Celestial Hierarchy and its opposite

There is one for demons, try the following: http://demons.monstrous.com/hierarchy_demons_.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonology_(occultism)
http://www.the-dungeon.de/rpg/frpg/f_msc/f_msc_data/demons/demon_hierarchy.htm

Hope that helps.

Any good summary of Dante would provide a more detailed organization of both. Inferno and Paradiso are detailed expositions of "the order of things" according the the 13th church.

By definition, there can only be ONE archangel, not plural like that website told you. And according to my sources (I have studied theology in the past) Michael the Archangel is second only to God, not way down at the bottom there (because it is actually Jesus in his spirit form before coming to Earth as a human), and has authority over all the other spirit creatures. But I'm sure that may vary depending on who you ask, because some believe that Jesus and God are one and the same (I don't, obvs), so that will also affect their view of who the Archangel is and his position in Heaven.

On the other end of the spectrum, there is the Devil and his fallen angels, who are called demons. Some of his demons are given a higher position than the others and called Princes, but I've not seen any other distinctions made. Again, that will vary, depending on the source.

Lydia Sharp said:

By definition, there can only be ONE archangel, not plural like that website told you. And according to my sources (I have studied theology in the past) Michael the Archangel is second only to God, not way down at the bottom there (because it is actually Jesus in his resurrected spirit form), and has authority over all the other spirit creatures. But I'm sure that may vary depending on who you ask, because some believe that Jesus and God are one and the same (I don't, obvs), so that will also affect their view of who the Archangel is and his position in Heaven.

On the other end of the spectrum, there is the Devil and his fallen angels, who are called demons. Some of his demons are given a higher position than the others and called Princes, but I've not seen any other distinctions made. Again, that will vary, depending on the source.

Click to expand...

I completely agree that sources vary widely and obviously since the angels were said to have existed prior to the creation of this universe, there is no way to conduct any scientific study to prove anything, but this is the first that I've ever read of the concept that Jesus and Michael are the same, or that there is only one archangel. (just out of interest, in which religious tradition are you? I thought I'd read all the major ones, but this one threw me, so I'd like to read more.) The root forms of Archangel do not require that it is a singular form. Even it it did, it could be a singular individual or a specific group. There is nothing linguistically that demands it must be a single individual. All the "Arch" means is old. It need not mean "the oldest one".

To the OP, According to what I've read, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel and I think a few more were all archangels. That said, since this is a SciFi/Fantasy section, I'm sure the writer could do anything they wanted. In my experience, the only people who'd be upset with a hierarchy, or lack thereof among angels or demons are people who don't read SciFi or Fantasy anyway.

With regard to the demonic realms, most of what I've read suggest that there are hierarchies, but due to all the chaotic infighting the positions tend to be rather fluid with constant promotions and demotions.

I understand you are only curious but I'm not going to get into a religious discussion here. I just thought I'd offer my views as an option for the OP. That's all.

ETA: Regarding the linguistics, though, this is from my source:

The prefix "arch", meaning "chief" or "principle", implies there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, "archangel" is never found in the plural [and] the only name directly associated with the word "archangel" is Michael.

Click to expand...

To me, that definition of arch makes more sense than "old", especially considering it as a term of position in the hierarchy. Saying a certain angel is old doesn't really differentiate it from the others. Old is a subjective term. Saying it is the "chief" angel, however, denotes authority, a clear position. Just because something is old doesn't mean it has authority.

Okay, and since I've got one of my books out now (and I already had to edit part of my first comment, haha... it's been a while since I've looked at this), here is the hierarchy that I was raised to believe, for what it's worth:

Archangel
Seraphs
Cherubs
Messengers

That said, since this is a SciFi/Fantasy section, I'm sure the writer could do anything they wanted.

Click to expand...

A writer might also consider how seriously or not she has to accept and use centuries-old Church hierarchies, concerning issues that are not actually stated in Scripture.

If the faithful are intellectually free to set aside 13th Century astronomy (what was it ... both "science" and "religion" waxing poetic about a Universe of crystal orbs?) ... why should a modern writer be limited by another writer's (Dante) riff on it?

was it Milton had angels and demons shooting freakin' cannons at each other?

Great stuff, in it's day.

But our stuff can be Today's great stuff for Today.

Well, in actual Christian mythology, I don't think there is a demonic hierachy. Hell is Satan's prison, not his kingdom.

Satin is the warden of his own prison and that prisons name is earth.

Actually, satin isn't the king of anything, it's a type of silk

Thomas_Anderson said:

Well, in actual Christian mythology, I don't think there is a demonic hierachy. Hell is Satan's prison, not his kingdom.

Click to expand...

To keep thinks interesting, Satan needs to be more of the "It's better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" kind of guy.
It's not to hard, to twist it that way, since Satan was somewhat inspired by underworld gods like the nordic Hel (see the name similarity to Hell) or the Celtic Underworld god (name maybe Keltos or Galates) (Who has the ruler of his prison stuff), Roman Dis Pater/Orcus (who, as opposed to Gentleman Pluto, provided most of the images today associated with Devils).

Edit: And thinking about it, it's clear, why it's Orcus and not Pluto: Those sources of inspiration for the devil are the afterlife gods for the less fortunate. Germans had Hel or Vallhalla, Celts had Underworld or Paradise, Romans had ... whatever but Pluto was nice god of the dead and Orcus was the evil, angry eternal punisher of evildoers, as far as I understand it.

It is doubtful that Satan has control over his demons without some kind of system set up. We just don't know what that system is. Any being that is in a position of authority over other beings has to be highly intelligent, and calculate his decisions. This would include deeming certain subjects worthy of carrying out certain tasks.

And when you think about it, Satan's key motivation is to have for himself the power and glory that should only be attributed to God, that is why he became what he is, so we can reasonably conclude that he would grant differing positions of authority as a motivation for his subjects to do as he asks of them. Correct? Demons have selfish motivations and desires, or they would not have left heaven to serve Satan instead of God. Even in the world of humans, being granted a higher position of authority is a strong motivation, one that some even consider worth killing for. I can't see the underworld behaving any differently.

Maraxus said:

To keep thinks interesting, Satan needs to be more of the "It's better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" kind of guy.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

And that's actually what he is, according to my belief. Demons were all once angels that served God in Heaven, but were persuaded by Satan to feed on their selfish desires and serve him. Once that decision was made in their heart, they became demons, and were ousted from Heaven. Hence the term, fallen angel.

But getting back to your comment, that line of reasoning is already common for many antagonists in fiction. "Serve me, even though you know it's wrong, because I'll make it SO worth it for you." It wouldn't be too far-fetched to portray a leader of an underworld in that manner.

As someone pointed out, Dante's inferno is a work of fiction, not necessarily scripturally accurate. I think a lot of misconceptions about Satan/devils comes from reliance on this.

And Hell is not where Satan lives. The Bible specifically mentions that he lives and works on earth. Hell is where damned souls go.

defyalllogic said:

I'm not really sure how there can be misconceptions about belief based things...

Click to expand...

Well, belief is usually based on something concrete. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this would be the Torah or the Bible. In Buddhism, it would be the Sutras.

Of course there are different interpretations of these teachings/writings, but I'd certainly say there can also be misconceptions, like when people think God looks like an old man with a beard or Satan looks like a red-skinned dude with a pitchfork and forked tail. These images come from art and fictional media, and they are provably inaccurate when compared to the source material. So, yes. There do exist misconceptions about belief systems and their teachings.

The bible/church didn't invent demons... they're definitions aren't right or wrong.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. As I said before, there's room for interpretation and different portrayals of demons, but there are portrayals that would be flat-out wrong (or "purely fictionalized" if you prefer the terms.) "Demons" in the Buddhist understanding of the word and the Christian understanding of the word look completely different, behave differently, and fulfill different roles. If you were to stick Christian demons in a Buddhist setting (or visa versa), they would be "wrong" for their world setting and context and any reader in the know would roll their eyes.

If I were you, I'd pick a mythos and stick to it (unless you're deliberately trying to blend the concept of demons from all different religions into one big stew.)

Since you specifically started the thread asking about angelic/demonic beings from the Chrisitian tradition, it only makes sense that people base their replies on Christian tradition/scripture to help you go for accuracy. If you're just going to make it all up, why ask for concrete details/ranking in the first place?

defyalllogic said:

so you're more addressing consistency than accuracy as there is a right and wrong way to explain angels and demons rather if there is Micheal the archangel there shouldn't be a Jin... right?

Click to expand...

Didn't quite understand that without a little more punctuation... All I'm saying is that there is no One Right Answer when it comes to Christian (or Buddhist, or whathaveyou) interpretation, but there can be a wrong one if it directly clashes with the source material it's based on.

For instance, we know based on the Torah and Bible that Satan was once a guardian cherub named Lucifer, that he was a good-looking, smart guy, but his vanity got the best of him and he he decided to usurp God's throne, so God cast him down to earth. There are different ways to retell this story of a fallen angel, but to write a scenario where God created him as a devil from the start, or he's a red-skinned dude with a pitchfork would be provably false. And at that point, if you're going to make something up, it would be best to make up something more original, rather than based on the inaccuracies of other fictional media.

so i need to look into a system that addresses the roles of both sides or just make it up.

Click to expand...

If by "both sides" you mean "Angels and demons", then yes. If you mean "eastern and western religions," then, no. You don't have to represent all religions, just get the facts straight with whatever one system you pick. (Personally, I have a hard time picturing how you could line up Buddhist and Christian demons, for instance, because Christian demons are eternal--fallen angels from a single One True God, while Buddhist demons are temporary and will eventually be reincarnated in accordance with their karma and they exist in a world of a pantheon of gods.)

It sounds like you'd want to make it all up. Since you already have decided to base your demon hierarchy on a corporation-style system, sounds like your system is going to be all fictional anyway. The corporate model is a fairly new development, while demons are ancient. It's unlikely eternal beings are going to fall into beurocratic middle management type positions just because that's how we do things in human history right now.

I just finished a book about dark angels. I started research to add some stuff in and my word,the sources are so conflicting.


I decided to borrow a bit from each and added creatures from Native American and African mythology and created my own mix.

You are allowed, you know... to make up your own, too.

If it does not need to be Christian, check wikipedia on Zoroastrianism. It's more dualistic then christianity with its "god is all-powerful, in absolute control and everything is as he wishes and the only reason for evil is, that he was quite a mean bully before he decided to sacrifice himself (as Jesus) to himself, to save his creation from his wrath.

In Zoroastrianism, there is one creater-god Ahura Mazda, his creation is not without flaw however, and the flaw is Angra Mainyu - an unpersonified force and source of elemental evil.

Top end in the heavenly system are Ahura. Those are Angra Mainyu, the boss of all, two or something demi-gods and the Amesha Spentas and some selected yazatas of special importance.

Amesha Spentas: There are 6 of those guys, that could best be compared to Arch-Angels respresenting Aspects of the creation.

Yazatas: There are lots of those divine beings, you can call Angel.


Opposed to them are the Daevas, amongst them 6 to 8 arch-daevas. The original 6 are the anti-thesises of the Amesha Spentas, another 2 were opposed to lesser Yazatas but so kick-ass they worked their way up.
The number of lower Daevas, is (like with Yazatas) no more precise than "lots".

(PS: As this is just a short summary of a few wikipedia sides, inacuracies are probably bigger than what is actually correct. It's only supposed to transfer a general idea)

defyalllogic said:

that was just the first example i found.


so you're more addressing consistency than accuracy as there is a right and wrong way to explain angels and demons rather if there is Micheal the archangel there shouldn't be a Jin... right?

so i need to look into a system that addresses the roles of both sides or just make it up.

I didn't want to make one up if thee was already established fantasy trope around the levels of angels or demons. (e.g. making vampires sparkle)

Click to expand...

Like Maraxus says, you're not really missing anything in regards to traditional Catholicism, at least. It gives very little detail to devils and demons.

Sidenote: Raised Roman Catholic myself, and I've never heard of Michael being Jesus, either. That seems to ruin a large part of the point of the relationship between Jesus and the angels as shown throughout the New and Old testament -- the point of the angels being serve the humans, thus the conflict between Lucifer and God because Lucifer felt the angels were the 'unfavorite' children (compared to humans). Jesus, on the other hand, was part human and part God (to put it bluntly). He did not have much contact (if any) with the angels.

Satsya said:

the conflict between Lucifer and God because Lucifer felt the angels were the 'unfavorite' children (compared to humans).

Click to expand...

Got any sources to back this up? Sounds like another one of those common misconceptions to me. I've seen this interpretation in fictional media before, but the whole "Lucifer was jealous of humans as favorite children" thing isn't supported in the actual Judeo-Christian canon.

In the original source, Lucifer just thought he was seriously awesome and he wanted to usurp God's throne. It was arrogance and mutiny that got him in trouble; no mention of him being jealous or feeling 'unfavorite':


Isaiah 14:13-14

You [[Lucifer]] said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."

Ezekiel 28:16-17

Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;