An Alternative to Heiser's Divine Council Theology
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 03. 2022
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
This is the third part in my series evaluating the theology and methodology of Michael Heiser and his Divine Council approach to the Old Testament.
I feel like a lot of people don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of what Heiser says, they might disagree with his wording. But what I will say, is that I don’t think someone has to necessarily be right about everything to be considered worth turning your ear to and hearing what they have to say. God bless all my brothers and sisters seeking out truth!
The problem with arguing Heiser is that Heiser comes from a theological position that supersedes the church fathers of the 3rd century and goes back to 2nd temple Judaism.
So this gentlemen’s arguments fall short in that it’s doesn’t matter if you embrace Heiser or not, as Heiser’s theological construct (as Heiser claims) is what was believed at the time when the New Testament source material was claimed to have been written.
I think this was also mentioned in previous comments, but Heiser does not present anything new, but rather is a collector and re-distributor of scholarly work on the topic that most Evangelical scholars are not very comfortable disseminating and go against the “traditional” Christisn theological narrative of the church fathers, leading to now.
Therefore, again. Going against Heiser’s conclusion of his 2nd temple Judaism theology/cosmology using theology drafted hundreds of years later makes no sense. You cannot prove Heiser’s theology from antiquity wrong using modern theology derived from our church fathers. It not relative!
You can say, the theology evolved from one to another, but unless you argue Heiser’s theology in its contexts “tit for tat” and come up with your own 2nd temple Judaism theory or prove it false, you have no argument against Heiser. We get that you don’t like it, it maybe wrong, may not be accurate theology to modern ears, but unless you start getting deep into history and Death Sea Scroll stuff, good luck trying to prove him wrong.
ok.. I misunderstood your position at first... so if you read my comment before I deleted it, please forgive me ... the points I was emphasizing in _defense_ of Heiser are apropos to what I now understand you were saying bc.. that "time when the New Testament source material was claimed to have been written"
is literally *_the fulness of the time_* when "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal 4:4-5)
the time we are ALWAYS to have in remembrance when the Holy Spirit of God inspired the disciples of Jesus Christ, God in the FLESH HIMSELF, to "CLAIM":
"we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2Pet 1:15-21)
so yes... anything that surfaced 250y later in FACT misses THE time that God HIMSELF chose to reveal all things in Christ Jesus!
BINGO!
Bingo! 👏👏👏
@@swimant0 It didn’t surface 250 years latter. The intertestmental period
describes an apocalyptic conflict between good and evil at the coming of the Messiah. Christ confirms this spiritual warfare motif through out his ministry.
@Kali 808 You’re focusing to much on tradition which clearly goes in contradiction with to the Bible. Heiser’s theology is wrong.
@@thomasglass9491 how so? In my comment I mentioned that Heiser goes AGAINST traditional Christian Theology and roots his theology in the inter-testamential period based on recent scholarly work done on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other 2nd temple Judaism beliefs now known to have been practice at the time in which the writers of the New Testament lived. Heiser assess that our problem is that we use our modern theology rooted in the Augustine tradition to interpret the Bible, rather than use the context and perspective of the actual New Testament writers.
So if the “tradition” of using the context of the biblical writers of 2nd temple Judaism contradicts the Bible, which context should we be using then? Augustine? Who lived much later?
For all that is worthy, it is a healthy thing that someone critique Heiser's teachings. No one is inerrant.
Critiquing for the sake of critiquing is imbecility.
Actually I went from the Sethite interpretation of Gen 6 to Heiser’s view after studying the various sources.
I have a respectful question about the heiserian view. If angels are not given in marriage as Jesus says, why would they have the parts to reproduce with women?
The same has been occurring for me. In college in my Pentateuch class I ended up taking a position similar to the Sethite interpretation, or as Gen 6 referencing Polygamy. After revisiting the passage and topic in the last year I definitely see the biblical and linguistic context as well as the cultural interpretive context of 2nd Temple Judaism making a much stronger case for positions like that of Heiser’s.
@@imb6068 that’s a great question
@@imb6068 I struggle with this as well initially but Heiser offered a couple of possible solutions in his book The Unseen Realm.
@@spacemanspiff9773 Yeah i think the most probably view is that either it was demons who possessed men. Or it was a very small gene pool that created giants. these would both account for the post flood giants.
Dr Heiser says in nearly every lecture and makes it known in his books that the material is far from unique to him. His goal is to take high end scholarly material related to old and new testament and make it decepherable.
But I can see how some may feel completely hit off guard as though something new or foreign (concealed but now revealed) has come along.
Loved the video and I believe you made some valid points.
Ya, but “new” to Christian orthodoxy and “new” secular academia are two different things. I generally take the fallen angels view but Heiser seems to put way too much weight in modernistic scholarship, which is a methodological problem, in my view.
I would find Heiser's view very suspect if there wasn't a history of the view being held at earlier times. I think one of the flaws of Heiser's approach is ignoring Christian Tradition and what the church has taught on these things. I tend towards his view in a lot of ways, but I am really glad for Cooper's response and the sources he gives.
@@justinmayfield6579 what’s wrong with modern scholarship? We have access to more sources and information then we did. Technology also makes biblical word searches and comparison far easier. The Dead Sea scrolls have only been open to the public to study since around 2000. Not to mention the modern scholarship method of peer review does a great job of trying to protect against people just making stuff up to defend their position. I understand there are a lot of
Secular scholars and liberal ones, but plenty of conservative believers who are all interpreting these data points
@Oscar Magana lots, honestly. We don’t have more access than the people that were there and there are many points in history where people had more data than we do on a given topic (most things don’t make it through history). There’s also proximity to the topic in time and culture and the benefit of tradition carrying forward the best of the insights that God gave the church.
As an aside, it seems to me Heiser doesn’t seem to quote conservative Christian scholars all that much, but I might be wrong.
@@justinmayfield6579 yeah but we have all of that to consider too. Heiser was trying to recover the original context, because traditional unfortunately in many was is late, and developing. Heifers whole approach is to get the ancient Israelite in your head…that’s what ane scholars are trying to do
I also noticed the possible Open Theism of Heiser and Dr. Cooper is the first one to mention that. That makes me realize I was not off in that.
If you have watched his contents, you would find he address open theism that he had a lot of good discussions with his opentheist friends. Opentheists disregard foreknowledge and predestination and Heiser don't because he believes on interpreting the Bible in its context as it is.
Fascinating that you should lead with Heiser’s understanding of the image of God. He is the first scholar or theological or player, to have a compelling argument for life from conception to death, and including people of diminished physical and mental capacity, all based in mankind being made in the image of God.
Gracious my typos are not helping me today. ‘scholar or theologian or pastor’.
Couldn't agree more. Heiser gave me a solid way to explain why the Bible argues for the value of life based on the intrinsic goodness of existing. This is true for all humans regardless of stage of development or disability.
Check out Stanley Hauerwas. He is Christian ethicist who has been talking about this stuff prior to Heiser. He makes a compelling argument for prior to conception.
No, he isn't. Many theologians and ethicists have put forward compelling arguments for human dignity from conception to death based on the theological concept of the image of God.
If you watch this clip, one of the first things Heiser says is that he's not saying anything new (at about 1:32).
czcams.com/video/dG6W5bNR3ik/video.html
The FIIRST scholar to make such an argument? Heiser fans seem exceptionally narrow-sighted.
I’m looking for part 4 of the Heiser content, particularly your perspective of the NT Enochian stuff. Love your work! Thanks.
Yeah, you don't understand Heiser. You don't understand his views on Satan and Job, and why Heiser believes what he believes, and you've misrepresented his views. The fact Heiser is able to have such a high view of biblical divine inspiration while acknowledging some aspects of critical scholarship is a testament to how open and honest Heiser is while also smart to be able to work through it all.
This video is a joke. I'll stick with Dr Heiser's material than the flat alternatives of other protestant views.
Amen, my sibling in Christ!
So glad to read your comment before I wasted two hours on this guy.
Lol you and every other heiserian say the same thing. Heiser is virtually alone in his study which means he doesn't have academic peers to refute or acreddit his work. His followers basically have no way of knowing if his arguments are true or false because of their distance from the greek and the hebrew. The bible is clear systematically and logically.
He literally stated what michael heiser said in his video on satan in job. check it out. the TRUTH about SATAN in job is the video title.
@@imb6068 lol this comment prove a lot, you never really hear his lecture or read his book. If you read Unseen Realm you will understand that he just put a summary of many high scholarship material and translate it unto a language which understandable by a lay person. You just need to read how many CHRISTIAN scholarship material that you undermine by your comment.
Are you familiar with Stephen De Young? He is an eastern Orthodox theologian who makes simmilar arguments to Heiser.
And better
G. llol no his treatment is a less inspiring Heiser
@@j.g.4942 Yeah no, I've read Fr Steven De Young's books, and listened to Lord of spirits, and Heiser's treatment is far superior. I wouldn't be surprised if Orthodoxy and the religion of the apostles depended on Heiser's stuff
Regarding the power of idols, I was fascinated by Athanasios' treatment in 'on the incarnation'. That after the devil was bound by Christ the idols lost all their power, used as an argument for Christ against the gentiles
I love that book!
Did I miss something? It seems like the only interaction with the word “Elohim” was from Genesis 1.
No mention of Psalm 82; Psalm 89:5-7; Job 38:4-7; Judges 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33; 1 Samuel 28:13
All these places where the word Elohim occurs and clearly does not refer to The God of Israel
Hello..i still haven't heard any credible points disputing Heiser? If I'm not mistaken, all Heiser is saying is that you need to interpret the Scripture in its own context through the minds of the original authors of its time.. Not regurgitate theological dogma through traditions...if you don't like what the text emulates, you shouldn't blame the messenger..
So. You need heiser to interpret scripture through the minds of the original context. he carelessly says that "my idea is what the original authors would have understood it as" while citing a few corroborating opinions and completely ignoring the rest.
I think part of the confusion is that MH doesn't always directly cite the sources, which I wish that he did, because contemporary sources from the time actually do support his thesis.
@@imb6068 What you said can be applied to any church leader. Lol. What nonsense. You're complaining about the presentation of ideas, and you're not even correct as I've seen Heiser videos where he is showing texts and the linguistic interpretation of the text, and cross referencing texts with other sections of text.
So on top of your statement being overly broad, it's not even correct.
I'm seven minutes in and I can already tell you the subtext (deeper meaning) behind the pretext. Heiser was not a Calvinist, sometimes even a critic of Calvinism. Calvinists view such Christians as unsaved, so their Biblical exegesis is flawed.
Actually not moved at all with this argument. Not even a little. We should all try to understand the grammar of it and agree that heiser is correct
Absolutely not! Heiser focuses so much on tradition because Scripture doesn’t support he’s view.
@@thomasglass9491 he actually does the opposite. You have clearly never listened to his podcasts.
@@vinny2459 He does focus on tradition a great deal
@@johnygoodwin3441 The Late Rabbinical tradition of the Pharisees who rejected the Messiah, that is.
many Heiser-Aid fans are unwittingly insisting that Arminianism/freewill theism is the “default” viewframe for reading Scripture, rather than stepping back to ask what parts of that frame the Bible teaches, and what parts are inferences-and, if they are inferences, how are they being made?
The line I see from Naked Bible folks is just standard, naïve freewill theism. It’s based on precognitive intuitions, rather than on either contextual exegesis or philosophical theology.
He starts talking about elohim at about 30:00
You really nailed it when you highlighted the centrality of libertarian free will to Heiser's view.
That is not really a fault - Temple period is not Augustinian. In fact if you are not careful with the way you formulate bondage of human will you can fall into another error - Manichaeanism. Though I am Lutheran I must say I hear Lutheran and Reformed speack about bondage but they are images of Manichaeanism which the Book of Concord condemns.
as you’re considering different content options, doing a program on infant baptism would be great
I would actually like to see that as well
his debate with Gavin Ortlund on infant baptism was good, but seeing some newer podcast would be nice
Dr. Cooper, this is helpful but you could make this experience even more helpful by providing the links to Episode 1 and 2 in the description box.
I agree this is the best response I know to rebut Dr Heiser, but it is still very poorly answered It needs to be taken seriously please find a book that has the hebrew properly written and deal with just one subject example "angels rebel anytime , give quotes etc ... Dr Cooper wasn't even sure if he had said it. I am coming to a conclusion this is becoming like a reformation moment ....rescuing the bible back from the medieval times. This maybe not a bad thing as the Unseen Realm book does make a lot of logical sense.
How delightful is to hear you Dr. Cooper. I have learnt a lot today and you outlined it pretty clearly for the common lay person. Thanks again! May God bless your YT channel.
The ha-satan in Job is clearly not the Satan of the NT. the text itself doesn’t lead you to “Satan”, unless you start presupposing it is.
5:32 the Key Word for this presentation is "Older Scholarship"
Will you please do the fourth and final part of this series, dealing with Peter and Jude? You're one of the few people out there offering a critique of Heiser's theory on Genesis 6.
I'm so grateful that someone is critiquing Heiser
We shouldn't let impose our modern theology onto a text written by Ancient Near-Eastern authors.
Not sure what view you take, but this is what I think Heiser does.
@@justinmayfield6579 I don't agree with Heiser on everything...but the gods of pagan religions are the fallen angels. That much I know because I used to be in the Occult before getting saved, that's what the satanic cults literally teach, plus I've seen the "gods" manifest. They're real spirits. They exist. And they're demonic. Heiser isn't wrong about that, I can testify through real supernatural experiences. That's why anything pagan is prohibited in the Bible, because all of it comes from the fallen.
@@turnage_michael I appreciate the testimony. Ya, I agree with that, for the most part. Both church tradition and explicit Bible passage speak to that. I just don’t like what I’ve seen of some of Heiser’s methodology even if I agree with some conclusions.
@@justinmayfield6579 That's why anything pagan is prohibited in the Bible, because all of it comes from the fallen in the Days of Noah and occult false worship along with witchcraft was mass perpetuated after the flood by Nimrod, a.k.a Ninmer-kar King of Sumer and son of Kish (kar is a title, it literally means "the Hunter", if you remove the vowels for the cuneiform characters EN/NIN and MER you get N-M-R, add a D as the final consonant and you get the Hebrew word for "Rebellious One." Extremely clever wordplay!)
@@justinmayfield6579 If you look up pictures of the Sumerian gods they're clearly angels. Noah's ark rested in the the mountains of Aratta, also called Urartu in modern-day Turkey. Noah's name in Akkadian is Nuāḫu which literally means "relief" "comfort" or "solace." The word can also mean to dream or have prophetic visions. It is no coincidence therefore that the oldest known civilization after the flood is Göbeklitepe which is in Turkey not to mention not too far from the Aratta mountain range. I believe that the ancient civilization of Aratta was monotheistic and it was Sumer that popularized polytheism after the flood, leading to the Babel incident and the Deuteronomy 32:8 event where the nations were literally handed over to their "gods" who are the powers and principalities of darkness. In much the same respect God handed Israel over to the Babylonians.
Jordan, I sure would appreciate you tackling the NT passages used to support Hesier’s view. Still hoping.
Thank you for completing. Much appreciated.
Édit: does ANYONE have the answer?
The will IS in bondage to sin? Or WAS? Is your will in bondage to sin, pastor?
This ties in with my earlier question you maybe didn’t have time for: When are you forgiven for one particular actual sin and how (practically) do you pray for forgiveness / receive absolution? Are you already forgiven before you confess? If not, what if you fail to confess a mortal sin? Do you pray for forgiveness silently (in your head, so to speak?) What’s the process?
How do you receive absolution if alone? Do you say “forgive me for x….[pause]…thank you for forgiving me..”? And what if you just have guilt feelings but don’t put words to them? Is that enough?
I recommend a pastoral series on how to live as a Lutheran.
The angels in Hell were condemned for leaving their first estate and going after strange flesh. Supernatural nephilim is the original interpretation.
Not sure why Dr. Cooper is afraid of this.
ah yes, of course Dr. Cooper must be afraid of this interpretation, there’s no conceivable reason why a man of decent intellect might wager otherwise. Silly Lutherans
@@sola8181 There is typically something psychologically uncomfortable about a topic when the prima facie interpretation is abandoned for the novel interpretation introduced in late antiquity.
Ex: Augustine rejected the ancient interpretation because it bore too much resemblance to the manichean doctrines he left behind.
Some people like nice clean lines which inhabit small boxes. If angels and men, flesh and spirit, become blurred categories, their entire psyche feels an uncomfortable strain.
@@Catholic-Perennialist Yeah, I don't really know why this would cause discomfort. Sacramental theology is an uncomfortable blend of the categories of matter and spirit (so is the incarnation, for that matter) for many Protestants. Foolishness to the Greeks, I suppose.
@@vngelicath1580 What may be at the root of it is the abandonment of Augustine. Augustine held to the novel Sethite view and consequently so have most Lutherans.
To deviate on this point may garner a lot of resistance with Cooper's camp, but he would not keep bringing it up if Heiser's view could be dismissed out of hand.
@@Catholic-Perennialist The strange flesh, the Prince of Persia, etc. I just feel that the Sethite view has to explain away too many pieces to make itself seem like the natural reading.
I don't feel super strong one way or the other but my concern is going to be if proponents of the Sethite view claim that Heiser is the innovation and the Sethite view is the Patristic majority view. It does seem to be the _default_ in the West following St. Augustine, and that's fine (not heretical) but at least in the East and the Pre-Augustinian West, the "Heiserian" or "Enochic" mode is at least the most consistent approach.
I just don't want people to claim that the Heiserian view is a modern "Liberal" scholarly development away from conservative theology. In some ways, it is really important to ask, "what was the 'worldview' of the Biblical authors?" so we don't color our reading using our own presuppositions (be they 4th century, 16th century, or 21st century).
I think you try to be fair but also be better to get to the point of topic and also not go off on little tangents. People's time is often limited so staying focused on topic without spending so much time on expanding details on other things would be satisfactory. Thank you.
I concur.
Hello there Dr Jordan Cooper Another enlighten content. More thought provoking material to think about.. By the way I am not saying this to boost your ego up. I would like to say that you are one of my personal favourite Christian CZcams channel. Once again thank you ✝️✝️❤️
1. I get what you are trying to say, I have a few problems with it though. It isn't as simple as Monotheism. Thats something that later was used to explain it but then how do you explain the command in the Pentateuch to Destroy all the Ashera Poles. 2. I would be quite curious to know who god was speaking to in the "Counsel of Gods" in the book of Job when he gave Satan permission to test Job, as well as the psalm 82 " God takes a stand in the divine counsel,
gives judgement in the midst of the gods. How long will you just unjustly and favor the cause of the wicked?
Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy.
Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked/
the gods neither know nor understand, wandering about in the darkness,
and all the world's foundations shake.
I declare: "Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you,
Yet like any mortal you shall die;
like any prince you shall fall.
Arise, O God, judge the earth,
for yours are the nations.
I am trying to understand then who is God speaking to in that psalm.
Where did the authorites, principalities, and rulers of darkness, as mentioned in Eph 3:10 and Eph 6, come from?
The angels who rebelled with Lucifer.
This is probably the fifth or sixth video rebuttal of Heiser's work that I have watched. Like the rest, it is not a rebuttal at all, because all it does is restate all the views that Heiser already dealt with in his work. In fact, that's the point of his books and teachings; that all these non‐supernatural views fall short. Do you think that in the 20 or so years Heiser has worked on this, that he was completely unaware of these scholars? You seem to be a nice person and are not condescending like others, but this falls woefully short of being a rebuttal. Shalom.
Your KDP paperbacks Christification and TRoO biffed the Greek when I bought them last(?) year as well. It was kind of annoying as it lopped off the remainder of the English text of the line too! Do they not send samples to check before distribution?
I really want to hear any apostle related church-father commentary on Divine Council material, such as on Polycarp level.
Not some church father that separated by a hundreds years from the second temple period like Augustine.
Your videos coming up for me after Heisers death - this is interesting, to say the least.
Where is part 4?
Haven’t watched the whole thing but had a question about biblical theology as you explained it (perhaps you clarify later in the video). I got the impression that you were saying that biblical theology was somehow inherently “critical”, or that it necessarily assumes form criticism or source criticism or religio-historical criticism? It seemed to me you were defining biblical theology as a field that sets itself up as a denial of the possibility of systematic theology or one that assumes the denial of inspiration? It’s my understanding that biblical theology is merely the attempt to explicate the theology of the text of scripture itself, and is a complimentary field of theology alongside systematic and historical theology, with its own goals and methods. I’m just thinking about the contemporary explosion of evangelical biblical theology in recent times with people like Beale, Shreiner, Hamilton, Alexander, House, Sailhamer Morales etc. These are thoroughly evangelical and affirm inspiration, don’t affirm liberal conclusions (either of theology or biblical studies). Probably I’ve misunderstood you?
He is only saying that the field of biblical theology originated as an alternative to systematic theology, not that it is inherently opposed to it.
@@kairos6141 yea that’s what I thought, thanks
"For the truth shall be spoken; since of old these evil demons, effecting apparitions of themselves, both defiled women and corrupted boys, and showed such fearful sights to men, that those who did not use their reason in judging of the actions that were done, were struck with terror; and being carried away by fear, and not knowing that these were demons, they called them gods, and gave to each the name which each of the demons chose for himself."
- Justin Martyr, First Apology, 2nd Century
"And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that “he was introducing new divinities;” and in our case they display a similar activity. For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason" Looks like DR. Heiser is getting the same treatment by the so-called "Scholars" doesn't it?
Justin Martyr was one of the first to get the demon myth rolling in the Christian Church. I suggest anyone read Duncan Heaster's "The Real Devil" to get a Biblical handle on the subject. I was stunned to realize how much of the Christian belief in supernatural evil spirit beings does not come from Scripture, but is rather read into it through unquestioned inherited presuppositions. The Real Devil can be read online or printed out for easier reading. The book sells for 150 dollars on Amazon. I printed it out for about 30 dollars. Well worth the read whether you agree with every single thing the book says.
Show me where Heiser is wrong please. Saying that you disagree because you like another perspective is not proof of anything. The talk is so nebulous as to be completely useless. Get to the point please.
Is there more than one Michael Heiser? You seem to know another one other than the one I know of.
Actually, I believe that there IS another Michael Heiser, but I don't know much about him. I just seem to recall that there is another one who is also an author, but who doesn't do biblical scholarship material.
This video is not worth your time.
Cooper’s arguments aren’t very strong-a lot of assertions and flat disagreements without much substantive argumentation.
Heiser’s views are based on very low-level analysis of the language, surrounding languages, cultural contexts, and contemporary literature.
The meaning of the text in The Bible is inextricably linked to the meaning of the language used by the authors, and what it meant to them. So to really deconstruct his view, one would need to engage the arguments down to that level. This video doesn’t do that.
My criticism of Dr Heiser is that he needs to pick out better shirts to wear.. Luther pointes out that in the last days we will know more about Angels and now we do..thanks to people like Heiser and archeology... and videos. We are in the last days.. population explosion, the great falling away which happened in the 19th century... Darwinism, Communism and Feminism and in the 21st century the manipulation of our DNA... Yes we know a lot more than the great reformers. They may have had a different opinion today than they had 100, 200 or 500 years ago. PS Luther observed that science would one day be turned against Christianity..He was very critical of what they were using astronomy for.
Colossians 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
seems like we are in these times now, people more worried about angels and visions rather than Christ
what does this have to do with Jesus Christ?
I'm a native german speaker, could you give me the sources?
Gotta say, this is a much better and more professional response to Heiser than most I’ve seen. Well done, Doctor.
I prefer my professionals to be correct - I hope any lawyer, accountant or doctor I need is not so error prone.
@@MrZORROish Dr Cooper has conservative and widely held views, so if you're going to critique him you should do so with clarity.
@@ContemplativeSoul I like the argument that Heiser can't be true because of 'our' doctrine of Total Depravity/Absolute Inability. It's funny cause that doctrine isn't even biblically based.
@@huntsman528 Does Cooper actually saying Total and Absolute in regards to Depravity and Inability and you can reference where before I waste my time rewatching this from 3 months ago? This just doesn't sound like something a Lutheran would say- I'd expect something more nuanced..
@@ContemplativeSoul Lutherans are 1.5 star Calvinists. They affirm Total Depravity / Absolute Inability the same as Calvinists. Unconditional Election is the half star. They believe in regeneration being required to have faith. But they also believe that regenerated to fall away with Apostasy, if they are not elect. It actually seems like the best Calvinist position as it fits much better with scripture. I personally don't believe in absolute inability as there is no scripture that says that. I'll see if I can find his video to watch on it. He also went off on provisionism Because provisionism does not affirm absolute inability. It affirms Human Depravity, but says the Gospel is sufficient for anyone to believe, as the scripture says.
What are the differences between the AALC and the ELDONA and why did you not join the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. The ELDONA has Bishop James Heiser.
I don't agree with Heiser on everything, however the pagan gods exist and they are fallen angels, the Bible explicitly says so...period.
Except that's not really what Heiser says. He would correct you for calling pagan gods "fallen angels". What you have stated is exactly my understanding but I do not agree with Heiser. I would have liked to ask Heiser some questions. For one, were the supernatural beings (what I refer to as angels) who God supposedly assigned to rule the nations fallen or unfallen when initially assigned to rule? Second, were the angels (or whatever Heiser would call them) who couldn't control their lust, loyal to God prior to getting married to women? Where did these uncontrollable urges come from? Why did every single "god" that was assigned to rule the nations fail so miserable? I mean, I don't feel very comfortable with the idea of interacting with these "gods" for all of eternity. They could rebel at any moment.
Isn't there a spirit giving a suggestion in 1 Kings 22:19-23? Yes, it's God administering his judgment, but a spirit tells God how he will complete the judgment.
Dr. Cooper, I greatly appreciate the way you presented your side. I thought you were polite and gracious. I disagree with your perspective, but that's okay. These topics should never divide us.
There's an issue that I believe you misrepresented Dr. Heiser's view. He was making the argument that the "gods" were the disobedient sons of God. Not that they were "gods" in the way that we think today. These would be the created supernatural beings. Dr. Heiser fully believed in One True God. This idea can be shown in 1 Cor 10:20 where Paul references Duet 32:17.
I apologize in advance if I misunderstood you and that's what you were saying.
Not Dr Heiser's peer. Jeers from the balcony.
You think alot as opposed to what scripture says
Ahh yes, no freedom. God delights in his own will which is to compel creatures into sin. Sin, which he later takes very personally.
@Cal Stop misinterpreting Calvinism. God doesn’t compel nobody to sin, we do it ourselves. God is sovereign and eternally decree everything including sin but that doesn’t makes him the author of sin. Haven’t you heard the doctrines of compatibilism and secondary causes?
@@thomasglass9491 Was it in lucifer's nature to sin? Was it in Adam's nature to sin? Did they have the power to chose otherwise? I believe they did have the power, whereas Calvinism would say that nothing outside of God's will can occur, and that God enforces his will on every micro level.
We worship the God of freedom who gifted man with free will, has as painful as it may be respected man’s choices in choosing him or separation from him, who created his people in an act of freeing them from slavery.
I get Heissers hermanuetic, but if you stretch it out further than he may have not been willing to take it you can end up in some dangerous waters. Heisser believed we should be reading and interpreting the old testament through the lense of jews during 2nd temple judaism, and thats the best way to view it. These are jews that didnt have a full revelation of Messiah, and largely rejected Jesus as Messiah. Much of what we believe about Jesus and salvation and the trinity etc. jews under second temple Judaism would have considered anathema. He wants to claim that its anacronistic to see the trinity in the Genesis account, but thats exactly how the apostles developed their theology. They were looking for Christ and the gospel and its patterns of revelation concealed in the shadow of the old. I guess it just boils down to consensus orthodoxy versus consistent orthodoxy. Heisser himself said that he didnt do debates which I think did his credibility a disservice. When you put your ideas out there in the public square, you should want to have your ideas cross examined if they are truly right.
Yeah, Jesus' view of Scripture is what I want in my head - not Mesopotamia, not ANE, not book of Enoch and not 2nd temple Messiah-deniers.
If you skip the first thirty minutes, you can get to where he kinda starts addressing some of Heiser's view, but most of it is about a couple of 18th century German guys. This guy is a bit hard to follow.
Edit: He seems like a nice person though.
🙏✝️🙏
Lol so funny. “And he is wrong there.”
Never thinking that you could be wrong! Lol.
I think imago dei is a bit be a bit of both operationally and ontologically speaking.
And you could be wrong too.
only God can have libertarian free will
everything He creates cannot, that's like saying God can make another God like Himself....
I’m with Heiser. His view has more support from Scripture.
In this recent video, Cooper spent the first 32 minutes and 46 seconds without referring to any source material, despite the video's stated goal of critiquing Michael Heiser. I appreciate discussions like these, but the lack of direct engagement with Heiser's work for over half an hour was disappointing. Cooper offered interpretations rather than focused critiques, missing an opportunity to engage substantively with Heiser's arguments. Ideally, Cooper should present Heiser's original citations and the foundational sources Heiser uses, especially since Heiser himself admits to building on existing ideas rather than introducing original thoughts.
Furthermore, Cooper misrepresents Heiser’s views on monotheism without providing sources for Heiser’s claims. When Cooper finally referenced a source, it failed to address Heiser’s specific distinctions between Angels and the ‘sons of God’-a point on which Heiser would find some agreement with the source Cooper used.
In his book "The Unseen Realm," Heiser describes demons as the disembodied souls of the Nephilim, which further highlights the inaccuracies in Cooper's critique
For a meaningful critique, it’s crucial that Cooper accurately represents Heiser’s positions and the basis of his arguments. This would pave the way for a substantive dialogue and a true critique of Heiser's work. As it stands, the credibility of Cooper's critiques suffers due to these misrepresentations, and those familiar with Heiser's work can easily recognize these discrepancies.
A full thirty minutes of just giving background, some relevant and most not, before you really get started. You sir, are definitely a Lutheran scholar!
Oh. You are reformed. I see why you need to disagree. Dr Heiser is not, as far as I know, unique in any of his views. He and I began discussing this in 2009, and he pointed me to his source material. I was one of many who gave him initial feedback on his initial draft of what became TUR. We landed in different spots on some things, but I remain convinced he is entirely correct on the supernatural worldview of first century Judaism and the OT.
Hello friend, I was just reading comments here(mostly old) and noticed you commented yesterday. Do you have any work or content available? (Perhaps you are on on a episode of the Naked bible? I haven’t listened to all of them yet). Great name by the way, I love that series.
I think you may be being a little disingenuous here with regards to Heiser claiming to have found some new interpretation of the sons of God /divine council argument . Heiser consistently states that the ideas concerning these subjects are not his in origin .
Heiser says “monotheism” is misleading because it leads people to think the Bible is “monoelohimist” which it most definitely is not. Hope that helps. 👍
@@imb6068 Elohim is not a position, it’s an ontological category.
@@imb6068 The Hebrew says, “I have made you elohim to Pharaoh.” Notice that the Lord (Yahweh) did not tell Moses that he “is” elohim but that the Lord has “made” Moses elohim “to Pharaoh.” These qualifications make it absolutely clear that this text is to be understood along the same lines as Exodus 4:16, which as we have seen in the Hebrew is a simile. In this text the lack of the particle meaning as simply changes the figure of speech from a simile to a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a comparison is made without the use of the words as or like. In other respects, though, a metaphor is equivalent to a simile in terms of the resulting meaning. Thus the sentences, “My daughter is like an angel” and “My daughter is an angel” mean exactly the same thing. Anyone reading the first sentence and then shortly thereafter reading the second sentence ought to have no trouble understanding that the second sentence is a metaphor.
Looks like you’re pointing at a couple edge cases uses of the word to back up your claim without realizing that it’s the exceptions that actually prove the rule
@@imb6068 I actually haven’t read anything from heiser, this isn’t really attributable to him as the guy who “discovered” this
I don't see how Heiser gets credit for divine council theology. A cultures had fantasy literature.
Function is a near eastern thing, ontology was a western Greek thing.
First, Compelling is a feeling. "Not as compelling as a lot of people think..." is a nonsense sentence. If a lot of people feel it's compelling, well that's basically the definition of compelling. Second I dont like and generally mistrust "fast talkers". They are generally that way because they dont actually believe what they're saying and don't want to allow anyone to issue a challenge to it, Funny how that is, even on CZcams where everything is one sided... lol
Third is....I also dislike the begging. When you do it at the beginning it also shows lack of faith in your own presentation and the belief that we won't watch until the end. It's harder to skip at the beginning but these things give me doubt that whatever "theology" you are going to present is weak and has no basis. BUT there are some things that I disagree with Dr. Heiser also. He is no more perfect than the rest of us....
This is before the 3 minute mark.... let's see how long I last.
Sounds like you are having a bad day. I hope it gets better for you.
@@sierragrey7910 Not at all, but thank you for your concern. If themtruth upsets YOU (as it obviously does, per your statement) maybe you should harden yourself a little more.
May God bless us with his wisdom and his strength
You don't seem to address the "principalities" and "powers" that existed and were discussed in Daniel. They were the fallen angels, they were the gods of humanity. As an opportunity to show God wasn't making the right choice they entice man to follow them. Greek and Roman gods disappeared after Paul and the apostles unseated them in the early church. The eastern gods still exist because Paul wasn't allowed to go there. The Divine counsel isn't the only Elohim in the heavens. It's not rocket science.
@44:00 You are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what ancient Israelites believed if you think simply stating "There is no god like Yahweh" means they didn't believe the gods of other nations weren't real! It'd be like you saying there are no other football teams in the NFL compared to the Bills! The Jets are nothings. This isn't complicated rhetoric here... Also, calling another persons god, like Baal, a "demon" is far from saying that they are participating in sacrifice ( 1 Cor 10) to something that does not exist at all! Lutheran theology is clueless as to the mythological back story to demons, but early Christians still familiar with fables like 1 Enoch which were taken to be prophetic, absolutely knew who these other gods were and where they came from!
@53:00 The arguments may not have changed since the early 1900s to prove Jews and Christians essentially believed in fables/gods, but the evidence for this has gotten exponentially stronger to the point that an honest person must now re-evaluate their faith. It's like saying that people have speculated for centuries that the earth was a globe, but denying that we now have much better proof that this really is the case!
You claim that Heiser's ideas spring from the idea of a "libertarian free will". I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but Heiser's ideas definitely don't spring from anything resembling that. They come, quite explicitly, from the Old Testament and the 2nd Temple Jewish literature and other Ancient Near East literature for context.
Text in context is where he gets these ideas, and many of them are just something some other scholar wrote about first.
Free will, libertarian or otherwise, has nothing to do with it.
You complain about Heiser talking about freedom for humans and angels, and you say "it's a little bit odd". No, actually, you saying that's odd is what's odd. If you want to disagree with him on that minor point, go right ahead, but understand that (1) it's not something he dwells on a lot, and (2) it is not in any way foundational to his ideas.
Also, if your odd ideas about lack of freedom are somehow compatible with the Bible, I'm sure you could make them fit comfortably with Heiser's ideas at least as easily.
You claim that Lutheran and Reformed theology is incompatible with the idea of freedom. This does not accord with my understanding of Reformed theology. My understanding comes from a Calvinist pastor on youtube, Paul Vanderklay, and what I get from him is that God is sovereign and that humans are also free. Frankly, if your theology says humans aren't free, you're practically accusing God of being a monster, who mind controls people into sinning so he can throw them in hell, for no good reason.
But again, the problems your theology would have aren't with Heiser, they're with the Bible.
I think you're misrepresenting Heiser by saying that imaging God is only an activity. He says that imaging God is an active thing, but also that it's inherent in every human being at every point in life, and that thus it doesn't depend on any attributes. He does clearly say that God shares his attributes with us.
Heiser doesn't say the image of God is "partial". He's actually adamantly against exactly that. It's either there or it's not, period. The scripture about being conformed to the image of God is not something Heiser would have a problem with, he'd just say something along the lines of "there is an activity of being the image of God, or imaging God, and that's what that passage is about". He likes to refer to is as imaging God, or being an imager, rather than as a noun phrase "the image of God".
It's weird hearing you criticize Heiser on the imago Dei, because all you do is agree with him, you're just using slightly different wording to say the exact same thing.
In talking about development of doctrine and Satan, you're again misrepresenting Heiser. Heiser *does not* accept the critical wishy washy views. He has said specifically with reference to the later identification of "Ha Satan" with the serpent in the garden that it's a good and reasonable identification.
There was historically a development of doctrine, such that the author of Job in Hebrew actually said "Ha Satan", or "the accuser", which is a job description. The development was the identification of the accuser of Job with the serpent in Genesis. This has nothing to do with critical wishy washy nonsense. It's a description of how the doctrine developed.
You claim that somehow it would be difficult to sustain this view and also a high view of scripture, but that's just because you don't understand his view at all.
As an attempt at rebutting Heiser, you talk about two other scholars, who wrote 100 years ago, who addressed some of the same topics. You then explain that they wrote in German, and you don't read German. So, some older scholars, who may or may not be out of date on any particular topic, may or may not have disagreed with Heiser, and you can't tell us what they said, and we can't find out, unless we speak German.
That is *not* a convincing argument.
You accuse Heiser of believing that God divided up the nations. But that's literally what the Bible says.
You are misrepresenting Heiser again, by not explaining his position. You claim he's saying that ancient Israel was henotheistic. Not in the sense you're claiming. A fuller explanation would require getting into how Heiser talks about the word Elohim.
The claim that Heiser believes that God is only the God of Israel in the Old Testament is false. Instead, Heiser's view is that Israel worships the true God of the universe, while every other nation worships lesser created beings who disobeyed God.
Your claim that Heiser said monotheism isn't the best way to look at ancient Israelite religion sounds very off. It's possible that he said something similar, but if he did, he would have included enough explanation that it would be clear what he meant. If he did say something similar, then you've stripped off that explanation, which is wilfully misleading, at best.
There are parts of his views that could be misunderstood, and when he discusses them, he always includes enough clarification to avoid that misunderstanding, in the same place where he's presenting that part of his view.
Your claim that Heiser believes in an angelic role in creation is false. He says no such thing.
It's not clear what your argument about Elohim was about. You quote a guy saying something not quite identical to what Heiser says about that, but almost the same and totally compatible, then you act like you've debunked something, leaving us clueless about what you think you've debunked, or how you think it happened. You also haven't even engaged in Heiser's argument about what Elohim means in detail.
You claim that followers of Heiser say that being a monotheist is like saying no angels or demons exist. I don't believe you at all. This doesn't sound like something Heiser would say, and I've watched you misrepresent him over and over, so I don't believe you're accurately representing what they *actually* said.
"The guys I'm familiar with all used the term 'monotheism'." Well, guess what? Michael Heiser uses that term too! So here you are, misrepresenting him once more.
You quote somebody saying that Jehovah didn't develop from condensing many gods into one. Guess what? Heiser would say exactly the same thing.
You quote somebody trying to disagree with Heiser, who quote Bible verses that fail utterly to establish the point they want.
You quote somebody arguing that other gods are called "breaths" or "nothing". That's interesting, but doesn't establish your point. A more linguistic look at the underlying word would probably bring illumination. But even without knowing the underlying word, I know that the word for "breath" and "spirit" are the same, and calling them nothing could easily be a reference not to nonexistence, but to comparative importance.
The nullity of idols doesn't demonstrate a lack of existence of anything being worshiped by pagans. What it demonstrates is the nullity of idols.
The "God or Satan" alleged contradiction should be hard for you to deal with, given your rejection of agency for angels and humans. Interpreting Satan not as a name of a being, but as a job description would give you an out for this. You're caught here in a trap of your own making. You've got two separate ways out of this, but you don't want to let yourself take either one.
According to the theology you laid out earlier, you shouldn't be able to say it's true that Satan did the thing, because that would mean that Satan could act as an agent. But you do anyway.
Then you go on an mention secondary causes, which flat contradicts your earlier theological assertions that humans and angels don't have freedom. The justification of primary and secondary causes is that God allows us to be real secondary causes. Otherwise, why need two types of causes?
You claim he is "adamant against Calvinism", but I don't think that's true. I've never so much as heard him mention Calvinism. I don't think he's interested in Calvinism.
"There's lying spirits that God allows to be sent to prophets". This doesn't work. God doesn't just allow this. He sends them. There is literally a Divine Council scene where God asks the members of the council how to arrange some king's death. Then one says "I'll go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of his prophets", and God says to go do that.
Michael Heiser doesn't have much explaining to do with that text. He just reads it, and says, yeah, that's what it says happened, and that's what happened. But your view would have a great deal of difficulty with it.
That's the kind of thing you should be trying to tackle, the places where you have a hard time and Heiser doesn't. Or, if you can find a passage where his view would have a hard time, go over that, and how your view makes it easier.
If you could do either of those things, that would potentially be convincing. But this misrepresentation of Heiser's views, followed by smearing his followers with namecalling doesn't work. And neither does quoting pieces of some older scholar without going over a comparison of how Heiser does it.
It's fine to read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. But we shouldn't be reading the New Testament back retroactively, as if it were overwriting the Old Testament. If we do that, we won't understand much of what's in the Old Testament, and we won't even understand many things in the New Testament.
Excellent post. Thank you very much for taking the time.
I was immediately put off by Dr. Cooper making a big deal about free will as the foundation of Heiser's views. I think Dr. Cooper will have a very hard time with Scripture itself, not just Heiser's views, if he presupposes that mankind and angels have no agency.
Sounds like Heiser's the author of confusion.
The will is in bondage - before 1 is redeemed. The will remains hindered (we must fight the good fight of faith) but we are enabled by grace to choose to keep our faith. We can also choose to discard our faith. This is why I am not a Calvinist or an Arminian. I am a "neitherist". The one way a believer can lose their soul after redemption is through apostasy. If a person was not a true genuine believer they could not commit apostasy because they would have nothing to apostatize from. Apostasy being a true, genuine & complete rejection of 1's faith - not mere doubt. And this is coming from 1 who holds Luther as a hero of his faith.
30:11
Interesting.
Why would anyone want an alternative?
Turned this off when he said the Seithite view was his preferred explanation of Gen 6. Not Biblical at all.
Why is this clip on my feed!!! 😴
Just like the title of the video, it is an alternative of Heiser's Divine Council theology.
As i dont hear any of rebuttal of Heiser's point, summed this video in one sentence is like "i dont take this view, and this is alternative."
instead of explaining why on that point Dr Heiser is wrong, and lay your arguments there with the textual evidence or something, but you just cite some book/argue said 'here the passage should be read or understand like this.'.
I dont find this a compelling rebuttal, but a bunch of statements here and there.
Thank you for dealing with Heiser from such a broad view of existing scholastic works. He has a very strong following of individuals who have had an “aha” moment, as though Heiser is proposing something previously hidden, but now revealed due to his “unique expertise in ancient eastern languages.” There can be an unhealthy desire amongst many for illegitimate certainty, that is, certainty beyond what the scriptures reveal.
YOU have obviously not seen many of Dr. Heiser videos. HE STATES, HIMSELF, ON MANY VIDEOS that his views are NOT unique to himself and he, himself, is a COMPILER OF INFORMATION. Maybe you shouldnt speak on things that you have no clue about. Watch a few more of his videos, Im SURE you will hear him say just that..... He also NEVER says anything that can't be propped up with scripture. In fact, one of his favorite statements is "Just let the Bible be,what it is"... in other words dont add to it or make assumptions. If you feel that some of his videos (or even just one) are NOT supported by scripture please tell Me the title and we can discuss it then but as far as all of the videos I've seen almost every other sentence is scripture..... WOW, for someone making a bunch of wild statements you seem grossly uninformed. Now that I know your "angle" I will no longer bother with you. I will take the word of a man who can read THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE (One of his doctorate studies was ancient Hebrew, Greek, and ancient languages over a doofus, woefully uneducated person (such as yourself) because I'm SURE you know so much MORE than he does on the subject. Either read your Bibke or poke your head back in the sand
Sierra Grey, can you possibly become anymore arrogant 🤔?
@@garyzimmerman62 , you seem foolishly ignorant or arrogantly dismissive of the fact that there are MANY knowledgeable "old testament" students beside "Your Favorite", of comparable (or, heaven forbid, GREATER) acumen respecting what the Bible factually teaches and supports. There are MORE who have Masters or Doctoral credentials in whatever few areas Heiser might have had them, and MANY more again with credentials beyond his. Because of this, his peculiar academic errors have not gone without criticism. But there is even MORE...
Every non-paraphrased English version of the Bible is based upon TRANSLATIONS, so that the vast majority of the Bible's readers (yes, GZ, even you yourself) are beneficiaries of SOMEONE ELSE'S 'better-than-competent' grasp of Hebrew or Greek. All of this to say: It is a weak and empty boast--even IDOLATRY--to prefer some fallible human "teacher" over the Christ of God, His Mind and His Spirit (Mt 23:8-12; and the rest of the chapter, GZ, if you can stomach it); in poor Mr Heiser, you have elevated an all too proud and mortal man to MEDIATE (VOID?) for yourself significant terms governing your eternal destiny. As of the writing of this comment (02/24/2023), Mr Heiser has been made fully aware of all the defects in his patronizing "beliefs"... Someday, our "faith" must, similarly, "pass muster" before the Lord, as well (Mt 25:31-46)!
It will do well for each who professes a "Christian faith" to take stock NOW whether it IS true faith--humbly drawn from Divine testimony alone--or whether we've simply exchanged the blind human conceits of our own (or another) for the exceedingly marvelous work of God!
@@thomasdykstra100 WOW, talk about arrogance! My beliefs are just that, my beliefs. It is a shame you would rather spout insults than discuss. I am sorry for whatever traumatic incident or incidences, that has caused such hostility, from someone who professes to know God at that. I could really care less (while you seem to have some type of reaction to what I believe) what your opinion is. You believe what you want to and I will believe what I want to . In the Grand scheme, I know Yeshua and hope you do too so we will both see each other (presumably) on the New Earth.
Broad view indeed.
That's why so many Christians just breeze right over details lost in translation and then find themselves treating the Bible as purely allegory and relativistic, which is really the foundational source of the Church's current total failure and collapse.
Bad foundation. Christians treating the Bible as relativistic allegory mirrors the pagan world's libertarian/satanic stance that all morality is relative.
Words means things. Stories can be both literal and allegory simultaneously. Stories can be both history and project simultaneously.
Heiser understands this. Most Christians don't.
I think it's interesting to mention that the only church that includes Enoch as part of the biblical Canon is the Ethiopian Orthodox church. This church, however, only uses the sethite interpretation of Genesis 6. So even if you have a high view of the book of enoch, the Sethite interpretation should still not be off the table. It isn't for an entire church group, which predates augustine.
Are you serious? The Tawahedo Church seriously insists on the Sethite view? Do you have a reference? That's really interesting if true.
@@Mygoalwogel trying to reply... There is a commentary called the "Andəmta" which covers the Genesis account - it's a primary commentary on Genesis (from a tradition that doesn't do a lot of commentary). I just tried to link two articles (one from Pepperdine University) that reflect on this. It's pretty interesting. Not sure if I can link them here but if you search them, one from SagePub and the other should come up.
@@Mygoalwogel the article from Pepperdine is from David A Skelton, entitled "Angels among us?
The Watchers myth and
angelology in Ephrem’s
Commentary on Genesis and
the Ethiopic tradition"
@@jgiaq Thank you so much! Non- CZcams links don't send in CZcams. It's a safety issue, but also annoying when you really want to acknowledge your sources of information. We're back to the old Chicago Style book from college. Ha!
Thanks a bunch. I really wanted something interesting to read during an obligatory meeting that doesn't concern me today. You just saved me untold timespans of boredom.
There ya go, have fun! Thanks for tip about the links. Makes sense. Read up! Cool stuff.
20:19 theologians in old testament
In review of Heiser's videos I noticed, like many authors, he often speaks to his audience. So his interpretation seems to change depending on who he is talking to or being interviewed by. It comes across as disingenuous.
I appreciate you taking the time to present an alternate view...I would suggest having a better working knowledge of the Old Testament before taking on a man like Heiser. The example you quoted with regard to the false spirit being sent to the prophets illustrates how little you know about this topic. They weren't true prophets...they were the prophets of Ahab and God specifically asks the advice of counsel before settling on sending the one that proposes going with a false message....which directly contradicts your entire premise.
5:20
no its not what mike thinks ? its what the bible explicitly says ....the nations are worshiped.
12:40 Gustav Ehler
This was a well laid out video. It taught great examples on what an ad hominem argument looks like. Well done. It also did well showing what “appealing to the experts” looks like. It also showed “appealing to ancients” too. Wow Doctor seems someone might want to research fallacious arguments before doing a rebuttal video. Appealing to anyone outside modern scholars because they come from your traditional beliefs seems..:what’s the word…
You seem to be challenging Dr Heiser without pay attention to the basis of his thesis but consistently read and analyze him through the grid of your own theological basis which deliberately convolute his argument which to me does nothing in terms of exposing shortcomings about his thesis which you don't.
Heiser shows the 3 divine rebellions as described in Scripture and that informs the perspective on free will for divine beings. Not angels, as angel is a job description, but sons of God as described in Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 89, and elsewhere. There is a psalm that says that God couldn't trust his heavenly council, which also explains this idea.
It's well founded in Scripture.
Your main issue is that you insist on elevating the teaching of your traditions from the church fathers over the actual context of the Bible, which is ancient and has nothing to do with dark age Europe.
Luther in particular has some serious problems with doctrine, given the extreme antisemitism he produced. How do you reconcile the call to burn down synagogues and kill rabbis when our messiah is and always will be Jewish? That alone should give you pause for blindly adhering to the teaching of men over the in context writing in Scripture.
👏👏👏
With all do respect, please present "your view" of Divine Council. Setting up for a discussion to go against another one's interpretation and teaching is building on a negative platform. I think it would have been more appropriate to discuss "Your Interpretation" and leave Heiser out of your discussion. I tried to listen to you, but you are "reacting" instead of acting on how the Word speaks to you. Heiser did us a great service before his departure to "graduation and glory". May I suggest you take this video down, and present your own view as you see it. I wonder if you really would be able to present your base of discussion in a way that challenges me. Right now, as I listened to you, it was a "he said this...." and "he said that". Perhaps if you were to debate in a dialogue that gives the other person and chance to respond and clarify your own "misunderstandings". In theology, most theologians are blatantly pragmatic as they are not running on emotions, but on correct interpretation of the WORD. I am thankful for Dr. Heiser's work. He knew over 22 semitic languages and was faithful to teach us all to be our own "theologian" and to discern for ourselves what the WORD is saying. I hope you take this as an observation and not a criticism. I also know that he was faithful to his walk with the LORD. Thank you for hearing me out.
You got Mike all wrong. They might be thought of as gods, but they're just angels and YHVH handed us over to them because that's what we wanted.
The followers of Heiser ?.
he's got a cult following who thinks he can speak no error
example: look at these comments
So even the anxiety Hebrews were wrong
Very good. Thank you. I don't think Heiser should be embraced rapidly but with great caution. I for one don't follow him and find many things I cannot agree with.
Very well put. He's very interesting, and I think he's right about a lot of things. But I get concerned when people take everything he writes or says as, well, 'gospel truth.'
WARNING: Calvinistic determinism follows!
So, biblical teaching!
@@thomasglass9491
Calvinism is a teaching with origins in gnosticism that then twists scriptures out of context.... it does not originate from the Bible or Biblical thought.
Worse, it causes the character of God to be the origin of evil.
No thanks!
I find it funny that you say you don’t even like languages. Have you looked at Dr. Heiser‘s Pedegree? You say the other people with language skills and near Eastern context have different views? It’s laughable that you trying to discredit Heiser saying by appealing to other people about translation’s. Of course there will be some disagreements! You can put three theologians in a room and have seven different opinions. But that does not invalidate Heiser. you just might see it differently, you may be so hung up in your church tradition you are immovable and unreachable.
I don’t buy 100% of Heiser. I don’t believe 100% of what I believe! I always want to leave myself room to taken new information, learn, grow, and to let new information inform me.
You don't say very much, and quote everybody in the World, while going to the Bible very little.
I don't think elohim is only plural in anyway shape or form, and we can see this in how it is used, for example, 1 Kings 11:33. Now it can be referring to more than one god, which means this word is used to describe both singular or plural by the context. I think the concept of only a plural form is something that has crept in after the Old Testament was written. In English sheep is a good example of this, because you only know the form of the word sheep by the context!
If you believe Jesus is God, and that is easy to prove, then you have two Gods. John 20:17. We also see that the Father is the one to be worshiped, 1 Corinthians 8:6. We also have John 4:20-23 where Jesus clearly states that the Father is the one the Jews worshiped. Jesus never tells us to worship or even play to Him, but to the Father alone.
I believe in nephilims becsuse ir you read the ancient myths the gods (demons according to Scripture) had children with humans and became the heroes ir antiquite
Gen 6 is clearly telling us that angels and entities can rebel like us and have mixed and taught humans in the ancient past directly. Pre flood tampering with the DNA of humans to interrupt Gods plan of redemption to make it impossible for the future messiah. Thwarted with the Flood as Noah was pure and righteous.
@Chris Mclaren Nowhere in the context of Genesis 6 is that. That’s what happens when someone focuses to much on tradition that in Scripture.
Im a 5 point Calvinist, so I disagree with Heiser on his views on free will.I do agree with his devine council view, but whatever comes to pass , in Heaven and on Earth, were determined, by God ,before the foundation of the world.
I'm Reformed but still find Heiser's arguments compelling. I agree with you that Heiser's view of free will are firmly outside the Reformed and Lutheran perspective (for all of Heiser's interesting, very logical arguments, he somehow is completely blind on election...odd and puzzling that he seems to pre-suppose free will rather than dealing directly with the arguments).
He's the same way about Sacraments.
Heiser’s view is that Election is not salvation; it’s receiving God’s special revelation. There won’t be any Baal worshiping Israelites in heaven. All must choose to have believing and loving loyalty to Yahweh.
You need to listen to Heiser on foreknowledge vs election.
The issue is definitions.
A reform theology equates election with salvation. Heiser clearly articulates election does not equate to salvation. He illustrates it in the Old Testament and New Testament. It’s fascinating!
He also shows through the Old Testament how you can have election and for knowledge and still not go down the path of what God says will happen. Truly awesome!
This is where peoples theology gets so shaken because so much of what they believe down to their core is based in a faulty assumption of what election actually is, and what is meant by election. It is easier to reject Heiser than to reevaluate a fundamental teaching of your theology. Because a person has to rethink how the “sovereignty of God” means.
Heiser's free will is the only good theology he has.
Yes and Amen: the OT is absolutely monotheistic. However, it seems to me that Israel was not, and that the entirety of the OT is the story of God making a people for Himself; hence, the sometimes bang-your-head-against-a-wall propensity for His people to slip into paganism at the drop of a hat...and hence the "progressive" revelation of God. How awesome of Him to endure our stupidity in order to ensure we are in the end convinced of, not blasted with, the truth. He does it still.
This is my 3rd attempt to watch this.
What is this kid sure about?
Like, at all ???