Evidence for God from Science

puritan lad wrote: I'm not too concerned with what a "trusted" 700 club theologian says unless he can back it up with scripture....

Because you believe that Michael was Christ, and that is heresy.
As children of God, Christians are higher than angels.

Here's biblical evidence proving that Michael is merely an angel:

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. The Bible nowhere identifies Jesus as Michael (or any other angel for that matter). Hebrews 1:5-8 draws a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be His Father, and He will be my Son"? And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says, "Let all God's angels worship Him." In speaking of the angels He says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Angels worship Jesus. The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 4:3-6). Michael the Archangel is perhaps the highest of all the angels. Michael is the only angel in the Bible who is designated “the Archangel” (Jude 9). Michael the Archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 and Jude 9. In Matthew 4:10, Jesus rebukes Satan. In Jude 9, Michael the Archangel calls on the Lord to rebuke Satan. Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1,14). Michael the Archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.

ochotseat wrote:

puritan lad wrote: I'm not too concerned with what a "trusted" 700 club theologian says unless he can back it up with scripture....

Because you believe that Michael was Christ, and that is heresy.

I've just been reading the last few exchanges, but I'm not sure that is what puritan is actually saying or believes. If it is, then I'm on your side.

I think the idea being put forward by puritan is the possibility that Michael was simply a manifestation of Christ (for example, where purtain mentions "theophany"). A manifestion of a person is not the actual person, although that person is in the manifestation in some way. For example, a hologram of a person would be a manifestation of a person although not the actual person. So I believe puritan is throwing the idea up that although Michael was not Christ, the angel Michael is possibly a manifestation of Christ. I may be wrong though in what I understood.

As for my own opinion, I'm open to such a possibility but would have to go through all the related Scriptures to whether such a case is Scripturally consistent. And if what you (ochotseat) infer from the Scriptures you mention is true, then even the idea of a manifestation becomes less acceptable.

Kurieuo.

First of all ochotseat, you need to learn how to read. I've made it very clear that Christ is NOT an angel. Second, I didn't say that I necessarily agreed with the idea that Michael was a theophany, not an angel. The theory has a few holes, but it does have merit.

Besides, if false doctrine bothers you so much, why watch the 700 Club, (or most of Christ TV for that matter.)

puritan lad wrote: Michael was a theophany, not an angel. The theory has a few holes, but it does have merit.

In the OT, God appeared to Moses in a bush. In the NT, God came to this Earth as Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Michael was only an angel among many angels.

Besides, if false doctrine bothers you so much, why watch the 700 Club, (or most of Christ TV for that matter.)

Sounds like you need to learn about Christian unity. Are you seriously against TBN, 700 Club, and all other televangelist networks or programs?

ochotseat wrote:Michael was only an angel among many angels.

Correction. He is given the title "archangel", meaning "ruler of angels". Where does it state that "Michael was only an angel among many angels"? Again, it may be true, but the scriptures are not clear on this.

Besides, if false doctrine bothers you so much, why watch the 700 Club, (or most of Christ TV for that matter.)

Sounds like you need to learn about Christian unity. Are you seriously against TBN, 700 Club, and all other televangelist networks or programs?[/quote]
I'm not against all of them, just the one's who teach lies. I won't comment on particular ministries. Read the Scriptures for yourself.

As far as unity goes, Jesus prayed for unity, but not at the expense of Doctrine. The Bible says alot more about false teachers bringing in "damnable heresies" than it does about unity. Can two walk together, lest they be agreed? Unity requires doctrine. In the words of J.C. Ryle,

"Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity ...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin."

puritan lad wrote: Where does it state that "Michael was only an angel among many angels"? Again, it may be true, but the scriptures are not clear on this.

I posted it. Michael was just an angel, regardless of his title amongst them. Angels were created to serve God and his children.

I'm not against all of them, just the one's who teach lies. I won't comment on particular ministries.

You already named Van Impe and his colleague. If most televangelists were heretics, we'd hear more uproar against them, and there'd be a major boycott.