Talk:Seraphs

There is no proof to my knowledge of Zachariah being a 'seraph' .

The christian angelology, of the nine choirs of angel, the seraph are the highest ranked above the Ophanim and Cherubim, and are the Angels that are always around god's presence, surrounding his throne.

In the Choir rankings, Archangels are the second-to lowest, above standard Angels.

The way Zachariah is descrubed in his true angelic form is that of a Cherub, who have 4 faces of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle and have 6 conjoined wings.

Although some accounts describe Seraph to be simmilar to cherubim, classically they are beings of pure light with 6 burning wings, 2 of which they fly with, 2 to cover thier feet and 2 to cover thier yes as not even they can look upon god directly.

All this can be sourced online, theres are lengthy wikipedia article on the subject.

Zachariah therefore cannot be credited as a seraph and to my knowledge have not even been mentioned.

Castiel named the Cherub '3rd class' but this assumes all other angels ecxept Archangels to be class 2, with the 4 archangels as class 1, and the Article on seraph has no real credability.

94.0.33.248 15:30, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

Thats not strictly true, Seraphs are at the top of the choir, but Archangels (note the captial thats important) are higher, there name basically means chief angels, and Michael the Archangel is refered to as the "Prince of the Seraphrium," not in the show in the lore.

As for the cherubs, he didn't mean it as in third class of angel, he ment as in third class of cherubs, in supernatural angels are organised like the millitary, its the same as saying second class of infantry, of fifth class naval batalion. As for the descriptions, admitally there similiar, but Cherubs actuall descriptions differ, for instance they have hooved feet like goats.

Finall its already been established that Cherubs are the lowest class of angel (in the show,) so as Zachariah is the highest angel, under the Archangels, he can't be a Cherub. Plus I think someone in the cast, said he was a seraph in a interview. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:12, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

But Zachariah is the only angel of his supposed class as you said, 'highest' under the Archangels as if to say he is singular in his authority, when ideally there should be other 'seraphs' but none were shown, none that we know of took charge after his death, and in season six, Raphael leads against Castiel, and only other members of cass garrison are shown, aswell as unnamed angels, but they seemed to insignifigant and not powerful enough to be of Zacharia's class.

Really, it seems that the Archangels appointed a single angel to organise the garrisons as directed by the archangels.

The way he described his true form may just be a nod towards aspects of classical angelogy as, Castiels true form, is not mentioned as any discription for an angel outside the show.

and if he had six wings in heaven, how come when he died, like all angels he displayed ashes of 2 wings, he may of just been trying to make himself look big.

But anyway, are you sure there was an interview naming Zach as a seraph? can you provide a source?

otherwise the category for seraph seems not very stable in the established continuity of the show and may fool fans, as an interview is an obscure source as it is, and it seems zach is the only seraph known of to date.

94.0.33.248 01:27, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Page Naming

Why has this page been reverted back to "Seraphs"? It needs to be "Seraphim" because that is grammatically correct. SilverRain (talk) 00:47, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

I agree gramatically, but the fact that the word Seraphim has never been mentioned in the show, while Seraph has, might pose a problem. General MGD 109 (talk) 01:23, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a weak excuse. I'm sorry, but the word "Seraphs" hasn't been used either. In fact Zachariah hasn't been mentioned as one. We've only taken that on conjecture based on his description of his appearance. So, we should use Seraphim as the page name because it is grammtically correct and it would not pose any problem.SilverRain (talk) 02:59, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes it has. The first time Castiel appeared in season 8, he specifically mentioned that he is a Seraph.L4D2 Ellis (talk) 03:22, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about Zachariah. I know Castiel did. But I do not remember anyone mentioning Zachariah as being a Seraph. And we've used that term for a while now. So why not be grammtically correct about it? SilverRain (talk) 03:33, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

I only said that because you said, "I'm sorry, but the word "Seraphs" hasn't been used either.". Your mention of Zachriah seemed to be another point.L4D2 Ellis (talk) 03:55, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

"Seraphs" has not been mentioned. "Seraph" has. So we might as well use the grammatically correctly terminology, don't you think?SilverRain (talk) 04:20, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

And here I thought it was a complaint between "Seraph" and "Seraphim". L4D2 Ellis (talk) 04:26, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oh haha. Misunderstanding. "Seraphim" is the plural of Seraph in Hebrew. "Seraphs" is darn near slang. Is the page still going to remain as "Seraphs"? There are numerous places throughout the wiki in which the correct termonolgy is used, so why not the name page for these angels too?SilverRain (talk) 04:46, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Go with the correct terminology. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 21:30, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical inaccuracy, what? Seraph and Seraphim / Cherub and Cherubim =/ mean the same thing. In the English language, both "Seraphs" and "Seraphim" are words, so both would be grammatically correct. As far as what's been mentioned in the show, specifically, Castiel calls his type "Seraph" not Seraphim, while they mean the same thing. Zachariah is a Seraph though, his description of his true form proves it. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:22 PM, November 15th 2012

I mean no disrespect, ImperiexSeed, but you are incorrect in this situation. "The word seraphim, literally "burning ones", transliterates a Hebrew plural noun" - Wikipedia, in case you don't believe me. Referring to Castiel as a seraphim is like me calling you a humans. It's incorrect. Same with Cherub(im). Seraph = singular, seraphim = plural. Yes Seraphs is a word, but so is the "F" word; doesn't mean that's proper. This page, as it refers to class of angels as a whole, must be renamed "Seraphim" SilverRain (talk) 23:27, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

As far we should be concerned, series accuracy superscedes real-world accuracy in order to correctly document Supernatural's canon, so I say "Seraphs" remain as the page title at least until the term "Seraphim" is actually used in the series. 108.247.151.188 23:46, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

That's silly. Using the argument of series accuracy over real world accuracy is contradictary. Zachariah was NEVER called a Seraph in the show; the wiki just assumed he was. Castiel WAS called one. So just because the show never said "Seraphim" in the plural sense, doesn't mean that it's wrong to that here. If anything, calling Zachariah a Seraph is wrong because he was never stated as such. If I am shown an instance where Zachariah is called a Seraph in the show or by the creators, I will gladly give due apologies. However, until then, it is a contradiction to call him a Seraph and not let the page be renamed "Seraphim" on the grounds of series accuracy over real world accuracy. SilverRain (talk) 00:25, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

It's alright, SilverRain. Seraphs is also the plural form of the word, so either is appropriate. And Zachariah is, indeed, a Seraph - his description of his true form equates to that of a Seraph. Normal Angels don't possess multiple faces - they only have one. Only Seraphs and Cherubs have numerous faces, and the Thrones have like trillions of eyes. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:42 PM, November 17th 2012

You took my words out of context, SiliverRain. what I said was series accuracy superscedes real-world accuracy regarding how "Seraphim" have been called in Supernatural. Never did I say that supports Zachariah to being Seraphim/Seraph as I am actually staying out of that debate. 108.247.151.170 21:11, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

About heaven ranking + Castiel and Naomi comparison

Castiel might be one of the most powerful and highest ranking angels alive, though Naomi appears to be above him.

Castiel isn't part of Heaven ranking at the moment at all. And we really don't know anything about heaven ranking order at the moment, expect that Naomi is leader of one faction. Like Metatron said, there are many factions in heaven at the moment, Naomi is just leading one of them. Because of Metatron spoke of many factions working against each others, it most likely mean that that there isn't any more unitary ranking after every Archangels are either death or traph. Who knows how many Seraphs there are still in Heaven without working with each others anymore.

And we don't know if Naomi is more powerful than Castiel. Naomi was and is head of Heaven intelligence service. Archangels clearly had teached her to modify memories of other angels to do what Archangels want to without that angels would remember anything and she know how to take them to under her command with that device she used on Castiel and many others.

SPOILER BELOW WARNING:

In s08e23 trailer, Castiel was ready to fight alone against three angels including Naomi. They all had angel blades in their hands which clearly mean that Naomi cannot control other angels without "working their head first with her device" and Castiel was released from her spell with angel tablet. Naomi having angel blade when meeting Castiel clearly tells that she isn't stronger than Castiel, most likely they are equally strong or Castiel is stronger because Naomi needed his support squad to fight Castiel.

212.149.244.137 14:58, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Abaddon The Next Ruler Of Hell

Let me put it simply. Naomi, she may or may not be a Seraph. The show does not specify on her Angel species, she's simply viewed as an Angelic being; so, therein we, for now, document her under Angel. But, also, she appeared to be stronger than Castiel, seeing as she lifted him off the ground. So, whatever she is, she seems to be an influential force in Heaven who is stronger than Castiel. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:11 PM, May 14th 2013

---

Yes, Naomi may be a Seraph or may not, as may Castiel maybe or may not be. Supernatural series really doesn't tell much about details about Seraph class angels, just some author rumors mostly.

But because she was able to lift Castiel off the ground, doesn't prove that she is stronger. At that specific moment Castiel was under Naomi's spells / his "angel brains" where modified to obey Naomi, so at that point he was unable to fight back, even he would wanted to. We have seen countless times in show that angels can easily throw each others, if they are on same level (lower level angels, seraphs, archangels).

I agree with you that she clearly is influential force in heaven, after all, we know for sure that he had high place in heaven intelligence service and that way she would have a lot of information, could got a lot of followers and she could definitely "modify" many angels to follow her.

If we count Naomi with her followers against Castiel, Naomi of course in that situlation is definitely  in stronger position, but that doesn't make her stronger in personal power level, that was the point.

212.149.244.137 20:49, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Abaddon The Next Ruler Of Hell

Castiel is a Seraph. He stated himself as such while in Purgatory. We have no official confirmation from Zachariah on whether he was a Seraph or not. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 00:56, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Seraphs can also use Holy white light why is this not included in their abilities???

Castiel referred to himself as a Seraphim in "Blood Brother." So, therefore, he is a Seraph. Ever since his resurrection in "Swan Song", apparently. I'm irked that I had to repeat this fact you, a Supernatural fan. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:37 PM, May 15th 2013

We have no proof that White liught is a seraph power, Zachariah never demonstrated, we only know he possessed it because it was implied in a coversation between him and Josua. Castiel has never demonstrated Biokinesis or telepathy either, so they may simply be unique to Zachariah as he is clearly a much stronger Seraph that castiel.  General MGD 109 (talk) 18:58, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Well, really, "firing" could be an implementation of Pyrokinesis or White Light. It was never specified. The dialogue between Zachariah and Joshua could indicate either. Anyway, well, Naomi demonstrated it, so Castiel could have it. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:05 PM, May 15th 2013

You've got a good point, and its possible, however if he did I think he would have taken advantage of it by now. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:15, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dynamically, there's a little problem. Now, how could we, the viewers, differentiate White Light and the channeling of the souls he's absorbed? -- ImperiexSeed, 3:19 PM, May 15th 2013

Fix

Castiel referred to himself as a Seraphim in "Blood Brother." So, therefore, he is a Seraph. Ever since his resurrection in "Swan Song", apparently. I'm irked that I had to repeat this fact you, a Supernatural fan. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:37 PM, May 15th 2013

I really well understand you being irked about that, im sorry. I wrote it before thinking what did I write and didn't recheck later my writing and that was big mistake. What I meant to say that is that Castiel is Seraph, but we don't know if Naomi is Seraph or stronger than Castiel. 

We cannot know if Naomi is stronger than Castiel, for sure Naomi have more support behind her, but that doesn't make her stronger angel than Castiel. Just because you can "lift someone off the ground" in supernatural series, doesn't make someone automatically stronger.

And it seems to that I have to register account to this site since i cant reply to your replies without starting new topic everytime (or maybe my Internet browser malfunction with this site).

212.149.244.137 20:19, May 15, 2013 (UTC) Abaddon The Next Ruler Of Hell

Anna Milton

I find it odd that no one considers Anna a seraph. There is more evidence for that distinction than against it; something doesn't have to be directly stated to be true. Viceroy of Hell (talk) 01:34, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

How would Anna be a Seraph? Anna seemed rather weak in comparison to Zachariah or Castiel now. Plus she was also part of Castiel's garrison, along with Uriel, Inias and Hester. That would also make Alistair and Lilith stronger than Seraphs as Alistair was willing to capture her and survived her angelic explosion after she got her grace back. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 01:13, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

L4D2, I suppose you mean in the last sentence, Alastair, instead of Zachariah, who was willing to capture [Anna] and survived her angelic explosion?  Anyway, Viceroy, I think the reason nobody really counts her as a Seraph is because while Anna stated that she was the garrison's superior, Zachariah was in a lot of aspects, considered in higher regard. Zachariah had direct contact with Michael, receiving orders directly from him; he easily bossed lesser angels around; he could implant false images/messages in Chuck's mind, and, if I remember correctly, was described to be one of the angels 'really high up' the chain of command. FTWinchester (talk) 01:55, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I'm tired from the cooking class I took. Also to add, Zachariah was also stated as Castiel's superior. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 02:06, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Well, that theory was not even touched in Supernatural. She, though, was a Garrison leader. It's a possibility, but really, there's no basis for it. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:41 PM, May 22nd 2013

Reposted from Anna Milton Talk Page:

"Going back, I never really thought of Anna as a separate class of angel--I've always thought she was just an ordinary angel who happened to be a leader of a garrison. However, throughout the seasons, we've never really heard the term 'superior' get thrown around as frequently as the frequent changes of the many garrison leaders. For example, Hester was a garrison leader for a time, and so was Inias, but they were never really referred to as a 'superior'. It has only been applied to Anna and Zachariah, if memory serves.

"I've always brushed that off, but then again, it took Anna to 'angel up' before they could even do a significant amount of damage to incapacitate Alastair (granted he was never really fatally damaged, but his whole host disintegrated--something not even the specialist Uriel could do). Additionally, Uriel from the past had no hesitation when Anna recruited him using her claim of being his 'superior'. I'm not saying she was, but now I'm entertaining the thought or the possibility [that she was a Seraph]." 

Also, NaiflidG pointed out about the degree of retention of powers of Anna as opposed to Castiel when he was just an ordinary angel. Anna retained several powers despite being human for more than 2 decades, as opposed to Castiel who lost all of his powers within a considerably shorter amount of time. It would be in line with the idea that Seraphs do not rely much on Heaven for powers as opposed to regular angels (i.e., when Zachariah was fired he still had his powers, Seraph Castiel was working independently from Heaven and was still powerful).

So our discussion here that Zachariah was a 'superior' and could boss lower angels around technically also applied to Anna. FTWinchester (talk) 13:32, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Several powers? I can only think of two actual powers that Anna had while human. Her "angel radio", a short burst of telekinesis that never showed up again, and making an angel banishing sigil. The third, I don't really count it as a "power". Anna removed her grace entirely when she fell. Different from when Castiel felll as a Seraph. The rules in retaining powers may be different.L4D2 Ellis (talk) 16:35, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

She could also apparantly see demons for what they really were, but thats still only three. Although it is a point about Anna being higher, she was still only a member of the garison, she appantly used to lead the garrison, but that still only holds here as nothing more than a garrison captain. Castiel apparantly took over after she left, and he was still subservial to Zachariah. As such the argument of rank doesn't really hold much water. And as L4D2 Ellis rightful said, the processes were very different, Anna gave up her grace, were as Castiel had it forcibly removed, the rules could be very different. General MGD 109 (talk) 16:59, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Actually I meant when Castiel was considered fallen in season 7 and possibly 8. He still had his grace so of course he retained all of his powers. Anna on the other hand had removed hers. We have no idea whether or not Castiel will have those minor powers. The fact that he wasn't reborn as a baby when his grace was removed shows the difference. L4D2 Ellis (talk) 18:29, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but I think my point stands, as you rightly said Anna was reborn as a human, were as Castiel simply appeared to become his vessel. He might don't forget, last time this happened even when he claimed to be completly human, he could still sense that Lucifer had caused the temperature of detroit to rappidly drop and could tell present dean came from the past. Both suggest atleast something of his power will remain, just nothing impressive. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:25, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Anna's screams in her hypnotic state short circuited all the lights in the room (reminiscent of Castiel's first appearance), she had super strength when she threw Dean into the wall. Which means her powers were latent and could be activated. We weren't talking about Castiel falling just as a Seraph, but also when he was an ordinary angel and was out of contact of heaven, and lost his powers almost immediately.  After all, no other angel who showed his/her true form obliterated an entire human being--all others (even Michael, for that matter), only burned humans' eyes out. That feat was a great display of power. But like I said, I was only entertaning the possibility. FTWinchester (talk) 02:13, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well there still are many differences in the two. Anna's human body could be a human version of her true form. So it is possible that her powers were from there and her grace had the rest of it. Michael didn't fully touch down on Earth either. Raphael blacked out the entire eastern seaboard and probably killed multiple people. That and getting one's grace back might be different from an angel just touching down.67.244.64.204 02:21, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

To say Uriel was incapable of at least disintegrating Alastair's vessel is shameful the user's credibility. I think, given the chance. he could've teared it to dust. Aside from Anna and Zachariah, Uriel easily ranks the strongest Angel. Heck, he could wreak Virgil's vessel, but anyway. As far as Anna being a Seraph, I see no basis for that. At best, that's speculation which is unnecessary. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:17 AM, August 6th 2013

Ophanim?

Ok, in the lore of anhels, there are 9 choirs, the 3 highest of these are cherubim, Ophanim and Seraphim, in supernatural, Cherubs are below normal angels, and Seraphim are higher than normal angels but lower than the Archangels, whom in the choirs are only rank 2, though this may be difference from arc and arch and the archangel in the show may be top tier seraph, as both michael and lucifer have been named 'seraph chiefs of princes'

Not, just an idea but what if the complete ranking is: Cherumim, Angel, Arcangel (head of garrison), Seraphim, Ophanim, Archangel? perhaps the Ophanim, are Angels such as Naomi who are higher up than  Seraphs and work in specialist divisions beyond the standard chain of command and lower than the Archangels?

Naomi certainly seemed of more power and authority and Seraph castiel, who wasn't even aware of her existance, likely due to memory alteration, but she had authority to alter a seraph's mind, and must have held that level of authority well in heaven when the Archangels were active.

Princepurple (talk) 03:50, December 18, 2013 (UTC)

I like that theory, and I be very happy if they finally resolve what Naomi was, as she was clearly stronger than a Seraph, but no where near an Archangels level. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:16, December 18, 2013 (UTC)

high tier demon smiting

It his mentioned that a seraph CAN smite high tier demons, since this is not fact or even implied, i think it should be removed, no seraph has ever successfully performed this on screen or even in mentions, it's just assumption with no credability, just last week, if I put on the demon page that demons can smite, it would be incorrect, but now proven, it is up, this instence however bears no proof and assumption should not be allowed, as it's giving false information.

Princepurple (talk) 00:18, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

The assumption that seraph cas was capeable of smiting crowley means nothing, as crowley has not been shown to be able to overpower regular angels like alastair did, so even as king of hell, being smitable by a seraph does not mean the more powerful demon A-listers would be smitable, i imagine if Azazel, lilith, Alastair or even Samhain were active, Crowley's king of hell position might keep alive for a few seconds longer.

normal crowley to Alastair: Crowley>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Alastair

king of Hell crowley:           Crowley>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Alastair.

that's likely the difference, crowley can be king all he wants, seraphs can't smite higher tier demons until shown otherwise.

Princepurple (talk) 00:27, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Just go ahead and remove it. I've been removing similar things in the past (especially claims on the Knights of Hell page that they could be destroyed by Seraphs, which, as of First Born, proved to be incorrect). Especially now that we don't even know if Castiel is still a seraph since the grace he took was from a regular angel. FTWinchester (talk) 00:52, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Erm, will do, but did the episode state that Seraphs can't kill knights??

2.217.109.106 20:24, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

They can. With the First Blade. FTWinchester (talk) 20:53, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

This wiki should not divulge incorrect information, seraphs have never been mentioned or have demonstrated the ability to smite higher tier demons. They certainly can't smite any knight in the traditional sense of the word, only the first blade can, cain is even more powerful as the first knight, and as such, it's thereby more reason to believe than not that azazel and white eyed demons are immune, as if alastair had never overpowered twice, been totally unphased by normal angel smiting and been shown to be able to excorsise them, i can bet if i even attempted such a claim, some people on this wiki would rebuke it with something like 'no demon could ever overpower an angel, be immune to smiting or excorcise angels' but it was shown visibly and can't be denied.

claiming seraphs with thier own power can smite higher demons is false, and based only of the expectations of others so is only a theory, no countering with 'it's obvious' because a demon that can silence and incapacitate crowley, teleport others instantly and smite other demons sure as hell would be 'obvious'. peoples expectations about things are of no consequence to the writers, if they wanted, they could just make god and death toys of another god, or anything, real world ideals have no place here.

now sure, Michael could smite other angels with a touch, but anna was a basic angel, when castiel was imploded by lucifer and raphael, he was just a normal angel, sure it seems likely archangel can do the same to seraphs, but we have seen so little of thier powers, that claiming things that have not happend in favour of seraphs while rebulking such claims of demons (which a few times now have broken others ideas of thier capeablities with cain and alastair) is not right, i think the stating that they can smite high tier demons should be removed or at least say 'possible but not proven' and even that is unlikely as even with the first blade, they would need the mark.

Princepurple (talk) 03:34, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

this is not on the actual 'seraph' page but the angel page rather, but still it's under seraphs, guess il do the honour.

Princepurple (talk) 03:37, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Bartholomew

Let's assume that Naomi is of a higher class in heaven than Castiel, not a seraph, but in a similar that Atropos in lore is the eldest of the fates but in supernatural is the youngest, we can assume they reshaped the angelic choirs, as the cherubs are in the highest choir, with seraphs and the 'naomi' class which im calling Ophanim for now, now what im asking is, as protoge of Naomi and obviously of high authority, could Bartholomew be the same class but simply younger??

someone on here stated Castiel could be the strongest angel in the series, but Barty wants Cas dead and certainly does not seem to fear him, but cas fears barty, even though bartholomew doesnt know that castiel any grace or powers, so i believe there is a good chance that in terms of power, bartholomew is the most powerful angel.

But the whole Angel vs seraph could not be so great, im assuming Malachi was lower ranked than barty's 'handmaiden' yet he easily defeated three of bartholomews followers.

Princepurple (talk) 04:26, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

At this point, any ranks previously established could no longer be a proper basis since everything has gone to hell. The angelic choir was not clear to begin with (Zachariah's rank never explicitly stated to be a Seraph, and that said rank only confirmed in-universe at Season 8; the possibility that Anna herself was also of similar ranking to Zachariah; Naomi's undisclosed rank, etc.), and after everything that's happened, it's certainly impossible to know. Although I am certain Bartholomew is nowhere near interesting as Zachariah, nor did the former ever display abilities similar to the latter, this is also probably because of how they lost much of their power because of the fall. TL;DR = I don't know, and it is almost impossible to know. FTWinchester (talk) 04:45, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Vs Angels

I have to wonder, is the difference between Seraphs and Angels that Big? I would say it's nowhere near the gap between Seraphs and Archangels, sure they become more efficient and flexible in their powers, can do things with less effort and such, but in terms of actual power I'm not to sure, the Seraph castiel diddn't seem overly powerful compared to Raphaels soldiers, he certainly did not seem to be able to smite them, and sword fighting them he was only as good as pre seraph, never having much trouble, but also not effortlessly beating them either.. seraphs seem litrally like promoted angels, they have refined powers, more perks and a little more potency, but no Seraph has ever demonstrated the same sort of power gap as the likes of Castiel vs Alastair, in which Alastair, a high tier demon, could likely act as a supirior to them, the things serapgs can supposedly do seems rather speculative or wishful thinking.

Princepurple (talk) 11:16, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

can overpower high tier demons

Never on the show or mentioned by writters has it been known that seraphs can overpower or can't overpower high tier demons, therefore I removed it as part of thier superior strength power, but I did not say they cannot either as that's not proven, let's be honest, before Alastair overpowered basic angel castiel, over confident fans likely would have said that angels can overpower higher tier demons, but it was shown otherwise, we as a wiki do not have the right to use speculation in front of established fact, as logical and reasonable as something sounds does not grant the right to claim it does.

Sure, you could argue, just because they have not thrown a truck it doesn't mean they can't, because that can be said for anything we have witnessed do so. So angels have not demonstrated the power to use spells to travel back or forwards through time, but at least one demon can, angels seem to hurt themselves doing so, but the spell does not. Does this mean the angel cannot perform the spell? does it also mean demons can't use thier own power to travel back in time?

Look at what Alastair said 'I wish I new how to kill you' and 'if lilith could kill angels she wouldn't just kill one' yet both can quite easily get close enough to use both the colt and deaths sythe which they had in thier posession.

please stop implying stuff, its not our place to put up incorrect info based on our own logic, aint you got it yet, the writers themselves are not very logical

Princepurple (talk) 23:06, May 30, 2014 (UTC)