Divine Council of El elyon, second YHWH and elohims gods

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

Heiser was a consultant on this little video. It sums of his other-realm-ology rather succinctly with us without mentioning any specific pagan texts.

I don’t interpret in Genesis the sun and moon ruling day and night to mean they were spiritual entities. Nations around Israel worshipped them, but I do not see where they are presented as evil or rebellious creations elsewhere in scripture. Is interpreting Genesis to mean the sun and moon are intelligent beings, sons of God, maybe even, members of the divine council interpreting the Bible through a pagan lens?

There seems to be a gap in assuming that the ‘sons of God’ in various passages are members of the divine council, too. It might be a feasible hypothesis, but is there a reason to really believe to that unless you think Biblical other-world-ology has to conform to pagan ideas. Otherwise, what objections do you have to the overall theory here?

FIRST OFF Heiser is not the author of neither of all these notions combined in his 2004 dissertation (“The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” [Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004]

While he was writing it Alan Segal produced in 2002 the TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism

And James McGrath and Jerry Truex ‘TWO POWERS’ AND EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM (JBS 2004 – a killer 30pg work)

Heiser’s views came much later obviously in attempt to interact with the prior publications The careful reader should first note the extra Biblical references to early rabbinicalism, gnosticism and in the extra step Heiser took into

Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature (which is a major deviation in restoring the lost writ of the first temple tradition)

Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E but the truth of the fact is that it is considered heretical in Jewish Orthodoxy and it always has. Heiser built on that notion toying with Persian dualism still unable to discern any coherent religious framework within Orthodoxy

Heiser proceeded on the said notion to bridge the gap between Segal and the Hebrew Bible. The said Gap could not be bridged via the Bible alone so he used a secular and very dualistic Canaanite religious context to suggest

1. An “original model” for the two powers – basic dualism opposing Biblical monotheism
2. role of the vice-regent of the divine council
3. a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) – which will be later taken by Gnostics, Paulikians, Bogomils and other early Christian heresies
4. the elohim of the OT then was not God the Father but any false deity that was worshipped including Baal and false-god demons
5. Finally a second Yahweh introduced by Heiser as the OT Jesus was both sovereign and vice regent in the head of the divine council (claimed in his later work on Rev. 12 if I remember correctly).
Having laid a foundation that monotheism is compatible with divine plurality, which is not Biblical

Heiser turned to argue for plurality within Yahweh Himself in the The Jewish Trinity via Logos Mobile Ed course while the common thread tying these texts together is their attempts to identify the “second Yahweh”.

The ESSENCE and the FACT of the matter comes to the FACT that

The dividing of divine titles of GOD in Exodus by an unknown group was considered a heresy by Jews in the first and second centuries C.E. A sense of unity may also be read in the text of LXX Exod 19:21-24. When θεὸς was speaking in vv. 21-22, he spoke about the titles θεὸς, κύριος ὁ θεὸς, and κύριος in third person. Rabbi Idi of the third century argued against a contemporary belief that saw two divine figures in Exod 24:1Without naming the heresy, he describes a passage conducive to the ‘two powers’ heresy (Ex. 24:1). In that scripture, God orders Moses and the elders to ascend to the Lord. Since the text says, ‘Come up to YHWH’ and not ‘Come up to me,’ the heretic states that two deities are present.

The tetragrammaton [YHWH] would then be the name of a second deity, a conclusion further supported by the lack of an explicit subject for the verb ‘said’ in the Massoretic Text”

(Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 68 – While Segal produced the theory as a notion widely rejected by Jeiwsh Orthodoxy as heretical, Heiser took it and run with it looking for any proof possible. Such was not in the BIBLE at all so he reached widely in what he called Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature – his bibliography shows but parts of it)

Talk About Scholarly Hubris: Dr. James WHITE on Psalm 82 etc.

Some will remember that I invested some time responding to Michael Heiser, the academic editor for Logos Bible Software. Years ago one of Michael Heiser’s supporters contacted us, promoting his views of Psalm 82. Rich Pierce had some brief interaction with him. In any case, since I had been asked a number of times about Heiser’s views, I took some time to explain why I reject them. Here is my blog entry, and here is another by TurretinFan. You will notice that both entries are actually understandable to, well, plain ol’ Christians. I wrote mine so that fellow believers would understand the issue, and could interact with Mormons and others who utilize this text. That’s why I do what I do, and I’m sure that’s why TurretinFan does what he does, too.I have commented many times that after attending the ETS conference in 1998 in Orlando, I have never gone back. I had a good time there, in general, and the book deals are great, but I was badly turned off by the academic snobbery that pervaded the place. I’m sure there were plenty of fine servants of the church there, but they were vastly overwhelmed by the nose-in-the-air academics who would never dirty themselves with plain ol’ ministry that would involve abandoning their specialized vocabulary and actually explaining things so as to edify the body. If knowledge puffed up physically, we never would have gotten anywhere because the doors would have been impassable. In any case, I made a commitment then that I would never allow myself that kind of hubris—Christian scholarship is a practice of SERVANTHOOD, period, end of discussion.So this morning I was referred to this article posted by Michael Heiser. It is the quintessential example of scholastic hubris. He goes to lengths to make sure that everyone knows he does not take my criticisms seriously—which is why he presented a paper on the topic at ETS, of course. But, as he notes,

The Psalm 82 paper was also prompted by criticisms posted in 2009 by Alpha and Omega Ministries (AOM). That I really don’t consider these criticisms serious is indicated by the fact that they have existed on the web since 2009 with no online response on my part (though many have emailed me the link and asked me to respond). Rather than engage people on the internet on these matters, my choice was to submit my views to public peer review at an academic evangelical conference (and I’ve actually done that several times now at ETS in a piecemeal sort of way via other papers). Eventually, I will be merging the two papers to submit to a peer-reviewed journal, hopefully sometime in 2011.

See, “peer review” is the standard of orthodoxy in the rarified air of the academy. Never mind every journal pouring forth heresy and soul-destroying skepticism is “peer-reviewed,” and never mind “peer reviewed” normally means “completely disconnected from the body of faith,” this is the only standard by which truth is now known. Of course, just about every discredited, nutty theory of the past hundred years first appeared in a “peer-reviewed” journal, too. Too bad having a “church reviewed” journal doesn’t seem to be a really big idea these days. But this clear statement of his priorities (and his disrespect of anyone who actually takes these matters to the believers as a whole rather than keeping them strictly in the academy) was not enough, he had to repeat himself for emphasis:

The AOM response is curious. On the one hand, AOM has found my material useful with respect to countering Mormonism’s use of Psalm 82 (see the above link; better, see my article critiquing Mormonism’s use of Psalm 82 — published in a Mormon journal no less — kudos to them for fair play). But on the other hand, my views are criticized in the same AOM post and answered with rather feckless arguments. That it doesn’t even get my job title right (not hard to check — Logos has one Academic Editor, not several) doesn’t speak well of the quality of the research that went into the response. Nevertheless, the criticisms are understandable in that they are motivated by a desire to defend monotheism. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that the AOM writer has much of a grasp of how my position reinforces orthodox Christology (see the last paragraph of the link, but it may be the case that the new Psalm 82 paper probably does a better job of articulating Jesus’ use of Psalm 82 in John 10).

Then Heiser climbs even higher up into the stratosphere, explaining that he has been “impugned” by…someone disagreeing with him, and not doing it, evidently, in the proper place (which is the conference or the journal, never the wider audience of the church, where people are actually doing ministry—the very same issue that arose when I reviewed the long-standing statements of Mark Seifrid back in 2004 and got the very same kind of response of “How dare you talk about this in public! These things are only to be discussed within the walls of the academy!”). He demands an apology! I am not sure for what, but my guess would be for simply daring to disagree with someone so much “higher” in the academic pecking order:

Frankly, I wouldn’t care at all about what AOM posted about me were it not for the tone. The AOM post has the distinct feel of calling my evangelical commitments into question (again, see the posted link, especially the last half of the post). The AOM response is a shame, since I have directed a good number of emailers to their site in the past since there is some good material there. I’d like to continue doing that, but my recommendations will end as of this Naked Bible post unless I receive an apology for the way the AOM post impugns me. And as an integrity check, I’d also like that apology to be appended at the end of the original AOM post itself (or just remove it). I will of course post an apology here so readers see it (and amend this post). I have no interest in keeping readers from AOM material, but it just isn’t congruent for me to recommend people who need answers to questions to a site that impugns me.

Excuse me, but I really do not think we are overly dependent upon “Naked Bible” references for our readership, and, I don’t believe Michael Heiser has the power to “keep readers from AOM material” unless he will soon be appointed Internet Czar for Academic Orthodoxy or something like that. So I am left wondering just what it is he wishes me, or TurretinFan, to apologize for. I do not apologize for calling for an interpretation of sacred scripture that actually takes the entirety of its revelation into consideration. That Heiser is basically attempting to “pull rank” based upon some kind of academic authority comes out plainly here:

Finally, if anyone wants to respond to my views on Psalm 82 in the future, the new Psalm 82 paper makes it apparent as to what needs to be done: (1) engage the Hebrew text rather than proof-texting the English Bible; and (2) provide coherent responses to the list of items in the conclusion to the Psalm 82 paper. I want to see something with explanatory power and answers to specific issues I bring up in my article, not dismissive online glibness. I want you to tell me —and of course the online or academic communities — how your position faithfully takes all the germane material into account in a way more coherent than my position. Let’s have it. I’ll be happy to post it and interact with it. In the absence of a substantive response, I don’t plan on posting on this again. I have better things to do.

Note the “you can’t even begin to interact with my theological conclusions unless you read Hebrew.” Well, I’ve taught Hebrew, and found Heiser’s assertions wanting. So what? Here’s my contention: there are great riches to be mined from the original languages; however, if you cannot teach the meaning of a text without teaching your audience the original language itself, you aren’t much of a communicator/instructor. I love teaching the languages, but there is truth in the criticism of some that sometimes academics turn the languages into a key of gnosis, all because they do not seek to edify the saints first and foremost.

Personally, I honestly do not care if Michael Heiser finds my position “feckless” or “glib.” If my goal was to be “in” with his crowd, I would not write the vast majority of what I write, address the vast majority of what I address. We have different audiences, to be sure. But I refuse to give up the middle, balanced ground we have staked out over the decades. On the one side you have the likes of Dave Hunt, who mocks all study of the original languages (except when it suits his purposes). He represents the reprehensible attack upon serious study of the biblical text that is so common in certain elements of evangelicalism. On the other hand you have the attitude expressed by Heiser here, which elevates the academy above the church, makes “peer review” the standard rather than the expression of the mind of the church in the wisdom of those men called as elders whose duty it is to actually teach and preach the Word of God, so that the edification of the body and training in godliness and truth becomes a mere “by-product” of the all-important intellectual activity of the academy. Hebrew and Greek are vital, but if you become so focused upon the languages so as to lose the balance and harmony of all of Scripture, well…you are not helping yourself or anyone else.

About James White

James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of more than twenty four books, a professor, an accomplished debater.

65 Comments

  • Reply March 25, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    IMO and this is my opinion only Heiser transcends from what the Bible teaches and into the realm of extra Biblical material I for one am NOT OK wit that Robert Erwine just saying – we’ve discussed Psalm 82 before and what Heiser offers as the following translation is NOT what the Hebrew text reads – one has to resort to several extra and non Biblical sources in order to arrive to this read after much grammatical gymnastics
    [Yahweh] has taken his place in the divine council,
    In the midst of the gods he passes judgment. . . .
    And all of you, sons of Elyon [God Most High]
    Instead like Adam you shall die,
    And like one of the ‘Shining Ones’ you shall fall.”
    “Arise, O Yahweh; Judge the earth!
    May you take possession of all the nations!”
    I think we even asked Tom Steele and if I remember correctly ht was not good with the OT read either from more Hebrew point of view
    N. T. Wright calls this “creational monotheism,” which means that Yahweh rules over a cosmos thick with not only good angels but also fallen angels masquerading as the true God. Wright insists that “we have very few examples of ‘pure’ monotheism anywhere, including in the Hebrew Bible.

  • Reply March 26, 2019

    Robert Erwine

    there is only one God

  • Reply March 26, 2019

    Philip Williams

    Heiser, following Segal and others, is absolutely correct about the two powers of Heaven recognized by biblical Israel. Christians and their Jewish enemies differed only as to whether Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnation of that second power, their Heavenly Messiah, the Son of God. The Targum Neofiti confirms this to be the Jewish understanding even before the birth of Jesus.

    The Montanists claiming to incarnate the Holy Spirit as a third power introduced a new phase ultimately resulting in the Trinity formulation. Another issue paralleling that was the adoptionist controversy, a view favored by those inclined to preserving identity with the Jews. Before that Jesus, our Lord and the Holy Spirit were hardly distinct. The Montanists replaced the focus on Jesus with focus on the Holy Spirit. Formulation of the Trinity resulted in the Jews suppressing the two power understanding in favor of a simple monotheism by which to attack the Christian Trinity.

    The result of all these developments was the separation of Jewish roots of the Christian faith and the loss of understanding that the Jehovah of the OT was none other than Jesus. Don’t confuse this with Jewish roots in rabbinic Judaism!

    Jesus should be our focus because that is what the Father desires. If we know him, we will also know the Father as he truly is. If we surrender our lives to Jesus, we will receive the Holy Spirit and live in the Holy Spirit, God’s actual presence in his Creation.

    • Reply March 26, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      pure dualism if you ask me

      Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, page 68 – when Segal produced the theory he noted it as a notion widely rejected by Jeiwsh Orthodoxy as heretical

      Heiser took it and run with it looking for any proof possible. Such was not in the BIBLE at all so he reached widely in what he called Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature – his bibliography shows but parts of it

      dualism in Montanism, also called Cataphrygian heresy, or New Prophecy – basically a heretical movement founded by the prophet Montanus that arose in the Christian church

    • Reply March 26, 2019

      Philip Williams

      Troy Day agree that Montanism was unclean, but where do you find dualism? They were all about pretending to incarnate the Holy Ghost. Tertullian (also a Montantist) used that to suggest a trinity, not a binity.

    • Reply March 26, 2019

      Philip Williams

      In Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, you do have a binity!

    • Reply March 26, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      but not as bad as Montanism and Heiser 🙂

    • Reply March 26, 2019

      Philip Williams

      We are agreed that Montanism was bad, but Justin Martyr and Ireneaus are reading the two powers just like Heiser.

  • Reply March 26, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    RT Mars Eve Heiser teaches about the extraBiblical stuff, because that is what the first century Christians knew and read. The extraBiblical stuff informed their worldview.

    Heiser took into

    Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature (which is a major deviation in restoring the lost writ of the first temple tradition)

    Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E but the truth of the fact is that it is considered heretical in Jewish Orthodoxy and it always has. Heiser built on that notion toying with Persian dualism still unable to discern any coherent religious framework within Orthodoxy

    Heiser proceeded on the said notion to bridge the gap between Segal and the Hebrew Bible. The said Gap could not be bridged via the Bible alone so he used a secular and very dualistic Canaanite religious context to suggest

    The dividing of divine titles of GOD in Exodus by an unknown group was considered a heresy by Jews in the first and second centuries C.E. A sense of unity may also be read in the text of LXX Exod 19:21-24. When θεὸς was speaking in vv. 21-22, he spoke about the titles θεὸς, κύριος ὁ θεὸς, and κύριος in third person. Rabbi Idi of the third century argued against a contemporary belief that saw two divine figures in Exod 24:1Without naming the heresy, he describes a passage conducive to the ‘two powers’ heresy (Ex. 24:1). In that scripture, God orders Moses and the elders to ascend to the Lord. Since the text says, ‘Come up to YHWH’ and not ‘Come up to me,’ the heretic states that two deities are present.

    The tetragrammaton [YHWH] would then be the name of a second deity, a conclusion further supported by the lack of an explicit subject for the verb ‘said’ in the Massoretic Text”

    The angels are God”s messengers to announce to the world His messages,particularly, messages concerning end-time events in the world:
    REV 14: 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. So, the first angel’s message was about worship of the Creator above all creations, which is expressed in the Creator’s commandments 1 to 4 {Ex 20:2-11). He wants us to love him Deut 11:13, Matt 13:17;; to obey Him Eccl 12:13; to live in agreement with Him Gen 22:12. Amos 3:3 It is important to worship Him coz His judgment will be on the basis of our deeds Eccl 13:13-14, Rev 22:11 Worship of God is submission to His authority, particularly the 4th Commandment of Sabbath keeping. Worshiping on a differentf day is submission to the power of the govennment that imposed sunday which is contradictory to God’s.
    Second Angel: 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Babylon here is the false religion of mixed truth and human dogmas and traditons, perpetrated principally by Roman Catholicism. RC will impose once more its rule over the church, with whom apostate Protestants will compromise in the forming of a one world religion, the union of Roman Catholicism, apostate Protestantism and Islam. Recent international newscast had broadcaster the Pope in agreement with Arabian leaders. Babylon will fall upon the completion of this compromise, all against God:s people keeping His commandments and faith in Jesus, they have the testimony of Jesus which is the spirit of this prophecy

    12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them

  • Reply March 26, 2019

    Salvatore Tropea Sr

    As a life long Pentecostal and Electrical Engineer, I believe the Trinity are The Three in One, always acting in unison and never 3 independent powers! Jesus said I and my Father are One and not God 1 and God 2. The Trinity behaves as the 3 vectors of an electromagnetic wave, always a single wave. How did the Gospel get so complicated?

  • Reply March 26, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    I’d like to be a life long Pentecostal Electrical Engineer myself 🙂 but I am lacking in the trinitarian electrical approach just yet

    • Reply March 26, 2019

      Philip Williams

      Troy Day it’s shocking!

    • Reply March 26, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      to me its just electrifying and englightning

  • Reply March 26, 2019

    Louise Cummings

    I have always heard it taught that Elohims means plural God in Three Persons. God the Father , God The Son , God The Holy Spirit.I never did a study on it.

  • Reply March 26, 2019

    Rico Hero

    “and they’re also not people he says nevertheless like men you shall die, and this isn’t the normative thing that you would say to an elohim.” ( Dr. Heiser on Ps 82:7- Divine Council Intro).

    I would agree with him if scripture did not call humans “elohim”. But it does:

    “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee ( elohiym) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” ( Ex. 7:1)

    “Then his master shall bring him unto the ( elohiym) ; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. ( Ex.21:6)

    “If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the ( elohiym), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.” (Ex.22:8)

    “For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the ( elohiym); and whom the ( elohiym) shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.”( Ex. 22:9)

    “Thou shalt not revile the ( elohiym), nor curse the ruler of thy people.” ( Ex.22:28)

  • Reply March 26, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    It is not JUST the “elohim” part that could be easily translated as LORD and be done away with never to be a real theological issue as it has not been in Ps 82 until Heiser.

    He also pushes the SECOND YHWY – sin El Eleyon is the top guy Heiser presents Jesus as a second YHWY in the OT in respect of a Jewish trinity – he is smart enough though not to say something dumb is the Holy Spirit being the 3rd Yhwh in the OT but it is strongly alluded in the 1+1+1=3 formulism and NOT left without questioning

    Once established 2-3 OT Yhwhs it is a matter of word gymnastics to promote plural elohims OH WELL but when we get to elohims being false god and demons, a very thick and strong Biblical line needs to be drawn

    • Reply March 26, 2019

      Rico Hero

      Heiser believes God makes angels elohim or divine, and once made cannot be taken away.Do you know if that is his thinking with the second YHWY? That God made the second YHWY.

    • Reply March 27, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      RT Ebenezer P Samuel I asked this question because I’m concerned with the ontology of these supposed gods, are they divine or demonic?
      Clearly, Monotheism maintains that there is only one God.
      Therefore these ‘gods’ must be some sort of divine or demonic *creatures* (not eternally existing deities) or could be a product of reading extra-biblical mysticism mixed with ‘grammatical gymnastics’, right?

    • Reply March 28, 2019

      Link Hudson

      Look up ‘Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels’ in Hebrews. The Hebrew there is elohim. There are contexts in which ‘elohim’ is used to refer to other entities.

      There are contexts where other national gods are real entities. I Corinthians shows us this, too. There are that are called gods in heaven and on earth. Paul did not want the Corinthians to eat meat in an idol’s temple lest they have fellowship with demons.

  • Reply March 27, 2019

    Louise Cummings

    I didn’t mean anything dumb , in any part of the Bible. If God has always been. And His Son has always. Been and the Spirit has always been. They have alway Been even in the Old Testament. He Just Became Flesh in the New. I don’t understand enough about what he is saying to comment. I heard Johnathan Caen preach a message almost the same subject. That made a lot of sense. I found it on google. When I was trying to see if there was anything there to help me understand. It carried me to His Message. Made a lot of sense. Well the Bible is the word and it does make sense.

  • Reply March 27, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    RT Philip Williams Heiser misses it by not seeing the historical reality of the Old Testament. It is the pagan ANE who share the historicity recorded in Genesis. A great scholar, but essentially an unbeliever as are most OT scholars, not excepting evangelicals. //I found this comment quite insightful Link Hudson

    • Reply March 27, 2019

      Philip Williams

      Troy Day I agree. That is just how Heiser misses it. He understands what is being taught but doesn’t believe it.

    • Reply March 27, 2019

      Rico Hero

      Heiser said he accepted Jesus at age 19. He acknowledges that evangelicals will not agree with him on the spirit realm, but holds that he is simply allowing the text to speak. He is in agreement with most Christians that God is invisible 🙂

    • Reply March 28, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      and this is where he takes after UFOs and becomes largely heretical

    • Reply March 28, 2019

      Link Hudson

      I heard a lecture where he seemed to affirm an orthodox stance on the deity of Christ. What does he not believe? What have you read/heard?

    • Reply March 28, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Link to the lecture pls

  • Reply April 1, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    The late Dr. Lester Sumrall, known for him ministry in the areas of demonology and deliverance, once said: “Don’t play with things connected with demon power, leave them alone.”

    Tom Steele so how does this quote relate to OP? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUgPbOmy9cQ

    • Reply April 1, 2019

      Tom Steele

      No time right now to figure out how it would relate to THIS OP. In the article I posted where I stated that in the caption, it should be clear from reading the article how it relates to THAT OP.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      I’ve witnessed the ministry of Dr. Lester Sumrall first hand and I can assure anyone Sumral very much involved his ministry with casting out demons as the BIBLE teaches. Much more so than staying out of areas of demonology and deliverance

  • Reply April 1, 2019

    Cameron King

    I read the Unseen Realm by Michael Hieser. I thought it was excellent. This video doesn’t do the content justice. I would get the unabridged versions. I do believe that Michael is a believer.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      so you dont have problem with the main points being proven by extra-Biblical sources and material that cannot be found in the BIBLE?

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Cameron King

      Troy Day he never talked about the Sun, moon and stars in the book. That’s new content

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Cameron King

      I’m not saying his position hasn’t changed or their are other unbiblical things that he teaches because I don’t know. I do know that the Unseen Realm (Book) makes a compelling argument from the Scriptures. I cannot speak for other materials or classes.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      are you OK with the Book of Enoch foundation for his theory in the book and in his new one Reversing Hermon?

      How the writings of Peter and Paul allude to the sin of the Watchers and present Jesus as overturning the disastrous effects of their sins against humanity. How the descriptions of the antichrist, the end-times Day of the Lord, and the final judgment connect to Genesis 6 and the nephilim.

      The book also includes lengthy appendices on the ancient debate on the inspiration of the book of 1 Enoch, New Testament allusions to the book, and academic resources for studying 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants from the Dead Sea

  • Reply April 1, 2019

    Cameron King

    • Reply April 1, 2019

      Philip Williams

      Cameron King yes, he is a believer in scholars like himself.

    • Reply April 1, 2019

      Cameron King

      Philip Williams no I mean in Jesus.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Philip Williams

      Cameron King

      Heiser believes, and correctly, in the divine council on the basis of scholarship, not faith in Jesus. He is in the mold of John Walton and NT Wright. Even if their scholarship is correct in important areas, they believe on the basis of their scholarship and not from faith in Jesus.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Cameron King

      i didn’t get that from the book. (Which I did read) he made strong arguments for Jesus being the messiah and his role in fulfilling prophecy.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      The book also includes lengthy appendices on the ancient debate on the inspiration of the book of 1 Enoch, New Testament allusions to the book, and academic resources for studying 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants from the Dead Sea

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Cameron King

      Troy Day , through the Bible quote some of these books. A.k.a. Enoch, but I Believe other sources can help us understand the mind of the reader. Historical cultural analysis.

  • Reply April 2, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Cameron King I believe Link Hudson already took similar stance on the issue but he has neither read the book nor the actual full course that brought it about as I recommended The course as presented by Logos is much more in depth and the out of the BIBLE sources are clearly shown This IMO proves the teaching as non-Biblical

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Link Hudson

      I read an academic pdf of one of his articles and listened tohours of his videos. One affirmed some points orthodox Christology as I recall and it was months ago so I have not shared the links.

      But given that the logos articles are nearly $1500, and you got them for free, if you have a problem with something he said in them that ypu want us to discuss, why don’t you actually quote them and share them with us (fair use) if you want us to engage in conversation.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      academic pdf? – the one I posted? Link pls

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Link Hudson

      Troy Day Me please what?

      Yes, the one I posted. I’ll let you look that one up. It was on his approach to two powers.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      post the PDF Link pls What academia was it? Would you pls post your evidence when you state you have any just like I’ve thoroughly quoted from the problematic areas of the course with its original sources and authors Thanks

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Link Hudson

      Troy Day You posted the link, and I read it, so if you have a list of links you posted, it should be in there. I think it was in the thread where you asked if Heiser was the source for Jesus and YHWH– the one with the title I objected to. I’m not writing academic articles on this topic, and I don’t keep track of links to articles I’ve read or YouTube videos I’ve watched on the topic.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Not sure which Link you are talking about I post many links at many times I have re-posted for you my arguments below If you have any further questions just ask

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Link Hudson

      Your arguments did not seem to rreptesent what Heiser seemed to be saying, IMO.

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      I quoted from his dissertation but how would you know if you’ve never read it or seen any of his materials?

  • Reply April 2, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Hey Link Hudson I am reposting what I wrote to you precisely one week ago AND then couple of weeks before that too

    Seems like your by-weekly forgetfulness is moving toward a single week span. I would love to consult you on that but I am not that type of doctor –

    NOW as to Heiser and his sources of
    – Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature
    – Segal;s notion of non-Orthodox Persian dualism
    – second/3rd YHWH in the OT which is malarkey
    – and the twisting of Revelation in his last book

    to that I could speak with certain confidence SO pls re-read my comments and ask questions on what you have not understood in this 3rd or i it 4th posting of the same argumentation from actual academic and Orthodox sources

    Heiser took into

    Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature (which is a major deviation in restoring the lost writ of the first temple tradition)

    Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E but the truth of the fact is that it is considered heretical in Jewish Orthodoxy and it always has. Heiser built on that notion toying with Persian dualism still unable to discern any coherent religious framework within Orthodoxy

    Heiser proceeded on the said notion to bridge the gap between Segal and the Hebrew Bible. The said Gap could not be bridged via the Bible alone so he used a secular and very dualistic Canaanite religious context to suggest

    The dividing of divine titles of GOD in Exodus by an unknown group was considered a heresy by Jews in the first and second centuries C.E. A sense of unity may also be read in the text of LXX Exod 19:21-24. When θεὸς was speaking in vv. 21-22, he spoke about the titles θεὸς, κύριος ὁ θεὸς, and κύριος in third person. Rabbi Idi of the third century argued against a contemporary belief that saw two divine figures in Exod 24:1Without naming the heresy, he describes a passage conducive to the ‘two powers’ heresy (Ex. 24:1). In that scripture, God orders Moses and the elders to ascend to the Lord. Since the text says, ‘Come up to YHWH’ and not ‘Come up to me,’ the heretic states that two deities are present.

    The tetragrammaton [YHWH] would then be the name of a second deity, a conclusion further supported by the lack of an explicit subject for the verb ‘said’ in the Massoretic Text”

    The angels are God”s messengers to announce to the world His messages,particularly, messages concerning end-time events in the world:
    REV 14: 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. So, the first angel’s message was about worship of the Creator above all creations, which is expressed in the Creator’s commandments 1 to 4 {Ex 20:2-11). He wants us to love him Deut 11:13, Matt 13:17;; to obey Him Eccl 12:13; to live in agreement with Him Gen 22:12. Amos 3:3 It is important to worship Him coz His judgment will be on the basis of our deeds Eccl 13:13-14, Rev 22:11 Worship of God is submission to His authority, particularly the 4th Commandment of Sabbath keeping. Worshiping on a differentf day is submission to the power of the govennment that imposed sunday which is contradictory to God’s.
    Second Angel: 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Babylon here is the false religion of mixed truth and human dogmas and traditons, perpetrated principally by Roman Catholicism. RC will impose once more its rule over the church, with whom apostate Protestants will compromise in the forming of a one world religion, the union of Roman Catholicism, apostate Protestantism and Islam. Recent international newscast had broadcaster the Pope in agreement with Arabian leaders. Babylon will fall upon the completion of this compromise, all against God:s people keeping His commandments and faith in Jesus, they have the testimony of Jesus which is the spirit of this prophecy

    12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them

    • Reply April 2, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      after conversing with Philip Williams on this rather theological matter I am becoming aware that some folks (not Phil) may have read Heiser’s books without realizing the full significance of his theological divination away from Orthodoxy and into apocrypha I made the Erich von Däniken joke earlier but it seems lots of folk with no theological training are rather amused by such extra-Biblical conspiracy theories lacking good theological approach – I think Phil even called it secular scholarship, but what can one expect from University of Wisconsin which offers a PHD MINOR in religion whatever that may be – Is this video header taken from the X-files DVD cover? https://faithlifetv.com/items/479903

    • Reply April 5, 2019

      Link Hudson

      I don’t know if you posted this earlier and did not tag me. I’m sure plenty of posts pass that i did not see.

      I do not see how quoting Idi, who is falsely called ‘rabbi’ contrary to Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23, is particularly relavent to whether Heiser is right or not. For one thing, it’s third century, not the time period Heiser is talking about. And another thing is, we are Chrsitians, and saying so-and-so that the Jews called ‘rabbi’ said something in the third century is not something we are going to consider authoritative.

      If you want to address Heiser’s specific arguments about these references to Yahweh, it is best to address specific Biblical references he makes and his arguments.

      What do you think of the early Christian idea that Christ was ‘the Angel of the Lord.’

      I am not convinced the passages about an angel saying something that also state that the LORD say the same thing is proof of a ‘two powers’ perspective. The LORD spoke through humans in scripture and we do not consider the human prophets to be God, so why would that be the case if angels spoke on His behalf. The author of Hebrews also writes, “For to which of His angels said He at any time, ‘Thou art my Son…'”

      Also, if Heiser takes the approach that says… look this is what the pagans believe and therefore this is how ANE Israelites would have understood it in light of their cultural background, and look at all these psuedapygraphal works…and look at this Biblical evidence…

      Then we can still consider whether the Biblical evidence has merit, even if he’s arguing from the cultural perspective of Canaanite religion.

    • Reply April 5, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      dont drop the ball-it isnt a small issue
      Read Segal who explains it pretty well

  • Reply April 5, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Link Hudson dont drop the ball on this one now

  • Reply April 6, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Philip Williams pls check your copy of Seals and tell me if I am reading this wrong He is attesting that any mention other than monotheism in the Torah is bid by the rabbis as heretical

    – then a 2nd YHWH even as a theophany representation falls in that category
    – elohim is only one good not multiple spirits
    – and El elyon is respective for one single YHWH

    IF rabbis did not bid all this heresy they would have had no trouble accepting Jesus as Messiah, Son of God and God at the same time

    but they did – hence putting Heiser in the scope of the ANE religion and rendering his theory not only extraBiblical but UNBiblical

    • Reply April 6, 2019

      Philip Williams

      Troy Day i don’t think anyone has challenged at least successfully Segal’s understanding of the earliest rabbinic beliefs. But rabbinic or not, there is no question that Second Temple Jews believed in the Christ, the Son of God. How the unbelieving Jews differed from the believing Jews was in whether Jesus of Nazareth was their Christ (Messiah).

      I am certain that monotheism was a later rabbinic invention designed to oppose the Trinity and distinguish Jews from Christians. Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity only begins to take shape in the third century. So I would suppose that Jewish monotheism follows that.

      Heiser’s problem isn’t his fine scholarship. It’s the fact that he really doesn’t believe the beliefs that he attributes to the Old Testament, and sees them as borrowed(!) from the Ancient Near East. The very last part of his scholarship is also wrong. Even the ANE got the truth in their beliefs from the God of the Bible.

    • Reply April 6, 2019

      Link Hudson

      Have you read a bit of the Talmud? You do see conflicting opinions? One of them considering an opinion heresy does not prove a united front in their religion. The fact that he addressed it is evidence some believed or had discussed the idea. Even today a Jew might say where there are four Jews tgere are four opinions. But another Jewish person disagreed with that and said where there are two Jews there are three opinions.

      The legal cult was one portion of their religion. It took over after the temple was destroyed, taking over the synagogue system. Eventually one man falsely called a ‘rabbi’ would lead their synagogues. The legal cult people were not in charge of running synagogues in Jesus’ day. They were infuential in the Sanhedrin. But there were other groups with different philosophies. The Zadokite/Saducee group had different ideas.

    • Reply April 6, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Philip Williams I agree Segal’s understanding according earliest rabbinic beliefs was and still is that most of this stuff is heretical. Segal understood it as such and showed the rabbinic sources understanding it as such The problem comes with Heiser trying to prove against what Segal first proposed if I am reading it correctly of course – polling your opinion Link Hudson I had to read the so-called Babylonian Talmud in original for my undergrad professor who later became lead chair in Waco Dont ask me how much I understood but I did read it I am siding with Segal that most of the later Talmud was to restore the stories of the 2nd temple post exile However, I differ from Heiser who agrees that those post-exile stories are OK to get from non Biblical sources. Segal states in his earlier work this would be heretical according to the rabbis of both temple traditions

      In the Second Temple period, the Great Sanhedrin met in the Temple in Jerusalem, in a building called the Hall of Hewn Stones. The Great Sanhedrin convened every day except festivals and the sabbath day (Shabbat). After the destruction of the Second Temple and the failure of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Great Sanhedrin moved to Galilee, which became part of the Roman province of Syria Palaestine. We are discussing a MUCH earlier tradition here Same with Sadducee, Essenes (who started as a group of renegade Zadokites) and the Pharisees that grouped between c.150 BCE and 70 CE.

      If you care to actually read Heiser before discussing him in the open, you will see he addresses a much earlier tradition that was pre-2nd temple and according to him restored and integrated into the 2nd temple tradition To even state that without proper sources is highly misleading – about as misleading as how the Kabbalah traces roots to Daniel in Babylon and Moses in Egypt – it could be anything and everything but one thing is for sure – it aint BIBLICAL

  • Reply January 10, 2020

    Varnel Watson

    do tell us how you feel about this Deacon Joseph Bell

    • Reply January 10, 2020

      Deacon Joseph Bell

      Do I have to read it first?

    • Reply January 12, 2020

      Varnel Watson

      Deacon Joseph Bell you know what happens to ppl who comment before reading the OP right?

  • Reply June 26, 2020

    Varnel Watson

    as related to last days eschatology prophecy establishing antiChrist order in the western hemisphere FIY I do NOT support Heiser’s logic especially as taken from eastern mythology Ive long wondered why LOGOS included his teachings in their program

    • Reply June 26, 2020

      Faye Rod

      I just don’t trust this guy. he mixes a bit of truth with a lot of ear tickling stuff. I could never swallow his idea that God the Father appointed other gods to rule over the gentile nations.

Leave a Reply

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