Is HEISER the source of Jesus and second YHWH: Divine Council of El elyon, and elohims gods

Is HEISER the source of Jesus and YHWH [i.e. secon…

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

| PentecostalTheology.com

 

Is HEISER the source of Jesus and YHWH [i.e. secon d YHWH] being the same being? and demons (evil spirits) coming from the the Nephilims or is he just summing them up here?

57 Comments

  • Reply December 2, 2018

    Guest;

    On Facebook a few days ago, someone posted a video by Michael Heisler, a PhD in Old Testament studies.

    He has a number of videos. One thing he focuses on a lot is the idea of the divine council. I’ll give you a summary of what he teaches. A lot of this stuff were things I saw in the Bible, heard in Old Testament in college, or picked up from talking with a Old Testament scholar friend of mine, but Heisler connects the dots.

    Here are some of the ideas he talks about:
    – The Old Testament mentions the sons of God. Satan came to appear before God among the sons of god in Job.
    – Heisler believes the sons of god in these passages are heavenly beings. He calls them members of the heavenly host. In some passages, entities besides God are referred to as ‘elohim’. I noticed this studying Hebrews. The New Testament says ‘Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels’– but the Hebrew is elohim. Elohim can be translated ‘God’ in some context and ‘gods’ in others.
    – The Old Testament (Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX tradition) says that God divided the nations according to the number of the sons of God.
    – There are verses in the Old Testament about other nations being alloted to other elohim/gods.
    – God partners with and allows created beings to rule various things. We see this also with man.
    – He believes there were 70 or 72 of these ruling spirits, presumably based on the number of nations in the table of nations in Genesis.
    – Heisler believes that this refers back to the nations being divided after Babel, when men were trying to build a temple to interact with God on their own terms.
    – Heisler mentions the ‘prince of Persia’ as an example of such a being.
    – He believes God divided up the nations to heavenly beings to take care of them after the problem at Babel, and chose Israel as His own inheritance, starting the process by calling Abraham.
    – He takes Psalm 82 to be about God in the council with the elohim there, to be about heavenly beings, not human judges. Heisler says God finds fault with their unjust ruling of nations given into their care. The last verse says that the LORD will inherit the nations.
    – A Messianic Psalm offers the nations as an inheritance. (I think Heisler mentioned that.)
    – In the New Testament, Paul wrote of principalities, powers, and other ‘territorial’ type rulers in heavenly realms.
    – Christ has been given all authority on heaven and on earth.
    – Christ’s return is associated with ‘the fullness of the Gentiles’ as Christ will inherit the nations.
    – He points out similarities between the languages spoken at Pentecost, other conversion stories in Acts, and the table of nations.
    – He believes Paul wanted to get to Spain to reach Tarshish, from the table of nations, after having evangelized many of the other nations mentioned in Genesis.
    – Heisler thinks Paul had this same Old Testament understanding that these ‘elohim’ over the nations were territorial spirits, principalities or powers, who wanted to resist the kingdoms being given over to the Lord as His inheritance.

    So basically, a summary is that there are these beings, that he believes are described as ‘sons of god’, who were entrusted with care of nations. They were rebellious and treated men badly and ended up being worshipped as gods. The Lord will take away these nations, and they are condemned to die like men and fall like princes. A major step toward the Lord reclaiming the nations is seen at Pentecost as the apostles begin on a journey that takes the gospel to the nations.

    Heislers interpretation of Psalm 82 makes sense. It does seem odd that it would be about injustice among other nations and not Israel considering the focus of the Old Testament, but the last verse is about God inheriting the nations. Heisler does not believe he is filling in gaps with extra-biblical sources, but thinks world view is important. The Ugaritic archeological finds with Ugarit worshipping a pantheon that had El as the head of it seems to fit with this idea of the sons of god being some kind of ruling council. But it does not rely totally on it. He does argue that having an ancient world view that they would have had is important.

    I’ve noticed references to other gods in the Pentateuch over the years, I’ve encountered the idea of the divine council, probably in college in a Bible class or in a conversation with someone who studies such things. I’ve also heard about ‘territorial spirits’ and a bit of teaching on principalities and powers from being exposed to the Charismatic movement. So some of this stuff fits with things I’ve learned and studied, but he kind of connected some dots I hadn’t connected. There are some assumptions, though. So I’m still mulling it over.

    I notice Paul wrote about God demonstrating his wisdom to principalities and powers in heavenly places to the church.

    If all this is the case, I do wonder about these spiritual entities as they relate to Satan. Paul wrote about the prince and power of the air. So it may be that these entities that came to be worshipped as gods follow him.

    Job says that with His angels, He finds fault. But it does seem like there are plenty of ‘good guy’ angels. Does it seem odd if every single one of the territorial spirits failed and was judged, but not all the angels? But look at the mess with humanity and the fall.

    Here is a Link. What do you think?

  • Reply December 2, 2018

    Guest;

    All very interesting!

  • Reply December 2, 2018

    Guest;

    I haven’t read his books, but do listen to his podcast, and most of his stuff is very enlightening as to worldview and context and makes a lot of sense.

    He talks about the “two powers in heaven” (or second YHWH figure) as being largely expunged from Jewish writings after the coming of Christ, because they didn’t want Christians using it to support the deity of Jesus

  • Reply December 2, 2018

    Guest;

    The guy who really tears me up is Bart Ehrman. Completely walked away from Christianity, but still a New Testament studies professor.

  • Reply December 2, 2018

    Guest;

    When are you going to change the crazy title of the thread? Why would anyone think Heisler is the source of God, Troy Day?

  • Reply December 2, 2018

    Guest;

    Brian Roden Which book that I dont know of? His pod casts are based on earlier PDF papers he presented; which came from his lectures I guess. He then sold bunch of courses on the subject via the LOGOS Bible software and their online book store

  • Reply December 3, 2018

    Guest;

    Sorry Brian Roden this page is taking lots of time otherwise and I cant go to other groups to cross post like some people BUT if you see good points relative to our discussion feel free to copy/paste them here for further discussion I believe we have shown Link Heiser is the source of that YHWH being the OT Jesus frontology and this by far is sufficient for me on this particular OP

  • Reply December 5, 2018

    Guest;

    Exactly Tom Steele While God is not God’s name and therefore cant be taken in vain “Yahweh” very much is his name. I’ve done some longer research on what Heiser attempts but again have not found anything to the extend he goes in the Bible or rabbinic tradition – the book of Enoch question remains open if it is or is not part of those…

    on the “el”-part however and on the false gods Heiser describes as elohims I think a fine line could be drawn when elohim is used in the Psalms. My Hebrew – she’s no so good, but I took enough Heb. in both college and seminary to be able to read this for myself just enough to doubt Heiser. My Heb. professor is now at BAYLOR is a lead name in hebreistic studies and have confirmed my take that quite some grammar gymnastics need to be done in order to reach Heiser’s interpretation With this in mind I dont know what Link is still dragging this OP for when it was pretty straight forward disproved

    Rico Hero is the the LORD (Yĕhovah) of Genesis Jesus?

  • Reply December 9, 2018

    Guest;

    Brian Roden ANGELS on he loose this season 🙂 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt1ut_FV4AAD5If.jpg

  • Reply January 22, 2023

    Anonymous

    Link Hudson Philip Williams Ricky Grimsley Kyle Williams

    I think Duane L Burgess is spot on when he said

    So…this is C S Lewis?
    “Christianity Today noted that he was “a man whose theology had decidedly unevangelical elements” (Ibid.). Lewis was turning to the Catholic Church before his death. He believed in prayers for the dead and purgatory and confessed his sins regularly to a priest. He received the Catholic sacrament of last rites on July 16, 1963 (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, pp. 198, 301). Lewis also rejected the doctrine of bodily resurrection (Biblical Discernment Ministries Letter, Sept.-Oct. 1996) and believed there is salvation in pagan religions. Lewis denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He denied the biblical doctrine of an eternal fiery hell, claiming, instead, that hell is a state of mind: “And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind–is, in the end, Hell” (Lewis, The Great Divorce, p. 65). D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). In a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. Wesley Shrader, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, warned that “C.S. Lewis… would never embrace the (literal-infallible) view of the Bible” and “would accept no theory of the ‘total depravity of man.'””

    MY MAIN argument against all hs books I practically never read from end to end was that they tire with NON-biblical at times foreign to the BIBLE and occult content – the lord of the dings the lion of ashcroft the door in the closet narnia – ainran etc GETTING Biblical ideias and virtues OUT of the BIBLE and mixing them with ceular ocuilt is NOT the way to do theology proper – HEISER has always reminded me of CS – some Bible in the context of deep ocult/ idol stories/ non Biblica accounts 2nd YHWH is just wack in monotheism 3rd Elhoim 70 sons of GOD – come on…

    SO Who were the beneha’elohim? Were they Fallen Angels?

    A close reading of Genesis indicates that the term (????????????????, beneha’elohim) is not referring to human beings. The contrast is drawn between bene haelohim and benot haadam. The early church fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, and Ambrose all accepted the angel view.

    Witness of the Septuagint sons of god = Angels of God

    Philo (1st c. A.D.) also has ?? ??????? ??? ???? (the angels of God). Job 1:6: ?? ??????? ??? ???? (the angels of God) Job 2:1: ?? ??????? ??? ???? (the angels of God

    • Reply January 22, 2023

      Anonymous

      Granted that C.S. Lewis like Troy Day has many shortcomings in his understanding. Even so, as a young Christian I received much help from his writings.

    • Reply January 22, 2023

      Anonymous

      Philip Williams NO church on Sunday again ?

  • Reply January 22, 2023

    Anonymous

    Previous message: Nine Choirs of Angels Next message: Nine Choirs of Angels As long as we’re discussing angels, here are a list of references to angels by name.Archangel Michael_________________Daniel 10:13: ….but the prince of the kingdom of Persia stood in my way for twenty-one days, until finally Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.Daniel 10:21: ….but I shall tell you what is written in the truthful book. No one supports me against all these except Michael, your prince, standing as a reinforcement and a bulwark for me.Daniel 12:1 At that time there shall arise Michael, the great prince, guardian of your people;Jude 1:9: Yet the Archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”Revelation 12:7: Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon.Archangel Gabriel_________________Daniel 8:16: ….and on the Ulai I heard a human voice that cried out, “Gabriel, explain the vision to this man.”Daniel 9:21: I was still occupied with this prayer, when Gabriel, the one whom I had seen before in vision, came to me in rapid flight at the time of the evening sacrifice.Luke 1:19: And the angel said to him in reply, “I am Gabriel, who stand before God. I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news.”Luke 1:26: In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.Raphael (deuterocanonicals)________Tobit 12:15 (among numerous passages in Tobit): I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord.Uriel (APOCRYPHA)_____2 Esdras 4:1: Then the angel that had been sent to me, whose name was Uriel, answered and said to me, “Your understanding has utterly failed regarding this world, and do you think you can comprehend the way of the Most High?”2 Esdras 5:20: So I fasted seven days, mourning and weeping, as the angel Uriel had commanded me.2 Esdras 10:28: Where is the angel Uriel, who came to me at first? For it was he who brought me into this overpowering bewilderment; my end has become corruption, and my prayer a reproach.Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish CarpenterGO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ // A Real Live Catholic in Georgiacms at dragon.com >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< “Delay not your conversion cms at romancatholic.org// /// to the LORD, Put it not off cms at 5sc.net from day to day” Ecclus/Sira 5:8 https://probible.net/angels-by-name/

  • Reply January 23, 2023

    Anonymous

    Heiser, in his book, “The Unseen Realm” states that not one word is original. He has complied it all from the peer-reviewed academic literature

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Craig Ervin states that not one word is original. ?

      I actually read his dissertation AND post-diss. as posted in a pretty scholarly periodocal long time ago AND not too many paid him attention back then until LOGOS decided to popularize him for some unknown to me reason

      what do you mean when you say peer-reviewed academic literature? which peer aproved his usage of non-biblical literature to create a biblical doctrine. This is somewhat unhurd of

      he is basically adding extra-Biblical material from occcult questionable sources to create IN the BIBLE something that is not there. This is worse than Noah’s boat found in placed the BIBLE not talk about Philip Williams or post-trib/post-mil rapture that is NOT in the BIBLE Oscar Valdez Brett Dobbs Link

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day Heiser was Logos Academic Editor!

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Philip Williams he wasnt any of that when his dissertation surficed. Are you implying he posted himself in Logos?

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day The literature of the 2nd Temple period is background for understanding the New Testament. Dr. Heiser did not invent the Divine Council Worldview. He compiled the scholarship that has been talking about this for many decades. I have read all his books and listened to many of his teachings. And they are solid. He is not making up doctrine. John Walton of Wheaton college has also written for 30 years on the same material.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Craig Ervin that is actually true I remembe when talking about this with Link Hudson years ago I posted the original work Heiser used for his diss. There is probably -0 chance I find my post and dig it out. but you have to agree he is building his dostrine on EXTRA Biblical sources – whicih in my view is a pretty liberal way to go Philip Williams

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day Was it a paper on the topic that was carved out of his dissertation? I remember reading that somewhere, maybe from a link from this group, but it wasn’t a whole dissertation, just a paper.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson Did you not read the references I clearly posted 2 times in this very thread?

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day If you tagged me on it, probably. But I am referring to the article you said you couldn’t find.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson since I said that I found the articles in reference and posted them 2 times for you to see. I also see that you have seen them and addressed them, to which I responded. What other articles are you still looking for that I have not already presented (not once but twice) here?

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day I haven’t been tagged on that. I don’t read all subthreads.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson well then you ask NOT to be tagged, so IDK…

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day I’d prefer that. But you tag me on one thing and expect me to know everything else in the forum.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      come on Link you are either an idiot or something is wrong? What’s wrong? Is everything OK ? – click 2 times if you are held hostage by a baptist hyper Calvinistic forum (I always warn Kyle Williams about )

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day No need to be insulting. I do not read all the links in the multitude of posts you sent to me. You mentioned a paper on a topic, that you couldn’t find the post. I asked which one it was. That doesn’t mean I’m an idiot if I don’t click on the links in all the multitude of posts you tag me on in the forum.

      I have a life. I have things I’m doing.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson I was not insulting? Why in the world would you say that? I did not say you were an idiot. I actually said something is wrong #drama

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day Your response was melodramatic.

  • Reply January 23, 2023

    Anonymous

    In Supernatural, Michael Heiser, tackles these questions and many more, based on his fifteen years of research into what the Bible really says about the unseen world. Heiser shines a light on the supernatural world—not a new light, but rather the same light the original, ancient readers and writers of Scripture would have seen it in.

    and implies that ancient readers and writers of Scripture would have known all other occult writings of foreign peoples with strange gods and borrow NOAH from them Philip Williams

  • Reply January 23, 2023

    Anonymous

    Craig Ervin years ago in this discussion Rebecca L Ringler asserted HEISER “seems to propagate this stuff Christ was not a real historical figure” Have you read anything like this in his books? I also say in a more recent video he alluded huamsn were created by angels https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/are-demons-and-fallen-angels-the-same/

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day He is a true believer in the deity of Christ. Never heard him say anything like that about Jesus or angels.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day Heiser is not Pentecostal. He is an evangelical, Bible – believing Jesus follower-

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      NO he is not Pentecostal but the notion posted by Rebecca L Ringler WAS not without a reason AS one may suppose

  • Reply January 23, 2023

    Anonymous

    Here we go Philip Williams Craig Ervin Brian Copeland Brian Roden Ricky Grimsley I actually was abel to fing this one unlike some Link videos

    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?

    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”.

    https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/is-heiser-the-source-of-jesus-and-yhwh/

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Craig Ervin I now see I posted this back in 2019 or so here as well I did see more by Heiser resently where he seemed to respond to my original notion on dualism – I beleive he stated that hew Jewish separation of a SPIRIT YWHW and a physical Messiah did not make them dualists – this is very simplistic IMHO and a slippery slope

      I now see back in 2019 Link Hudson stated

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

      The interpretation arguement or missintepretation blame OR even the I dont think what you are saying is true Ive noticed being the general red hering when they dont understand the matter Unline Link I have actually read Heiser’s dissertation back when Link was probably just a boy – it circulated in 2004 AS

      NON-CANONICAL SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH LITERATURE by. Michael S. Heiser. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

      the very title alludes here Philip Williams that HEISER is not looking for or represeting a Solid Biblical TORAH view He is refering to basically NON-CANONICAL books which emerged during the SECOND TEMPLE period to recreate the stories once told in order to keep and preserve the Jewish national mindeset after the return from Babylon – IS THIS actual BIBLE? Well I think the results speak of themselves mixed with lots of pagan literature too

      https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/divine-council-of-el-elyon-second-yhwh-and-elohims-gods/

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day I was not presenting an argument. I was stating the truth about what Dr. Heiser says. Referencing 2nd Temple period literature is not denying the Bible. The Bible references the same literature. Jesus referenced Psalm 110 about there being “two lords”- “The Lord said to my Lord” – and the point is that even in Jesus day there was discussion on the issue. I do not know what your issue with Heiser is, but he believes the Bible is the Word of God, He believes Jesus is Lord and the only way to salvation.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Craig Ervin I was also not presenting an argument but stating the truth about Dr. Heiser;s dissertation namely that it is not based on the Bible but on extra-Biblical sources via which he arrives at stsmhr conlcusions (about Michael per example) that are simply not Biblical. You present a good argument from Psalm 110 which we can disucss later. I do not have ssue with Heiser and I do believe that he believes the Bible is the Word of God, He believes Jesus is Lord and the only way to salvation HOWEVER his books present extra-Biblical sources and materials that are not in the Bible or cannonical as already stated above. And his dissertation is based on someone elses as we already showed. The problem of mixing the BIBLE with non-biblical sources ends up deluting the Truth of the Bible with occult literature LIKE the example with gilgamesh where Philip Williams would tell you it is not Noah. Why should then we believe non-Biblical sources over the Bible like Heiser wants us to ???

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day I have never read or heard Dr. Heiser say to believe non-biblical sources over the Bible.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Craig Ervin This could be true in some sence but have actually you read his dissertation

      “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” [Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004

      and/or the scholarly arctiles that defeat his extra-biblical sources and arguments:

      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)?

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day I have not read them. I am not saying that his views are accepted by everyone. But you are citing a work about the teaching of Gnosticism and rabbis of the second century AD. And then saying Heiser places non- biblical teaching above biblical. Heiser just says, like NT Wright and John Walton that understanding 2nd Temple literature is a better way to understand the atmosphere of the first century instead of literature 200-300 years later.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Craig Ervin pls note NOT me; these are scholarly articles proving Heiser’s dissertation contains and or is based on large portions from

      Alan Segal produced in 2002 the TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism – Heiser’s 2004 dissertation makes great us of and/or is largely based on Segal’s 2002 work

      following of which James McGrath and Jerry Truex critique the very notion of ‘TWO POWERS’ within EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM (JBS 2004)

      I believe I was clear why I cited these 2 works from the very start. What seems to be the confusion ??

      Wright and Walton are great on understanding the atmosphere BUT not building angelological doctrine on non-Biblical sources

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day I do not see the connection between the works you cited and your claims that Michael Heiser places non-biblical sources over the Bible. That is a radical claim.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      WELL Craig Ervin you said you read all Heisers books but apparently have to read his dissertation where it all first began before making assumptive argumentation

      in the 1970s Alan Segal produced – TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism

      30 years later by 2004 HEISER used Segal’s work largely in his own dissertation – meaning using extra Biblical, gnostic and non-canonical rabbinic sources to continue what Segal has started. I cannot post Heiser’s dissertation here because of copyright but you can read it for yourself HERE are just a few references :

      “At one [of] his websites (Two Powers in Heaven) Dr. Michael Heiser continues to argue rabbinical scholar Alan Segal’s claim (nearly 30 years ago) that up until the 2nd century C.E., it was permissible in Judaism to believe in the concept of there being “two powers” in heaven … https://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-jewish-trinity-how-old-testament.html

      “Dr. Heiser references Dr. Alan Segal, saying that ancient Judaism had a duality in it. God could be both Yahweh and distinct from Yahweh. https://bibleproject.com/podcast/theme-god-e13-what-gods-name-feat-dr-michael-heiser/

      “by 2016 HEISER freely Cited Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosti … in Heiser: Co-regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371649

      HERE Heiser himself admits – This idea comes straight from the OT (and used to be part of Judaism until the 2nd century AD – see Alan Segal’s great book, Two Powers in Heaven) https://drmsh.com/blogging-with-dr-barry-part-5/

      THE point is that Segal was largely rejected as non-Biblical perhaps rabbinic but certainly non-canonical, not orthodox or theology proper in any sense

      James McGrath and Jerry Truex used this and tore in pieces Heiser on the very notion of ‘TWO POWERS’ within EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM (JBS 2004) – pls NOTE JBS is the supreme peer-review theology like you called it. Heiser was rejected as early as 2004 jsut like Segal was rejected some 30 yrs earlier.

      Now, I am not saying Heiser plagiarized from Segal, but you can tell when you read his dissertation that what he says is largely built on Segal’s Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism – you can read them and make your own conclusions. Obviously, I read them and made mine

  • Reply January 23, 2023

    Anonymous

    So basically Philip Williams Craig Ervin comparing 2 YHWHs in Heiser from non-Biblical sources is no different than noah and Gilgamesh (and his horned gay friend Enkidu)- the similarities are so many I have no time to go into it right now BUT I will live this link here for further discussion https://anthonyhowelljournal.com/2014/11/18/horns-of-moses-and-enkidu/

  • Reply January 23, 2023

    Anonymous

    I will repeat here for clarity once again Philip Williams Link Hudson Ricky Grimsley Kyle Williams

    in the 1970s Alan Segal produced – TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism
    30 years later by 2004 HEISER used Segal’s work largely in his own dissertation – meaning using extra Biblical, gnostic and non-canonical rabbinic sources to continue what Segal has started. I cannot post Heiser’s dissertation here because of copyright but you can read it for yourself HERE are just a few references :
    “At one [of] his websites (Two Powers in Heaven) Dr. Michael Heiser continues to argue rabbinical scholar Alan Segal’s claim (nearly 30 years ago) that up until the 2nd century C.E., it was permissible in Judaism to believe in the concept of there being “two powers” in heaven … https://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-jewish-trinity-how-old-testament.html
    “Dr. Heiser references Dr. Alan Segal, saying that ancient Judaism had a duality in it. God could be both Yahweh and distinct from Yahweh. https://bibleproject.com/podcast/theme-god-e13-what-gods-name-feat-dr-michael-heiser/
    “by 2016 HEISER freely Cited Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosti … in Heiser: Co-regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371649
    HERE Heiser himself admits – This idea comes straight from the OT (and used to be part of Judaism until the 2nd century AD – see Alan Segal’s great book, Two Powers in Heaven) https://drmsh.com/blogging-with-dr-barry-part-5/
    THE point is that Segal was largely rejected as non-Biblical perhaps rabbinic but certainly non-canonical, not orthodox or theology proper in any sense
    James McGrath and Jerry Truex used this and tore in pieces Heiser on the very notion of ‘TWO POWERS’ within EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM (JBS 2004) – pls NOTE JBS is the supreme peer-review theology like you called it. Heiser was rejected as early as 2004 jsut like Segal was rejected some 30 yrs earlier.
    Now, I am not saying Heiser plagiarized from Segal, but you can tell when you read his dissertation that what he says is largely built on Segal’s Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism – you can read them and make your own conclusions. Obviously, I read them and made mine

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      I haven’t read Segal’s book. But I do notice your method of arguing. One of your previous arguments was that the idea of two powers in heaven was considered unorthodox by Jewish sources.

      But I assume you believe in the Trinity and in the divine Logos. The same sort of Jews would reject that as well.

      Also, the Judaism that survived was a segment of Judaism. A branch of the legal cult survived and took over the religion after the destruction of the temple. Most of Judaism diverged from an ‘Orthodox’ Judaism that formed out of the Hillel version of the Pharisee religion. The Shammai side of Pharisaism was probably more influential in the legal cult in the first century. There were also the scribes. And then there were priestly influences on the religion. There were Saduccees, the chief priests, the high priest. There was also the splinter group out in the desert, the Essenes, which are not directly mentioned in the New Testament. There were also revolutionary groups like the Zealots and Sicarii. And there were the Herodians.

      Judaism did not have one viewpoint. The scholars in the Talmud often had conflicting interpretation and that just reflects on stream of Judaism which survived the destruction of the temple. Even in recent times, I heard the saying where there are four Jews, there are five opinions. A Jewish person disagreed and side that the saying is where there are two Jews, there are three opinions. the disagreement over the saying serves to illustrate the point.

      You say Segal’s views were rejected as nonBiblical? That’s kind of vague. Whose doing the rejecting? If we reject some of his views, does that mean that there is nothing behind the ‘gist’ of what he was saying?

      I am not saying I agree with Heiser’s views of some of ‘the angel of the Lord’ passage, but I do know that Justin Martyr interpreted some ‘angel of the Lord’ passages to refer to the pre-incarnate Logos. This was mid second century. I’ve read that Justin was a Samaritan, ethnically, and he also fellowshipped with some believers who followed Mosaic laws. Some of these views go way back.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson Once again none of what you are saying is actually true and it is in fact what you just said is highly misrepresenting what I posted. I wasnt arguing or presenting arguments. I simply posted several references from scholars and publications, which have taken interest in Heiser’s work. As you can very well see. they present both sides of the argument that Heiser has in fact based his dissertation on Segal’s earlier work and did in fact use non-Biblical sources to accommodate his ideas. So when you state “You say” you may want to refer to the actual scholarly sources that have already said it. My opinion matters little. It is actually very simple to comprehend – not sure why all the drama?

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day I was referring to your wording here, “Segal was largely rejected as non-Biblical”

      Do you disagree with the idea that Orthodox Judaism was reformed as a synagogue focus religion by those of the Hillel school of thought? Do you disagree that there were previously Sadducees, priests, etc. with their own opinions and/or teachings in the first century? Why would that be controversial?

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson Segal was largely rejected as non-Biblical is not all I said. I also explained he amalgamated extra-biblical sources, non-orthodox and non-canonical sources, which is further recognized by both Heiser and his critics in the follow-up articles posted. It was for this extra-biblical amalgamation Segal was never recognized as orthodox – for crying out loud, he suggested that during early Christianity gnostiX and Jews believed in (at least) two divine entities – even you dont believe that 🙂 (or at least I hope you dont)

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson should we assume that you read my articles which I found here but still said you did not read them? Segal was largely rejected as non-Biblical is not all I said. I also explained he amalgamated extra-biblical sources, non-orthodox and non-canonical sources, which is further recognized by both Heiser and his critics in the follow-up articles posted. It was for this extra-biblical amalgamation Segal was never recognized as orthodox – for crying out loud, he suggested that during early Christianity gnostiX and Jews believed in (at least) two divine entities – even you dont believe that 🙂 (or at least I hope you dont)

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Troy Day ‘two divine entities’ probably isn’t the way Heiser would put it.

      Would you really say that no early Gnostics believed in two divine entities? Even if you didn’t have any examples, would you make such an assertion about such a broad category of belief systems?

      Is the idea that the Logos is Yahweh but in a way distinct from Yahweh contrary to a trinitarian understanding.

      Heiser has relied heavily on the ‘cultural backdrop’ of pagan religious beliefs.

    • Reply January 23, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson NO? Really? So who speaks of a SECOND YHWH?

    • Reply January 24, 2023

      Anonymous

      Link Hudson Who else speaks of a SECOND YHWH if not Heiser? https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/divine-council-of-el-elyon-second-yhwh-and-elohims-gods/

  • Reply January 26, 2023

    Anonymous

    did you ever read anything on this one by HEISER John Mushenhouse I found his work largely based on another author WHAT is your take on his original languages OL – especially when it comes down to non-Biblical and non Semitic sources here ? Brett Dobbs James Pinkerton

  • Reply January 27, 2023

    Anonymous

    your take on HEISER bro Duane L Burgess I admit ignoring your advice before and regret it for which I apologize. Your participation in the group this week has been a blessing and with what John Mushenhouse has said is helping bring some scholarly approach apart from the regular quarrel in the group brought by unlearned folk (which is OK) Also, Philip Williams has offered some supreme comments on both Heiser and Brown (both hebrew Semitic scholars) which has also helped [apart from Noah]

Leave a Reply

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