The Spirit World and different things in Heaven and Angels

Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

3) The Spirit World and the discussion of different things in Heaven and Angels. (Finis J. Dake)

26 Comments

  • Troy Day
    Reply December 5, 2018

    Troy Day

    Rico Hero right here we have DAKE clearly proving Heiser and Link are wrong 🙂

  • Link Hudson
    Reply December 5, 2018

    Link Hudson

    Troy Day I do not recall stating I accept Heiser’s theories. I wanted to discuss them– the demonology aspect not the two powers hypothesis, which you were focused on.

    Why don’t you quote the part of this really rough recording you think is relevant or give the minute marker.

  • Troy Day
    Reply December 5, 2018

    Troy Day

    actually you said it was a wrong accusation against his theology; which then it turned to be exactly what he has been saying for years with you having no real clue about until now If you dont recall I can show you the Link with your claims, counter claims and our proof

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 5, 2018

      Link Hudson

      I asked you to show proof because if you didn’t, that was a pretty bad thing to accuse him of. Of course, he considered Jesus to be the ‘Son of God’ in a different sense from the other beings, as I recall. Your rather unnuanced description of his idea made it sound worse.

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 5, 2018

      Troy Day

      Only the ones who have never read his stuff may need proof Brian Roden even pointed you to a whole community dedicated to his type of theology. There’s nothing to prove really – just to learn and examine. We’ve done exactly that – case closed. What else were you hoping to get from Heiser 🙂 Now even Dake is telling you this extra-Biblical mambo jumbo has no Biblical value #there

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 5, 2018

      Link Hudson

      Troy Day I listened to about half of the Dake video, and the sound quality was just too much for me. I didn’t hear anything that addressed the points of concern you had over Heiser.

      Honestly, I don’t know what parts of what Heiser was talking about that I agree with that is a concern for you. I haven’t endorsed the two powers stuff. I just said speculative but interesting.

      The idea that Psalm 82 refers to the ‘sons of God’ according to whom the nations were divided who were considered to be the ‘gods’ of the nations is an interesting take on it. It seems to have about as much BIblical backing as some standard teachings I have heard about the story of the fall of Lucifer. There are a lot of assumptions there, but a much stronger ‘interpretive tradition’ leading in that direction. I am considering this without taking into consideration the book of Enoch. We don’t have to consider Ugaritic El or ‘el’ being used of the dead to be relevant to Biblical interpretation, either.

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 5, 2018

      Troy Day

      Old tapes – perhaps the BEST A.J. Bible could do on them I’ve done my share fare of reviving old tapes and its a pain Church tapes tended to be used and reused and sometimes you hear 2-3 sermons at the same time Other times the tape has demagnetized so bad that it is impossible to recover without scratches and noises

      But DAKE has it overall pretty right on angelic order and putting the fall of Satan right at the start of Genesis where it belongs The ugaritic el is not Biblical proof of course. I would stay away from extra-Biblical sources if I was you

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 5, 2018

      Link Hudson

      Troy Day Straw man. Ugaritic El religion was Canaanite paganism. I’m not into that. I think it is reasonable to mention it just when discussing etymology or the evil backdrop of pagan religion.

  • Troy Day
    Reply December 5, 2018

    Troy Day

    The problem with extra Biblical sources Link is that you dont really know the language. Nevermind only partial text have reached us nowadays. Even if you figure out how to read them you still dont know what half of the words meant in their context back then So building a whole theology on them is shaky – well it is not Biblical that for sure

    You have to be able to read the whole thing to make a theology Like I tell my students except you read Herodotus in his original writing dont tell me what Herodotus says, because you dont really know You know what someone else says that Herodotus says – classic hearsay always always always produces classic heresy

  • Link Hudson
    Reply December 5, 2018

    Link Hudson

    Troy Day How is that really relavent to what I have said about Heiser. He is working with some scriptures in the Biblical text too that build somewhat of a case of his angeology/demonology/sons-of-God-ology.

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Troy Day

      Heiser is basing his study on extra Biblical texts trying to find their way in the Bible – and his ideas are just not here Sorry but from what I have observed you have no formal training in doing theology and what you do doesnt even remotely touch theology. That one can read and when read the text can produce an opinion or A interpretation does not mean one is doing theology. There is much more to be learn in doing even a simple exegesis than mix-n-match cherry picked Bible verses. And when pointed to the actual original text that says otherwise, one must really re-consider such A interpretation vs doing real theology proper …

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Link Hudson

      Something practical with Bible study and a bit of theology might appeal to people here. If you have a lot of theological understanding to share you coukd go a lot deeper than you have been here and people coukd still follow you.

      I care about the word of God. ‘Doing theology’ is not a big concern for me, and I suspect it was not high on the list of priorities for the fishermen and other Galileans who preached our faith or the early generation of Christians. I do not claim to be a theologian.

      I have not said I embraced Heiser’s theory. His type of approach is a Hebrew Bible scholarship approach mainly. He was trained at a secular university. The Ugarituc el and Canaanite stuff is reasonable to mention for linguistic purposes. Whether Heiser is wrong to focus on the Book of Enoch or not is not the issue I wanted to discuss. Just mainly the sons if God Psalm 82 issue. If you do not want to discuss it, fine. That particular point is no more ‘out there’ than some of the ideas you endorse (I am not talking about the book of Enoch, Ugaritic paganism, or the two powers on heaven theory when I say that.)

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Troy Day

      You may be right. There are so many people out there doing business administration without even a college education. I suppose there are some people who were just born theologians too. I just havent met any just yet.

  • Troy Day
    Reply December 6, 2018

    Troy Day

    It is relevant because you questioned what Heiser is saying simply to find out that yes he is saying it. Dake gives you a much more Biblical theology proper on demonology and spirit world order that does NOT require extra Biblical sources to prove the point

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Link Hudson

      Troy Day I did not comment on Dake’s demonology. You said he proved me wrong. So YOU tell me what you think he proved me wrong about. You are the one making the accusation.

      Weird.

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Troy Day

      You are correct You did not Hence my point that OP is about Dake’s demonology primarily

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Link Hudson

      You mentioned my name and said he proved me wrong. How?

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Troy Day

      I guess you didnt not even watch the video

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Link Hudson

      I tried. The sound was a bit rough on my hearing, so I got about half-way through. What was the topic related to me…. in your thinking

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Troy Day

      Biblical explanation of angelic order – I;m answering this question of yours for about 6th or 7th time so far

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Link Hudson

      Too vague. Heiser believes in cherubim, etc. I suppose.

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Troy Day

      So does Dake – except no dual YHWH or demonic el(f)s

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Link Hudson

      Troy Day Hmmm. The idea of the Father Son and Holy Ghost each having a body, soul, and spirit.

      The Bible does use el or words related to it to refer to false gods in certain contexts, too. It is legitimate to point it out.

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 7, 2018

      Link Hudson

      It also seems highly unlikely that ‘elf’ derived from Semetic ‘el. This etymology page argues for a derivation from the ProtoIndoneuropean word for white. https://www.etymonline.com/word/elf

      It’s a theoretical reconstructions. Is ‘el’ in Spanish from the Hebrew? Probably not. It’s probably from ‘Al in ‘Arabic, and ‘eloah is believed to be congnate with ‘illah in ‘Arabic.

    • Troy Day
      Reply December 8, 2018

      Troy Day

      Did you just post a Link to prove your point? Have you ever encountered efls (elves) in your far east travels? How about el-O-him false gods/spirits? No such things right? Was Alf an elf?

    • Link Hudson
      Reply December 8, 2018

      Link Hudson

      Troy Day I got bo problem with posting links. I just do not think it is enough to count as ‘doind theology’.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.