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!
@@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.
@@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?
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!
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.
@@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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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). ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dG6W5bNR3ik.html
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
@@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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Heiser was a blind guide. He was correct in God/Elohim capital "G" and gods/elohim lower case "g" but his application was all wrong. His book the unseen realm falls apart in the first few paragraphs. From Heiser's Chapter 1 Unseen Realm "One such moment in my own life-the catalyst behind this book-came on a Sunday morning in church while I was in graduate school. I was chatting with a friend who, like me, was working on a PhD in Hebrew studies, killing a few minutes before the service started. I don’t recall much of the conversation, though I’m sure it was something about Old Testament theology. But I’ll never forget how it ended. My friend handed me his Hebrew Bible, open to Psalm 82 He said simply, “Here, read that … look at it closely.” The first verse hit me like a bolt of lightning: Psalm 82:1 God stands in the divine assembly; he administers judgment in the midst of the gods I’ve indicated the Hebrew wording that caught my eye and put my heart in my throat. The word elohim occurs twice in this short verse. Other than the covenant name, Yahweh, it’s the most common word in the Old Testament for God. And the first use of the word in this verse worked fine. But since I knew my Hebrew grammar, I saw immediately that the second instance needed to be translated as plural. There it was, plain as day: The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly-a pantheon-of other gods." >>>>Okay this is from Heiser’s book the “Unseen Realm” Chapter 1 in his opening of this book. Let’s look at the word “pantheon”, this one word changes everything about Heiser’s theory. Heiser’s view of pantheon of other gods is spiritual/non-human/angelic, what most people do not know is that the word pantheon has a dual meaning, so it is not just pantheon spiritual gods. Let’s look at dictionary definiton for the word “pantheon” 1) a group of particularly respected, famous, or important people: somewhat formal : a group of people who are famous or important "the pantheon of the all-time greats" example: a building in which the illustrious dead of a nation are buried or honoured. 2) all the gods of a people or religion collectively: the gods of a particular country or group of people "the deities of the Hindu pantheon" (especially in ancient Greece and Rome) a temple dedicated to all the gods. So with the definition can apply to both 1) people and 2)pagan gods. What Heiser did when it came to Psalm 82, he applied the pagan god (elohim) meaning to the pantheon, which is the second use of the word pantheon, this is where he error's from the first chapter in his book the unseen realm. What Heiser should have done is apply the “FIRST” meaning of the word pantheon to the gods/elohim in Psalm 82, which would be people. When a person applies the “FIRST” meaning Israel now fits in Psalm 82 as the gods/elohim. Israel is Jacob’s decendents made up of 12 tribes. Psalm 82 is totally about Israel (Jacob’s decendents). Israel is the “Chosen People” of God in that time period, Israel is important because Jesus Christ, the Messiah would come through that people group, Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, Judah is how we get the term “Jew” from. So the pantheon of gods/elohim would be Israel all of Israel, which would consist of people that are Judges, Rulers, Kings, Elders and even the common Israelite person.>>"The Chosen People" So when a person Pairs up Psalm 82 and John 10 Israel, Jacob's decendents/12 tribes makes more sense. Psalm 82:6 I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;>>>>>>Israel
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's not dangerous, that's addressing your audience, and it's what you need to do to communicate ideas. What you're saying is akin to _"because he frames the ideas differently when speaking to lawyers and when he's speaking to anime nerds, he's lying."_ Ridiculous on its face.
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.
What makes Dr. Heiser still very compelling, is not from the use of Mesopotamian literature to interpret Scripture, but the reverse- to see Scripture concisely interpret everything we glean from the ancient world. When we see pictographs from every continent of spiritual beings arriving with weights and measures to rule over all peoples, only then to receive worship from them and lead them into death and darkness- we have only to read God’s own account of the matters, and in it we recognise His sovereignty, and the theology follows. “How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?“ We must see the text in Psalm 82 as implicitly answering the account of events given by Moses, and corroborated by Paul as ordained by God.
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).
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 RU-vid channel. Once again thank you ✝️✝️❤️
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 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 .
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.
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.
Heisers views are more dangerous than many are considering. They position the Bible towards Mormonism in a lot of ways as an example. Heiser is like many theologians in that they seek a thrilling topic and do damage to Christianity in their arrogant attempts at making a name for themselves
I found your comment very disheartening. I would first point out that Heiser was an Old Testament scholar, not a theologian. There's a huge difference between the two. Secondly, to connect him to Mormonism shows that you don't actually know what he said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
@@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 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.
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?
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.'
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.
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 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.
@@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- RU-vid links don't send in RU-vid. 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.
They are NOT from 4 different sources, there are no contradictions, nor a gap in Genesis, and it id VERY GOOD that the Lord 'creates' evil and I can prove all of the above using only the common bible. ~ prophet of YHWH
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.
So by the time you get to 7 minutes, it's clear that your bias against Heiser is not based on scripture, but that you have to reject the DCW based on your soteriological systematic. DCW can't work with Calvinism, so you reject it and keep your Calvinism. If you studied it objectively in light of scripture, you would accept DCW and reject Calvinism.
You my friend is sorely mistaken on this, just like you are mistaken about baptismal regeneration, to name only one thing.... back to the Bible for you, as opposed to your self chosen ecclesiastical and philosophical traditions.
@@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.
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 RU-vid 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.
@@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
No Trinity exists. The almighty God was ABLE to do ALL HIS WORK even before the creation of the world and He also DID IT. Indeed - for LOGICAL reasons - it was more appropriate to do his work at that time than now in real-time. This means that his work is now COMPLETED and his POWER ALONE will automatically perform all the planned God's actions. Since his work was completed (but only from the God's point of view not ours!), his almighty power was no longer necessary, so that He got rid of it to become like a normal man, with no power at all: the Son of God. "Son" means He DERIVES from God, He is not an actual Son. This all means that the almighty God only dwells in that far distant past, He was never here "the world has not known you" (Jn. 17:25), only Jesus DID it (i.e. in that distant past). This is why "No man has seen God at any time", INVISIBILITY has nothing to do with that, the reason is that He is MISSING. A kind of "temporal bridge" exists though, so that God is able to be here in our present time, however only in the LIMITED form of a spirit "God is a spirit", i.e. NOBODY is actually here. God is a SPIRIT PRESENCE here: He is fully here with HIS FEELINGS, He can hear us, He can take actions, He can talk. He is the "Father who is a spirit" and is called indifferently either "Holy Father" or "Holy Spirit" by Jesus.This is why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered the most important by Jesus. Since God is not here in HIS FULLNESS, Jesus is the ONLY KING of heaven, not God. Jesus sits in heaven next to the POWER of God (a thing which works ALONE, see above). Jesus is like a normal man now, whilst the almighty God is the almighty God, i.e. they are quite different. You could say that God is more than ONE and less than TWO because the Father and the Son are not the same ONE, yet are not TWO distinct Persons. ("I am in the Father and the Father in me").
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.
Why do we need an alternative? Heiser pretty much explained to all of us exactly what the Council is! Stop looking for errors that aren't there. Geeez..
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.
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.
this is an interesting view if you allow for all the misquoting, sticking with what was actually said and not taken out of context you might actually agree with Heiser, sad that someone is shallow enough to misquote, I believe in debating, but try not stick with what was said and in it's context
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.
Some of what Heiser taught was wrong. One can say that the most Heiser contributed was his open approach to scripture that most Protestants and Catholics missed and needs. My biggest problem with him was his egotistical academia attitude and, most importantly, his antinomianism. I put little stock in a man that teaches that Yeshua and Paul were torahless. If you can’t come to the conclusion that Paul and all the disciples kept Shabbat and the rest, even while in the diaspora, then quite frankly you have no business teaching. You still need the basics- milk. Scripture is always the final authority. Building theology on the testimony of two three witness is the only way to go. Don’t ever speak of scripture and the things in scripture like Heiser did. Things will not do well for you. Don’t talk down to people like he did. Have reverence and respect for the subject and for scripture. We all struggle with something but I did not like Heisers secular professor attitude. I saw his attitude at the secular university in Religious Studies program.
Perhaps if you set aside your Lutheranism, you could adhere to scripture better? It is not wise to presuppose that God's image-bearers have no agency. If you read the Scripture like a child, you will see that we are free to make choices, and that God's Word is an appeal for us to choose Him and His ways. You must attempt some serious interpretive gymnastics to conclude otherwise, in my opinion.
@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.
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.
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. 🙏✝️🙏
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?
after 20 minutes of this video, I am bored. Especially since every five minutes you talk about a book that you're selling on your website. A free advertising video.
I'm really thankful of the three videos you made talking about Heiser. At the beginning I liked Heiser and I was really excited about his work, but the more I heard him the more I fealt that something does not quiat work very well in his theology and some of his interpretations. Plus, the fans of Heiser something are just toxic, they are like some feminist who if you disagree with Heiser they attack you very quickly. Beside that, It was weird that nobody critize him properly so thanks a lot, I can think in this much better now.
@Thoska Brah Sorry, I misjudge you. I'll try to condense what I think about it. 1) After listening to Heiser interpretation of key passages like Genesis 6 and Dt 32:8, or Psalm 82 (cf John 10), after reading the text myself I believe he is just reading too much into it. Same with the interpretation of the serpent as the shiny one. 2) While reading one of the chapters on free will something didn't quite fit, I recommend reading the chapter about the Decreed of God in a ST like Berkhof or something homologous. The series of articles by Bnonn Tennant about the theology of some of the chapters touch very important things about the caricature that Heiser has about reformed theology. 3) An anticonfesional bias and a overvalued conception of the position he held. 4) A something very dismissit attitude for other positions. This are some of the things I felt odd about Heiser and with the time discovered. I know is not very systematic but English is not my mother language and I believe other people explain it better.
Because most people against Heiser are "theologians" or "conservatives" with no special training in ancient near eastern religious history or languages and are extremely cringe. At least Cooper tries even though he fails miserably.
@@Occhiodiargento he isn't reading too much into it. That is most likely THE 2nd Temple understanding of the text. We can't read the text with our post-enlightenment lenses on where we say seeing demons in our basement is just CO poisoning
@@jaaaaysselam3372 I agree, we should not read with hiper racionalism and anti supernaturalism lenses, but I don't think I'm doing that nor Dr. Cooper nor Agustin nor any other christian with supernaturalism presuposition. We all want to read the text faithfully and I don't see from the text many of the conclusions that Dr. Heiser arrived, that doesn't mean I'm an antisupernaturalism.
😊😃🙂 VERY CLEAR that Jesus tells us who the gods/elohim are in both Psalm 82 and John 10 are human. Jesus has OWNERSIP to the answer. Not Heiser. Asaph the Prophet writes ESV Psalm 82: 1 "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:>>>>>>word of the Lord (God/Father) comes to prophet Asaph Psalm 82:6 - “I said, you are gods.”>>>>>>>>God (Father speaking thru prophet Asaph) WHY word of the Lord came to prophets like Asaph Psalm 82. John 10: 34-35 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),">>>>>Jesus who is God (Son) Fulfills the words that God (Father) had spoken thru Asaph to Humans. Note in Psalm 82: 1, ESV uses "divine council" other translations use "congregation of the mighty" or "great assembly". Check out the order Jesus uses “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)," Law "gods" and Prophets (word of the Lord came to Prophets of God) What this is saying at who is in the Middle of the Law and the Prophets, that would be the "gods". The "gods" that Jesus is referencing are from Psalm 82. The "gods" are human and would be the Jews, becasue the Jews were given the Law and had the true Prophets of God. With that said the "gods" are human Jesus has Ownership to the answer of the "gods" of Psalm 82 found in John 10. Heiser is CHEATING Jesus out of the answer and throwing Jesus under the bus. Heiser has lead so many astray with his explanation of Psalm 82. Scripture clearly tells us that the Jews were given the Law and had the Prophets, NOT a bunch of super angels that Heiser promotes. Super angels were NEVER given the Law or had the Prophets of God. Key points (7) 1.What Heiser NEVER explains the "Job Description" of prophets in the Old Testament. Most people are even unaware of who wrote Psalm 82. Asaph the prophet wrote Psalm 82 as well as other Psalms 50, 73-81 and 83. Prophets were the "VOICE" of God that is why it is IMPORTANT that Jesus Repeats and Fulfills these words...... Psalm 82:6 - “I said, you are gods.” ........John 10: 34-35 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)," Prophets would handle and carry the word of the Lord in the Old Testament, they were the representative of the words God whated to say>>>> the "Voice" of God. Jesus (Son) is fulfill in the New Testament what God (Father) had spoken thru the prophet. Even Moses is in the likeness of God to Pharoh, Exodus 7:1 "And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet." 2. Since Jesus is repeating what the Father had spoken and said thru the prophtet like Asaph. Since Jesus (Son) is addressing "HUMANS" in John 10, the same is that the God (Father) speaking thru the prophet Asaph in Psalm 82 (Asaph the "Voice" of God) would be addressing HUMANS in Psalm 82. Heiser likes to leave out the "I said" declaration of Jesus (Son) in John 10 and the the "I said" by God (Father) speaking thru the Prophet Asaph of Psalm 82. Jesus is God, God is ONE God made up of 3 persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The "I said" delararation is no different than an "I am" declaration. 3. The Godhead/Trinity This is how the 3 persons within the Godhead opearate and function. Only the Holy Spirit (God) can convince a person to understand why the Son (God) has to fulfill the words that the Father (God) that were spoken by the prophet like Asaph and other prophets as well in the Old Testament. It is Said that Jesus has fulfilled over 350 prophecies of in the New Testament from the prophets from the Old Testament. Even Isaiah the prophet who wrote Isaiah 53 was the "Voice" of God in the Old Testament, so Jesus can Fulfill what was said in Isaiah 53.....Isaiah 53 is about the Crucifixion of Christ. Jesus has Ownership to both prophets Isaiah and Asaph of what they wrote and how God (Father) spoke thru them. Prophets were given the word of the Lord 4. Jesus is the word/Word become flesh John 1: 14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets, Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." No super angels of a divine council were ever given the Law and the Prophets, it would be the Nation of Israel 5. To address to "die like men" In Psalm 82: 7 is Referring to those bad elders, rulers, leaders or judges within the nation of Israel that have High Authority, they favor the wicked and judge unjustly, they do not follow through with their responsibilities, duties, and do not represent God or the law, these High Officials are just men, they have High Rank so they will die like men. They are human not divine beings. God has always set up rulers within the nation of Israel and even throughout the world. In Numbers 11: 16 “So the LORD said to Moses: “Gather to Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; bring them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you.” 1 Samuel 8 : 1-4 When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 3 Yet his sons did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. God has ALWAYS set up Governements in the world not just with in the Nation of Israel, Romans 13: 1 "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." 6. Clearly the "gods/elohim" of Psalm 82 are human judges, some even apply kings. The Old Testament has a book called Judges as well as two other books 1 Kings & 2 Kings. No book in scripture is applied to something nonhuman or angelic. Psalm 82:6 "“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’.... The word "sons" used in this passage is an "Adoptive" Term for Israel, Israel was the chosen people of God. 7. Psalm 89 has NOTHING to do with Psalm 82. Hieser likes to mix those chapters together. Psalm 89 is in the heavenly and spirtual realm when Psalm 82 is on the earth and the physical world. The same logic heavenly and spiriitual would apply to 2 Chronicles 18:21 and 1 Kings 22:19-23 where it mentions a scene in heaven and the lying spirit. The heavenly hosts in scripture refers to the sun, moon and stars. In Summary The Humans are Jewish rulers in both Psalm 82 and John 10. Psalm 82 Jewish rulers like judges or even kings. John 10 Jewish rulers like pharissees. Psalm 82 would be human, NOT a bunch of super angels, like Heiser promotes. Heiser throws Jesus under the bus. Heiser CANNOT answer the question of the gods/elohim of Psalm 82 becasue Jesus has already answered the question of the god/elohim in John 10. Jesus has Ownership to the answer, since Jesus is addressing humans in John 10 the same would be humans are being addressed in Psalm 82, not a bunch of super angels of a divine council. Heiser has manipulated so many minds and has triggered the mind to think this "divine council" is non human. Jesus clearly gives us the answer the divine council is human. 😀😃🙂
@@moreno2912 Elohim (uppercase E) is God, elohim (lowercase e) "gods" are human in Psalm 82, Jesus clarifies this in John 10. Since Jesus (Son/God) addressing humans in John 10 the same would be addressed humans (gods) are being addressed in Psalm 82. Maybe reread the comment.
Heiser claims imaging God is about status not "function". Not even 10min and you have misrepresent his position already lol. You are trying to connect regeneration in the NT in conjunction with what human beings were created to be by God. Yikes. Hold that L bro.
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.
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…
So how long have you been delusional ? Just remember there is nothing wrong with building castles in the air. Just don't try to move in. The rent is very high and insurance is unlikely to pay for it.
