The archangels are listed wrong

femininity in space comes from the virgo constellation mostly and maybe mercury.

Samael is the sun-he is dominate,the authority of God, masculine and he destroys sinners, the reason why he isn't mars is because he has no connection to military while Michael does.

The rest is fine but these two changes are neccessary

Have you regarded the book of enoch?

elaborate

Have you read the listings of angels in the book of enoch? For example, the angel uriel. I will link. http://www.hiddenbible.com/enoch/online2.html

[Chapter 20]

1,2 And these are the names of the holy angels who watch. Uriel, one of the holy angels, who is 3 over the world and over Tartarus. Raphael, one of the holy angels, who is over the spirits of men. 4,5 Raguel, one of the holy angels who takes vengeance on the world of the luminaries. Michael, one 6 of the holy angels, to wit, he that is set over the best part of mankind and over chaos. Saraqael, 7 one of the holy angels, who is set over the spirits, who sin in the spirit. Gabriel, one of the holy 8 angels, who is over Paradise and the serpents and the Cherubim. Remiel, one of the holy angels, whom God set over those who rise.

Chapter 40]
1 And after that I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude 2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden things. 3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as they uttered praises before the Lord of glory. 4,5 The first voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever. And the second voice I heard blessing 6 the Elect One and the elect ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits. 7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord 8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: 'Who are these four presences which I have 9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?' And he said to me: 'This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.' 10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.

Also melchezidek is either christ or a man. Not an angel, he either had no beginning of days, or his ideology and priesthood had no beginning of days. Only 1 being can be a priest, mankind. And Christ being the high priest. According to scripture.

thanks for the info

Is that like a Catholic thing or something?

Maybe

As if the archangels have nothing whatsoever to do than be linked to some outpost planets, individually, no less, on the far edge of the galaxy. Who says they are? And what are their credentials. You know I'm a stickler for citation. So,,, cite. However, it is known that the Basque, a significantly different culture than either the French or Spanish, have no such Mercury legend. I've been there, lived there, and know them.

You are not a stickler for citations, this is common knowledge

Care to check my citation stats?

no.

Then the above is a baseless charge. Either gather the data, or ma gavte la nata.

are you french?

By the way, have you googled "wikipedia," the source you cite for your entire argument? I quote directly from Wiki “Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source,” -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Of French, and Scot ancestry, but that quote is not French; it's a northern Italian dialect. It means, roughly, "be so kind as to remove the cork." It's best known use, other than common in villages east of Turin, is from Umberto Eco's novel, Foucault's Pendulum.

Wikipedia is relaible

According to it's own assessment, it's not. That's what I cited. And it gives the reason. Got to dig deeper than just wiki. It's a good beginning, but many references in includes is just some dumbarse flapping his lips, with no credible sourcing. Yes, they try to limit that, but they do not capture everybody.  You will rarely see me citing wiki. I start there, but I dig, often two or three levels deeper. 

the sources that they cite are reliable

It's the sources they list [some, not all] that are not always reliable, which is why I recommend qualifying them, just not accepting their credibility on face value. Yes, it takes time, but better to be correct than merely passing on what some schmoo thinks is true, but has no backing behind him; your source.

ok. I did not get my infoprmation from wiki

Why do you need sources?

You've got this all backwards. I don't need credible sources; you do. This is for your credibility, not mine. You make you credible; I make me credible, by the choices we each make of citation. I launched the issue over wiki because they were your source, right from the get-go of your #1 post. I'm saying that does not make your argument credible, because wiki admits they are not credible. If you want to claim that Mercury is tied to Mickey Mouse, you'd be more credible if that claim was not made based on wiki. That's all.

WILLOWS ALT

Very well observed.

However, are you going to properly address the post?

Or do you concede the point that has been made several times by several people, that your sources (and ultimately the basis of your argument) are dubious to say the least?

I am not interested in what you say

For example, in this case we are talking about quoting from unreliable sources which I have quite correctly pointed out.