A bit limited
This page, seems limited, couldn't it be expanded, to include every event of person saying yes to allowing an angel to posses them, rather than simply, the two most important angels. General MGD 109 19:39, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
Is this page REALLY necessary?
I honestly don't see the point of this page. -- MisterRandom2 02:22, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
Title
It couldn't have been titled more appropriately as "Consent"? FTWinchester (talk) 04:52, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Anyone wants to oppose? RaghavDAll I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man 10:24, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
No, I like that, it sounds a lot better and makes more sense. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:11, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
Where's the 'Yes,' my friends?
I have a main question, that I may have missed. I didn't catch a consention 'Yes' when Ezeikiel possessed him, so how was he able to possess him? Ezekiel said Sam could ejctect him at any time. Zachariah makes it clear, that because Lucifer can't, no Angel can possess an unwilling host. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:48 PM, October 9th 2013
I think it worked because of the circumstances, Sam was almost dead, and Techniqually he said yes to letting Ezeikiel possess him as possessing him would save his life, its just he didn't realise that he was saying yes to Ezeikiel, its probably a loop hole...Though why no other Angel has exploited it yet is beyond me. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:09, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
My money's on exploiting the loophole as well. On a related note, we do know that Jimmy is still alive and that somehow, Castiel and he are alive in one body. I suppose that is how humanized demons would work as well, share bodies with its host if it wasn't dead yet. FTWinchester (talk) 04:10, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
That hardly counts as how 'Yes' is described inverse! Oh, well under every circumstance, it had to be a clear and concise 'Yes.' If what you say is the case, Lucifer would've probably done things differently to possess Sam. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:18 PM, October 15th 2013