by God as well as his title as God's most trusted lieutenant? Obviously Mike is the oldest Archangel.
It's obviously a retcon. She was there when the archangels were created, and the lore (Michael is the oldest) is well known throughout the majority of the world, so the writers couldn't have made a mistake.
Lucifer isn't the first born angel. Michael said that he raised Michael like Lucifer raised Gabriel. Also look at the relation between Sam and Dean and Michael and Lucifer. Michael is definetly the oldest. SeraphLucifer (talk) 08:05, April 7, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
Yeah, and Reapers weren't angels. Now they are. It's a retcon. You're removing it because you don't like the change they made, but that's not a justification for it. It's canon now. That's all there is to it.
Blaziken, Amara might not say that literally. Firstly Kripke confirmed that Michael is the oldest, second they stated Michael was older in the show. Look at episode The Song Remain the Same. Michael older brother, Dean older brother. Lucifer younger brother, Sam younger brother both rebelious to Dad's plan. SeraphLucifer (talk) 09:22, April 7, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
Kripke also probably stated Reapers were not angels, but that's not true anymore, is it? I can list a plethora of reasons why Reapers being angels is absurd, but that doesn't matter. They were retconned, just like Lucifer. A wiki is supposed to be about canon; not about the fanbase's problems with it.
Look, I totally agree with you but, we got certain proves that Michael is the older one.
Michael: You know, my brother, I practically raised him. I took care of him in a way most people could never understand, and I still love him.
Gabriel: Think about it. Michael, the big brother, loyal to an absent father, and Lucifer, the little brother, rebellious of Daddy's plan.
Yes, the retcon created a series of plotholes, just like the one with the Reapers did. The fact is, Lucifer is God's first son. This was established on the show, without any ambiguity. No writers' statements, nothing. It was stated, flat-out, by someone whose knowledge is not to be questioned, as she was there.
First Son also does not mean the first born Archangel since angels do not have genders. Amara cannot know their family better than Gabriel or Michael or other angels. SeraphLucifer (talk) 09:42, April 7, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
She was there. She's their aunt. She knows their family relations as well as they do. You're making excuses because you don't want to accept the retcon. Lucifer is always described as male, as are the other Archangels. Even if they lack genders, "son" is still a general term for "child". "First son/daughter" sounds a lot better than "First child". Again, those statements are now irrelevant, for the same reason the facts establishing Reapers as not being Angels are irrelevant.
Look, I want Lucifer to be the first born Archangel since I watch the show. I got deep searching, works about Satanism and Lucifer/Samael/Azazel/Satan/Devil in most religions and I criticize SPN at that point. But he is not the oldest one in the show. Those statements are way worthier than Amara's uncertain word. SeraphLucifer (talk) 09:58, April 7, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
OK, let's start from the basics. What is a retcon? A retcon is the change of established canon. Meaning, if the writers had said that Angels had purple wings, for example, then said their wings were green, their latest statement would undo the previous one. Within the series, it's as if they had always had green wings. This is a retcon. Those statements are irrelevant, because the newest one contradicts them.
I also think Amara was saying that referring to the Arcangels in general. In all series, Michael was always described as being the oldest Angel. Furthermore, with two Arcangels dead and one in the Cage, Lucifer is in a way God's oldest and closest Angel of them all.Rakoon1 (talk) 10:53, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
That's stretching it. Amara doesn't know if Gabriel or Raphael are dead. Heck, I don't think she even knew she was going to meet Lucifer when she burst into that church. Whatever she meant by "first son", the best thing is to wait and see (as difficult as that may sound) what the facts are. Maybe a retcon, maybe not. Don't know. Kajune (talk) 10:58, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
One line from Amara does not erase the multiple times it is brought up in season 5. Please leave it as Lucifer is the younger brother. I wish we could get some comfirmation somehow, on twitter maybe. For now it is simply another retcon.
If only we had some sort of confirmation of this retcon... like a statement from a character in the series who's an authority on the subject, seeing as how she was there when it happened. Unfortunately, all we have is God's older sister.
I think you need a re-watch of season 5, friend. I think... you know Lucifer, Michael and Gabriel, would know best. Lucifer outright says Michael is his older brother. Michael calls Lucifer little brother. Also remember how Gabriel compares Dean to Michael (the other brother) and Sam to Lucifer (the little brother).
Seriously, you all need to look up "retcon". It's a change in the established continuity. That's all this is.
"First son" need not mean "first born/made son". First ministers are not necessarily the eldest. It might simply be a (redundant) reference to his status as favourite and "most trusted lieutenant".
You're seriously comparing a position in government to this? If Amara wanted to call Lucifer God's favorite son, she would have. Proof: she did. There were two different statements. One, Lucifer is God's favorite. Two, Lucifer is God's first son.
I believe Amara's statement isn't meant literal. It's been established throughout the show ever since the introduction of the Archangels that Michael is the oldest. Plain and simple. If they decided to retcon that, it would be ridiculous.
Anyway, at the end of the episode Amara states that Lucifer is the only thing that God might still care about. I believe calling him "God's first son", has a symbolic meaning. Perhaps Lucifer was the first Angel that God saw as more than just a creation. He saw Lucifer as a son. Therefore, from a certain point of view, he could be considered Lucifer's first son.
Retcon. A change in the established continuity.
If Amara had wanted to say Lucifer was God's favorite, she would have. Proof: she did. Two statements, different meanings. 1: Lucifer is God's favorite. 2: Lucifer is God's first son.
I know what a retcon is, but it's not as clear cut as that.
1) Lucifer is Gods' favorite.
2) Lucifer is God's first son.
That doesn't change the fact that both could mean the same thing. Lucifer is God's favorite because he's the first thing he actually cared for. E.g. Like a son.
Everyone claims to know what a retcon is, but then they argue that a retcon isn't possible because it'd mean a change in established continuity. In short, they argue that a retcon isn't possible because it'd be a retcon.
Why would Amara repeat herself? And why would she use figurative language, when she has always been literal?
She has also been extremely vague at times, and refuses to say anything about what her plans are besides "Bliss", yet she plans to "delete the universe".
Doesn't sound very blissful to me.
Wait until we get an actual explanation that isn't one person saying something with no one else getting a word in on it.
If one of the Winchesters said "Angels are Gnomes" would we immediately change everything because of that one statement if no one else comments on it one way or the other? Kaestal (talk) 13:03, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
Her vague referrals to her plans are not relevant. It doesn't make her a liar. She already said the people whose souls she consumed live on inside her. And she's going to absorb all of them before "deleting the universe". She has no intention of erasing everything without first taking all the sentient beings.
Also, are you seriously comparing the Winchesters to God's sister, who was there when the Archangels were created?
I am merely stating that you aren't waiting for someone else to comment on this thing before claiming Amara is correct, as of know we have only her word versus Michael, Lucifer, Gabriel, and who knows how many others that Lucifer is younger.
I'm not arguing that a retcon isn't possible, simply that there are other explanations. Explanations that don't piss on a substantial amount of already established lore.
So your reasoning is that a retcon would "piss on a substantial amount of already established lore", so it probably isn't a retcon?
Don't even try Toe Knee, he/she is a brick wall that refuses to just wait for someone else to comment on it one way or the other.
Yet again you presume to know what I think. I guess I should be glad, this time, you didn't change my words.
I asked a question to get a better understanding of Toe Knee 17's point. That's all.
Michael being the older brother of Lucifer has been as much of an established fact as Dean being older than Sam. That's the reason for, e.g. Dean being Michael's true vessel, Sam being Lucifer's true vessel, Michael being stated as more powerful than Lucifer and inevitably winning their apocalyptic prize fight. Etc.
To retcon something so big is... at least in my mind, absolutely horrendous. It would not make any sense.
I told the same Toe Knee, even Gabriel and Lucifer stated that Lucifer is the younger one.
it may not be a retcon its been stated that God loved Lucifer the most originally Gabriel said to him "dad always loved you best, more than Michael, more than me." Amara called Lucifer "God's first son" this could be more of a God chose him first type of thing it maybe be more of a figuritive than a literal "first"Bl4ck0ut1320 (talk) 04:03, April 9, 2016 (UTC)Bl4ck0ut1320
Amara has never used figurative language. Why would she use figurative language now? And why use it when she made a literal statement immediately before? It makes no sense.
@Toe Knee 17: So your argument is that it's probably not a retcon because it's too big of a retcon. And that's a good argument... why, exactly? It's the exact same argument SeraphLucifer and others have been making, the only difference being that you say it's "too big" of a retcon, whereas they just say "it's a retcon" to justify why it can't be a retcon. I don't know how many more times I can repeat myself, but: Reapers are now Angels.
That's perfectly logical reasoning, for the simple fact that a retcon this big makes the writers look like a bunch of f*cking idiots. If this is a retcon, they need to think of a good reason why they're suddenly changing something so big. If it's not a retcon, then it doesn't matter because Amara's words still make sense, at least for the open minded individuals among us...
This is nothing like the Reaper/Angel retcon. Not even in the same ball park. Firstly, Reapers were never stated to not be Angels. Secondly, even after Tessa was called an Angel, once, every Reaper since then has been called a Reaper. There is a clear distinction between Angels and Reapers, despite the latter apparently being a very specific type of the former. Hell, Reapers are so distinct apparently that they weren't effected by Metatron's spell, given that we saw Billie teleport two episodes back, where every other type of Angel seen have lost their wings.
Yes, this retcon makes the writers look like idiots, just like the one with the Reapers. This situation is exactly like the Reaper/Angel retcon. Reapers were shown to be immune to Angel warding. That, in itself, is proof they're not Angels. An Angel had to bargain with a Reaper because Castiel had hidden himself with those Enochian sigils that can hide someone from Angels. Reapers were seen making deals with demons, and Tessa was even possessed by a demon. The on-screen confirmation came from a minor comment a character who should know better made (Dean in the case of the Reapers, Amara in the case of Lucifer), and was later confirmed by one of the people working with Supernatural (this one has yet to happen with the new retcon; as far as I know, nobody's asked about it yet).
I agree, Amara's words make sense to those of us who are open minded and realize that a literal character would never make a figurative statement in the next sentence after she'd (supposedly) made the same statement, but in a more literal way.
Well I guess that's the advantage of working for Death.
Amara hasn't always been literal. Other users have already given exmples above.
Amara said he was the first son of God. There's no consensus required for that. It's like asking for consensus on whether or not Hands of God were touched by God. It was established on the show (in this case, as a retcon). There is literally no reason (except refusal to accept a retcon) for this page to say otherwise.
Or, or, or - you could wait and actually see instead of jumping the gun like a reliable source of information would do. This is big information that you're changing on your site that's known to be the first stop for SPN information. Try actually waiting and seeing instead of jumping the gun and giving people the wrong ideas. No one accepts the retcon because it's information we need proven first.
I guess Blaziken skipped that day. We have the word of Amara, y'know, the main villain and I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't take her word as truth just because of one sentence that has no one else commenting on it one way or the other. We need someone to lock the page because of Blaze Kaestal (talk) 08:55, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
Take two seconds to think about what you're saying. Amara was lying... to Lucifer? The one guy who'd actually know if he was or wasn't God's first son? There was nobody else around except him. The reliable source is God's own sister, who was there at the beginning and would know better than anyone short of God himself.
Ugh... until we have more than one person comment on that claim don't start an edit war, if we get someone else to confirm it then sure go for it.
You still haven't answered the question. I'll repeat it: Why would Amara lie to Lucifer about Lucifer when he would know the truth about himself? Explain how that's not the most nonsensical excuse to avoid admitting the fact that his age was retconned.
Okay here we go.
A species retcon is easier to explain away than a character one, if we have so many people referring to Michael as older and Lucfier as younger just because one person says otherwise doesn't make it true.
Until another source agrees with what Amara said list it as a possibility, not an absolute fact.
Agreed, we need to wait for confirmation.
The words of one character does not erase the words of many.
I agree in that the pages should be locked until the end of the season. We can open this back up for discussion once we've seen the entire season. Until then be prepared for an edit war because clearly no one is coming to a consensus. Bkshadows (talk)
OMG Lucifer İsnt the First archsngel STOP NOW ITS NOT RETCON!!
Whisper101: Someone just ask the writers on Twitter or something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And PS Michael is older "I was a brother, like you a younger brother. And I had an older brother who I loved" -Lucifer in Abandon All Hope
If the general consensus is to lock the page, should an admin be informed?
I'm not a regular member of this wiki so I don't know who the admins are.
Scrap my above. Didn't realize it had already been locked when I posted.
Regardless, I just want to express my disappointment that the page has been locked with it stating that Lucifer was the first Archangel ever created. Seriously? A statement from one character is now being stated as fact, when that statement contradicts the words of multiple other characters who's words hold just as much weight.
Ehh, dont worry Toe Knee I'm right there with you and this subject isnt closed for debate as of yet, frankly I plan on asking FTWinchester and Caleb their opinions as those are two more of the admins on here. Unfortunately a few of the users dont really seem concerned with this and the ones that do arent really voicing themselves loudly enough to be heard. This is why we got the result that we did...at least for now. Bkshadows (talk)
lol u must be an idiot if u call lucifer the oldest.
The pages are locked until further notice. As normally I would agree with Amara's claim. There have been several characters that have stated Michael was the first Archangel. To prove which is more accurate will take time and maybe the rest of season 11. As the entire seasons 1-5 were the older vs younger brother theme. And why Dean was Michael's vessel and Sam was Lucifer's.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:58, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
Can the article be unlocked (even if it is temporary) for an edit unrelated to whether or not he or Michael was the first Archangel?
Can we get a bit of consistency? The article alternates between stating that Lucifer is the first Archangel and stating that he's the second (and the article on Michael does the same). If there isn't any consensus on which to use, perhaps just describe them both as "one of the first" or "either the first or the second". Anything is better than "Michael, the first Archangel, the second of four archangels..."
I have to say, this Blaziken guy is acting all douchey. Sure the writers can retcon, but you can't retcon a whole freaking season. The whole season 5 plotline was about the Archangels eldest Michael vs the younger Lucifer. So, while sure you can say that Amara's word is worth something, but a conversation between both Michael and Lucifer and the whole established canonicity of season 5 is worth sqwat?! This is indeed worth debating and while it remains dubious, the page's content should be left as it is. Winterz (talk) 23:08, April 13, 2016 (UTC)
Claiming "first son" is proof of a retcon is honestly a too big of a jump. Looking at the entire statement, and how it was proven in season 5 that Lucifer was God's favorite out of the angels, "first son" obtains a possible second meaning. Unless someone else says it, clearly, then one cannot say it is a retcon. As for Amara never being vague and always direct, maybe you're right, here she could be emphasizing Lucifer's status as the most beloved. One word cannot erase an entire season, like everyone has been saying. Also, the retcon of reapers is easily acceptable because reapers were never well-defined. Who made them? Never said. So, let's wait for confirmation. 'kay~? Kajune (talk) 02:54, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
Unlock the page
Honestly, I think it's time Lucifer's page was unlocked. I mean, it needs to be updated, now that All in the Family has been released. The solution is simply status quo: Michael remains older than Lucifer until further confirmation.
Lucifer can be injured by high voltage ?
Amara tortured him with electricity, while this would certainly not be lethal for him, it evidently caused him pain. This would mean Lucifer can be hurt by physical attacks. I rather suspect it wasn't just electricity. Lambda1 (talk) 11:20, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
It was electricity created by a being who surpasses God and had suppressed his powers.
There's no way that was simple electricity. It must've been of supernatural nature, or simply the way Amara's torture was manifesting on Lucifer, as angels cannot be hurt by physical attacks, let alone Archangels. I mean, Archangels can generate pure electricity themselves (as seen with Raphael). Raphy (talk) 12:15, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
She could have easily been repressing his ability to heal, or his invulnerability. Or her lightning was powerful enough to overcome his invulnerability, similarly to how many monsters are nigh-invulnerable to physical damage, but that ability has its limits. Again, she's even more powerful than God.
- Either way, we can't decide which of the two possibilities is true. Either Lucifer can in fact be harmed by extremely high voltage or Amara warped reality and gave Lucifer vulnerability to electricity. I think the latter is the case since the higher the voltage, the brighter the electricity sparks and it didn't look that bright (Okay, she could have changed this rule as well).Lambda1 (talk) 22:17, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
I know no-one knows for sure if Lucifer is alive, but I do think that many fans, in addition to myself, think that Lucifer should return next season. I know he's the Devil of course, but like Crowley, Lucifer is just to -- how do I say -- entertaining of a villain to kill off. I think he should remain alive and return next season.
That actor that portrayed his original vessel, Nick: Mark Pellegrino
Lucifer is listed on many pages as being allies with the Winchesters, and while that's true in We Happy Few, doesn't anyone think it's best to list Lucifer as a brief or temporary ally? It's unlikely he's going to come back as their friend, if he returns in season 12, and assuming he's dead, I still think it's best not to assume he is now permanent allies with Sam and Dean. Kajune (talk) 08:42, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
One of the quotes attributed to Lucifer is actually by Crowley. The quote is from Season 11, Beyond the Mat. Lucifer does say "You thought you could double cross me?", but not the second part. After Crowley reveals he hid the rod and wields it against Lucifer, he mocks him, saying "You really thought you could double cross me? Me?! You know I invented the double cross, like literally."
I don't see an edit button on the quote section, but I just wanted to bring this up so it can eventually be fixed. 20:53, April 14, 2017 (UTC)
Where is it ever stated that Michael can kill Lucifer? That is just speculation. The only info we have on this is that he planned on killing Lucifer with the Lance (which can become invisible), and that it is powered by runes and magic. How does this suggest he is strong enough to kill him on his own? EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 06:05, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
Michael didn't have the Lance with him in Stull Cemetery, because he fell into the Cage shortly after, and the Lance was still on Earth. This suggests that he could kill Lucifer, but it's up to everyone to decide.Dtol (talk) 09:15, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
Castiel said that only Michael was strong enough to take down Lucifer (besides God) and as you know, their battle would destroy the half of the world. About the Lance, we don't know if Michael possessed or was going to use it in the Stull Cemetery. I was going to tell the same thing as Dtol wrote, (just an assumption), if Michael had it, it should've fell it in the Cage too but there is also the part Castiel molotov-ed him. All we know is Hell had this weapon for a while. But as Cass said only Michael could kill him, not Raphael nor Gabriel. SeraphLucifer (talk) 09:51, May 24, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
As I'm sure you are aware, "take down", and "kill" do not mean the same thing. Michael could have had the invisible lance (which might have fallen after his vessel burned up). Michael could have had an archangels blade. I'm not suggesting that we put either of them on the wiki, because they are indeed speculation, but so is saying that Michael has the power to kill Lucifer.
Also, on the subject of angel blades, are you suggesting that we also remove Hands of God? If everyone agrees on this I will leave it alone but when Castiel stabbed Lucifer with the blade his eyes glowed red in pain (showing agony), and his face showed it hurt him remarkably. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 14:32, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't rely on Lucifer's red eyes to say if he's in pain or not. I think angel blades hurt Lucifer as much as The Colt did, if not less. Dean shot how many angel bullets at him? That was AU!Bobby's gun he used on Lucifer, wasn't it? Angel bullets, made out of angel blades.
As for the lance, little can be said about its history or its prior whereabouts. All we know is the purpose of the lance. If it was designed to kill evil creatures, specifically Lucifer, then there's a heavy chance Michael made the weapon fit enough to do the job. Not only that, the lance was also treated by Crowley as something that could kill Lucifer. It's not speculation to think it can. And Hands of God can hurt Lucifer. He bled from an indrect impact by one. Kajune (talk) 15:00, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
Keeping angel blades as a weakness is understandable. It didn't do anywhere as much damage as the Hand of God, because the Hand of God vapourised a demon, THEN flung Lucifer into a wall and he was bleeding. The angel blade/angel blade bullets may have hurt him a little, but that's up for debate. The Colt knocked Lucifer unconscious with one bullet; I would say it hurts him more than an angel blade can. Michael created the Lance to kill Lucifer slowly (it was designed to kill him PAINFULLY and slowly), due to the angelic poison that the Lance comes with. I would assume Michael knew what he was doing when he made the weapon. Michael wouldn't be able to do exactly the same thing to Lucifer without the Lance (in 12x12, Ramiel said about Michael and Lucifer "there's only one angel Michael wanted to kill, and he wanted that [blank] to die slow". This does suggest that Michael created the Lance specifically for torturing Lucifer, essentially, to death, because that was how he wanted Lucifer to die. Otherwise, he could have gone with an archangel blade or another weapon.
It was prophesized that Michael and Lucifer's fight would destroy half the Earth. I don't see them doing that much damage using only weapons such as archangel blades or even the Lance. I would assume that they would be using their powers, so they could kill each other without weapons? It depends which way you see it.Dtol (talk) 15:59, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
Hand of God weakened Lucifer. Angel Blades did nothing to him. About Michael, it was always said that he and Lucy will kill each other. With or without weapons, never explained.. But as it was stated, Michael was the only one who could defeat and kill Lucifer. We know that they can kill each other. That is why it should be listed. SeraphLucifer (talk) 22:43, May 24, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
Why is it locked?
- Sorry man. Counterproductive edit warring by a few bad apples. Got sick of it and locked the page for now. Run what you want to add by my me and I'll allow it if its not counterproductive.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 08:34, September 6, 2018 (UTC)
Why isn't Michael a "weakness" in Lucifer page? He can kill him and in Michael's page there's Lucifer in the "weaknesses". It's for my edit (later deleted by someone else) that you locked the page?Malthael Archangel of Death (talk) 08:18, September 6, 2018 (UTC)
- You and a different guy (unless that was also you under a different name) were edit warring about your changes with the Admins recently. That's not allowed and I got sick of the counterproductive edit warring. The other guy kept trying to change it so that Luci's attempted smiting of Dean didn't fail when it clearly stopped seconds before Dean stabbed him. It kept getting reverted back and forth and I was just sick of it all and locked the page for now. He did the same thing on the Battle of the Abandoned Church page. As for Michael being a weakness, that's speculative and most likely wrong. That should be fixed on the Michael page too, thank you for pointing that out to me. They aren't weaknesses of each other, its just that as the most powerful archangels, they are strong enough to fight each other and potentially win and kill the other.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 08:33, September 6, 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and, just to point out, I have just this account, Malthael Archangel of Death (talk) 13:48, September 6, 2018 (UTC)
- That's what I thought but you never really know sometimes. I don't really recognize you either way. I remember your recent edits but that's it. I think the other guy who was edit warring on this page might've gotten blocked multiple times for it but still didn't stop.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 15:12, September 6, 2018 (UTC)
Killed by Dean Winchester...?
I wonder if we should include Michael in this category. I am not ignorant the context of Lucifer's death. I know that Michael was solely providing the power while Dean himself was doing the legwork. Even up at the end, I can tell it was Dean who stabbed Lucifer with the archangel blade . But nevertheless, said blade only functions if wielded by another archangel. Therfore, Dean should not be given sole credit for killing the Devil.
- He didn't do enough to warrant it. They gave credit to Cas as well for Dick Roman but he at least held Dick in place for Dean which was apparently enough to warrant that. Michael just gave Dean the power he needed and stayed in the background the rest of the time.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 01:38, September 26, 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with WarGrowlmon18. This would be like giving God credit for every being that every angel has killed, since he gave them their power in the first place.
- Orion (T-B-C) 08:08, September 26, 2018 (UTC)
- "Giving God credit?" Come on that's not the same at all. Dean needed Michael, and Sam for that matter. He couldn't have killed Lucifer without Sam tossing him the archangel blade, the ONLY WAY he could kill him and it wouldn't have worked without Michael "wielding it". If you give Cas credit solely for holding Roman, then you have to acknowledge Michael and Sam here. Saying he "he didn't do enough to warrant" is quite frankly nonsense. Michael had already beaten Lucifer twice in combat before. He killed Gabriel and here he helped to kill the Devil. This was not a solo effort. MARVELCOMICS4EVER (talk) 17:38, September 26, 2018 (UTC)MARVELCOMICS4EVER
- Also WarGrowlmon18, I recently posted on your Talk Page regarding another matter with Lucifer and Michael. Zane T 69 wants to see your reasoning for undoing my edit and locking the page.
Do you want to know why I think Lucifer isn't really dead? Because his vessel wasn't dead after being stabbed, but Gabriel's vessel seemingly was. Possibly both might still be alive. For now, if they tell us that he is dead, that is all we can know for sure. But I doubt it Lygarx (talk) 11:41, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
Quotes by Sam's hallucination of Lucifer in this article
Do they really belong here? That wasn't Lucifer. At best, you could say it's Sam's impression of Lucifer, which is not the same thing. This would be like having the Qareen's quotes on Amara's article.
Form in the Empty
Hand of God:
Could we amend the weaknesses section under Hand of God? Currently it says:
"The Hands of God contain enough power to harm Lucifer. A physical attack from the Rod of Aaron could fling him across the room. When Crowley absorbed the Rod's power and blasted Lucifer, it significantly hurt and weakened him."
But Crowley didn't actually blast Lucifer with the Rod's power. He tried to, but the demon Simmons stepped in the way and took the full impact of the blast and was reduced to dust for it. Lucifer was thrown across the room and hurt merely by being too close to the blast, but he wasn't actually hit by it. If he had been, it's likely he would either have been much more severly injured or killed. After all, the Rod is literally a piece of God's power and it's not hard to believe God can easily kill Lucifer if he wanted.
22.214.171.124 08:59, January 25, 2019 (UTC)
And yet the Hand of God did no damage to Amara, but Amara herself said that God could kill her. The Hands of God contain a small fraction of God's power, and it is speculation to assume that the Rod would have killed Lucifer. Dtol (talk) 11:54, January 25, 2019 (UTC)
Amara said God could kill her after she was weakened by witches, angels and demons in a mass attack. But at normal strength, Amara has proven herself to be far stronger than God. God himself says that He and Lucifer combined could not stop her. And God rendered Lucifer completely powerless with His mere presence, showing even a fraction of his power is equal to Lucifer. Regardless of whether or not the Hand of God can kill Lucifer, the page states Crowley blasted Lucifer with it, which he didn't because Simmons was blasted. It would be accurate to say an indirect blast from the Hand knocked him back and weakened him, but as it stands, the page implies a full blast did - which is speculation.
126.96.36.199 12:03, January 25, 2019 (UTC)
Just because Amara is far stronger than God, doesn't mean he can't do damage to her at all. But I agree that the weaknesses section should be changed to make it more accurate. I believe it was a misunderstanding on my part, and I thought you wanted to move it to the killing section. Sorry about that :) Dtol (talk) 12:13, January 25, 2019 (UTC)
Not at all. I didn't mean to imply we should move it to the killing section. I was just suggesting we amend it and keep it unbias, as it's not confirmed what damage a direct blast would have inflicted. Thank you. :)
188.8.131.52 15:06, January 25, 2019 (UTC)
"Lucifer can control the weather, temperature, electrical fields and the elements themselves to an immense degree, enough to cause natural disasters, either willingly or simply due to his mere presence."
Imo the elemental control description is a blend of Weather Manipulation, Thermokinesis, Electrokinesis/Electromagnetic Interference and Pyrokinesis/Terrakinesis. So the elemental control can be broken down and put into each of the different sections, I guess? Dtol (talk) 16:11, May 11, 2019 (UTC)
Division of Lucifer
- That's probably not a bad idea. At the very least we can do with his history sections like we did with Crowley's history section so that its in a collapsed form and you have to click on Expand to see the contents of every season.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 15:25, May 11, 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel like Lucifer's page is quite long and could either do the subpages thing or the expansion idea, although I'm more for the subpages, given the length of his other subsections. Dtol (talk) 16:11, May 11, 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to do either. That wasn't me that did it on the other pages.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 17:11, May 11, 2019 (UTC)
Lucifer's state after he ate Michael's angels
What do you think about his state after he ate the angels, in Beat the Devil, because I'm not sure if he was weakened or not, so I would like to hear your thoughts about this topic ? --Mgdodl (talk) 15:47, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
Lucifer described Asmodeus as his weakest creation, so I think it is speculative which demons he created and above all I think this is very interesting. I think each of us can be some that Lilith was definitely turned by Lucifer himself and the princes of hell supposedly too. As for other of his ancient demons such as Alastair and Samhain, there is not a single canon that shows or suggests that one of them was a creation of Lucifer, except that the former is the second demon ever made, which could mean that Lucifer created him could/should have. What about knights of hell, they were trained by Cain, but on Lucifer's orders. So count as creations by Cain or more by Lucifer. Cain only made one deal with Lucifer to get the Mark, so he was never really Lucifer's creation, but the Knights of Hell were created by Cain as the Knights of Hell, so they could be counted as his creations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)