Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
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? Rick Wadholm Jr
Chapter 9:23-28 “23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to […]
The post Hebrews Lesson 34 :: Need for Jesus’ Blood In Particular :: By Sean Gooding appeared first on Rapture Ready.
Varnel Watson
Ricky Grimsley Let’s settle this one once and forever. Is is even possible that many other sons of God has challenged Jesus for the eternal sonship of the Christ
Tim Renneberg
No
Ricky Grimsley
No. Ive never hear dr heiser teach that either. I have listened to hours of his lectures and have two of his books.
Charlie Robin
Evangelical Theological Society Meeting, 2010
Dr. Michael S. Heiser; mheiser@logos.com
What is / are (an) Elohim? http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/WhatisareanelohimETS2010.pdf
Varnel Watson
Yes you are correct Ricky Grimsley read his post @ logos and you will see for yourself.
Ricky Grimsley
Mike Heiser rocks
Varnel Watson
Mike Heiser rocks in heresy maybe
Ricky Grimsley
What heresy
Ricky Grimsley
?
Varnel Watson
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?
Rico Hero
Re: – He takes Psalm 82 to be about God in the council with the elohim there, to be about heavenly beings, not human judges.
Hi Troy
I think Jesus would disagree with Dr. Heisler
King James Bible
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Ray E Horton
All very interesting!
Brian Roden
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
Varnel Watson
so he is the second YHWH figure source that Link has somehow been denying for a while now ???
Rebecca L Ringler
The guy who really tears me up is Bart Ehrman. Completely walked away from Christianity, but still a New Testament studies professor.
Link Hudson
When are you going to change the crazy title of the thread? Why would anyone think Heisler is the source of God, Troy Day?
Varnel Watson
Has it been 2 weeks yet? I am pretty sure I posted direct link to his many materials published by Logos and a whole bunch of his earlier papers in PDF format where he explores the second YHWH-Jesus idea. BTW whoever wrote that comment has absolutely no clue of theology
Varnel Watson
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
Brian Roden
He has several books. “the Unseen Realm” deals with the divine council view in the ANE. “Supernatural” is the same material for a mor lay audience (without as much technical jargon and all the footnotes). His most recent book “Angels” just came out this fall.
His podcast (“The Naked Bible”) is a lot more than his earlier PDF papers. He does Q&A episodes, just did several episodes with short interviews of other biblical scholars at ETS and SBL in Denver, does series working through whole books of the Bible, providing cultural and language background info on each passage.
Are you maybe thinking about his YouTube videos?
Varnel Watson
Well yes he is building on his past platform especially with LOGOS giving him all the green lights cause he sells (for now) I dont remember seeing Angels – was it on paper or just digital print? Is it NOW absolutely sure that he started the whole JESUS being YHWH and so on nonsense I have not been able to confirm any of that with Jewish writings BTW His interpretation of Enoch claims things in the Hebrew text that are just not there Not sure if Link has read any but his last one was on How Many Times Is Jesus Coming Back? https://blog.logos.com/author/mheiser/
Brian Roden
Troy Day https://www.amazon.com/Angels-Bible-Really-About-Heavenly/dp/1683591046/
Link Hudson
Troy Day Hebrew text of Enoch?
Varnel Watson
Have you even read the Hebrew text of Enoch?
Link Hudson
Troy Day if you have a copy, can I buy it for a dollar? ?
Have you got a Guttenburg Bible that isn’t worth anything because a yuy named M. Luther scribbled all over it?
Varnel Watson
As usual you make no sense whatsoever Heiser’s course on angelic order and YHWH-Jesus was a pretty penny I’ve read the comments of many disappointed users who got it. There are 2 concluding facts in this discussion
1. it showed that no one else but Heiser was the source of the Jesus-YHWH hypotheses that has no prior theological existence in any eastern culture i.e. Heiser manufactured it
2. THEN we have the “Hebrew” sources of that “study” which really resolve to the apocryphal book of Enoch and more particular a certain non-recognized and little known version of a passage within it that could or could not be interpreted in favor of Heiser’s elohim(s) – plural demonic gods as he sees them when trying to match the wording with some verses from Psalms. There is a lot of Hebrew grammar gymnastics done to get to that point
BTW the person who posted the comment mixed the YHWH-Jesus with territorial spirits which Heiser explicitly disclaims That person didnt even know how to SPELL Heiser so I am not gonna waste my time with it anymore
Brian Roden
You might consider having this discussion over on https://www.facebook.com/groups/theNBgroup/, where a lot more people are familiar with Dr. Heiser’s work
Link Hudson
Troy Day Your comments often do not make sense. I don’t think there are any extant Hebrew manuscripts of Enoch. So if one existed, it would be valuable like a Guttenburg Bible with Martin Luther’s notes in it. (Maybe you never heard the joke about the guy who sold a Guttenburg Bible at a yard sale for $5. His friend said it was worth millions, but he said his probably wasn’t worth anything because a guy named M. Luther scribbled notes all over it.)
Anyway, the subject title still doesn’t make sense. How about ‘Is Heiser the source for the Two Powers in Heaven Hypothesis’ or something like that.’ No one thinks that God derived from an OT scholar born in the 20th century.
Is one of your concerns here that you believe Yahweh is a title specific to the Father? I have heard of YHWH meaning the ever present one. A preacher yesterday, who doesn’t know Hebrew, said it means ‘self existant one.’ I haven’t heard that one.
But if that’s a possible rendering, my mind goes to the doctrine the Eastern Orthodox call the Monarchy of the Father. The Son proceeds forth from the Father, and so His existence depends on the Father in this doctrine, if I am working it right. There is a similar belief about the Spirit, and the Eastern Orthodox and RCC disagree about whether the Spirit proceeds from the Son or not.
If the Son and the Spirit are dependent on the Father, and Yahweh’s name has to do with not being dependent on anyone or anything for existence, then would Yahweh be an exclusive name for the Father. I am not familiar with ‘Son of Yahweh’ in the Bible, and ‘Elohim’ is a broader in usage than the LORD’s personal name.
I had tried to engage you on discussion of Heiser’s general idea of demonology and territorial spirits, particularly the idea of the sons of God being given power over nations, but doing wrong– presumably afterwards. Honestly, it seems about as close to what scripture says if not moreso than some of the traditional interpretations about the fall of Satan we read about. But it would put the fall of some demonic entities at a rather late time– unless God entrusted nations to already fallen entities. Your objection to it seems to be based on the fact that Heiser likes books like Enoch, but he does present arguments from scripture, also.
I read His Two Powers article, and from his videos and writings, He believes Jesus to be the Son in a unique sense. The Two Powers approach seems a little speculative. Interesting, but speculative. It seems to fit with some early church ideas on ‘the angel of the Lord’ I have read, but it would be a stretch to make it fit with what Hebrews says about angels, IMO.
Varnel Watson
that you agree with the 2 conclusions is enough
Varnel Watson
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
Link Hudson
Troy Day a logical connection between the subject line and the point of the thread would be helpful.
Varnel Watson
logical connection was provided, proof was brought, conclusions were made – if you’ve messed it go back and read the whole thing from the start; now moving along…
Brian Roden does his new book even talk about Jesus as the OT YHWH or simply angels and angelic order?
Link Hudson
Troy Day No one claims Heiser as the source for God.
Brian Roden
Troy Day It is just about angels based on the biblical text (busting the myths of medieval artistic representations and such). He has another one written on demons (the other team) but the publication date hasn’t been set yet by Lexam.
Here is an interview Heiser did on the book with a Pentecostal FB videocast
https://www.facebook.com/TheRemnantRadio/videos/1874649382589213/
It’s only an hour, so maybe you’ll be able to find time to watch/listen
Varnel Watson
Brian Roden OK now arent we of the opinion that Remnant Radio are a bit misguided to discuss real theology? For one they missed on including the Jezebel demonic spirit
Link Hudson
Troy Day I don’t know if I’ve ever seen or heard any of their other stuff.
Varnel Watson
They post here every now and then We ask them questions they explain it away To the point – Heiser started this 2nd YHWH mess I wonder who is gonna clean it
We can also ask Tom Steele IF he has ever read in Rabbi interpretation about
– Jesus being 2nd YHWH
– YHWH being just a title used for others but GOD
– or el(s) being OT demonic gods – more like el(fs)
but I am pretty sure that the answer will be No
Link Hudson
Troy Day Sounds like a straw man. Why would a falsely-so-called ‘rabbi’ write about Jesus being a second Adonai. The Orthodox Judaism grew out of the work of some Jewish leaders who rejected Christianity in the centuries that followed the destruction of the temple. The two powers in heaven idea, supposedly, was earlier, and supposedly dropped by the non-Christian Judaism that survived because Christians may have used it as an apologetic. Justin argued for Christ being the ‘Angel of the Lord.’
As far as the idea of ‘elohim’ being broader than referring to Yahweh, you can figure that out with a concordance. I came across that in high school when I saw that ‘thou hast made him a little lower than elohim’ was translated in Hebrews to mean ‘thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.’
Then in the early 1990’s, in a Hebrew Bible class at a secular school, I learned about Ugaritic el, Canaanites calling the deceased el. This is not knew to Heiser.
The idea that God was speaking to the divine council when He said, “Let us make man in our own image” was something I heard in college, but something that sounds too out there for a man like Heiser to repeat. The Spirit and the word are in chapter 1. Why would He speak to the created beings?
Heiser actually has some scriptures that show ‘el’ being used to refer to the false gods. The little leap there is in seeing these gods as the ‘sons of God’ and the ones being addressed in Psalm 82. Frankly, that seems just as feasible as seeing it as being about Israelite judges– except that God it would have commenting on mistreatment of Gentile populations in the Old Testament when Psalms seems to focus more on Israel when it addresses this sort of thing. At least if a Charismatic believed this, the Copeland version of the ‘ye are gods’ teaching would loose all footing.
In I Corinthians 8, Paul says that though there be that are called gods in heaven and in earth, to us there is but one God.
Tom Steele
Troy Day right… I have not heard anything like this in Rabbinic or Christian literature. Jesus being a “second YHWH” sounds like it would go against all traditional views, whether Trinitarian or Unitarian, because if I understand the way you said it there correctly, it presents Jesus as a completely separate”God”. YHWH is not a title, it is the proper name of God. Pronounced “Yahweh” it is His name in the same way as your name is Troy Day. As to the last point, yes, “el” appears to be a generic term used in the ancient world in the same way “god” is used today. We capitalize “God” in reference to the Hebrew God Yahweh that we serve and then write “god” when referring to all others, whether ancient “gods” like Baal or Molech or modern “gods” like Allah or Buddha. I’m not sure about “elf” or “elves” originating from the generic term “el”, but I suppose it’s possible. It sounds like something someone came up with though. Kind of like the claims that spring up on the Internet from time to time that “Jesus” means “Hail Zeus”. Yes, that’s a thing, people buy into it, and without doing any research just spread it around like a plague. Simply plugging “Jesus” and “Hail Zeus” into Google Translate and translating them from English to Greek easily debunks that claim.
Hope some of that is useful.
Robert Erwine
Lol . That’s not the name of God .
Brian Roden
Link Hudson Heiser specifically spoke about Psalm 82 and the human judges question on his latest episode
http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-249-did-israelites-view-their-judges-as-gods/
Link Hudson
Tom Steele hi. sounds like the some of the stuff I heard from som of the Hebrew roots people. Jesus comes from Greek Iesous, a Graecized versiin of Yeshua or Yahoshua.
The two powers would not likely be in Oethodox Jewish literature after Christianity came along.
Rico Hero
Two Yĕhovah in Genesis.
King James Bible
Then the LORD (Yĕhovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD ( Yĕhovah) out of heaven;
Varnel Watson
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?
Rico Hero
According to Strong’s, Jehovah(H3068) means “the existing one” and is “the proper name of the one true God”.Yet, clearly scripture records 2 Jehovah’s. The one Jehovah who said: ” I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” Is Jesus. When He saw Sodom and Gomorrah, he rained brimstone and fire from Jehovah in Heaven. King James Bible
Then the LORD (Yĕhovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD ( Yĕhovah) out of heaven;
Varnel Watson
Strongs is not really a grammar tool The original YHWAH phrase is in simple future tense literally translated I shall be who I shall be
Rico Hero
King James Bible translates it “I AM WHO I AM”.
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
Lexicon on Strong’s H3068 – Yĕhovah, does also give the root word ( H1961). No doubt taken into consideration when defining H3068
I wonder how the Jews , Oneness, etc. deal with/deny 2 Jehovah’s here
King James Bible
Then the LORD (Yĕhovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD ( Yĕhovah) out of heaven;
Varnel Watson
You are correct The probable origin of the term Yahweh is –
• a combination of the Hebrew word ‘was’ (HYH);
• plus the present tense additive (W) to produce HWH;
• to which is then added the future prefix (Y) to produce YHWH.
In other words, in YHWH is simultaneously the past, the present, and the future!
Varnel Watson
Brian Roden ANGELS on he loose this season 🙂 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt1ut_FV4AAD5If.jpg
Varnel Watson
Brian Copeland you can tag here your rich distant cousin Ken Copeland (joking) Heiser was a consultant on this little video. It sums of his other-realm-ology rather succinctly with us without mentioning any specific pagan texts.
I don’t interpret in Genesis the sun and moon ruling day and night to mean they were spiritual entities. Nations around Israel worshipped them, but I do not see where they are presented as evil or rebellious creations elsewhere in scripture. Is interpreting Genesis to mean the sun and moon are intelligent beings, sons of God, maybe even, members of the divine council interpreting the Bible through a pagan lens?
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”.
Varnel Watson
BTW heiser is no big deal any more He was when LOGOS contracted him to write for them bible studies
Bib Pritchett COE of logos and good friend made a marketing move – he is no theologian
heiser used it to make some money off logos customers similar to M Brown and perry stone do with their bombastic teachings from time to time ?
Varnel Watson
so Brian Copeland what was the deal with the minister who studied this from LOGOS and what did he do then with it?
Brian Roden
Troy Day I an in the middle if his Angels book at the moment. Haven’t read Unseen Realm but have listened to his talks on it.
I do listen to Naked Bible weekly and appreciate how he makes those outside the academy aware of scholarship
Varnel Watson
Brian Roden not sure about outside of academy BUT what do you think about all the extra Biblical stuff he puts in the BIBLE – Brian Copeland may have a very valid concern here as to HOW all this reflect on our every day ministry
Brian Copeland
Troy Day Amen
Varnel Watson
Brian Copeland to be honest with you I wouldnt have picked this topic back if you hadnt asked Too busy preaching the Gospel to deal with such theological heresies