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?
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?
Guest;
All very interesting!
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
Guest;
The guy who really tears me up is Bart Ehrman. Completely walked away from Christianity, but still a New Testament studies professor.
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?
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
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
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?
Guest;
Brian Roden ANGELS on he loose this season 🙂 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt1ut_FV4AAD5If.jpg
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
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.
Anonymous
Philip Williams NO church on Sunday again ?
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/
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
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
Anonymous
Troy Day Heiser was Logos Academic Editor!
Anonymous
Philip Williams he wasnt any of that when his dissertation surficed. Are you implying he posted himself in Logos?
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.
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
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.
Anonymous
Link Hudson Did you not read the references I clearly posted 2 times in this very thread?
Anonymous
Troy Day If you tagged me on it, probably. But I am referring to the article you said you couldn’t find.
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?
Anonymous
Troy Day I haven’t been tagged on that. I don’t read all subthreads.
Anonymous
Link Hudson well then you ask NOT to be tagged, so IDK…
Anonymous
Troy Day I’d prefer that. But you tag me on one thing and expect me to know everything else in the forum.
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 )
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.
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
Anonymous
Troy Day Your response was melodramatic.
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
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/
Anonymous
Troy Day He is a true believer in the deity of Christ. Never heard him say anything like that about Jesus or angels.
Anonymous
Troy Day Heiser is not Pentecostal. He is an evangelical, Bible – believing Jesus follower-
Anonymous
NO he is not Pentecostal but the notion posted by Rebecca L Ringler WAS not without a reason AS one may suppose
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/
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/
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.
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 ???
Anonymous
Troy Day I have never read or heard Dr. Heiser say to believe non-biblical sources over the Bible.
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)?
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.
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
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.
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
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley you find quickly that ppl like Link Hudson Craig Ervin and yourself that have not in fact read Heiser;s 2004 dissertation though it is free online are saying things Heiser neither meant nor knew to say And 20yrs later we have him broadcasted via LOGOS saying the same non-Biblical things that most orthodox and Jewish scholars rejected back then and still reject
Anonymous
Troy Day people disagree sometimes.
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley but we should agree on the BIBLE – and at least we should agree against pagan dualism IMHO
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/
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
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.
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?
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?
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)
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)
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.
Anonymous
Link Hudson NO? Really? So who speaks of a SECOND YHWH?
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/
Anonymous
why not read my comments from the other day here and respond to them? Ricky Grimsley
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
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]
Anonymous
Link Hudson Ricky Grimsley keeping the MAIN problem As the MAIN problem
Much of Dr. Heiser’s argument with respect to the text relies on a higher critical framework that is repulsive to the traditional evangelical scholar. This makes interacting with Dr. Heiser difficult from the standpoint of finding any common ground upon which to premise discussions. I am not sure, for example whether the second part of this post (the other Old Testament references to human rulers as elohim) would have any particular significance for Dr. Heiser, because I’m not sure that Dr. Heiser would necessarily hold that the Scriptures have been providentially preserved for us, such that we might look for this prior statement of God in Scripture.
On the other hand, Dr. Heiser should be willing to accept the lexical grounds on which the first of the two points (i.e. the grammatical question of the expression “die like a man”) is premised. I do not know whether Dr. Heiser will read this discussion, but – if he does – I would be very curious as to how he would seek to continue his argument that “die as humans do” (translation used by Heiser) is something that clearly distinguishes these elohim from humans.
Dr. Heiser’s comment that “This sounds as awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark,” seems to fail to appreciate the very different negative consequences of dying as opposed to growing up (unless one is Peter Pan) or barking. A better comparison would be the comparison in the Proverbs:
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Cautioning the fool that he will return to his folly or a dog to his vomit is not an empty statement devoid of negative connotation. Indeed, the apostle Peter refers us to this very proverb:
2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Even so, contrary to Dr. Heiser’s suggestion that “The point of verse 6 is that, in response to their corruption, the [elohim] will be stripped of their immortality at God’s discretion and die as humans die,” the point is that these judges should be aware of their mortality and the impending judgment of God. They should repent of their ways in order, at a minimum, to seek to avoid the punishment they deserve for their injustice. Dr. Heiser’s attempted explanation might seem to work if the text only mentioned dying like a man, but it also mentions falling (a synonym for dying) like one of the princes. The concept emphasized by the parallel is not a stripping of immortality, but a reminder of existing mortality: every man and every prince will die and face judgment, these unjust judges being no exception.
I’ll conclude with a similar warning from another Psalm:
Psalm 2:10-12
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Anonymous
SO the danger of this WORDLY secular mess is this
AND I am not sure how you are Pentecostal but do not see it Ricky Grimsley Link Hudson and Kyle Williams saw it although he claims NOT to be Pentecostal
I gave the multiple elohimS psalm 82 reference with a purpose – once you allow for multiple elohimS to run around like Heiser does in his secular liberal scholarship and you see from Psalm 82 that they too fall and die
Then you allow for many non-knower charismatics to use this very secular theory for their LITTLE GODS sayings AND this is just where it begins with heisers secular approach THE DUALISTIC heresy in his writing that virtually NO orthodox Jew scholar agrees with is of uttermost challenge to evangelical scholars who are quite naturally appalled to it
here is PSALM 82 interpreted with multiple diving and not so divine ELOHIMS
When Word Faith teachers such as Hagin, Copeland, Dollar and many others teach that Christians are “Little gods”, it should not go unchallenged. What follows are just a few examples of this heresy:
Kenneth Hagin: “You are as much the incarnation of God as Jesus Christ was. Everyman who has been born again is an incarnation.”
Earl Paulk: “Adam and Eve were placed in the world as the seed and expression of God. Just as dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, so God has little gods; we have trouble comprehending this truth. Until we comprehend that we are little gods, we cannot manifest the kingdom of God.”
Kenneth Copeland: “I say this with all respect, so that it don’t upset you too bad, but I say it anyway-when I read in the Bible where He says, I am, I say Yes, I am too!”
Creflo Dollar: “What do you thinks gonna happen when all this is over with? The Father’s gonna take you and all those unfinished planets out there – Halleluiah! Since you’re learning how to operate in this earth. . . What do you thinks gonna happen when God Almighty declares, ‘I want you to create a universe. I want you to speak to these worlds and like I said ‘Light be,’ you say, ‘Light be,’ Like I say, let there be a firmament in the midst of the firmament, you do the same’.”
Many don’t realize that Joyce Meyer, another Word-Faith teacher espouses the same. In her message “Authority and Opposition” she says… “Why do people have such a fit about God calling His creation, His man-not His whole creation, but His creation – little gods? If He’s God, what’s He going to call them but the god-kind? I mean, if you as a human being have a baby you call it a human kind. If cattle have another cattle they call it cattle-kind. So, I mean, what’s God supposed to call us? Doesn’t the Bible say we’re created in his image? Now, you understand I am not saying you are God with a capital G.”
Yes, some are confused about ‘creating’ versus ‘pro-creating’. However, Word-Faith teaches that if we’re created in God’s image, that somehow means we’re little gods.
They base the “little gods” teaching, largely on John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6. In John 10:34 Jesus is speaking to Jews who were upset over His claim of equality with God. Jesus responded by referring them to Psalm 82:6, saying, “Is it not written in your own law, ‘I have said you are gods?” Why would Jesus answer them this way? The Word-Faith teachers assert that Jesus is affirming the “little gods” doctrine in these passages.
Looking at the contexts of Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34, however, we can see that Jesus is doing nothing of the sort. In Psalm 82, God addresses the Israelite civil magistrates or judges. He refers to them as “gods” (Heb. Elohim) because they had been appointed to fulfill the “god-like” role of administering justice, deliberating issues of life and death. In this sense, their responsibilities were “God-like.” These judges were not called gods because they possessed deity, but because of their role. Besides, they would be stoned to death if they thought they were little gods.
When Jesus reasons with the Jews in John 10, He was basically saying, “If human judges, because of their role and work, can be called ‘gods’ (though they aren’t gods by nature), then, I-the Son of God-can be called God even more so.” What the judges in Psalm 82 were by role, Jesus is by nature. By nature, these judges were men, as indicated in Psalm 82:7, where it says that they “will die like men.” It is a contradiction in terms to be a god and die like a man. When Jesus called himself the Son of God, on the other hand, He was referring to His deity, not the deity of men, because men don’t have any deity to defend.
Anonymous
Troy Day Psalm 82 could also be interpreted to say, Resurrect, O God. You shall inherit the nations.
All authority on heaven and on earth was given to the Lord Jesus after His resurrection. He sent the apostles to all nations after He arose. In the Old Testament, Israel was YHWH’s inheritance, but He offered the nations to the Son if He would ask.
The interpretation you hold to is the side of things where the WOFers you describe expand upon to get their theory. The idea that Psalm 82 refers to certain human beings, and that they are called ‘gods’ is not new with the WOFers. Ireneaus wrote that,
“But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, I have said, You are gods, and all sons of the Most High. To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father. Romans 8:15”
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103306.htm
(And citing that doesn’t make me Roman Catholic.)
It is an old interpretation. Interpreting Psalm 82 to refer to a subset of humanity, or a subset thereof is the reason why Eastern Orthodox can use the term ‘Theosis.’ The WOFer’s aren’t saying something that doesn’t have at least some similarities to a historical line of thought, though that movement has produced a lot of teachings that push the edge of the envelope or just cross the boundary entirely.
Doesn’t anyone who has read the Bible know that ‘gods’ is used of other entities besides the LORD?
Have you never sung a song carved out of Psalm 97:9, like I Exalt Thee, which says, ‘Thou are exalted far above all gods.”
A straightforward reading of this and many other passages implies that such entities exist.
Exodus 12:12 is another example:
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
Paul wrote in I Corinthians 8 that though there be that are called gods in heaven and on earth, but to us there is one god. The fact that there are entities in heaven that are called gods is taught even in the New Testament. Paul also wrote in chapter 10 that the Gentiles sacrificed to demons, which is consistent with the Old Testament.
One can study the use of the Hebrew word ‘elohim’, for example, and while it is repeatedly used to refer to the true God, and sometimes it is used to refer to ‘gods.’ There are cases where translators could go either way, for example when it is spoken from the mouth of a pagan king.
If we do interpret ‘ye are gods’ to refer to ‘sons of God’ who may be or include those among which the nations were divided in Deuteronomy 32:8, then that pulls the legs out from under the ‘little gods’ theory of the WOFers since they do not have a proof text to call themselves gods.
But believers are called sons of God, and the sons of God will be manifested at the ‘redemption of our bodies.’ Jesus taught that the sons of the resurrection are equal to the angels. Hebrews speaks of the Son of God, ‘bringing many sons to glory.’ Jude mentions ‘glories’ when it says not to speak evil of dignitaries, giving Michael not bringing a railing accusation against Satan as an example of not speaking evil of dignitaries.
We are also at war with principalities and powers. If these fall into the same category of the ‘sons of God’ and they are being unseated as the church and certain gifted members of thereof advances to, by the grace of God, claim the territory of Christ’s inheritance by winning men’s hearts, that would give us some insight into why they might want to war with us.
But the Bible actually speaks of saints being sons of God, and speaks of being partakers of the divine nature. But it does not directly use a word that translates as ‘gods’ to refer to human beings, unless Psalm 82 is interpreted to refer to the saints.
Anonymous
Link Hudson nice copy paste but NO thank you – it is interesting to me that we’ve been discussing Heiser for some 5yrs in this group And as many times I directed the discussion o the 2 YHWS and the multiple elohims that can fall and die IT never occurred to you how it related to the little gods Kyle Williams brought out today 🙂 missed the essence of my argument #soSad
Anonymous
Troy Day not sure if I made that piint here, but yes it occured to me that it removes the prooftext from the WOFers.
Anonymous
Link Hudson you did not – what you said was pretty irrelevant
Anonymous
Troy Day This wasn’t a copy and paste. I pasted this as an OP because I think it is a valid subtopic.
But you had it backwards. The WOFers go with an interpretation… which is quite old…that ‘ye are gods’ refers to humans then go off in their own WOF direction of it.
If it refers to non-human supernatural beings in Psalm 82, then the WOFers lose their prooftext.
Athanasius didn’t cite Psalm 82 in the context of this quote, but it is likely that the interpretation that ‘ye are gods’ referred to men was a contributing factor to this,
“For He was made man that we might be made God ” as seen on this site: For He was made man that we might be made God.
Eastern Orthodoxy uses the term ‘theosis.’ And Roman Catholicism has this in their catechism:
“The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (CCC 460).” https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-so-that-we-might-become-god-means
I don’t want to use the terminology ‘gods’ in reference to what resurrected saints will become. The Bible says ‘sons of God.’ Even though it __could__ be that the same beings were referred to as ‘elohim’ or were ‘b’nai elohim’. But that doesn’t mean we get to be called both. But I suspect some of the early church commenters interpreted Psalm 82 to refer to humans and felt free to speak a bit more liberally with their terms in referring to humans as gods.
Jesus spoke of the resurrected being equal to the angels. This doesn’t mean equal to YHWH. I don’t agree that Copeland should have made his statement that when he read Jesus said “before Abraham was, I am” that Copeland laughed and ‘said I am too.’ We are to be partakers of the divine nature, but that doesn’t make us Adonai.
I am comfortable with ‘sons of God.’ Using ‘gods’ or ‘elohim’ isn’t clearly supported by scripture, unless we are talking about the Logos being Theos in John 1.
Anonymous
Link Hudson catholic now? Kyle Williams had some great questions about the little gods related to this and showed some good proof too
Anonymous
NICE try 🙂 Link Hudson but wrong again Heiser;s heresy which you too support believing in multiple divine elohims is where WOF gets the idea for little gods as Kyle Williams clearly outlined this morning Derek Godfrey offered a much better biblical translation about judges
Anonymous
and As Kyle Williams also outlined
JESUS’s quoting Ps 82 refers to him as a born non created son
Heiser claims the elohims in the council of El Elyon are created not first born like Jesus – so you have no case there either
The main problem is this
WHY would God need to create sons
When he has a first-born son?
Makes no Biblical sense
Anonymous
Troy Day Aren’t the council elohims angels? Considering that is also a definition of elohim.
Anonymous
Troy Day According to the Bible, “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Hebrews 2:10). As our Lord Jesus Christ came down from Heaven and begotten Son, Father wants to take sons and daughters from the Earth as a Bride (Church) for His only Son as a Head. Amen!
Anonymous
Troy Day i don’t agree with calling the gods of the nations, which are demons “divine”. But if you would crack open your TaNaK ut frequently uses ‘elohim’ in reference to them.
Nor do I agree with everything he says.
Anonymous
Link Hudson neither do I – the 2 YWHS is heretical
psalm 82 elohims are said to fall and die
Kyle Williams expressed how they could not be neither divine entities NOR little human gods – Derek Godfrey said human judges… ?
Anonymous
Troy Day I think the underlying assumption with Heiser’s interpretation is eventual annihilation of some of these principalities and powers. Though I am not sure if he holds to anihilationism in regard to these entities.
The idea that passages in the Psalms that refer to ‘gods’ refer to spiritual beings is not knew to Heiser.
If one believes in the immortality of the soul, one should consider that when one thinks of what it means to ‘die like men’ also.
I haven’t read Heiser’s whole treatise that you refer to. I am open to the idea that YHWH reigning fire from YHWH out of heaven or the various details about YHWH in the burning bush could have to do with the preincarnate Logos, but I am not convinced on associating the angel of the LORD with the preincarnate Logos. But it is an old interpretation, held by at least one source considered to be orthodox (Justin Martyr.)
You seem to get hung up on specific arguments…. that if some source you consider to be representative of Orthodox Judaism rejected this type of reasoning, that that proves Judaism deemed it heretical? But he probably wouldn’t have mentioned it if this sort of thing weren’t being taught in Judaism. And it doesn’t make sense for Christians to accept the Talmud as an arbitrator of truth considering our beliefs about Jesus and His own encounters with the Pharisees.
I find some of Heiser’s comparative religion approach to be a bit off-putting, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing to the ideas he is promoting, or that some of it doesn’t align with scripture.
It seems like part of Heiser’s popularity is among Christians who had no place for angels and demons in their worldview, but now, after reading his book, believe that there is a spiritual world. This is probably much less of an issue for Charismatics and Pentecostals. Apparently, this is a largely ignored Biblical topic among some evangelicals, main line church attendees, etc. Kind of like how church discipline or plural eldership is among Pentecostals.
Anyway, pray for Heiser. He’s been having some health problems and from what I’ve read, he needs some divine help in that area.
Anonymous
Link Hudson circular logic again – there is NO such assumption except on your part NOT really knowing what the Hebrew text is telling you
Anonymous
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/elohim-supreme-one-mighty-one.html
Anonymous
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h430/kjv/wlc/0-1/
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey well this is about elohimS plural you see
Anonymous
Troy Day except that elohim is already a plural word.
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense. Thus, in Genesis the words, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth,” Elohim is monotheistic in connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. IN GEN where it all started being used this way The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. It was called something like Royal Vinitive or Accusative – I cant remember right this moment. My Hebrit she is no so good 🙂 ==> plural of majesty or royal “we” (Latin: pluralis maiestatis). Elohim ( אלהים): the generic word for God, whether the God of Israel or the gods of other nations; it is used throughout Genesis 1, and contrasts with the phrase YHWH Elohim, “God YHWH”, introduced in Genesis 2. https://www.hope-of-israel.org/royalwe.html
Anonymous
Link Hudson when I posted first about HEISER years ago and his 2YHWH it was because as Kyle Williams noticed the multiple human little gods heresy it supports; Just the other day Ricky Grimsley asked what is my problem with heiser like I have not been repeating his non-biblical wording and teaching and extra-biblical sources for year now; and just the other day you admitted his dissertation was by secular standards though I can tell you only read the title page
WELL by your admission here are 2 of the many problems I’ve pointed out
1,. his theology is NOT biblical
2. it defends the forking of little gods teaching among WOF
plus many other points Ive made on him regarding the rejection of his teaching by virtually all orthodox jewish rabbis and teachers I’ve read on this – not just Psalm 82
and yes you may disagree these are not foreign divine entities
but when Heiser says they are divine created sons – not born
and relates them to apocryphal non-rabbinic sources
What else could they be?
Anonymous
Troy Day Just the opposite. Your interpretation of Psalm 82 supports WOF proof texting… or it least is on that side of the spectrum. WOFers use ‘ye are gods’ to refer to humans. Heiser interprets that verse to be about supernatural beings that many Christians call ‘angels’ or possible fallen angelic beings… though Heiser says away from that term unless they are funcioning as messengers.
I don’t agree with Heiser’s use of ‘divine.’ He’s using it more or less the same as how ‘elohim’ is used in the OT, but as an adjective.
I am not sure why you would be against the idea of certain supernatural beings being called ‘sons of God.’ What do you do with Job where the sons of God appear before God, and Satan is among them? The idea that the sons of God were angelic type beings seems to be the older interpretation among Christians also. Jude seems to allude to this idea, or this stream of interpretation.
Whether we equate them with ‘elohim’ or ‘elim’ or ‘angels’ in some contexts is perhaps debatable.
Who cares whether ‘orthodox rabbis’ as you call them…. when the Bible says that Christ is the Rabbi, btw… think about this issue? They weren’t calling all the shots in first century Judaism. They might have included the title for all members of the Sanhedrin, but there were other legal scholars. Th scribes and Pharisees did not hold all the power. It was split with the priestly faction, and so they weren’t the exclusive authority of what Judaism taught. There were other groups with their opinions, like the Essenes and Zealotes.
Of course, that stream of Judaism which rejected the Messiah and the deity of Christ are going to reject some of these ideas, as some did way back when. Some of your arguments are just silly.
You may disagree with Heiser’s use of sources, but that doesn’t prove ‘ye are gods’ refers to human judges. The idea of some of ‘the angel of the Lord’ passages referring to the pre-incarnate Logos goes way back, and some early Christians may have interpreted some of the scriptures similar to how Heiser suggests.
Some of the interpretations of the Devil’s role, his association with the term Lucifer, the king of Tyre, etc. rest _____ heavily___ on church tradition as opposed to pure exegesis.
Anonymous
I do not support the elohims are divine and agree with Kyle Williams they are not little gods. Link Hudson on the other hand holds elohims in Psalm 82 are little gods 🙂 that’s one funny Link to WOF 🙂 Too bad it never occured to Link how he supports wof until I pointed it out 🙂 BTW the human judges is not mine but proposed by Derek Godfrey so quite misleading again I think what’s happening here is my outing of Link has put him in defense mode blaming another one of his theological failures to other people #ohWell nothing NEW of course EXCEPT in the case with Heiser we have years of archived discussions where Link and Ricky Grimsley support the 2 YHWH dualism and the Ps 82 little gods of WOF
Anonymous
Troy Day sorry if I misattributed ideas to you. Are you saying you do NOT consider the elohim to be humans in Psalm 82?
Aside from possible references referring to the deity of Christ I know of no reference in any other passages in the Old Testament scriptures where men are called ‘elohim’… except maybe one reference from the unorthodox mouth of the witch of Endor.
There are those who assert such an idea about Genesis 6 or the idea that taking someone to court before Elohim implies the judges are elohim. I do not agree with that.
The term elohim is used to refer to pagan gods though the Bible clarifies that Gentiles sacrifice to idols.
Your use of rhetoric in your last post and at other seems a bit disingenuous at times since I suspect you also know elohim can refer to gods of nations and also to angels in certain contexts
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey Link Hudson Duane L Burgess Ricky Grimsley
The Case of the “Royal We” and the Pagan “Elohim”!
by John D. Keyser – NOT a small time theologian
One argument often expounded by those who believe in a Biune or Triune concept of the Godhead, is that of the Bible’s use of the plural for God. For example, the Hebrew word translated God is “Elohim” — which is the plural form of the word “El” or “Eloah.” It is interesting to note, however, that the translators DO NOT translate “Elohim” “gods” (plural) because of their basic monotheistic views. Of course, this is the paradox — how can God be one and also two or three?
https://www.hope-of-israel.org/royalwe.html