Thread:Superdadsuper/@comment-35960634-20190415173535/@comment-5175866-20190415192701

You're exactly right- I see the error on Gabriel article and have corrected it.

You do have to remember our modern conception of Angel isn't always that accurate. Angel is a function of a spiritual being, it means messenger. There seems to be a vast spiritual order that we really don't understand much.

The only time Michael is called "archangel" is in the Book of Jude in reference to an event quoted in the Apocrypha, which is very interesting. This tells me that the title of archangel is not even one advocated biblically. The reference would have been understood by Jewish culture at the time, but it seems the Bible itself doesn't care much for spiritual hierachy. It seems the concept of an archangel belongs more to Second Template Judaism than it does the canonical biblical literature. Michael is called a "prince" in Daniel, which might be where the idea comes from- so that may be the biblical support of Michael having higher authority over most Angels. This does not make Michael the chief angel, but a higher ranking spiritual being.

Angels are spiritual messengers. Other beings aren't "types of angels" but are just different variety of spiritual beings.