@@Codester91670 The Bible consistently portrays God as a singular being. Verses like Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear, O Israel: Yehovah our God, Yehovah is one") and Isaiah 45:5 ("I am Yehovah, and there is no other; besides me there is no God") are clear declarations of monotheism. The commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" can be seen as a directive against the prevalent polytheistic practices of surrounding nations.
To me, Dr. Cooper is making this much more difficult than it needs to be. First, he should actually watch the entire documentary (and probably should have before it was released so he actually knew what was in it and what he was part of). Second, if there are any claims in the documentary that he disagrees with or misrepresentations of Dr. Heiser and/or himself, he should simply state what those disagreements and/or misrepresentations are. Third, if he feels uncomfortable having his name attached to the documentary, he should request his contributions and name be removed. Last but not least, he should offer some thoughts that fairly represent Dr. Heiser the person and his views. Worrying about himself, and whether he should apologize or not, is to miss the point. The point is to speak the truth in love (something the majority of contributors to this documentary apparently failed to model), and, in this case, to speak the truth on behalf of someone who can no longer speak for himself.
This response is disappointing because it is a defense of yourself rather than of Dr. Heiser. "It's not my responsibility if someone is slandering my brother." You are more like the Levite who passes by the beaten man who is eventually helped by the Samaritan. If someone included my words in a hit piece on my brother, I would decry the hit piece.
Well why shouldn't he defend himself? Is it incumbent on him to defend Dr Heiser from critique? He could, but is that something he has to do? If he disapproves of what is in the documentary, or if he thinks they all just have their opinion.... ?? FWIW I just discovered this guy. I am familiar with Heiser and appreciate him. I would like to see this documentary myself. I now know to take it with a grain of salt.
@@wendyleeconnelly2939 why should the Levite or the Samaritan help the wounded man? They didn't beat him up. They just watched it happened. Probably best to standby while the beating is happening and walk away once it's over.
But when contributors say that Heiser said he was the first to come out with this, yet when anyone who knows Heiser knows he said he never had an original thought, well already we are off to a bad start.
@@tedroybal5231not A video, try EVERY video he's ever put out where he goes long form enough for anything close to that topic to come up. I saw him in a day seminar once, super down to earth, VERY humble about not having any solid answers on any application of the topics that go beyond his research. In EVERY one of his seminars he invariably brings up the history of his position and its total lack of novelty in the church.
Having watched some of his seminars, yes, he says he does not have original thoughts, and that all of his positions were held by other people. At the same time, he emphasizes how he had never heard of the divine council in Psalm 82, and that no one talks about this stuff. 'Go to commentary after commentary after commentary and you won't find this stuff' was a common refrain. Or how he was a doctoral student (and presumably exposed to a lot of material) and had never encountered such and such. He emphasizes how many of the ideas you will encounter in his work can't be found in your creeds and confessions. Those all sound a note of 'novelty,' or at least novelty in evangelical circles, Reformation theologians, and most post Augustine theologians. It has hints of gnosticism--not that no one ever believed what he says before, but that it is hidden knowledge only accessible if you read original languages with 2nd Temple sources like 1 Enoch. So, can you see why people criticize him for saying he was the first to come out with his views, or at least to rediscover them?
@@OneSentenceSummary saying "no one is talking about this" doesn't mean it's novel or that he's unique, but it's a matter of realizing there's this old, highly Orthodox perspective that unlocks all kinds of biblical truth that's just right there on the page, but these ideas were abandoned because they were systematically inconvenient for certain other popular ideas (didn't jibe with new systematic theological perspectives). Heiser himself found a powerfully practical application for this older view: explaining odd paranormal perspectives on history and modern occult adjacent phenomena... like UFOs, etc. And because of this he became the most useful Christian scholar who made a career out of debunking ancient aliens, all because the church had neglected these older perspectives on the supernatural.
@@ravissary79 So he rediscovered something you say is old, but abandoned. Maybe even an ancient idea kept secret, which he is the first to re-popularize. Hence, the idea of being novel.
Look, Bottom line is Heiser opened my eyes to the story of the Bible, both OT and NT Led me to Holy Orthodoxy even though he was not orthodox. I 1000% support Heiser, his teachings etc despite his use of the church fathers. Now that I understand the Biblical narrative, with Enoch and the Dead Sea scrolls to back up what Heiser taught. The Bible actually makes sense, the incarnation makes sense, the Trinity makes sense etc and the harrowing of Hell and the defeat of the Satan makes sense I’m blessed to have learned from Dr Mike
You're not the only one. I gained a much deeper grasp of salvation when I found him several years ago. Even if you don't agree with his final interpretation or conclusions on everything, he still fills in most of the holes and some of the depth that mainstream Lutheran theology completely blows over. In spite of all my years as a Lutheran, I feel Michael Heiser was the key that finally made me biblically literate.
No one is asking you to apologize for what you said or didn’t say in the documentary. Just that you know Heiser wasn't a polytheist or cult leader and it would be good if you said as much. He’s a brother in Christ that’s being slandered. His widow and kids are still grieving and as an honorable person just saying hey I have disagreements with x or y but I condemn the slander and damnation of Heiser is sufficient. Doreen and friends basically damned him. It’s evil.
@Eloign I have *never* made the claim that Heiser is a heretic, as is evident in everything I've ever said about the man's work. That should be evident to anyone that's paid attention to my critiques.
@@DrJordanBCooper I know that which is why I said nobody should try to condemn you. Just that we are our brothers keeper and if we see our brother being slandered and someone tries even tangentially to associate us with that we should just say plainly: That’s wrong. Don’t slander him. Which I think is what you’re saying here.
@@Catholic-Perennialist What Strawman are you even talkin about? This is not a debate, Fr. Cooper was jusg giving clarification that he did not accuse anyone of heresy.
This “christian” cancel culture slander needs to stop! We need to distinguish genuine critique for disagreements with brothers, and to do so charitably. It seems he’s done so here.
Brother, respectfully, you were part of calling Dr Heiser's character into question in the middle part of that video. Doreen was very muddled in her criticisms; half of them went to Heiser's "fanbase," and half of them went to Heiser himself, with little indication that she was making lane changes throughout the whole piece. Your criticisms of Dr Heiser's fanbase (which you called "rabid") are separate from your criticisms of Dr Heiser, but when there was bleedover, you agreed with the other contributers that Dr Heiser was a lone wolf with no accountability, and that he was leading people into polytheism & paganism. You yourself accused him approaching his theology in a way that he has “discovered something new,” and implied that he lacked humility. And you were verbally agreeing while Doreen and Don were being straight up character assassins, attributing questionable motives, and making false equivalences. The right thing to do would have been to have your interlocutors pump the brakes when they delved into character assassination, but you didn’t do that. She called him a false prophet and accused him of wearing sheep skin. And you were right there. Come now, brother. I don't consider myself particularly rabid, so on the chance that I am coming across as one of those rabid fanboys, please accept my assurances that I hold nothing but love for you bro.
Yup, he did say some bad and false things about Heiser which you mentioned and they were mere assumptions. Heiser was not some theological or spiritual lonewolf, he didn't invent anything, his biblical methodology aligns with so many other OT scholars, and he was clear enough. God is grieved with the whole "documentary" not because Heiser is some superhero or an idol but becuase all of them lied and greatly exaggerated about him. Add on that assumptions about his character, and you create a "theological Hitler."
@@3mmm777they also insulted anyone who liked him and all or some of his teachings as Heiserites and cult followers. I asked Doreen Virtue point blank if liking some of her material made me a cult follower of hers and she blocked me. Anyways, being called by HER a Heiserite is a badge of honor . I don’t want to be called a Doreenite. 😂😂😂😂
I have zero respect for Doreen Virtue. She has a history of misrepresenting the views of others. The minute I see her name attached to any critique I immediately tune out.
What you've said is fair enough Dr Cooper. At the same time, the intent of the doco turned out to be a 'hatchet job' of Heiser, a guy who cannot defend himself. One can regret being part of a project, now knowing the intention of it.
For anyone watching this who hasn't seen the Remnant Radio video, the guys there pointed out several times that Jordan was the one participant in the video they were responding to who hadn't badly misrepresented Michael Heiser's views (in many of the clips Doreen Virtue and her other interviewees were claiming that Heiser held positions that ate the complete opposite of the ones he did hold). And he wasn't in any of the clips that they responded to because of that. In fact, everything Dr Cooper said in this particular video is what I would have expected given what the Remnant Radio guys said about him in their video.
I watched some of Doreen's video, and I watched almost the entire Remnant Radio video. This is a good response. Doreen, Marcia, and Wave need to apologize, but I doubt they will. In my correspondence with Marcia on email, she is absolutely unrepentant. But coming back to you, this is well-said. I appreciate this content.
Doctor, as a former low level politician I learned early and was always very careful as to whose work or organization I attached my name to. If you believe you have been invited to speak in an academic forum/video then you do have an obligation (for your own self preservation) to ask questions as to the projects overall goals & focus. While I know nothing of whom you are I do suggest you start caring about what projects you allow your academic reputation to be tied to. God Bless!
So why even make this video? All you are doing here is weak self justification and denial. Frankly, it is disappointing and discredits you and the points you hope to make and I for one now question whether pride prohibits you from arriving at any good points worth consideration anyways. You may not have had control of the project and if you now suddenly did a 180 on the points you contended, that would be concerning information as well. But the reason one would apologize would be in regards to the project itself and regretting being a part of that hit piece even if it was an unwilling/unwitting one. But clearly what you have said here and more importantly have not said, means you whole heartedly endorse what was done but cowardly want to be excused from blame.What I respected most about Heiser was his humility and willingness to learn and openness to be wrong and allowing neither to get in the way of his faith. That would be a better path to follow than this one.
"But clearly what you have said here and more importantly have not said, means you whole heartedly endorse what was done but cowardly want to be excused from blame." To be fair to Dr. Cooper, I feel that the above comment goes too far and attempts to make a judgment about Dr. Cooper's motives...which we certainly cannot know. That being said, I feel the remainder of what you had to say highlights some real weaknesses of Dr. Cooper's messaging in this video. To me, Dr. Cooper is making this much more difficult than it needs to be. First, he should actually watch the entire documentary (and probably should have before it was released so he actually knew what was in it and what he was part of). Second, if there are any claims in the documentary that he disagrees with or misrepresentations of Dr. Heiser and/or himself, he should simply state what those disagreements and/or misrepresentations are. Third, if he feels uncomfortable having his name attached to the documentary, he should request his contributions and name be removed. Last but not least, he should offer some thoughts that fairly represent Dr. Heiser the person and his views. Worrying about himself, and whether he should apologize or not, is to miss the point. The point is to speak the truth in love (something the majority of contributors to this documentary apparently failed to model), and, in this case, to speak the truth on behalf of someone who can no longer speak for himself.
@@Pr1-7 It is not a presumption of his intent. It is the message this video is conveying. I don’t bear him ill will. I am rooting for him to have the humility and character to do better and I hope he does. We all make mistakes, but we only begin to learn from them when we face up and own them.
Disclaimer: I am on the "Heiser" side of things, but I agree you don't need to apologize for your specific segment. Unfortunately, your good comments were paired with other contributors who made false, if not laughably absurd claims about Heiser.
@@TheLincolnrailsplitt He had a fondness for ALL second temple literature. Enoch was just one piece that he used a lot because that was the most relevant to his research.
@TheLincolnrailsplitt He saw them as uncannonical but giving clear interpretations of scripture that was believed by the writers. Not that these interpretations are definitely correct, but that they were early interpretations that existed and shouldn't be ignored. He acknowledged that Enoch in some points contradicts scripture but saw it as useful for knowing how early Jews understood the scriptures. Some people believe that 1st Enoch is scripture and belongs in the Canon but Michael Heiser didn't teach that.
HEY RemmantRadio, why do you ignore comments, I posted this on your channel and you guys just IGNORE this comment. I hope you understand before Christ returns there will be a lot of FASLE teaching within the church, Heiser was part of the false teaching, you guys put Heiser on a Pedestal and very sadly by doing that you push Jesus aside. Here is what I posted on your channel....... ....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
As someone who has appreciated Heiser's work (with some disagreements with him as well), I would appreciate an apology. His name is on a slanderous work. This video was not a disavowal of that work. It ought to have been.
The problem is that you misrepresented Dr. Heiser. At times, you also used insulting language towards him and the people who follow his work. Disagreement is perfectly fine, but that's not what you did. If everyone who follows Dr. Heiser's work is telling you that you're misrepresenting him, then you probably are.
This is why I really wish Michael Heisser did a few debates which he admittedly said he didnt believe in doing. He claimed they werent helpful, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The average lay person, like much of his following isnt devoting 15 years of their life to getting a PHD in a field of study like he has. In an academic and theological debate you have two specialist in the same or similar fields of study pointing out the strengths and weaknesses in eachothers theological perspectives. I wouldnt call Heisser a heretic. I wouldnt call him a polytheist either just because people who hold that kind of worldview like to cite his work to justify it. I think if he had done a few debates it would actually have lent more not less credibility to his arguments if they are true. Even then I think having that exposure would keep his more rabid followers a little more tame when anyone dares to disagree with him.
Very well said, I agree, if Heiser was so confident in his divine council and this world view, it would have been nice if He would have done some debates. Not debating left him on this pedestal that Heiser is not wrong. I know there would have been a long line to debate him.
Doreen doesnt actually mentally grasp what Heiser said from what ive gathered. Sentinel apologetics did a good video addressing her misunderstandings of his work.
Sentinel has done two now and still not finished just the one of two videos Doreen made. Doreen took down all her interviews with Heiser. However this video ua-cam.com/users/livej7UtSWaWgPM?si=XKrD9ec9_QHzM2W9 is a response video which happens to have a clip of an interview she did with Heiser which proves she lied about him and what he told her. Maybe why you can’t find it on her channel. I could be wrong but personally I think heresy hunting is her gig and it pays for her two multimillion dollar homes. She’s good at writing, she’s been putting out books for many years and has articles and even worked as a writer at one time. She knew exactly what she was and is doing.
Disappointed you couldn't say anything positive about Dr. Heiser. Even if you disagree with his theology, seems to me there should be a common courtesy granted to him because you both are Christians. Agree you don't have to apologize or share in whatever someone else said. But now that the interview is over, and a controversy sprang up, it's surprising to me that you didn't investigate the other people at all. Because that would be the first thing I would do. Almost seems like you want to stay ignorant to keep deniability a continuing possibility. Overall, I found this explanation somewhat inadequate. Yes, there is no need to apologize, but you failure to be charitable, even a little, even now to Dr. Heiser doesn't sit well with me.
5:34 Dr. Cooper said "My issue is that he dismisses classical categories that are used to protect the creator-creature distinction". It's ironic that these classical categories are also ignored by the Hebrew bible in it's original language. They don't operate on these categories because they were made centuries after the bible.
@Dark_Moon_Grass I’m actually Protestant as well, but I agree. The church fathers expressed their theology in Hellenistic categories in order for them to understand it. It’s misguided to take these Hellenistic categories as the root of it. The roots of the revelation are Jewish, not Hellenistic.
Remember: Paul and Peter disagreed on very important matters for members of “The Way” and Paul and Barnabas also chose to part ways over “a sharp disagreement.” We live in a wonderful time where we have the contemporary scholarship of Michael Heiser, NT Wright, Gary Habermas, Tim Mackie, et al. Yet, just as with the 1st century Apostles we will also have disagreements on certain scriptural issues. However, we are not living under authoritarian religious regimes like that of Pope John 12th of the 900’s, John Calvin’s Geneva of the 1500’s or the oppressive “rule” of the “Kirk,” I.e., the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the 1600’s. As Dr. Heiser wisely advised, as we all study the Word of God…believing loyalty to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most important matter for each Christian
Why Dr. Heiser gets the rap here is incredible. If his material wasn't peer reviewed or copiously documented, along with an amazing number of footnotes that could be researched by anyone, then I could understand it. It takes those who have not reviewed his works or did they're due diligence to come up with such opinions concerning Mr. Heiser's work. The fruit of Mike's work will live long and prosper bearing much fruit. May the Lord Jesus continue to bless Michael Heiser's works.... Amen and Amen
💯 Thank you for finally saying the very important two words here "Peer Reviewed" most people seem to leave that part out, even people that are defending Dr Heiser (may he rest in peace) and mention that he constantly said none of his research was original to him it was also all peer review material...
While I agree you are not responsible for what other people said in their interviews and shouldn't be expected to apologize for them, I do wonder if you've watched the final video start to finish? If you agree that Heiser, wasn't a polytheist, a heretic, false teacher, false prophet, wolf in sheep's clothing and cult leader, all of which was said or implied of Dr. Heiser in this slanderous hit piece, you would seek to disavow it and your participation in it. Maybe request that your portion be removed. Unfortunately, because of how bad this video was with its blatant lies and mischaracterizations and misleading statements, you are guilty by association and feeling the blowback. Your reputation may be a bit tarnished because of it.
Great suggestion for Dr Cooper to ask to have his content removed from the video. That would be a way to make things right. Clearly Dr Cooper at the 1 hour 18 minute mark they accuse Heiser of wanting to promote himself as some guy who is so smart he found out something nobody else every understood, and then Doreen pitches in an "appeal to secret wisdom and gnosticism" and Dr Cooper agreed with it! And they said "you should never tell people you found something you knew. And if you found something new, you should have humility about it." Ergo, this infers an accusation that Heiser was arrogant and self-seeking. And then other participants talk about accountability and Dr Cooper goes along with accusations that Heiser was a "lone wolf" when all his work was vetted by scholarship. At the 1 hour 21 minute mark Doreen talks about him "wanting to be the inventor" and portrays this as a character trait and calls Heiser a "false prophet" and Dr Cooper says "yes, its essential to have accountability" and thereby agrees wtih Doreen's accusations. This is like Saul/Paul standing at Stephen's stoning and collecting peoples garments to hold and then saying "oh I had nothing to do with that stoning" -- No, Dr Cooper, you were there and Heiser was called a "false prophet" and you agreed to it. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just go watch that 4 minutes again. How Dr Cooper does not regret contributing to slanderous things is beyond me. In my opinion, this crossed the line at the 1:18-1:22 mark.
Thanks for being a reasonable voice who is willing to engage with people with whom you may not agree with 100%. Unfortunately, it is a rare concept in the current world. We need more Christians like you!
I think the concern that people have is to know that, had you known that there would be unfair presentations of his views as the main thrust of the documentary, would you still have wanted to contribute to it?
exactly. saying you have "no regrets" after a horrible slander video is published with you in it, sure seems to me like if you could go back and do it again, you wouldn't...which means there should be some regret in associating yourself with a group whom you did not know well and did not know how they were going to use the content.
@@DrJordanBCooper maybe you should? or ask Doreen to remove your part? I get why you feel stuck and it was not fair how she used you, but you consented to it and now your credibility is at stake too. If you watch your segment from 1:18-1:22 you go right along with some serious accusations of Heiser being a "arrogant, self-promoting, false-prophet, lone wolf, in sheep's skin" -- those are serious things. Your critiques are valid and fine. But you were in a slanderous environment and have not distanced yourself or offered rebuttal to these false charges.
@@JesseBingham I am not in his shoes and glad that I am not, I understand his point and disagree with him. I think he contributed to the slander, especially agreeing with Doreen that he was a false prophet and in it for pride and didn't have "accountability". It's all good though, I'm moving on. Dr Cooper is a good guy. Just think he mis-stepped on this one.
Heiser makes the point that all theology should be firstly grounded in Scripture itself, properly and contextually understood. It's crystal clear that a lot of historical interpretations have lacked this rigor simply because the essential resources and roots in biblical history and Judaism were lost relatively early. For example, the way Law comes to be described is largely an alien western interpolation. In any case, theological categories were developed with this innate lack and were often inspired more by external and later philosophy than anything within the biblical world itself. I don't know of anything Heiser said that directly contradicts catholic creeds. But even if some small part of later confessions are challenged, they can be reformulated. However, Scripture cannot. And it should not be forced to meet the artificial exegetical-theological expectations of admittedly fallible human beings.
The man is DEAD... Why now? The fact people couldn't speak when he was alive is what troubles me. After someone dies "it seems to me" this people seem to bait for attention. I truly think you had no idea about all of that , you were at the wrong place at the right time. Blessings.
Because Doreen, the witch-hunter, did not have courage to do it earlier. She knew her silly arguments would be easily refuted. Listening to her attempt to justify Gen 1:26 is about the Trinity was laughable. She "knew" Heiser was wrong and she has no degree in the OT or ANE material. What's really sad is that I know 20-year old theology students who researched and wrote papers on the same verse and the results show what Heiser said - the ancient context shows that God was speaking to His council. The same in Is. 6:8. There's absolutely no problem that the whole Godhead was present there since God cannot be separated, but to remove angelic members of His heavenly host is to remove the ancient context. Again, young theology students know about this but Doreen doesn't and she was confused. That happens when you step into another lane that you aren't equipped to walk on.
It’s pretty simple really she’s above all a business woman skilled at profiting off the spiritual world. She knows how to generate clicks and make money and she knew with him dead he would be a sure fire way to get some publicity. She’s still what she was she just uses Christian words now.
Exactly, why did these people not confront Michael Hieser while he was alive and do a debate with him? Disagreement is fine, the apostles disagreed but we do not see any examples in the NT where the slandered each other after they died. The entire episode is shameful, again not because of disagreement but because it was underhanded and now excuses are being made for participating in it.
You said in the video that "he has a very loose use of the term god". This is factually inaccurate; he defines his terms clearly, especially when there's a chance he could be misunderstood. You said he "believes that the Old Testament uses that term [god] with reference to other kinds of spiritual beings". This is false. It is not a belief on his part, and the word being used is the word elohim, which he makes clear. That the OT uses the term elohim to refer to spiritual beings other than God in the singular is made clear in, for example, the text of Psalm 82 and the incident with the medium at Endor. This is not an interpretation, it's just a fact in the text of the Old Testament. You said that he "doesn't have this very strong distinction between God as other than creation". This is utterly ridiculous, and I have no idea where you could have gotten such an idea. You certainly didn't get it from something Michael Heiser said or wrote. You said that "I think the way he expresses it is that he has discovered things that nobody else has discovered before." This one is just stunning. It is literally the exact opposite of what Michael Heiser actually said. Here's what he actually said "The dirty little secret of Unseen Realm and the work I do is that Mike never had an original thought." What you claimed that he said and what he actually said could not possibly be farther apart. In your non-apology video, you focus on what you didn't do. But what about what you did do? You blatantly misrepresented Dr. Michael Heiser multiple times. Maybe you didn't do it as badly as the other folks on the video, but you did do it. Maybe you didn't expect them to lie about him as much as they did. But you still misrepresented him. In a hitpiece video filled with lies and designed to destroy his reputation. You should be ashamed, you should repent, and you should apologize.
EVERYONE can find one part of what Heiser SAID that is contrary to ANOTHER thing he said. He DID use god/Elohim for DIVINE beings. Then he says that they are not "divine" in the same way that GOD is divine, (thus this is NOT polytheism) but never defines why Heiser would even use the term "divine" for non YAHWEH creations of God. Heiser and others in the ANE studies agree that EL was the Canaanite name for the HIGHEST GOD of the gods in the Ugaritic divine councils. They agree that the OTHER ANE nations ARE polytheists but then claim that the Israelite WRITERS and COMMUNITY had THIS VIEW, but YAHWEH declares himself to be UNLIKE any other gods. So according to this, ALL Yahweh did was give OMNI-charateristics to the El of the Canaanites and there you go, no more polytheism. Heiser and Walton and others in the ANE studies area CANNOT have their cake and eat it too. Either the Jews did NOT view the supernatural authorities and realm like the polytheistic nations, or they did. If they DID then Israel were just a NEW TYPE of Polytheists. If they did not, then you cannot use Ugaritic texts to describe scriptural declarations of truth about the supernatural unseen realm.
@@RobertlawrenceBDCMinistries You're claiming contradictions where there are none. I don't know where Heiser got his use of "divine" from, but it's quite consistent with the ancient Israelite use of "elohim", and he was clear enough about it that you know what he meant. That Caananites used El for their high deity does not magically turn the ancient Israelites into polytheists.
You failed a character test - it’s simple if your criticism was valid don’t apologise, however you participated in a hack job and in full agreement, you have not expressed regret at the participation and instead are justifying your actions. Also you did agree with their assertions as time went on, so this video is just a sad excuse for pride
Thanks for clarifying. I’d love to see a video from you in the future talking about some of the more unique or novel views of Heiser that you do find intriguing and/or agree with. Thanks for your channel!
Heiser has influenced me immensely. I love his work but have a few disagreements. I don't think you should have to apologize, but it was probably still wise to comment like this 😅. Thanks for the video! I still enjoy your channel and watch it despite my disagreements with you, too. God bless!
Thanks for putting this out. The current climate is always “guilt by association.” I think you did a good job of remaining within fair analysis and not resorting to straw-men or character attacks.
Just start every interview, article, blog post, etc with this… Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Jordan Cooper or any entities he represents.
I think Dr. Cooper's initial critique in the original video was perfectly fine. However, around the 1:11:00 mark, Dr. Cooper starts interacting with the other people in the video, and that's where I felt things got off kilter. It seems to me that Dr. Cooper lost a lot of nuance and deferred to the opinions of the others too much. I get how some of those impressions of Dr. Heiser can seem valid at first glance, and this gets into part of the valid criticism: Dr. Heiser does leave a lot of ambiguity in areas as he's not approaching it from a systematics standpoint. I just don't think we have to choose one approach over the other. Dr. Cooper and Dr. Heiser's methodologies both have much value, but in different ways. There are a lot of us that appreciate Dr. Heiser's contributions without becoming obsessed with nephilim. And honestly, I don't see that as a central focus of his... as someone who had listened to all the Naked Bible podcasts up to his passing and read a number of his books. Maybe I'm wrong, but I always got the impression that he consistently turned things back to focus on Christ and repeatedly called out the excesses of people who got too distracted.
Yes. Dr Cooper should not have agreed and nodded his head and "gone with the flow" when the people he was talking to were making outrageous and slanderous remarks. Calling him a "self-promoter" and "wolf in sheep's skin" should be a moment where Dr Cooper has the integrity and courage to push back on that and say "no, I do not think that is fair" -- instead he nodded and agreed and added his own 2 cents that fueled the fire.
@blakewidmer I think there's some room to extend a bit of grace to Dr. Cooper in the moment. He voiced some legitimate concerns and maybe didn't have all the information to fully evaluate what the other guests were saying. This response video was a little disappointing in that respect. I really enjoy Dr. Cooper's content, but this felt like he didn't really address at least the concerns I had with his participation, which wasn't "guilt by association" at all. Him portraying the criticism against him like that's all it was felt very tone def.
@@kevinralphs9519 For sure. I'm probably being too hard on him on some respects but the response video could have at least acknowledged that he is sorry for any contribution to unloving and unfair attacks the "documentary" made. Oh well. I'm ready to move on. Dr Heiser's scholarship embodied in his love for Jesus and the church will stand the test of time, I have no doubts about that.
Love your and Dr. Heiser's work, Dr. Cooper. I'm sad to hear people are trying to tarnish Mike's reputation, but on the other hand thanks for your firm but respectful pushback. I had watched your original critiques of Dr. Heiser's views and thought you did a great job of unpacking the areas and in what ways you disagree with him.
I was starting to listen to you, but once I heard that you were part of that documentary it’s goodbye. If you didn’t know those people in the documentary, you should’ve found out. In a drive-by shooting everybody in the car gets in trouble.
I just don’t understand why people are so outraged about one channels view of a person… the only thing we need to be focused in is who is on the side of the bible. The smartest person in the can be wrong sometimes - do their ideas line up biblically . If he has a difference of opinion from Heiser so be it. Does either line un with the word of God
It's unfortunate to see Doreen and others around her going down thus path bc she has a lot of helpful thoughts on the interaction of Christianity and the New Age, but this stance against Heiser seems to misunderstand him greatly. I've been torn between watching her videos on Heiser to see what they are saying specifically and not wanting to give engagement with them to the algorithm. The idea that you could genuinely read Heiser and vome away with the conclusion that he is a polytheist (meaning Yahweh is one of many gods of the same type of being) is just goofy. He makes it clear that Yahweh is unique as self sustaining, uncreated, etc.
There is so much need in our cultural moment for clear thinking and discernment, but people in who make it their whole thing to be against some outside thing almost inevitably do go down that path in my experience.
I agree. And I like Ms Montenegro as well. Unfortunately segments like this make me call into question how thorough they have been on their other subjects.
Brother, that happens when someone (Doreen) does not stay in her lane (New Age) but tries to criticize something she doesn't know - biblical theology, and Ancient Near East. It was pathetic, like a child laughing at Beethoven for example.
You have nothing to apologize for. The original video was fine. What you have is a bunch of Heiser fanbois who are "Reeeeeinng" because their idol got touched. It similar to those fanbois who defend Keller or NT Wright. I have read and followed Heiser for years and he has a lot of extremely problematic and borderline heterodox, if not heretical, notions, like the Divine Counsel nonsense he believes. You and the other folks in that video did a good job touching on those problematic areas, and we can only hope the now Heiser is gone his influence will start to wane.
Imagine if someone asked you, @classically reformed, to be in a "documentary" about some tenet of reformed theology. Imagine if when explaining the matter, you distinguished it from the Lutheran view of that subject. However, when the piece finally came out, it turned out to be a slanderous video saying much about Jordan Cooper that is plainly not true. You wouldn't feel any need to apologize for being a part of it? You wouldn't publicly denounce it and defend Cooper, while maintaining your disagreements with him? If you wouldn't then you ought to be ashamed of yourself, as Jordan should be now.
@@kentyoung5282 Part of me wonders if someone should apologize for being part of a kidnapper ring because they were kidnapped.... Not knowing anything about the video or parties involved and having my own misgivings about Cooper and Heiser, if Cooper's participation was solicited under false pretenses, how is Cooper to blame? That seems to be what you are saying. If despite that, Cooper's critique is honest and worthy of consideration and he didn't participate in any slandering, how is Cooper to blame for what other's have said? If the video manipulates what Cooper said to mean otherwise, then that's on the producers of the video and Cooper should seek damages and removal of his parts. What I haven't heard anyone accuse Cooper of is saying anything that was directly slanderous or uncharitable. Not anything that seemed to rise above people not liking it when people disagree with their hero. I have heard enough complaints over the years of people being told that a documentary was for one purpose, but by the time it was released it was completely different, whether because of false pretenses or because the focus changed during the course of production. I'm quickest to lay blame on the documentary rather than Cooper, who may well have done due diligence at the time and felt it was a worthy production, only for it to shift direction afterwards. If a more direct accusation comes out, I'd like to hear it, but until then, Christians ought not to imitate the world's wicked cancel culture and should be more willing to look charitably on others.
Dr. Cooper, I appreciate your participation in the video in question and this short video response regarding what some allegedly said in Doreen's video. I read through the transcript of the video and highlighted the words Heiser fans claimed one or more in the video supposedly accuse the late Michael Heiser of being. The spelling is not always accurate in the auto-generated transcript, but all of us are fairly careful to stick with issues and not impugn the character of individuals. That being said, the words heretic, heretical, and liar do not occur in the transcript. Again, it is possible there is a misspelling, and it didn’t show up, but I don’t think so. Polytheist occurs once, and polytheism occurs twelve times. None of them claim that Heiser is a polytheist, and Dr. Nunnely specifically states that Heiser is not a polytheist as we think of polytheism. (1:56:26) No one in the video said the late Michael Heiser was a liar, heretic or polytheist. If someone came across instances of that in the video, I would welcome them to send me where it occurs. Accountability and accuracy are essential.
@@BipolarDistortion to be accurate it was "lone wolf," which is understood as "A lone wolf is a wolf not belonging to a pack. As a trope, it refers to an individual who prefers to operate alone." That isn't necessarily good or bad; it's just how someone works. The discussion was about accountability, and I outlined how we at MCOI operate for accountability and having others review our books and research as we write them to ensure it is biblically solid, accurate, and focused on issues, not character. Doreen mentioned that Michael Heiser was a lone wolf. That occurs at 1:19:42.
@midwestchristianoutreachinc wow, you're a voice of reason amongst a sea of howling wolves 😅 Thanks for your fair comment. I feel for Doreen and Dr Cooper.
Ah, don't worry about it doc. If you were the kind of theologian that constantly courts controversy and careless in your statements, people would maybe have a point, but you are neither of these things.
Heiser built a Frankenstein castle by cobbling together vague scriptures on a foundation of sand....I could not dislike his harmful conclusions more...he has undermined tens of thousands of people with itching ears....his ideas are particularly harmful to new Christians.... That's my two cents on the subject ...take it or leave it....I hope I never hear of him ever again... I'm hoping that this prevents someone from going down his rabbit hole
You should not be intimidated by Heiserites. It is not inflammatory language to say Heiser was a polytheist because he clearly taught polytheism contrary to his denial of it. He wrote, “The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly - pantheon - of other gods." (Heiser, The Unseen Realm, p. 11) And again: “The denial that other elohim exist insults the sincerity of biblical writers and the glory of God. How is it coherent to say that verses extolling the superiority of Yahweh above all elohim (Ps 97:9) are really telling us Yahweh is greater than beings that don’t exist.” (Heiser, The Unseen Realm p. 35) And again: “It is not difficult to demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible assumes and affirms the existence of other gods. The textbook passage is Psalm 82.” (Heiser, "Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18.1 (2008), p. 2) Furthermore, he clearly rejected monotheism: “‘Monotheism’ as it is currently understood means that no other gods exist. This term is inadequate for describing Israelite religion, but suggesting it be done away with would no doubt cause considerable consternation among certain parts of the academic community, not to mention the interested laity.” (Heiser, "Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18.1 (2008), p. 28-29) He rejected the word "polytheism" for the term "divine plurality" which simply means he believed in a plurality of deities. That is to say he believed many gods exist. This is the definition of polytheism. In fact, in The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, as source which Heiser referenced frequently, uses the two terms "polytheism" and "divine plurality" as synonymous terms on p. 355. Heiser was surely aware of this fact. His argument to avoid the charge of polytheism was to claim the words polytheist and monotheist are modern construct and it would be anachronistic to use it to label ancient belief systems. He wrote, “Construing multiple ’elōhîm as polytheism is to read a modern conception back into ancient thought.” (Heiser, Angels, p. 79, fn 12) However, the word polytheist was used by ancient authors such as Philo, who used it at least 14 times. See for example, On the Creation 171; On Drunkenness 110; On the Confusion of Tongues 42, 144; the word is used 3 times in On the Migration of Abraham 69, Who is Heir of Divine Things 169; On Flight and Finding 114; On the Change of Names 205; The Decalogue 65; On the Virtues 214, 221; On Rewards and Punishments 162. Heiser's supposedly has his scholarship in ancient literature which he claims proves his position when properly understanding the historical cultural backdrop of the Bible. His dissertation focused on Second Temple Jewish literature, and so did most of the later writings. So he is either lying about what this body of literature says, or he is lying about having read it. I have read it and can prove he lied about what it says. People believe Heiser did not teach polytheism because he defined elohim as "disembodied." (Heiser, The Unseen Realm p. 29) This confuses people to think he was referring to angels with the word elohim. Most people interpret Heiser's writings wrong. First, there is not one Hebrew lexicon that provide such a definition for elohim. Secondly, Heiser bluntly drew a ontological distinction between what he considered gods and angels. Commenting on the use of the word “angels” in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, he wrote “the word choice (‘angels’) comes from the Septuagint. Despite its imprecision, the divine orientation is clear.” (Heiser, The Unseen Realm, p. 98, fn 11). Using the pagan Ugaritic texts to interpret the Bible, he explained this distinction of gods and angels in his PhD dissertation. "The divine assembly at Ugarit also included ‘messenger gods’ (ml’km), but contrary to the conclusions of scholars who have studied the divine council to this point, I do not consider the ml’km to be members of the divine council. The ml’km were present in council because they rendered service to the high god and the other gods who ranked above them, but the ruling council was composed entirely of El and his spouse and offspring." (Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” p. 45) Further identifying this distinction, he wrote, “At no time in Ugaritic literature or the Hebrew Bible are the מלאכים [angels] said to govern territory, nor are they ever referred to in royal terms.” (Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” p. 58) Hence, his idea of gods are those who have royal language applied to them because they rule over the Gentile nations after the Babel dispersion. He also identified other gods that exist other than the 70 ruling the nations which shows he did not limit royal language or a ruling position to define gods. He also included "shininess or brilliant luminescence is a stock description for a divine being.” (Heiser, The Unseen Realm, p. 119) He clearly depicted an ontological distinction between what he considered gods and angels. I know you said your not interested in studying further on the topic, but if you change your mind check out the book The Unbiblical Realm: Refuting the Divine Council of Michael Heiser's Deuteronomy 32 Worldview.
Heiser says on pg. 29, of The Unseen Realm, "The word 'elohim' is a "place of residence" term. Our home is the world of embodiment; 'elohim' by nature inhabit the spiritual world." Thus, Heiser is distinguishing between the inhabitants of a spiritual realm and the inhabitants of the physical realm. He is not alone in this view. "Regarding this, Sforno states that "every disembodied creature is known as elohim; this includes the soul of human beings known as [the] 'Image of God'." (Sforno on Deuteronomy 21:23). The issue is a debated one. "In a few cases in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Hebrew elohim with a plural verb, or with implied plural context, was rendered either angeloi ("angels") or to kriterion tou Theou ("the judgement of God"). These passages then entered first the Latin vulgate, then the English King James Version (KJV) as "angels" and "judges", respectively. From this came the result that James Strong, for example, listed "angels" and "judges" as possible meanings for elohim with a plural verb in his Strong's Concordance, and the same is true of many other 17th-20th century reference works. Both Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon and the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon list both "angels" and "judges" as possible alternative meanings of elohim with plural verbs and adjectives. Gesenius and Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg have questioned the reliability of the Septuagint translation in this matter. Gesenius lists the meaning without agreeing with it. Hengstenberg stated that the Hebrew Bible text never uses elohim to refer to "angels", but that the Septuagint translators refused the references to "gods" in the verses they amended to "angels." Heiser lists scripture where the term, 'elohim' is used for the God of Israel, the member's of Yahweh's council, gods and goddesses of other nations, demons, the deceased Samuel, angels and/or angel of Yahweh, on pg. 30, of The Unseen Realm. Heiser then explains, "The usage of the term 'elohim' by biblical writers tells us very clearly that the term is not about a set of attributes. Even though when we see "G-o-d" we think of a unique set of attributes, when a biblical writer wrote 'elohim,' he wasn't thinking that way. If he were, he'd never have used the term 'elohim' to describe anything but Yahweh. Consequently, there is no warrant for concluding that the plural 'elohim' produced a pantheon of interchangeable deities. There is no basis for concluding that the biblical writers would have viewed Yahweh as no better than another 'elohim.' A biblical writer would not have presumed that Yahweh could be defeated on any given day by another elohim, or that another 'elohim' (why not any of them?) had the same set of attributes. THAT is polytheistic thinking. It is not the biblical picture." The issue here is about how the word 'elohim' is used and what it means. In Heiser's view it does not refer only to Yahweh, but to all spirit beings that inhabit the unseen realm, which is why it is plural. Nor does it make all of those spirit beings equal to Yahweh. It is only when they are considered equal to Yahweh that you get polytheism. Moses and Elijah were on the Mount of transfiguration. They would be considered 'elohim.' They were disembodied spirits. But, that wouldn't mean they are equal to Jesus, or the Father, or the Holy Ghost. If it is polytheistic for the unseen realm of the spirit world to be populated by the spirits of the dead, angels, demons, and a heavenly host, then every Christian is a polytheist.
@@jackslapp9073 Heiser's definition of elohim is wrong! Elohim cannot mean "disembodied." Furthermore, for him to suggest such a definition is based on the selective hermeneutic method he admits using to construct his theology (see The Unseen Realm, p. 75, fn. 3). But Scripture frequently uses the word elohim for physical objects such as idols. Idols as "elohim" are made of wood and stone (Deut 28:36, 64), can be broken (Ex 23:24), burnt with fire (1 Chron 14:12). The golden calf made in the wilderness is called an elohim (Ex 32; Neh 9:18). Second Temple Jewish text continued to use the term for physical idol (see Wisdom of Solomon 13:1; 14:8; 11Q19, col 59, 3-4; 1QpHab Col 13, 2-4; 4Q242 frag 1-3, 7-8). Nor were idols viewed as having a spirit in them (Jubilees 20:8), which is also said in the Bible where "breath" is translated from "ruach" which also means "spirit" (see Jer 51:17; Hab 2:19). Heiser writes, “Humans are also not by nature disembodied. The word elohim is a ‘place of residence’ term. Our home is the world of embodiment; elohim by nature inhabit the spiritual world.” (The Unseen Realm, p. 29) From this quote, the word elohim cannot be applied to humans because they are not disembodied. However, the Bible does apply the word to men and Heiser knows this and admits it. Speaking of Ex 4:16 where Moses is called, "'as God/a god [elohim] to Pharaoh' and to Moses brother Aaron" (The Unseen Realm, p. 280, fn 8). He had the habit of sneaking comments that contradict his teachings in his footnotes which most people don't read. He explains this by stating, “As a leader through whom flowed divine power, he would naturally come to be seen by the Israelites as a quasi-divine figure, though he was just a man.” (The Unseen Realm pp. 245-246) Yet, divinely ordained judges have this same “divine power” to enable them for the task God has ordained them to accomplish (Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, 28; 1 Samuel 2:25; Proverbs 16:10; 31:4-5; Acts 23:5; Romans 13:1-2). Why would human kings and judges not have the word applied to them according to Heiser’s own expression? Second Temple Jewish literature also uses the word for men. Josephus spoke of "divine men" by which he referred to prophets (see Josephus, Ant. 3.180; 10.35). Jacob is called "a father to me and a god" (Joseph and Aseneth 22.3). As far as angels being within the definition of elohim, you mentioned Gesenius who included angels in the definition but rejected it. However, his translator and editor, Samuel Tregelles, adds a very reasonable note, “But Hebrews, chap. 1:6 and 2:7, 9 shew plainly that this word sometimes means angels, and the authority of the N.T. decides the matter.” (Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldean Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures, p. 49) Also, the Dead Sea Scroll text "Song of the Sabbath" (4Q400-407) uses elohim, angels, cherubim, princes, holy ones, and spirits as synonymous word all throughout the text. Polytheism is not defined by having multiple spiritual beings ontologically equal as you suggested. Heiser should know this since he frequently quoted from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, which states on page 354, "Also, some gods are more ‘divine’ than others; thus Isis is said to surpass the other gods when it comes to divinity.” Everyone would consider Egyptian theology as polytheistic. In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard) 3rd Edition, we can read an Egyptian hymn about Amon-Re. This hymn present Amon-Re as a unique ontological god above other deities of the Egyptian pantheon. Amon-Re is “More distinguished in nature than any (other) god[.]” (p. 365) This hymn further states about Amon-Re, exactly what Heiser believes the Bible teaches, “Jubilation to thee [Amon-Re] who made the gods[.]” (p. 365) Re is further spoken of as “the lord of the gods… Who gave commands, and the gods came into being.” (p. 366) He is moreover called, “Father of the fathers of all the gods… Who made what is and created what exists; Sovereign-life, prosperity, health!-and chief of the gods!” (p. 366) Amon-Re is “The solitary sole one without his peer… the sole king, like the fluid of the gods[.]” (p. 365) Re having ontological uniqueness is again represented in such hymns, “Thou who hast constructed thyself, thou didst fashion thy body, a shaper who was (himself) not shaped; unique in his nature, passing eternity, the distant one[.]” (pp. 367-368) So the Egyptian god Re is said to possess eternality and had created the other gods which is what Heiser says of the God of the Bible being eternal distinguishes Jehovah from these other gods He created. Since Dr. Heiser has earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania with his major fields in Ancient Israel and Egyptology, it should be assumed he is aware of this Egyptian theology and is purposely imputing it into his biblical theology. Furthermore, consider the theological ramifications if Heiser's definition is correct. Was Christ God incarnate? If the word "God" means disembodied, Heiser would either have to reject Christ took on flesh or was not God since an elohim cannot be embodied. So Heiser would either be a Docetic Gnostic heretic, or hold to the Kenotic heresy. Heiser would also have to deny a physical bodily resurrection of Christ, and since he taught theosis, men who are glorified in Heiser's theology would not be resurrected but disembodied. Such an interpretation of the resurrection was what Gnostics taught. Historically, Christians have called Gnostics heretics, and it should not be viewed as inflammatory language to call Heiser a heretic based on his false definition of elohim.
@@truthwatchers3405 . . I think you are fixated on limiting the word 'elohim' to a permanently disembodied spirit. But first, I don't find what you claim in footnote 3, on pg.75, nor what you claim in footnote 8, on pg. 280. Footnote 3, on pg. 75, is about the relationship between Ez. 28, and Gen. 3. Footnote 8, on pg. 280, is about the reading of 70 or 72, disciples being sent out. And, why are you giving references to dead sea scrolls for the Wisdom of Solomon when you can reference modern versions of it? The Wisdom of Solomon 13:1, says nothing about idols, and 14:8, is not directly claiming that idols are elohim, but rather dismisses the idea that they are. Jubilees 20:8, does not prove that those people who worshipped idols didn't believe there was a spirit in them. It only dismisses the idea that there was a spirit in them. And, that denial of there being a spirit in them is actually evidence that there were idolators who did believe there was a spirit in them. Just because someone denies or rejects a belief does not mean no one believed it. You will have to do a better job on your references for Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. There is no 180, in ch. 3, of my copy, nor is there a 35, in ch. 10 of my copy. Without better citations I cannot verify whether you are actually referencing the word, 'elohim,' or simply assuming that the English word 'divine' is a translation of 'elohim,' as you do for the English word, 'god,' so that you can accuse people of polytheism. As for the reference to Joseph and Aseneth, even the translators acknowledge that it is a figure of speech used to indicate reverence for a person who is like an angel, an elohim, the way Daniel and John were both awestruck by the elohim they received revelation from. The fact that someone uses the word 'elohim' as a metaphor for someone who has been an important influence on them does not mean the word 'elohim' does not refer to disembodied spiritual beings, such as guardian angels, a spirit guide, the Holy Ghost, an ancestral spirit, etc. What it does mean is that the word 'elohim' refers to a spiritual entity that has a guiding or directing influence like the 'daimons' of the Greeks, or the Devas of the Hindus, or the Spirit guides and spirit teachers of the Native Americans. Yet, still being disembodied spirits. As to the rest of your commentary, your argument seems to be that because sometimes an 'elohim' can inhabit a physical object or be represented by a physical object, such as an idol; or, inhabit a person, such as the Holy Ghost filling a person to prophecy, or, as when overshadowing the Virgin Mary; or, as a judge with a "spirit" of justice, or a "spirit" of righteousness, where that "divine power" is granted through His Spirit. (Eph. 3:16); or, such as when a person is possessed by demons like the gadarene demonic; then Heiser's definition is false because 'elohim' are not permanently limited to the spiritual realm and forbidden or excluded from interacting with the physical realm. Is that correct? If so, I think you are reading more into Heiser's definition than what is there. I don't think he ever claimed that 'elohim' were imprisoned in the spiritual realm and could never interact with the physical realm. Your attempt to limit the definition this way is as bad as someone trying to limit 'elohim' as only referring to Yahweh. Or, like someone trying to limit the word 'man' as only referring to human males, when the Bible also refers to angels as men. However, your argument on this point does nothing to prove that Heiser was a polytheist. As to your second point, of claiming that polytheism does not require a plurality of beings equal in status and attributes, but only a plurality of spiritual beings: Then you must conclude that any Christian who believes that there are angels, a heavenly host, spirits of the dead, and demons in the spiritual realm, is also a polytheist. Further, just because there is a definition used by some books or people that you prefer, does not mean that everyone has to follow that definition. Heiser would appear to disagree with the one you are using. You and others may consider it authoritative, but that doesn't necessarily make it the only way to define polytheism, and everyone else has to abide by it. Of course, I know that is a hard pill to swallow for authoritarians. As to the note about Gesenius, I think you misunderstood my reason for including it. It was not because I agree with him, but only to show, as I stated, that it is a debated issue and not as much of a settled issue as you implied in your comment. Here, you are assuming an argument I didn't make. My point was that there is room for dissent. However, the fact that the word 'elohim' is sometimes used to refer to angels, as well as many other things, does show that it is not limited to only referring to the God Yahweh, which is the gist of the argument by Cooper and the others in Doreen's video. They object to the word 'elohim' being used, or defined, as applying to anything but God, Yahweh. So, I am glad you disagree with them. Despite your lack of a direct response on whether or not Christians with a supernatural paradigm populated with spirits, angels, demons, and heavenly host, makes them polytheists, you do admit it in your argument for why you believe Heiser is a polytheist. If Heiser is a polytheist with your definitions, then you are also arguing that all Christians who believe in a supernatural realm populated with angels, spirits, demons, a heavenly host, mighty ones, etc., are polytheists as well, according to your preferred definition. Now, if that is what you are claiming, I won't disagree with you including every Christian with a supernatural paradigm in the category of polytheism as long as we are clear on how you are defining it. However, to be clear, the word itself, 'polytheism,' means many gods. It does not mean many supernatural beings or many spiritual beings. The notion that you can fudge on that by including lesser spiritual beings is disingenuous even if it comes from a source you are partial to. If some of those lesser spiritual beings were considered gods or worshipped as gods, does not change the fact that they are not God. On the definition of the word 'elohim,' I don't think your arguments are sufficient, since ambiguity and context are relevant factors in how a definition functions as part of that context, as demonstrated in my examples above. I also don't think that the definition used by some lexicons and dictionaries are sufficient either when those definitions don't work any better in every instance. It is kind of like the word 'funny' being defined as humorous or comical, and then when someone uses the word 'funny' to mean ironic or strange, there are people who will say, "I don't see anything humorous about that at all." Because, they have a limited paradigm where a word can only mean one thing, and not be used to mean anything else, or be applied to a different context. Usually these are people who are a bit autistic and need well defined instructions to alleviate confusion and anxiety over ambiguity. Or, they are authoritarians who need everything structured to suit their need to control their environment. Heiser's definition of the word 'elohim' isn't "false" just because you prefer some other definition, or because there are sources that define it differently. Sometimes those sources use definitions based only on tradition, without any argument or justification for why it is defined that way. And, sometimes people define things, like polytheism, in such broad terms that it becomes nothing more than a broad brush to paint their enemies with. In some cases, definitions are a result of intentionally trying to brand someone as a heretic. When it has that purpose historically, and is carried on to future generations, it becomes a fixture that prejudices every generation that inherits it, even when it results in hypocrisy or a double standard that would indict them as well. Lastly, Heiser has a right to disagree with a definition if it is insufficient. As do I. You can make all the accusations you want based on the definitions you prefer, but that only results in convincing yourself and those who agree with you. In essence, your hyper-literalism and insistence on a strict adherence to your preferred definitions is neither impressive nor sufficient when you broaden them so much that you catch yourself in committing the same heresy you are accusing others of. Calling people 'God' is idolatry. Consequently, you are accusing Josephus, and anyone else who uses the term 'elohim' in reference to a person an idolator. And, you accuse God of making an idol out of Moses, out of human judges, and angels. Which also results in God creating polytheism by calling multiple people and angels, gods. Ironically, you then accuse Bible believing Christians of being polytheists for believing in angels and spirit beings even though you are the one arguing for a polytheistic paradigm according to your definitions, while it is Heiser who argues against a polytheistic and idolatrous paradigm by rejecting your definitions and arguments.
@@jackslapp9073 The exact quote on p. 75, fn 3, he admits he uses, "a few selective points of connection and issues relevant to those connections." The other citation was my fault, I was looking at the wrong note. It is actually p. 245 of The Unseen Realm. Your copy of Josephus must be an older copy that doesn't have the Loeb division of verses. Look in Antiquities book 3, chapt 7, para 7 for the reference to Moses as a divine man; and Isaiah is called a "divine and wonderful man" in Antiquities book 10, chapt 2, para 2. The reference from Joseph and Aseneth proves my point. It is obviously a metaphor, but it in no wise indicate disembodiment. It represents authority, which would be a more accurate understanding for the base meaning of elohim. That is why one's belly could be their god (Phil 3:19), which some choose to serve over the true God (Rom 16:18). Menander state, "What is a God? Ruling Power." That is also why 1 Chron 29:23 can say: "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father". This is also why men who are in the position to judge over other men or rule over other men can have elohim attributed to them (see Ex 21:6 where elohim is translated as judges). Ps 82 depicts men ruling over the nations ON EARTH, not a supposed divine council positioned in heaven as in Ps 89:6-7. You wrote I'm " fixated on limiting the word 'elohim' to a permanently disembodied spirit." But what about a permanently embodied being such as the Lord Jesus Christ who ascended into heaven in a permanently resurrected physical body and will return wto earth with the same physically resurrected body? Is Christ God? The inconsistency of the definition with sound theology proves it is wrong and should be rejected. As far as using the term polytheism, it is consistent with the historical use of the term which Heiser is attempting to change to avoid the charge. The Dictionary of Deities and Demons of the Bible, a source Heiser make much use of, states on page 363, “Only when the subordinate deities are degraded to angels, created by the God they serve, can one speak of monotheism.” Since Heiser blatantly rejected the Bible as being monotheistic, he is not allowing his gods to be interpreted as angels. If he intended angels to be understood as elohim, he would be within the realm of monotheism. He clearly implied gods are different than angels. Historical Christianity and Judaism has not been classified as polytheism because elohim has never been defined the way Heiser defines it, and we have always understood spiritual beings as angels, not gods. In my first comment I referenced Philo's use of the word polytheism, which reveals how the ancient Jews understood the term and proves Heiser is the one braking from the historical definition. Its not about my preference but how it has been understood historically. Furthermore, Heiser writes, “Other than the mal’āk yhwh (‘Angel of Yahweh’), there are no instances where a mal’āk is described as ’elōhîm, except in the mouth of a pagan king (Daniel 3:25-28), which cannot constitute a sound source of Israelite theology.” (Heiser, “You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989-2011, Vol. 19, No. 1, (2007), p. 240-241) So he clearly said the term angel is nowhere else described as elohim, and more importantly, he say words out of the mouth of pagans is not how to build biblical theology. Citing 1 Sam 28:13 for a proof text to define elohim is depending on the words from the mouth of the witch of Endor. By his own standard, he has produced a bad theology by using a pagan's speech to define the word. Finally, the only biblical justification to define elohim as disembodied is from the mouth of pagans in Babylon. The magicians and astrologers say, "And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh." (Dan 2:11) So the definition is a pagan view, not a biblical view. In fact, Heiser's whole claim of scholarship is based on the bad hermeneutic of integrating pagan views in the Bible. In his response to Thomas Howe's criticism, Heiser wrote, “I assume that the Scripture writers were communicating to people intentionally - people that lived in their day and who shared their same worldview. This assumption is in place because I’m sensitive to imposing a foreign worldview on the writers.” (Dr. Michael Heiser, “Response to Dr. Thomas Howe’s Thoughts on the Unseen Realm,” August 6, 2019; drmsh.com/response-dr-thomas-howes-thoughts-unseen-realm/) Imposing the pagan worldview on the Scripture is what the Bible commands us NOT to do ((Deuteronomy 12:29-32; 18:9-10; 20:18; Leviticus 18:3-4; 2 Kings 17:15; Josephus, Against Apion 2.237 [book 2, para 34]), and the Israelite guilty of doing so was to be put to death (Deut 13:6-18).
@@truthwatchers3405. Redundancy doesn't make it anymore convincing than it was the first time. Your point on the use of 'elohim' as a metaphor in Joseph and Aseneth does not prove that 'elohim' are not disembodied spirits. The metaphorical use of it there is like saying he was her spiritual father. Which sometimes is expressed as someone being a godfather. But, that doesn't make that person a god, nor a disembodied spirit from the spiritual realm. So, when the English word 'god' is used to refer to someone as a spiritual father, they would be using it loosely, not literally. Consequently, this example actually violates Cooper's view since even English speakers don't always use the word 'god' to refer to divinity. Sure, there is an authority implied, but it is an authority derived from the spiritual relationship of the person being like a father, not like a god. That spiritual relationship is what is being referred to by the word 'elohim.' It does not mean that 'elohim' in this usage refers to god. So, whatever you think your point is, which isn't apparent since you imply more than you state directly, seems obtuse, when this example works against the idea that 'elohim' means 'god.' You want to hold to a hyper-literal definition given by Heiser, but then you point to examples that you interpret with a very non-literal usage of your definition to claim that the example contradicts Heiser's definition, while ignoring that the example also contradicts a literal interpretation of your definition. And, the contradiction is not proved when you are assuming a loose usage of your definition to interpret the example. You are only proving that you have a different definition by which you interpret the examples, and then you claim the example contradicts Heiser, which makes your argument an illegitimate double standard. Your argument that Jesus having a resurrected body and being God, contradicts Heiser, relies on your insistence of interpreting 'elohim' as 'god,' according to your definition and of insisting on Heiser's definition being 'permanently' disembodied spirits, so that you can manufacture a contradiction. I don't think you understood the point. Using Heiser's definition, Jesus was an elohim as the Logos. Now he is more than an elohim. The fact that he now has a resurrected body does not mean that he was not an elohim, a disembodied spirit, before, and now that he has a resurrected body I know of no place where he is referred to as an elohim, as a disembodied spirit. He is still God, but no longer a disembodied spirit (elohim) according to Heiser's definition. (Edit: So, I am sure this is why you are slanderously claiming that I said Jesus was no longer God in your response to this post.) Thus, you are still insisting on interpreting Heiser's definition of 'elohim' as being 'permanently' disembodied. Yet, the fact that Jesus has a permanent resurrected body also contradicts the idea that his body is mortal. Does that mean that he is no longer human as well? No. It means that he is the first born from the dead, and more than human as well as more than elohim (more than a disembodied spirit.). Further, Heiser specifically pointed out on pg. 32, of The Unseen Realm, "This is not to say that an 'elohim' could not interact with the human world. The Bible makes it clear that divine beings (elohim) can (and did) assume physical human form, and even corporeal flesh, for interaction with people, but that is not their normal estate. Spiritual beings are "spirits" (1 Kings 22:19-22; John 4:24; Heb. 1:14; Rev. 1:4). In like manner, humans can be transported to the divine realm (e.g., Isa. 1:6), but that is not our normal plane of existence. As I explained earlier in this chapter, the word elohim is a "place of residence" term that has nothing to do with a specific set of attributes." The place of residence is the spiritual realm. But, the fact that the spiritual realm is the place of residence does not mean they can't leave it and visit the physical realm. Humans have a spirit that resides in a physical body, but that doesn't mean the human spirit can't leave the body and travel to the spiritual realm. "Residency" does not mean imprisonment. Jacob refers to Yahweh as an angel in Gen. 48:16. Then there is Judges 6:11-14, where an "Angel of the Lord," visits Gideon, and then in verse 14 and 16, it is YHWH responding to the question Gideon asked of the Angel. In Judges 2:1, an "angel of YHWH," claims to be the one who brought the Hebrews out of Egypt into the promise land that he, "I swore unto their fathers; and I said, I will not break my covenant with you." So, I would disagree with Heiser that there is only one example of an elohim being referred to as malak, assuming that yhwh is an elohim. You point to Heiser saying that "Other than the malak yhwh (Angel of yhwh), there are no instances where a malak is described as elohim,..." So, your argument is what? You are being obtuse when you think that a quote implies an argument and conclusion without actually expressing the argument and conclusion. On Dan. 2:11, Are you saying that it is false when it says, "whose dwelling is not with the flesh"? If so, provide proof. Something can be true regardless of who says it, so if you are claiming that Dan. 2:11 is false, then you need to prove that it was false at the time it was said. Dismissing it just because it comes out of the mouth of a pagan is a straw man fallacy. It is quite obvious that you are the one imposing a pagan paradigm on the Bible, not Heiser. It is you that is using the word 'elohim' to mean 'god(s),' and imposing a polytheistic paradigm on the text. It is you that interpret examples by your definition and then claim that the example contradicts Heiser. Nor, have you responded to the obvious consequences of your polytheistic interpretation of the text. So, it appears that you are the polytheist and an idolator. It is also apparent that you are more interested in gaslighting than anything else. Edit: So now you are going to block me so that I can't respond to your disingenuous slander below? That's mature. 😆 You proved my point about your double standard of using your definition of 'elohim' to manufacture contradictions and slander. The New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew, yet you use Romans 9:5, from the NT, to claim that what I said about Jesus not being called 'elohim,' in the Hebrew in the New Testament, is a denial that Jesus is God. The equivocation on language, and the lie you commit from that equivocation is obvious to anyone with a brain. It is the same thing you do with accusations against Heiser. You assume your definitions instead of Heiser's in order to pretend there is a contradiction between the usage and his definition, when the only contradiction is with your definition that imposes polytheism on the text. You haven't proved that Heiser is the polytheist. You have proved that you are the polytheist by using a definition that makes everything called 'elohim,' a god. And then, you assume the reverse, that any use of the word 'god,' whether in English or in Greek, also means 'elohim' in the Hebrew. You also need to provide proof of what you said about Heiser denying the physical resurrection of Christ. Given your penchant for twisting language, your opinion is not trustworthy. The only people that are going to see the issue here your way, is disingenuous people brainwashed like you.
It always annoys me that people would think you of all people would have shady reasoning for something. I see no reason for you to apologize for anything you've said or done regarding this.
This is a cautionary tale about why not everyone who names the name of Christ can be trusted. It’s important to know what you’re taking part in before agreeing because it might end up being a hit piece.
You should probably ask for your segment of the video to be removed then, if you truly didn’t know that you were participating in a personal attack and misrepresentation of a man who has passed away.
Unless he himself was attacking personally and misrepresenting him, how would removing his segment do anything to improve the video other than appease a guilt by association mentality?
@@survivordave why would you want your work being used in a hit piece. These folks flat out lied about what Dr. Heiser said…it’s actually slanderous! If he wants to keep an association with a slanderous video the. He has shown is his true Character. There are a ton of videos now of critiques of Doreen’s “documentary” in which they recovered the videos she hid on her channel. They played this documentary and the actual video of Dr Heiser and he said the Exact opposite of what Doreen said. She called Dr Heiser a gnostic polytheist! He was nothing of the sort! She made a real mistake with this…
You chose to be affiliated with Doreen and crew. You admit to not knowing anything about Doreen's panel, however, smart enough to know their topic and message and agreed to present. Also, you seem educated enough that you could have reminded the crew that it is healthy to debate and learn, but not to personally attack a person. That is on you.
@@amieroberg5252 Question is to Dr. Cooper, would he still participate in a collaboration video video against someone if he had knew it was only slanderous? He's response in another comment was No.
Nobody in that video had studied or understood anything Dr. Heiser was putting forth. Labeling him as a polytheist is laughable at best. Then, the complete disrespect towards him (ad hominems) was shocking. If you want to critique something or someone, it's "kinda" important to understand the doctrines/premises and know the individual. It's rather funny these folks waited till he died before going on their doctrinal and character witch hunt.
HEY RemmantRadio, why do you ignore comments, I posted this on your channel and you guys just IGNORE this comment. I hope you understand before Christ returns there will be a lot of FASLE teaching within the church, Heiser was part of the false teaching, you guys put Heiser on a Pedestal and very sadly by doing that you push Jesus aside. Here is what I posted on your channel....... ....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
The sad part about this whole thing is that you waited to the man died before you came out with this and it doesn't give him a opportunity to defend his position ..
Agree with @TheRemnantRadio . You were clearly the most responsible person in Doreen Virtue's video. No need to apologize. I disagree with your assessment of Heiser's methodology, but it just seems weird that someone thought you should have to apologize for something.
Even though I would agree with Heiser in his interpretation, I really respect how you handled your disagreement. Thank you for being a man of integrity, Dr. Cooper. God bless
I think you do a great job articulating the current and growing problem in popular Christianity. I long for the day that we get rid of this guilt by assiciation attitude. Or you can just be omnicient and never run into this problem again. As someone who agrees more with Heiser than you, but I really enjoy your content as I have been looking into lutherian theology, I think you are right in not apologizing for someone else's problems.
I didn't even finish watching the Doreen video because almost immediately i witnessed absolute SLANDER. slander is sin. Not to mention the cowardice on doreen's part to after He has passed and cannot defend his position. I WILL watch the full video to determine your part in this cowardice act, Mr. Cooper. You were a part of the whole which in my opinion gives you a responsibility to condemn slanderous stayements made by other parts of the whole. The apostle paul held the coats of those who stoned Stephen.
Great video Dr. Cooper. You have nothing to apologize for; those demanding an apology need to learn to think and take a step back from the golden calf of Heiser.
It would have been nice and proper if you have just said in this video that you believe that the late Dr. Heiser was a real born again Christian and not a polyteist.
@@DrJordanBCooperI believe you. But then, why have you allowed your name and reputation to be connected in any way to that travesty of a video? Why have you not requested that your segments and name be removed? To remain in the Virtue video is to give tacit approval to all that was said.
Your little story about the artist means nothing. Joining a group to say negative things about somebody else requires a little bit of work to find out who they are and what they’re gonna say. Playing ignorant is no defense..
@@ancalagonyt If he himself is misleading, what point is there to "distance himself" from "those people," if he's the one at fault? Could you copy/paste that top level comment?
@@billbadson7598 He's not the only one being misleading. Copy/paste of top level comment: You said in the video that "he has a very loose use of the term god". This is factually inaccurate; he defines his terms clearly, especially when there's a chance he could be misunderstood. You said he "believes that the Old Testament uses that term [god] with reference to other kinds of spiritual beings". This is false. It is not a belief on his part, and the word being used is the word elohim, which he makes clear. That the OT uses the term elohim to refer to spiritual beings other than God in the singular is made clear in, for example, the text of Psalm 82 and the incident with the medium at Endor. This is not an interpretation, it's just a fact in the text of the Old Testament. You said that he "doesn't have this very strong distinction between God as other than creation". This is utterly ridiculous, and I have no idea where you could have gotten such an idea. You certainly didn't get it from something Michael Heiser said or wrote. You said that "I think the way he expresses it is that he has discovered things that nobody else has discovered before." This one is just stunning. It is literally the exact opposite of what Michael Heiser actually said. Here's what he actually said "The dirty little secret of Unseen Realm and the work I do is that Mike never had an original thought." What you claimed that he said and what he actually said could not possibly be farther apart.
Ecclesiastes 3:7 A time to tear and a time to mend, A time to be quiet and a time to speak. Galatians 5: 14-15 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
you have a moral obligation to watch the video and take decisive action in response to what you see. “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless" -Bonhoeffer
Don't worry Dr. Cooper, your appearance was excellent and you have nothing to apologise for. By the way, I noticed you never finished your series on Heiser. Perhaps now would be a good time to do so.
Ya, a person shouldn't be judged like a turnip simply by having spoken or been associated in any way with someone with a strange opinion. Far be it from Lutheran ways...
The video I saw criticizing Michael Heiser was not a documentary, but what looked like a hosted, real-time discussion between three or four individuals. Were you part of that discussion, or not?
Gotta love it when people fail to understand that just because you appear in a documentary does not mean you agree with everything in the documentary. A little too much guilt by association for my taste.
We are in a culture where apologies are demanded of people for things they had nothing to do with and, unfortunately, some knuckle under and do it. Offense and blame are an epidemic. Good for you for standing your ground. Maybe we will return to sanity someday.
Honestly, even the point you raised in the video showed a misunderstanding of Heiser's own views. While you may not have understood how your words would be use in the Heiser hitpiece (that video really doesn't fit the definition of a documentary since it did not provide a factual record or report), I think it would be good to consider reaching out to Doreen asking to be removed or having her correct the record on what was said since you were involved in the video. Not doing so seems similar to saying "I'm not my brother's keeper."
A similar situation actually happened to Dr. Heiser on a documentary about aliens. He was put alongside other people in the film and his sayings stitched together with theirs to make it seem like he was in agreement with them on far more than he really was.
NEVER should we apologize for another persons comments. And for those who say you misquoted Heiser... I posted below that anyone can find one thing Heiser said somewhere that refutes what he says somewhere else. He was a master at semantics.
No apologies necessary. You did nothing wrong. I don't buy the accusation that you gave credibility to the statements of others. Your response to those who criticized you are spot on.
I think the timing of the whole thing leaves an extremely sour taste for most of us. Why wait until he is gone to come out with a documentary like this? Does not make any good Christian sense. Did "these people" have other opinions while he was alive? Almost as crazy as holding that Dr Cooper has to apologize for anything.
Perhaps have a bit more discernment before agreeing to get involved in a project and asking questions regarding that project. Man up and accept responsibility for your involvement in a project that you admittedly did not research. Like it or not, you were a part of a body of work that misrepresented a man who can no longer defend himself. This video response was full of excuses and self justifications.
"Theosis." Ever notice that it's only men who are interested in topics like "theosis"? As a rule, even the most Christian woman is *totally* uninterested in controversies over theology. Ever wonder why that is?
Anyone who thinks that Michael Heiser was a polytheist forfeits their right to vote.
Lol
Good one!
Agreed, Michael's divine council doesn't mean plurality of God's. It just means God and lower level spiritual beings. Not hard to understand.
@@Codester91670 The Bible consistently portrays God as a singular being. Verses like Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear, O Israel: Yehovah our God, Yehovah is one") and Isaiah 45:5 ("I am Yehovah, and there is no other; besides me there is no God") are clear declarations of monotheism.
The commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" can be seen as a directive against the prevalent polytheistic practices of surrounding nations.
@@That_one_introvert. which is what heiser said.
I miss Doctor Heiser. God rest his soul.
Me, too ❤
Me Three!!
@@MaryMa427me four!
ME TOO I LEARNED A LOT FROM HIM
To me, Dr. Cooper is making this much more difficult than it needs to be. First, he should actually watch the entire documentary (and probably should have before it was released so he actually knew what was in it and what he was part of). Second, if there are any claims in the documentary that he disagrees with or misrepresentations of Dr. Heiser and/or himself, he should simply state what those disagreements and/or misrepresentations are. Third, if he feels uncomfortable having his name attached to the documentary, he should request his contributions and name be removed. Last but not least, he should offer some thoughts that fairly represent Dr. Heiser the person and his views.
Worrying about himself, and whether he should apologize or not, is to miss the point. The point is to speak the truth in love (something the majority of contributors to this documentary apparently failed to model), and, in this case, to speak the truth on behalf of someone who can no longer speak for himself.
If you can call it a documentary. It was more a hit piece. Or a show of opinions by people who do not master a topic.
Very well said!
What's the doc called
Totally agree. 😊
Doreen was just using him as a tool for a hit piece. He should have checked into her beforehand.
This response is disappointing because it is a defense of yourself rather than of Dr. Heiser. "It's not my responsibility if someone is slandering my brother." You are more like the Levite who passes by the beaten man who is eventually helped by the Samaritan. If someone included my words in a hit piece on my brother, I would decry the hit piece.
Good times create weak men.
Facts. Embarrassing for him. No wonder a lot of people in the churches are leaving the fundamentalist approach. It shows their arrogance.
Well why shouldn't he defend himself? Is it incumbent on him to defend Dr Heiser from critique? He could, but is that something he has to do?
If he disapproves of what is in the documentary, or if he thinks they all just have their opinion.... ??
FWIW I just discovered this guy. I am familiar with Heiser and appreciate him.
I would like to see this documentary myself. I now know to take it with a grain of salt.
@@wendyleeconnelly2939 why should the Levite or the Samaritan help the wounded man? They didn't beat him up. They just watched it happened. Probably best to standby while the beating is happening and walk away once it's over.
like Heiser always said " nothing I'm teaching is a new thought"
THATS RIGHT
That doesn't mean that it is a correct thought. "There is nothing new under the sun."
But when contributors say that Heiser said he was the first to come out with this, yet when anyone who knows Heiser knows he said he never had an original thought, well already we are off to a bad start.
There is a video where he says almost everything he talks about is not original. People with these ridiculous claims didn't listen to him.
@@tedroybal5231not A video, try EVERY video he's ever put out where he goes long form enough for anything close to that topic to come up.
I saw him in a day seminar once, super down to earth, VERY humble about not having any solid answers on any application of the topics that go beyond his research.
In EVERY one of his seminars he invariably brings up the history of his position and its total lack of novelty in the church.
Having watched some of his seminars, yes, he says he does not have original thoughts, and that all of his positions were held by other people. At the same time, he emphasizes how he had never heard of the divine council in Psalm 82, and that no one talks about this stuff. 'Go to commentary after commentary after commentary and you won't find this stuff' was a common refrain. Or how he was a doctoral student (and presumably exposed to a lot of material) and had never encountered such and such. He emphasizes how many of the ideas you will encounter in his work can't be found in your creeds and confessions. Those all sound a note of 'novelty,' or at least novelty in evangelical circles, Reformation theologians, and most post Augustine theologians. It has hints of gnosticism--not that no one ever believed what he says before, but that it is hidden knowledge only accessible if you read original languages with 2nd Temple sources like 1 Enoch. So, can you see why people criticize him for saying he was the first to come out with his views, or at least to rediscover them?
@@OneSentenceSummary saying "no one is talking about this" doesn't mean it's novel or that he's unique, but it's a matter of realizing there's this old, highly Orthodox perspective that unlocks all kinds of biblical truth that's just right there on the page, but these ideas were abandoned because they were systematically inconvenient for certain other popular ideas (didn't jibe with new systematic theological perspectives).
Heiser himself found a powerfully practical application for this older view: explaining odd paranormal perspectives on history and modern occult adjacent phenomena... like UFOs, etc. And because of this he became the most useful Christian scholar who made a career out of debunking ancient aliens, all because the church had neglected these older perspectives on the supernatural.
@@ravissary79 So he rediscovered something you say is old, but abandoned. Maybe even an ancient idea kept secret, which he is the first to re-popularize. Hence, the idea of being novel.
Look,
Bottom line is Heiser opened my eyes to the story of the Bible, both OT and NT
Led me to Holy Orthodoxy even though he was not orthodox.
I 1000% support Heiser, his teachings etc despite his use of the church fathers. Now that I understand the Biblical narrative, with Enoch and the Dead Sea scrolls to back up what Heiser taught. The Bible actually makes sense, the incarnation makes sense, the Trinity makes sense etc and the harrowing of Hell and the defeat of the Satan makes sense
I’m blessed to have learned from Dr Mike
Me too!
Me, too!
You're not the only one. I gained a much deeper grasp of salvation when I found him several years ago. Even if you don't agree with his final interpretation or conclusions on everything, he still fills in most of the holes and some of the depth that mainstream Lutheran theology completely blows over.
In spite of all my years as a Lutheran, I feel Michael Heiser was the key that finally made me biblically literate.
Me too! 😊
No one is asking you to apologize for what you said or didn’t say in the documentary. Just that you know Heiser wasn't a polytheist or cult leader and it would be good if you said as much. He’s a brother in Christ that’s being slandered. His widow and kids are still grieving and as an honorable person just saying hey I have disagreements with x or y but I condemn the slander and damnation of Heiser is sufficient.
Doreen and friends basically damned him. It’s evil.
@Eloign I have *never* made the claim that Heiser is a heretic, as is evident in everything I've ever said about the man's work. That should be evident to anyone that's paid attention to my critiques.
@@DrJordanBCooper I know that which is why I said nobody should try to condemn you. Just that we are our brothers keeper and if we see our brother being slandered and someone tries even tangentially to associate us with that we should just say plainly: That’s wrong. Don’t slander him.
Which I think is what you’re saying here.
@@Catholic-Perennialist What Strawman are you even talkin about? This is not a debate, Fr. Cooper was jusg giving clarification that he did not accuse anyone of heresy.
This “christian” cancel culture slander needs to stop! We need to distinguish genuine critique for disagreements with brothers, and to do so charitably. It seems he’s done so here.
Sin of omission: Cooper didn't say anything when Doreen said Heiser was wearing the sheep skin of a Hebrew scholar.
We're not rabid. We're showing the same kind of defensiveness as we would for you had your work been slandered after your death.
Brother, respectfully, you were part of calling Dr Heiser's character into question in the middle part of that video. Doreen was very muddled in her criticisms; half of them went to Heiser's "fanbase," and half of them went to Heiser himself, with little indication that she was making lane changes throughout the whole piece.
Your criticisms of Dr Heiser's fanbase (which you called "rabid") are separate from your criticisms of Dr Heiser, but when there was bleedover, you agreed with the other contributers that Dr Heiser was a lone wolf with no accountability, and that he was leading people into polytheism & paganism. You yourself accused him approaching his theology in a way that he has “discovered something new,” and implied that he lacked humility. And you were verbally agreeing while Doreen and Don were being straight up character assassins, attributing questionable motives, and making false equivalences.
The right thing to do would have been to have your interlocutors pump the brakes when they delved into character assassination, but you didn’t do that. She called him a false prophet and accused him of wearing sheep skin. And you were right there. Come now, brother.
I don't consider myself particularly rabid, so on the chance that I am coming across as one of those rabid fanboys, please accept my assurances that I hold nothing but love for you bro.
Yup, he did say some bad and false things about Heiser which you mentioned and they were mere assumptions. Heiser was not some theological or spiritual lonewolf, he didn't invent anything, his biblical methodology aligns with so many other OT scholars, and he was clear enough. God is grieved with the whole "documentary" not because Heiser is some superhero or an idol but becuase all of them lied and greatly exaggerated about him. Add on that assumptions about his character, and you create a "theological Hitler."
Well said!
@@3mmm777they also insulted anyone who liked him and all or some of his teachings as Heiserites and cult followers. I asked Doreen Virtue point blank if liking some of her material made me a cult follower of hers and she blocked me. Anyways, being called by HER a Heiserite is a badge of honor . I don’t want to be called a Doreenite. 😂😂😂😂
Could not agree with you more!
@@scubaoctopus I've been workshopping with "Heiserian," what do you think 😄
I have zero respect for Doreen Virtue. She has a history of misrepresenting the views of others. The minute I see her name attached to any critique I immediately tune out.
Same. I haven't given her any credence for a long time now.
What you've said is fair enough Dr Cooper. At the same time, the intent of the doco turned out to be a 'hatchet job' of Heiser, a guy who cannot defend himself. One can regret being part of a project, now knowing the intention of it.
For anyone watching this who hasn't seen the Remnant Radio video, the guys there pointed out several times that Jordan was the one participant in the video they were responding to who hadn't badly misrepresented Michael Heiser's views (in many of the clips Doreen Virtue and her other interviewees were claiming that Heiser held positions that ate the complete opposite of the ones he did hold). And he wasn't in any of the clips that they responded to because of that. In fact, everything Dr Cooper said in this particular video is what I would have expected given what the Remnant Radio guys said about him in their video.
He did misrepresent Heiser though
@@Christian_Maoist. No Christian is a Maoist.
I watched some of Doreen's video, and I watched almost the entire Remnant Radio video. This is a good response. Doreen, Marcia, and Wave need to apologize, but I doubt they will. In my correspondence with Marcia on email, she is absolutely unrepentant. But coming back to you, this is well-said. I appreciate this content.
Doctor, as a former low level politician I learned early and was always very careful as to whose work or organization I attached my name to. If you believe you have been invited to speak in an academic forum/video then you do have an obligation (for your own self preservation) to ask questions as to the projects overall goals & focus. While I know nothing of whom you are I do suggest you start caring about what projects you allow your academic reputation to be tied to. God Bless!
Useful wisdom!
Well after Doctor Michael Heiser's death I have tried exploring other scholars and I've come to realize that I can't stand the intellectual community.
So why even make this video? All you are doing here is weak self justification and denial. Frankly, it is disappointing and discredits you and the points you hope to make and I for one now question whether pride prohibits you from arriving at any good points worth consideration anyways. You may not have had control of the project and if you now suddenly did a 180 on the points you contended, that would be concerning information as well. But the reason one would apologize would be in regards to the project itself and regretting being a part of that hit piece even if it was an unwilling/unwitting one. But clearly what you have said here and more importantly have not said, means you whole heartedly endorse what was done but cowardly want to be excused from blame.What I respected most about Heiser was his humility and willingness to learn and openness to be wrong and allowing neither to get in the way of his faith. That would be a better path to follow than this one.
this! 👆
"But clearly what you have said here and more importantly have not said, means you whole heartedly endorse what was done but cowardly want to be excused from blame."
To be fair to Dr. Cooper, I feel that the above comment goes too far and attempts to make a judgment about Dr. Cooper's motives...which we certainly cannot know.
That being said, I feel the remainder of what you had to say highlights some real weaknesses of Dr. Cooper's messaging in this video. To me, Dr. Cooper is making this much more difficult than it needs to be. First, he should actually watch the entire documentary (and probably should have before it was released so he actually knew what was in it and what he was part of). Second, if there are any claims in the documentary that he disagrees with or misrepresentations of Dr. Heiser and/or himself, he should simply state what those disagreements and/or misrepresentations are. Third, if he feels uncomfortable having his name attached to the documentary, he should request his contributions and name be removed. Last but not least, he should offer some thoughts that fairly represent Dr. Heiser the person and his views.
Worrying about himself, and whether he should apologize or not, is to miss the point. The point is to speak the truth in love (something the majority of contributors to this documentary apparently failed to model), and, in this case, to speak the truth on behalf of someone who can no longer speak for himself.
@@Pr1-7 You just said what I wanted to say but with more precision. Well said. Thank you!
STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS
@@Pr1-7 It is not a presumption of his intent. It is the message this video is conveying. I don’t bear him ill will. I am rooting for him to have the humility and character to do better and I hope he does. We all make mistakes, but we only begin to learn from them when we face up and own them.
Disclaimer: I am on the "Heiser" side of things, but I agree you don't need to apologize for your specific segment. Unfortunately, your good comments were paired with other contributors who made false, if not laughably absurd claims about Heiser.
Couldn't agree more.
Did he have a particular fondness for the uncanonical Book of Enoch?
@@TheLincolnrailsplitt He had a fondness for ALL second temple literature. Enoch was just one piece that he used a lot because that was the most relevant to his research.
@TheLincolnrailsplitt He saw them as uncannonical but giving clear interpretations of scripture that was believed by the writers. Not that these interpretations are definitely correct, but that they were early interpretations that existed and shouldn't be ignored. He acknowledged that Enoch in some points contradicts scripture but saw it as useful for knowing how early Jews understood the scriptures. Some people believe that 1st Enoch is scripture and belongs in the Canon but Michael Heiser didn't teach that.
I share your concerns Cooper, and I don’t think you have anything to apologize for! Thanks for the video never the least, it’s helpful to clarify 👍
HEY RemmantRadio, why do you ignore comments, I posted this on your channel and you guys just IGNORE this comment. I hope you understand before Christ returns there will be a lot of FASLE teaching within the church, Heiser was part of the false teaching, you guys put Heiser on a Pedestal and very sadly by doing that you push Jesus aside.
Here is what I posted on your channel.......
....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 appreciate clarification.
Did you just call him Cooper? 😂😂
As someone who has appreciated Heiser's work (with some disagreements with him as well), I would appreciate an apology. His name is on a slanderous work. This video was not a disavowal of that work. It ought to have been.
@@kentyoung5282true
The problem is that you misrepresented Dr. Heiser. At times, you also used insulting language towards him and the people who follow his work. Disagreement is perfectly fine, but that's not what you did. If everyone who follows Dr. Heiser's work is telling you that you're misrepresenting him, then you probably are.
This is why I really wish Michael Heisser did a few debates which he admittedly said he didnt believe in doing. He claimed they werent helpful, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The average lay person, like much of his following isnt devoting 15 years of their life to getting a PHD in a field of study like he has. In an academic and theological debate you have two specialist in the same or similar fields of study pointing out the strengths and weaknesses in eachothers theological perspectives. I wouldnt call Heisser a heretic. I wouldnt call him a polytheist either just because people who hold that kind of worldview like to cite his work to justify it. I think if he had done a few debates it would actually have lent more not less credibility to his arguments if they are true. Even then I think having that exposure would keep his more rabid followers a little more tame when anyone dares to disagree with him.
Very well said, I agree, if Heiser was so confident in his divine council and this world view, it would have been nice if He would have done some debates. Not debating left him on this pedestal that Heiser is not wrong. I know there would have been a long line to debate him.
Doreen doesnt actually mentally grasp what Heiser said from what ive gathered. Sentinel apologetics did a good video addressing her misunderstandings of his work.
Sentinel has done two now and still not finished just the one of two videos Doreen made. Doreen took down all her interviews with Heiser. However this video ua-cam.com/users/livej7UtSWaWgPM?si=XKrD9ec9_QHzM2W9 is a response video which happens to have a clip of an interview she did with Heiser which proves she lied about him and what he told her. Maybe why you can’t find it on her channel. I could be wrong but personally I think heresy hunting is her gig and it pays for her two multimillion dollar homes. She’s good at writing, she’s been putting out books for many years and has articles and even worked as a writer at one time. She knew exactly what she was and is doing.
Disappointed you couldn't say anything positive about Dr. Heiser. Even if you disagree with his theology, seems to me there should be a common courtesy granted to him because you both are Christians.
Agree you don't have to apologize or share in whatever someone else said. But now that the interview is over, and a controversy sprang up, it's surprising to me that you didn't investigate the other people at all. Because that would be the first thing I would do. Almost seems like you want to stay ignorant to keep deniability a continuing possibility.
Overall, I found this explanation somewhat inadequate. Yes, there is no need to apologize, but you failure to be charitable, even a little, even now to Dr. Heiser doesn't sit well with me.
5:34 Dr. Cooper said "My issue is that he dismisses classical categories that are used to protect the creator-creature distinction". It's ironic that these classical categories are also ignored by the Hebrew bible in it's original language. They don't operate on these categories because they were made centuries after the bible.
@Dark_Moon_Grass I’m actually Protestant as well, but I agree. The church fathers expressed their theology in Hellenistic categories in order for them to understand it. It’s misguided to take these Hellenistic categories as the root of it. The roots of the revelation are Jewish, not Hellenistic.
Remember: Paul and Peter disagreed on very important matters for members of “The Way” and Paul and Barnabas also chose to part ways over “a sharp disagreement.” We live in a wonderful time where we have the contemporary scholarship of Michael Heiser, NT Wright, Gary Habermas, Tim Mackie, et al. Yet, just as with the 1st century Apostles we will also have disagreements on certain scriptural issues. However, we are not living under authoritarian religious regimes like that of Pope John 12th of the 900’s, John Calvin’s Geneva of the 1500’s or the oppressive “rule” of the “Kirk,” I.e., the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the 1600’s. As Dr. Heiser wisely advised, as we all study the Word of God…believing loyalty to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most important matter for each Christian
Why Dr. Heiser gets the rap here is incredible. If his material wasn't peer reviewed or copiously documented, along with an amazing number of footnotes that could be researched by anyone, then I could understand it. It takes those who have not reviewed his works or did they're due diligence to come up with such opinions concerning Mr. Heiser's work. The fruit of Mike's work will live long and prosper bearing much fruit. May the Lord Jesus continue to bless Michael Heiser's works.... Amen and Amen
I wonder how many peee reviewed articles Doreen Virtue and Marcia Montenegro have .
💯 Thank you for finally saying the very important two words here "Peer Reviewed" most people seem to leave that part out, even people that are defending Dr Heiser (may he rest in peace) and mention that he constantly said none of his research was original to him it was also all peer review material...
While I agree you are not responsible for what other people said in their interviews and shouldn't be expected to apologize for them, I do wonder if you've watched the final video start to finish? If you agree that Heiser, wasn't a polytheist, a heretic, false teacher, false prophet, wolf in sheep's clothing and cult leader, all of which was said or implied of Dr. Heiser in this slanderous hit piece, you would seek to disavow it and your participation in it. Maybe request that your portion be removed. Unfortunately, because of how bad this video was with its blatant lies and mischaracterizations and misleading statements, you are guilty by association and feeling the blowback. Your reputation may be a bit tarnished because of it.
Great suggestion for Dr Cooper to ask to have his content removed from the video. That would be a way to make things right. Clearly Dr Cooper at the 1 hour 18 minute mark they accuse Heiser of wanting to promote himself as some guy who is so smart he found out something nobody else every understood, and then Doreen pitches in an "appeal to secret wisdom and gnosticism" and Dr Cooper agreed with it! And they said "you should never tell people you found something you knew. And if you found something new, you should have humility about it." Ergo, this infers an accusation that Heiser was arrogant and self-seeking. And then other participants talk about accountability and Dr Cooper goes along with accusations that Heiser was a "lone wolf" when all his work was vetted by scholarship. At the 1 hour 21 minute mark Doreen talks about him "wanting to be the inventor" and portrays this as a character trait and calls Heiser a "false prophet" and Dr Cooper says "yes, its essential to have accountability" and thereby agrees wtih Doreen's accusations. This is like Saul/Paul standing at Stephen's stoning and collecting peoples garments to hold and then saying "oh I had nothing to do with that stoning" -- No, Dr Cooper, you were there and Heiser was called a "false prophet" and you agreed to it. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just go watch that 4 minutes again.
How Dr Cooper does not regret contributing to slanderous things is beyond me. In my opinion, this crossed the line at the 1:18-1:22 mark.
@@blakewidmer you are right. He does have some apologizing to do for not pushing back if he didn't agree with the accusations.
Agreed! Because Virtue relied on him as one expert to support HER claims!!!
Thanks for being a reasonable voice who is willing to engage with people with whom you may not agree with 100%. Unfortunately, it is a rare concept in the current world. We need more Christians like you!
Even though i disagree with Doreens critique You were the best out of the whole panel, the others were constantly creating straw man arguments.
I think the concern that people have is to know that, had you known that there would be unfair presentations of his views as the main thrust of the documentary, would you still have wanted to contribute to it?
exactly. saying you have "no regrets" after a horrible slander video is published with you in it, sure seems to me like if you could go back and do it again, you wouldn't...which means there should be some regret in associating yourself with a group whom you did not know well and did not know how they were going to use the content.
@@blakewidmer No. It just means that I haven't actually watched the whole video.
@@DrJordanBCooper maybe you should? or ask Doreen to remove your part? I get why you feel stuck and it was not fair how she used you, but you consented to it and now your credibility is at stake too. If you watch your segment from 1:18-1:22 you go right along with some serious accusations of Heiser being a "arrogant, self-promoting, false-prophet, lone wolf, in sheep's skin" -- those are serious things.
Your critiques are valid and fine. But you were in a slanderous environment and have not distanced yourself or offered rebuttal to these false charges.
@@blakewidmerYou’re missing the point. He’s not responsible for policing what other people say. There was nothing wrong with what he said.
@@JesseBingham I am not in his shoes and glad that I am not, I understand his point and disagree with him. I think he contributed to the slander, especially agreeing with Doreen that he was a false prophet and in it for pride and didn't have "accountability". It's all good though, I'm moving on. Dr Cooper is a good guy. Just think he mis-stepped on this one.
More click bait!
Using DrMSH to get views.
It's working isn't it.
A lot of people doing it.
Heiser makes the point that all theology should be firstly grounded in Scripture itself, properly and contextually understood. It's crystal clear that a lot of historical interpretations have lacked this rigor simply because the essential resources and roots in biblical history and Judaism were lost relatively early. For example, the way Law comes to be described is largely an alien western interpolation.
In any case, theological categories were developed with this innate lack and were often inspired more by external and later philosophy than anything within the biblical world itself. I don't know of anything Heiser said that directly contradicts catholic creeds. But even if some small part of later confessions are challenged, they can be reformulated. However, Scripture cannot. And it should not be forced to meet the artificial exegetical-theological expectations of admittedly fallible human beings.
Lesson learned? Be sure to conduct some due diligence on who's shows you are going to comment on. Doreen was just using you for a hit piece.
The man is DEAD... Why now? The fact people couldn't speak when he was alive is what troubles me. After someone dies "it seems to me" this people seem to bait for attention. I truly think you had no idea about all of that , you were at the wrong place at the right time. Blessings.
Because Doreen, the witch-hunter, did not have courage to do it earlier. She knew her silly arguments would be easily refuted. Listening to her attempt to justify Gen 1:26 is about the Trinity was laughable. She "knew" Heiser was wrong and she has no degree in the OT or ANE material. What's really sad is that I know 20-year old theology students who researched and wrote papers on the same verse and the results show what Heiser said - the ancient context shows that God was speaking to His council. The same in Is. 6:8. There's absolutely no problem that the whole Godhead was present there since God cannot be separated, but to remove angelic members of His heavenly host is to remove the ancient context. Again, young theology students know about this but Doreen doesn't and she was confused. That happens when you step into another lane that you aren't equipped to walk on.
It’s pretty simple really she’s above all a business woman skilled at profiting off the spiritual world. She knows how to generate clicks and make money and she knew with him dead he would be a sure fire way to get some publicity. She’s still what she was she just uses Christian words now.
Exactly, why did these people not confront Michael Hieser while he was alive and do a debate with him? Disagreement is fine, the apostles disagreed but we do not see any examples in the NT where the slandered each other after they died. The entire episode is shameful, again not because of disagreement but because it was underhanded and now excuses are being made for participating in it.
You said in the video that "he has a very loose use of the term god". This is factually inaccurate; he defines his terms clearly, especially when there's a chance he could be misunderstood.
You said he "believes that the Old Testament uses that term [god] with reference to other kinds of spiritual beings". This is false. It is not a belief on his part, and the word being used is the word elohim, which he makes clear. That the OT uses the term elohim to refer to spiritual beings other than God in the singular is made clear in, for example, the text of Psalm 82 and the incident with the medium at Endor. This is not an interpretation, it's just a fact in the text of the Old Testament.
You said that he "doesn't have this very strong distinction between God as other than creation". This is utterly ridiculous, and I have no idea where you could have gotten such an idea. You certainly didn't get it from something Michael Heiser said or wrote.
You said that "I think the way he expresses it is that he has discovered things that nobody else has discovered before."
This one is just stunning. It is literally the exact opposite of what Michael Heiser actually said. Here's what he actually said "The dirty little secret of Unseen Realm and the work I do is that Mike never had an original thought." What you claimed that he said and what he actually said could not possibly be farther apart.
In your non-apology video, you focus on what you didn't do.
But what about what you did do? You blatantly misrepresented Dr. Michael Heiser multiple times. Maybe you didn't do it as badly as the other folks on the video, but you did do it. Maybe you didn't expect them to lie about him as much as they did.
But you still misrepresented him. In a hitpiece video filled with lies and designed to destroy his reputation. You should be ashamed, you should repent, and you should apologize.
💯 Exactly.
EVERYONE can find one part of what Heiser SAID that is contrary to ANOTHER thing he said. He DID use god/Elohim for DIVINE beings. Then he says that they are not "divine" in the same way that GOD is divine, (thus this is NOT polytheism) but never defines why Heiser would even use the term "divine" for non YAHWEH creations of God.
Heiser and others in the ANE studies agree that EL was the Canaanite name for the HIGHEST GOD of the gods in the Ugaritic divine councils. They agree that the OTHER ANE nations ARE polytheists but then claim that the Israelite WRITERS and COMMUNITY had THIS VIEW, but YAHWEH declares himself to be UNLIKE any other gods. So according to this, ALL Yahweh did was give OMNI-charateristics to the El of the Canaanites and there you go, no more polytheism. Heiser and Walton and others in the ANE studies area CANNOT have their cake and eat it too. Either the Jews did NOT view the supernatural authorities and realm like the polytheistic nations, or they did. If they DID then Israel were just a NEW TYPE of Polytheists. If they did not, then you cannot use Ugaritic texts to describe scriptural declarations of truth about the supernatural unseen realm.
@@RobertlawrenceBDCMinistries You're claiming contradictions where there are none.
I don't know where Heiser got his use of "divine" from, but it's quite consistent with the ancient Israelite use of "elohim", and he was clear enough about it that you know what he meant.
That Caananites used El for their high deity does not magically turn the ancient Israelites into polytheists.
When you get to heaven I hope the first thing you do after paying homage to Jesus is to go wash Michael Heiser's feet.
You failed a character test - it’s simple if your criticism was valid don’t apologise, however you participated in a hack job and in full agreement, you have not expressed regret at the participation and instead are justifying your actions. Also you did agree with their assertions as time went on, so this video is just a sad excuse for pride
I would think that a “Dr.” would be more careful about casual associations, like with Doreen Virtue, et al.
Doreen Virtue and Marcia Montenegro messed up badly!
Can't wait for those "It's over for Jordan Cooper." clickbait responses, haha.
It's Jordover.
@@ProfesserLuigi 😂
Thanks for clarifying. I’d love to see a video from you in the future talking about some of the more unique or novel views of Heiser that you do find intriguing and/or agree with. Thanks for your channel!
That would be awesome. After all, we all agree and disagree with teachings of other people to a certain degree.
Heiser has influenced me immensely. I love his work but have a few disagreements. I don't think you should have to apologize, but it was probably still wise to comment like this 😅. Thanks for the video! I still enjoy your channel and watch it despite my disagreements with you, too. God bless!
Exactly and that’s what Vietue and Montenegro can’t see!
Thanks for putting this out. The current climate is always “guilt by association.” I think you did a good job of remaining within fair analysis and not resorting to straw-men or character attacks.
Just start every interview, article, blog post, etc with this…
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Jordan Cooper or any entities he represents.
I think Dr. Cooper's initial critique in the original video was perfectly fine. However, around the 1:11:00 mark, Dr. Cooper starts interacting with the other people in the video, and that's where I felt things got off kilter.
It seems to me that Dr. Cooper lost a lot of nuance and deferred to the opinions of the others too much. I get how some of those impressions of Dr. Heiser can seem valid at first glance, and this gets into part of the valid criticism: Dr. Heiser does leave a lot of ambiguity in areas as he's not approaching it from a systematics standpoint. I just don't think we have to choose one approach over the other. Dr. Cooper and Dr. Heiser's methodologies both have much value, but in different ways.
There are a lot of us that appreciate Dr. Heiser's contributions without becoming obsessed with nephilim. And honestly, I don't see that as a central focus of his... as someone who had listened to all the Naked Bible podcasts up to his passing and read a number of his books. Maybe I'm wrong, but I always got the impression that he consistently turned things back to focus on Christ and repeatedly called out the excesses of people who got too distracted.
Yes. Dr Cooper should not have agreed and nodded his head and "gone with the flow" when the people he was talking to were making outrageous and slanderous remarks. Calling him a "self-promoter" and "wolf in sheep's skin" should be a moment where Dr Cooper has the integrity and courage to push back on that and say "no, I do not think that is fair" -- instead he nodded and agreed and added his own 2 cents that fueled the fire.
@blakewidmer I think there's some room to extend a bit of grace to Dr. Cooper in the moment. He voiced some legitimate concerns and maybe didn't have all the information to fully evaluate what the other guests were saying.
This response video was a little disappointing in that respect. I really enjoy Dr. Cooper's content, but this felt like he didn't really address at least the concerns I had with his participation, which wasn't "guilt by association" at all. Him portraying the criticism against him like that's all it was felt very tone def.
@@kevinralphs9519 For sure. I'm probably being too hard on him on some respects but the response video could have at least acknowledged that he is sorry for any contribution to unloving and unfair attacks the "documentary" made. Oh well. I'm ready to move on. Dr Heiser's scholarship embodied in his love for Jesus and the church will stand the test of time, I have no doubts about that.
Love your and Dr. Heiser's work, Dr. Cooper. I'm sad to hear people are trying to tarnish Mike's reputation, but on the other hand thanks for your firm but respectful pushback. I had watched your original critiques of Dr. Heiser's views and thought you did a great job of unpacking the areas and in what ways you disagree with him.
I was starting to listen to you, but once I heard that you were part of that documentary it’s goodbye. If you didn’t know those people in the documentary, you should’ve found out. In a drive-by shooting everybody in the car gets in trouble.
I just don’t understand why people are so outraged about one channels view of a person… the only thing we need to be focused in is who is on the side of the bible. The smartest person in the can be wrong sometimes - do their ideas line up biblically . If he has a difference of opinion from Heiser so be it. Does either line un with the word of God
It's unfortunate to see Doreen and others around her going down thus path bc she has a lot of helpful thoughts on the interaction of Christianity and the New Age, but this stance against Heiser seems to misunderstand him greatly.
I've been torn between watching her videos on Heiser to see what they are saying specifically and not wanting to give engagement with them to the algorithm. The idea that you could genuinely read Heiser and vome away with the conclusion that he is a polytheist (meaning Yahweh is one of many gods of the same type of being) is just goofy. He makes it clear that Yahweh is unique as self sustaining, uncreated, etc.
There is so much need in our cultural moment for clear thinking and discernment, but people in who make it their whole thing to be against some outside thing almost inevitably do go down that path in my experience.
I agree. And I like Ms Montenegro as well. Unfortunately segments like this make me call into question how thorough they have been on their other subjects.
Brother, that happens when someone (Doreen) does not stay in her lane (New Age) but tries to criticize something she doesn't know - biblical theology, and Ancient Near East. It was pathetic, like a child laughing at Beethoven for example.
You have nothing to apologize for. The original video was fine. What you have is a bunch of Heiser fanbois who are "Reeeeeinng" because their idol got touched. It similar to those fanbois who defend Keller or NT Wright. I have read and followed Heiser for years and he has a lot of extremely problematic and borderline heterodox, if not heretical, notions, like the Divine Counsel nonsense he believes. You and the other folks in that video did a good job touching on those problematic areas, and we can only hope the now Heiser is gone his influence will start to wane.
There goes eight minutes I’ll never get back
Wanting someone to apologize for what other people said is very childish. I'd simply laugh at them
This is the only reasonable response. They don’t want an apology, they want a scalp.
Imagine if someone asked you, @classically reformed, to be in a "documentary" about some tenet of reformed theology. Imagine if when explaining the matter, you distinguished it from the Lutheran view of that subject. However, when the piece finally came out, it turned out to be a slanderous video saying much about Jordan Cooper that is plainly not true. You wouldn't feel any need to apologize for being a part of it? You wouldn't publicly denounce it and defend Cooper, while maintaining your disagreements with him? If you wouldn't then you ought to be ashamed of yourself, as Jordan should be now.
@@kentyoung5282 Part of me wonders if someone should apologize for being part of a kidnapper ring because they were kidnapped....
Not knowing anything about the video or parties involved and having my own misgivings about Cooper and Heiser, if Cooper's participation was solicited under false pretenses, how is Cooper to blame? That seems to be what you are saying. If despite that, Cooper's critique is honest and worthy of consideration and he didn't participate in any slandering, how is Cooper to blame for what other's have said? If the video manipulates what Cooper said to mean otherwise, then that's on the producers of the video and Cooper should seek damages and removal of his parts.
What I haven't heard anyone accuse Cooper of is saying anything that was directly slanderous or uncharitable. Not anything that seemed to rise above people not liking it when people disagree with their hero.
I have heard enough complaints over the years of people being told that a documentary was for one purpose, but by the time it was released it was completely different, whether because of false pretenses or because the focus changed during the course of production. I'm quickest to lay blame on the documentary rather than Cooper, who may well have done due diligence at the time and felt it was a worthy production, only for it to shift direction afterwards.
If a more direct accusation comes out, I'd like to hear it, but until then, Christians ought not to imitate the world's wicked cancel culture and should be more willing to look charitably on others.
Cooper doesn't understand Heiser. He is admitting same. Shallow at best.
Well stated. It's disappointing you even had to respond to such claims of "guilt by association."
Bless you, brother!
-Rob
“I don’t care to know” ? Interesting confession.
Dr. Cooper, I appreciate your participation in the video in question and this short video response regarding what some allegedly said in Doreen's video. I read through the transcript of the video and highlighted the words Heiser fans claimed one or more in the video supposedly accuse the late Michael Heiser of being. The spelling is not always accurate in the auto-generated transcript, but all of us are fairly careful to stick with issues and not impugn the character of individuals. That being said, the words heretic, heretical, and liar do not occur in the transcript. Again, it is possible there is a misspelling, and it didn’t show up, but I don’t think so. Polytheist occurs once, and polytheism occurs twelve times. None of them claim that Heiser is a polytheist, and Dr. Nunnely specifically states that Heiser is not a polytheist as we think of polytheism. (1:56:26) No one in the video said the late Michael Heiser was a liar, heretic or polytheist. If someone came across instances of that in the video, I would welcome them to send me where it occurs. Accountability and accuracy are essential.
Heiser was referred to as a wolf.
@@BipolarDistortion to be accurate it was "lone wolf," which is understood as "A lone wolf is a wolf not belonging to a pack. As a trope, it refers to an individual who prefers to operate alone." That isn't necessarily good or bad; it's just how someone works. The discussion was about accountability, and I outlined how we at MCOI operate for accountability and having others review our books and research as we write them to ensure it is biblically solid, accurate, and focused on issues, not character. Doreen mentioned that Michael Heiser was a lone wolf. That occurs at 1:19:42.
@midwestchristianoutreachinc wow, you're a voice of reason amongst a sea of howling wolves 😅 Thanks for your fair comment. I feel for Doreen and Dr Cooper.
@@honibear blessings and thank you for the encouragement.
Seems pretty careless irresponsible. But sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Dr. Michael Heiser was a true pioneer and Biblical scholar.
Ah, don't worry about it doc. If you were the kind of theologian that constantly courts controversy and careless in your statements, people would maybe have a point, but you are neither of these things.
Here for the comments 🍿
Heiser built a Frankenstein castle by cobbling together vague scriptures on a foundation of sand....I could not dislike his harmful conclusions more...he has undermined tens of thousands of people with itching ears....his ideas are particularly harmful to new Christians.... That's my two cents on the subject ...take it or leave it....I hope I never hear of him ever again... I'm hoping that this prevents someone from going down his rabbit hole
You should not be intimidated by Heiserites. It is not inflammatory language to say Heiser was a polytheist because he clearly taught polytheism contrary to his denial of it. He wrote, “The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly - pantheon - of other gods." (Heiser, The Unseen Realm, p. 11)
And again: “The denial that other elohim exist insults the sincerity of biblical writers and the glory of God. How is it coherent to say that verses extolling the superiority of Yahweh above all elohim (Ps 97:9) are really telling us Yahweh is greater than beings that don’t exist.” (Heiser, The Unseen Realm p. 35)
And again: “It is not difficult to demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible assumes and affirms the existence of other gods. The textbook passage is Psalm 82.” (Heiser, "Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18.1 (2008), p. 2)
Furthermore, he clearly rejected monotheism: “‘Monotheism’ as it is currently understood means that no other gods exist. This term is inadequate for describing Israelite religion, but suggesting it be done away with would no doubt cause considerable consternation among certain parts of the academic community, not to mention the interested laity.” (Heiser, "Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18.1 (2008), p. 28-29)
He rejected the word "polytheism" for the term "divine plurality" which simply means he believed in a plurality of deities. That is to say he believed many gods exist. This is the definition of polytheism. In fact, in The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, as source which Heiser referenced frequently, uses the two terms "polytheism" and "divine plurality" as synonymous terms on p. 355. Heiser was surely aware of this fact.
His argument to avoid the charge of polytheism was to claim the words polytheist and monotheist are modern construct and it would be anachronistic to use it to label ancient belief systems. He wrote, “Construing multiple ’elōhîm as polytheism is to read a modern conception back into ancient thought.” (Heiser, Angels, p. 79, fn 12)
However, the word polytheist was used by ancient authors such as Philo, who used it at least 14 times. See for example, On the Creation 171; On Drunkenness 110; On the Confusion of Tongues 42, 144; the word is used 3 times in On the Migration of Abraham 69, Who is Heir of Divine Things 169; On Flight and Finding 114; On the Change of Names 205; The Decalogue 65; On the Virtues 214, 221; On Rewards and Punishments 162.
Heiser's supposedly has his scholarship in ancient literature which he claims proves his position when properly understanding the historical cultural backdrop of the Bible. His dissertation focused on Second Temple Jewish literature, and so did most of the later writings. So he is either lying about what this body of literature says, or he is lying about having read it. I have read it and can prove he lied about what it says.
People believe Heiser did not teach polytheism because he defined elohim as "disembodied." (Heiser, The Unseen Realm p. 29) This confuses people to think he was referring to angels with the word elohim. Most people interpret Heiser's writings wrong.
First, there is not one Hebrew lexicon that provide such a definition for elohim. Secondly, Heiser bluntly drew a ontological distinction between what he considered gods and angels. Commenting on the use of the word “angels” in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, he wrote “the word choice (‘angels’) comes from the Septuagint. Despite its imprecision, the divine orientation is clear.” (Heiser, The Unseen Realm, p. 98, fn 11).
Using the pagan Ugaritic texts to interpret the Bible, he explained this distinction of gods and angels in his PhD dissertation. "The divine assembly at Ugarit also included ‘messenger gods’ (ml’km), but contrary to the conclusions of scholars who have studied the divine council to this point, I do not consider the ml’km to be members of the divine council. The ml’km were present in council because they rendered service to the high god and the other gods who ranked above them, but the ruling council was composed entirely of El and his spouse and offspring." (Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” p. 45)
Further identifying this distinction, he wrote, “At no time in Ugaritic literature or the Hebrew Bible are the מלאכים [angels] said to govern territory, nor are they ever referred to in royal terms.” (Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” p. 58)
Hence, his idea of gods are those who have royal language applied to them because they rule over the Gentile nations after the Babel dispersion. He also identified other gods that exist other than the 70 ruling the nations which shows he did not limit royal language or a ruling position to define gods. He also included "shininess or brilliant luminescence is a stock description for a divine being.” (Heiser, The Unseen Realm, p. 119) He clearly depicted an ontological distinction between what he considered gods and angels.
I know you said your not interested in studying further on the topic, but if you change your mind check out the book The Unbiblical Realm: Refuting the Divine Council of Michael Heiser's Deuteronomy 32 Worldview.
Heiser says on pg. 29, of The Unseen Realm, "The word 'elohim' is a "place of residence" term. Our home is the world of embodiment; 'elohim' by nature inhabit the spiritual world." Thus, Heiser is distinguishing between the inhabitants of a spiritual realm and the inhabitants of the physical realm. He is not alone in this view. "Regarding this, Sforno states that "every disembodied creature is known as elohim; this includes the soul of human beings known as [the] 'Image of God'." (Sforno on Deuteronomy 21:23). The issue is a debated one.
"In a few cases in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Hebrew elohim with a plural verb, or with implied plural context, was rendered either angeloi ("angels") or to kriterion tou Theou ("the judgement of God"). These passages then entered first the Latin vulgate, then the English King James Version (KJV) as "angels" and "judges", respectively. From this came the result that James Strong, for example, listed "angels" and "judges" as possible meanings for elohim with a plural verb in his Strong's Concordance, and the same is true of many other 17th-20th century reference works. Both Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon and the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon list both "angels" and "judges" as possible alternative meanings of elohim with plural verbs and adjectives.
Gesenius and Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg have questioned the reliability of the Septuagint translation in this matter. Gesenius lists the meaning without agreeing with it. Hengstenberg stated that the Hebrew Bible text never uses elohim to refer to "angels", but that the Septuagint translators refused the references to "gods" in the verses they amended to "angels."
Heiser lists scripture where the term, 'elohim' is used for the God of Israel, the member's of Yahweh's council, gods and goddesses of other nations, demons, the deceased Samuel, angels and/or angel of Yahweh, on pg. 30, of The Unseen Realm. Heiser then explains, "The usage of the term 'elohim' by biblical writers tells us very clearly that the term is not about a set of attributes. Even though when we see "G-o-d" we think of a unique set of attributes, when a biblical writer wrote 'elohim,' he wasn't thinking that way. If he were, he'd never have used the term 'elohim' to describe anything but Yahweh. Consequently, there is no warrant for concluding that the plural 'elohim' produced a pantheon of interchangeable deities. There is no basis for concluding that the biblical writers would have viewed Yahweh as no better than another 'elohim.' A biblical writer would not have presumed that Yahweh could be defeated on any given day by another elohim, or that another 'elohim' (why not any of them?) had the same set of attributes. THAT is polytheistic thinking. It is not the biblical picture."
The issue here is about how the word 'elohim' is used and what it means. In Heiser's view it does not refer only to Yahweh, but to all spirit beings that inhabit the unseen realm, which is why it is plural. Nor does it make all of those spirit beings equal to Yahweh. It is only when they are considered equal to Yahweh that you get polytheism.
Moses and Elijah were on the Mount of transfiguration. They would be considered 'elohim.' They were disembodied spirits. But, that wouldn't mean they are equal to Jesus, or the Father, or the Holy Ghost. If it is polytheistic for the unseen realm of the spirit world to be populated by the spirits of the dead, angels, demons, and a heavenly host, then every Christian is a polytheist.
@@jackslapp9073 Heiser's definition of elohim is wrong! Elohim cannot mean "disembodied." Furthermore, for him to suggest such a definition is based on the selective hermeneutic method he admits using to construct his theology (see The Unseen Realm, p. 75, fn. 3). But Scripture frequently uses the word elohim for physical objects such as idols. Idols as "elohim" are made of wood and stone (Deut 28:36, 64), can be broken (Ex 23:24), burnt with fire (1 Chron 14:12). The golden calf made in the wilderness is called an elohim (Ex 32; Neh 9:18).
Second Temple Jewish text continued to use the term for physical idol (see Wisdom of Solomon 13:1; 14:8; 11Q19, col 59, 3-4; 1QpHab Col 13, 2-4; 4Q242 frag 1-3, 7-8). Nor were idols viewed as having a spirit in them (Jubilees 20:8), which is also said in the Bible where "breath" is translated from "ruach" which also means "spirit" (see Jer 51:17; Hab 2:19).
Heiser writes, “Humans are also not by nature disembodied. The word elohim is a ‘place of residence’ term. Our home is the world of embodiment; elohim by nature inhabit the spiritual world.” (The Unseen Realm, p. 29) From this quote, the word elohim cannot be applied to humans because they are not disembodied. However, the Bible does apply the word to men and Heiser knows this and admits it. Speaking of Ex 4:16 where Moses is called, "'as God/a god [elohim] to Pharaoh' and to Moses brother Aaron" (The Unseen Realm, p. 280, fn 8). He had the habit of sneaking comments that contradict his teachings in his footnotes which most people don't read.
He explains this by stating, “As a leader through whom flowed divine power, he would naturally come to be seen by the Israelites as a quasi-divine figure, though he was just a man.” (The Unseen Realm pp. 245-246) Yet, divinely ordained judges have this same “divine power” to enable them for the task God has ordained them to accomplish (Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, 28; 1 Samuel 2:25; Proverbs 16:10; 31:4-5; Acts 23:5; Romans 13:1-2). Why would human kings and judges not have the word applied to them according to Heiser’s own expression?
Second Temple Jewish literature also uses the word for men. Josephus spoke of "divine men" by which he referred to prophets (see Josephus, Ant. 3.180; 10.35). Jacob is called "a father to me and a god" (Joseph and Aseneth 22.3).
As far as angels being within the definition of elohim, you mentioned Gesenius who included angels in the definition but rejected it. However, his translator and editor, Samuel Tregelles, adds a very reasonable note, “But Hebrews, chap. 1:6 and 2:7, 9 shew plainly that this word sometimes means angels, and the authority of the N.T. decides the matter.” (Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldean Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures, p. 49) Also, the Dead Sea Scroll text "Song of the Sabbath" (4Q400-407) uses elohim, angels, cherubim, princes, holy ones, and spirits as synonymous word all throughout the text.
Polytheism is not defined by having multiple spiritual beings ontologically equal as you suggested. Heiser should know this since he frequently quoted from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, which states on page 354, "Also, some gods are more ‘divine’ than others; thus Isis is said to surpass the other gods when it comes to divinity.”
Everyone would consider Egyptian theology as polytheistic. In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard) 3rd Edition, we can read an Egyptian hymn about Amon-Re. This hymn present Amon-Re as a unique ontological god above other deities of the Egyptian pantheon. Amon-Re is “More distinguished in nature than any (other) god[.]” (p. 365) This hymn further states about Amon-Re, exactly what Heiser believes the Bible teaches, “Jubilation to thee [Amon-Re] who made the gods[.]” (p. 365) Re is further spoken of as “the lord of the gods… Who gave commands, and the gods came into being.” (p. 366) He is moreover called, “Father of the fathers of all the gods… Who made what is and created what exists; Sovereign-life, prosperity, health!-and chief of the gods!” (p. 366) Amon-Re is “The solitary sole one without his peer… the sole king, like the fluid of the gods[.]” (p. 365) Re having ontological uniqueness is again represented in such hymns, “Thou who hast constructed thyself, thou didst fashion thy body, a shaper who was (himself) not shaped; unique in his nature, passing eternity, the distant one[.]” (pp. 367-368)
So the Egyptian god Re is said to possess eternality and had created the other gods which is what Heiser says of the God of the Bible being eternal distinguishes Jehovah from these other gods He created. Since Dr. Heiser has earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania with his major fields in Ancient Israel and Egyptology, it should be assumed he is aware of this Egyptian theology and is purposely imputing it into his biblical theology.
Furthermore, consider the theological ramifications if Heiser's definition is correct. Was Christ God incarnate? If the word "God" means disembodied, Heiser would either have to reject Christ took on flesh or was not God since an elohim cannot be embodied. So Heiser would either be a Docetic Gnostic heretic, or hold to the Kenotic heresy. Heiser would also have to deny a physical bodily resurrection of Christ, and since he taught theosis, men who are glorified in Heiser's theology would not be resurrected but disembodied. Such an interpretation of the resurrection was what Gnostics taught. Historically, Christians have called Gnostics heretics, and it should not be viewed as inflammatory language to call Heiser a heretic based on his false definition of elohim.
@@truthwatchers3405 . . I think you are fixated on limiting the word 'elohim' to a permanently disembodied spirit. But first, I don't find what you claim in footnote 3, on pg.75, nor what you claim in footnote 8, on pg. 280. Footnote 3, on pg. 75, is about the relationship between Ez. 28, and Gen. 3. Footnote 8, on pg. 280, is about the reading of 70 or 72, disciples being sent out. And, why are you giving references to dead sea scrolls for the Wisdom of Solomon when you can reference modern versions of it? The Wisdom of Solomon 13:1, says nothing about idols, and 14:8, is not directly claiming that idols are elohim, but rather dismisses the idea that they are. Jubilees 20:8, does not prove that those people who worshipped idols didn't believe there was a spirit in them. It only dismisses the idea that there was a spirit in them. And, that denial of there being a spirit in them is actually evidence that there were idolators who did believe there was a spirit in them. Just because someone denies or rejects a belief does not mean no one believed it.
You will have to do a better job on your references for Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. There is no 180, in ch. 3, of my copy, nor is there a 35, in ch. 10 of my copy. Without better citations I cannot verify whether you are actually referencing the word, 'elohim,' or simply assuming that the English word 'divine' is a translation of 'elohim,' as you do for the English word, 'god,' so that you can accuse people of polytheism.
As for the reference to Joseph and Aseneth, even the translators acknowledge that it is a figure of speech used to indicate reverence for a person who is like an angel, an elohim, the way Daniel and John were both awestruck by the elohim they received revelation from. The fact that someone uses the word 'elohim' as a metaphor for someone who has been an important influence on them does not mean the word 'elohim' does not refer to disembodied spiritual beings, such as guardian angels, a spirit guide, the Holy Ghost, an ancestral spirit, etc. What it does mean is that the word 'elohim' refers to a spiritual entity that has a guiding or directing influence like the 'daimons' of the Greeks, or the Devas of the Hindus, or the Spirit guides and spirit teachers of the Native Americans. Yet, still being disembodied spirits.
As to the rest of your commentary, your argument seems to be that because sometimes an 'elohim' can inhabit a physical object or be represented by a physical object, such as an idol; or, inhabit a person, such as the Holy Ghost filling a person to prophecy, or, as when overshadowing the Virgin Mary; or, as a judge with a "spirit" of justice, or a "spirit" of righteousness, where that "divine power" is granted through His Spirit. (Eph. 3:16); or, such as when a person is possessed by demons like the gadarene demonic; then Heiser's definition is false because 'elohim' are not permanently limited to the spiritual realm and forbidden or excluded from interacting with the physical realm. Is that correct? If so, I think you are reading more into Heiser's definition than what is there. I don't think he ever claimed that 'elohim' were imprisoned in the spiritual realm and could never interact with the physical realm. Your attempt to limit the definition this way is as bad as someone trying to limit 'elohim' as only referring to Yahweh. Or, like someone trying to limit the word 'man' as only referring to human males, when the Bible also refers to angels as men. However, your argument on this point does nothing to prove that Heiser was a polytheist.
As to your second point, of claiming that polytheism does not require a plurality of beings equal in status and attributes, but only a plurality of spiritual beings: Then you must conclude that any Christian who believes that there are angels, a heavenly host, spirits of the dead, and demons in the spiritual realm, is also a polytheist.
Further, just because there is a definition used by some books or people that you prefer, does not mean that everyone has to follow that definition. Heiser would appear to disagree with the one you are using. You and others may consider it authoritative, but that doesn't necessarily make it the only way to define polytheism, and everyone else has to abide by it. Of course, I know that is a hard pill to swallow for authoritarians.
As to the note about Gesenius, I think you misunderstood my reason for including it. It was not because I agree with him, but only to show, as I stated, that it is a debated issue and not as much of a settled issue as you implied in your comment. Here, you are assuming an argument I didn't make. My point was that there is room for dissent. However, the fact that the word 'elohim' is sometimes used to refer to angels, as well as many other things, does show that it is not limited to only referring to the God Yahweh, which is the gist of the argument by Cooper and the others in Doreen's video. They object to the word 'elohim' being used, or defined, as applying to anything but God, Yahweh. So, I am glad you disagree with them.
Despite your lack of a direct response on whether or not Christians with a supernatural paradigm populated with spirits, angels, demons, and heavenly host, makes them polytheists, you do admit it in your argument for why you believe Heiser is a polytheist. If Heiser is a polytheist with your definitions, then you are also arguing that all Christians who believe in a supernatural realm populated with angels, spirits, demons, a heavenly host, mighty ones, etc., are polytheists as well, according to your preferred definition.
Now, if that is what you are claiming, I won't disagree with you including every Christian with a supernatural paradigm in the category of polytheism as long as we are clear on how you are defining it. However, to be clear, the word itself, 'polytheism,' means many gods. It does not mean many supernatural beings or many spiritual beings. The notion that you can fudge on that by including lesser spiritual beings is disingenuous even if it comes from a source you are partial to. If some of those lesser spiritual beings were considered gods or worshipped as gods, does not change the fact that they are not God.
On the definition of the word 'elohim,' I don't think your arguments are sufficient, since ambiguity and context are relevant factors in how a definition functions as part of that context, as demonstrated in my examples above. I also don't think that the definition used by some lexicons and dictionaries are sufficient either when those definitions don't work any better in every instance. It is kind of like the word 'funny' being defined as humorous or comical, and then when someone uses the word 'funny' to mean ironic or strange, there are people who will say, "I don't see anything humorous about that at all." Because, they have a limited paradigm where a word can only mean one thing, and not be used to mean anything else, or be applied to a different context. Usually these are people who are a bit autistic and need well defined instructions to alleviate confusion and anxiety over ambiguity. Or, they are authoritarians who need everything structured to suit their need to control their environment.
Heiser's definition of the word 'elohim' isn't "false" just because you prefer some other definition, or because there are sources that define it differently. Sometimes those sources use definitions based only on tradition, without any argument or justification for why it is defined that way. And, sometimes people define things, like polytheism, in such broad terms that it becomes nothing more than a broad brush to paint their enemies with. In some cases, definitions are a result of intentionally trying to brand someone as a heretic. When it has that purpose historically, and is carried on to future generations, it becomes a fixture that prejudices every generation that inherits it, even when it results in hypocrisy or a double standard that would indict them as well.
Lastly, Heiser has a right to disagree with a definition if it is insufficient. As do I. You can make all the accusations you want based on the definitions you prefer, but that only results in convincing yourself and those who agree with you. In essence, your hyper-literalism and insistence on a strict adherence to your preferred definitions is neither impressive nor sufficient when you broaden them so much that you catch yourself in committing the same heresy you are accusing others of. Calling people 'God' is idolatry. Consequently, you are accusing Josephus, and anyone else who uses the term 'elohim' in reference to a person an idolator. And, you accuse God of making an idol out of Moses, out of human judges, and angels. Which also results in God creating polytheism by calling multiple people and angels, gods. Ironically, you then accuse Bible believing Christians of being polytheists for believing in angels and spirit beings even though you are the one arguing for a polytheistic paradigm according to your definitions, while it is Heiser who argues against a polytheistic and idolatrous paradigm by rejecting your definitions and arguments.
@@jackslapp9073 The exact quote on p. 75, fn 3, he admits he uses, "a few selective points of connection and issues relevant to those connections." The other citation was my fault, I was looking at the wrong note. It is actually p. 245 of The Unseen Realm.
Your copy of Josephus must be an older copy that doesn't have the Loeb division of verses. Look in Antiquities book 3, chapt 7, para 7 for the reference to Moses as a divine man; and Isaiah is called a "divine and wonderful man" in Antiquities book 10, chapt 2, para 2.
The reference from Joseph and Aseneth proves my point. It is obviously a metaphor, but it in no wise indicate disembodiment. It represents authority, which would be a more accurate understanding for the base meaning of elohim. That is why one's belly could be their god (Phil 3:19), which some choose to serve over the true God (Rom 16:18). Menander state, "What is a God? Ruling Power." That is also why 1 Chron 29:23 can say: "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father". This is also why men who are in the position to judge over other men or rule over other men can have elohim attributed to them (see Ex 21:6 where elohim is translated as judges). Ps 82 depicts men ruling over the nations ON EARTH, not a supposed divine council positioned in heaven as in Ps 89:6-7.
You wrote I'm " fixated on limiting the word 'elohim' to a permanently disembodied spirit." But what about a permanently embodied being such as the Lord Jesus Christ who ascended into heaven in a permanently resurrected physical body and will return wto earth with the same physically resurrected body? Is Christ God? The inconsistency of the definition with sound theology proves it is wrong and should be rejected.
As far as using the term polytheism, it is consistent with the historical use of the term which Heiser is attempting to change to avoid the charge. The Dictionary of Deities and Demons of the Bible, a source Heiser make much use of, states on page 363, “Only when the subordinate deities are degraded to angels, created by the God they serve, can one speak of monotheism.” Since Heiser blatantly rejected the Bible as being monotheistic, he is not allowing his gods to be interpreted as angels. If he intended angels to be understood as elohim, he would be within the realm of monotheism. He clearly implied gods are different than angels. Historical Christianity and Judaism has not been classified as polytheism because elohim has never been defined the way Heiser defines it, and we have always understood spiritual beings as angels, not gods. In my first comment I referenced Philo's use of the word polytheism, which reveals how the ancient Jews understood the term and proves Heiser is the one braking from the historical definition. Its not about my preference but how it has been understood historically.
Furthermore, Heiser writes, “Other than the mal’āk yhwh (‘Angel of Yahweh’), there are no instances where a mal’āk is described as ’elōhîm, except in the mouth of a pagan king (Daniel 3:25-28), which cannot constitute a sound source of Israelite theology.” (Heiser, “You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989-2011, Vol. 19, No. 1, (2007), p. 240-241) So he clearly said the term angel is nowhere else described as elohim, and more importantly, he say words out of the mouth of pagans is not how to build biblical theology. Citing 1 Sam 28:13 for a proof text to define elohim is depending on the words from the mouth of the witch of Endor. By his own standard, he has produced a bad theology by using a pagan's speech to define the word.
Finally, the only biblical justification to define elohim as disembodied is from the mouth of pagans in Babylon. The magicians and astrologers say, "And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh." (Dan 2:11) So the definition is a pagan view, not a biblical view. In fact, Heiser's whole claim of scholarship is based on the bad hermeneutic of integrating pagan views in the Bible. In his response to Thomas Howe's criticism, Heiser wrote, “I assume that the Scripture writers were communicating to people intentionally - people that lived in their day and who shared their same worldview. This assumption is in place because I’m sensitive to imposing a foreign worldview on the writers.” (Dr. Michael Heiser, “Response to Dr. Thomas Howe’s Thoughts on the Unseen Realm,” August 6, 2019; drmsh.com/response-dr-thomas-howes-thoughts-unseen-realm/)
Imposing the pagan worldview on the Scripture is what the Bible commands us NOT to do ((Deuteronomy 12:29-32; 18:9-10; 20:18; Leviticus 18:3-4; 2 Kings 17:15; Josephus, Against Apion 2.237 [book 2, para 34]), and the Israelite guilty of doing so was to be put to death (Deut 13:6-18).
@@truthwatchers3405. Redundancy doesn't make it anymore convincing than it was the first time.
Your point on the use of 'elohim' as a metaphor in Joseph and Aseneth does not prove that 'elohim' are not disembodied spirits. The metaphorical use of it there is like saying he was her spiritual father. Which sometimes is expressed as someone being a godfather. But, that doesn't make that person a god, nor a disembodied spirit from the spiritual realm. So, when the English word 'god' is used to refer to someone as a spiritual father, they would be using it loosely, not literally. Consequently, this example actually violates Cooper's view since even English speakers don't always use the word 'god' to refer to divinity. Sure, there is an authority implied, but it is an authority derived from the spiritual relationship of the person being like a father, not like a god. That spiritual relationship is what is being referred to by the word 'elohim.' It does not mean that 'elohim' in this usage refers to god. So, whatever you think your point is, which isn't apparent since you imply more than you state directly, seems obtuse, when this example works against the idea that 'elohim' means 'god.' You want to hold to a hyper-literal definition given by Heiser, but then you point to examples that you interpret with a very non-literal usage of your definition to claim that the example contradicts Heiser's definition, while ignoring that the example also contradicts a literal interpretation of your definition. And, the contradiction is not proved when you are assuming a loose usage of your definition to interpret the example. You are only proving that you have a different definition by which you interpret the examples, and then you claim the example contradicts Heiser, which makes your argument an illegitimate double standard.
Your argument that Jesus having a resurrected body and being God, contradicts Heiser, relies on your insistence of interpreting 'elohim' as 'god,' according to your definition and of insisting on Heiser's definition being 'permanently' disembodied spirits, so that you can manufacture a contradiction. I don't think you understood the point. Using Heiser's definition, Jesus was an elohim as the Logos. Now he is more than an elohim. The fact that he now has a resurrected body does not mean that he was not an elohim, a disembodied spirit, before, and now that he has a resurrected body I know of no place where he is referred to as an elohim, as a disembodied spirit. He is still God, but no longer a disembodied spirit (elohim) according to Heiser's definition. (Edit: So, I am sure this is why you are slanderously claiming that I said Jesus was no longer God in your response to this post.) Thus, you are still insisting on interpreting Heiser's definition of 'elohim' as being 'permanently' disembodied. Yet, the fact that Jesus has a permanent resurrected body also contradicts the idea that his body is mortal. Does that mean that he is no longer human as well? No. It means that he is the first born from the dead, and more than human as well as more than elohim (more than a disembodied spirit.).
Further, Heiser specifically pointed out on pg. 32, of The Unseen Realm, "This is not to say that an 'elohim' could not interact with the human world. The Bible makes it clear that divine beings (elohim) can (and did) assume physical human form, and even corporeal flesh, for interaction with people, but that is not their normal estate. Spiritual beings are "spirits" (1 Kings 22:19-22; John 4:24; Heb. 1:14; Rev. 1:4). In like manner, humans can be transported to the divine realm (e.g., Isa. 1:6), but that is not our normal plane of existence. As I explained earlier in this chapter, the word elohim is a "place of residence" term that has nothing to do with a specific set of attributes." The place of residence is the spiritual realm. But, the fact that the spiritual realm is the place of residence does not mean they can't leave it and visit the physical realm. Humans have a spirit that resides in a physical body, but that doesn't mean the human spirit can't leave the body and travel to the spiritual realm. "Residency" does not mean imprisonment.
Jacob refers to Yahweh as an angel in Gen. 48:16. Then there is Judges 6:11-14, where an "Angel of the Lord," visits Gideon, and then in verse 14 and 16, it is YHWH responding to the question Gideon asked of the Angel. In Judges 2:1, an "angel of YHWH," claims to be the one who brought the Hebrews out of Egypt into the promise land that he, "I swore unto their fathers; and I said, I will not break my covenant with you." So, I would disagree with Heiser that there is only one example of an elohim being referred to as malak, assuming that yhwh is an elohim. You point to Heiser saying that "Other than the malak yhwh (Angel of yhwh), there are no instances where a malak is described as elohim,..." So, your argument is what? You are being obtuse when you think that a quote implies an argument and conclusion without actually expressing the argument and conclusion.
On Dan. 2:11, Are you saying that it is false when it says, "whose dwelling is not with the flesh"? If so, provide proof. Something can be true regardless of who says it, so if you are claiming that Dan. 2:11 is false, then you need to prove that it was false at the time it was said. Dismissing it just because it comes out of the mouth of a pagan is a straw man fallacy.
It is quite obvious that you are the one imposing a pagan paradigm on the Bible, not Heiser. It is you that is using the word 'elohim' to mean 'god(s),' and imposing a polytheistic paradigm on the text. It is you that interpret examples by your definition and then claim that the example contradicts Heiser. Nor, have you responded to the obvious consequences of your polytheistic interpretation of the text. So, it appears that you are the polytheist and an idolator. It is also apparent that you are more interested in gaslighting than anything else.
Edit:
So now you are going to block me so that I can't respond to your disingenuous slander below? That's mature. 😆
You proved my point about your double standard of using your definition of 'elohim' to manufacture contradictions and slander. The New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew, yet you use Romans 9:5, from the NT, to claim that what I said about Jesus not being called 'elohim,' in the Hebrew in the New Testament, is a denial that Jesus is God. The equivocation on language, and the lie you commit from that equivocation is obvious to anyone with a brain. It is the same thing you do with accusations against Heiser. You assume your definitions instead of Heiser's in order to pretend there is a contradiction between the usage and his definition, when the only contradiction is with your definition that imposes polytheism on the text. You haven't proved that Heiser is the polytheist. You have proved that you are the polytheist by using a definition that makes everything called 'elohim,' a god. And then, you assume the reverse, that any use of the word 'god,' whether in English or in Greek, also means 'elohim' in the Hebrew.
You also need to provide proof of what you said about Heiser denying the physical resurrection of Christ. Given your penchant for twisting language, your opinion is not trustworthy. The only people that are going to see the issue here your way, is disingenuous people brainwashed like you.
It always annoys me that people would think you of all people would have shady reasoning for something. I see no reason for you to apologize for anything you've said or done regarding this.
This is a cautionary tale about why not everyone who names the name of Christ can be trusted. It’s important to know what you’re taking part in before agreeing because it might end up being a hit piece.
You should probably ask for your segment of the video to be removed then, if you truly didn’t know that you were participating in a personal attack and misrepresentation of a man who has passed away.
Unless he himself was attacking personally and misrepresenting him, how would removing his segment do anything to improve the video other than appease a guilt by association mentality?
@@survivordave I agree. The video isn't going away and at least having one person who has honest critiques is valuable.
If he didn’t personally attack him, he wasn’t “participating in a personal attack.”
That’s an absurd reach.
@@survivordave why would you want your work being used in a hit piece. These folks flat out lied about what Dr. Heiser said…it’s actually slanderous! If he wants to keep an association with a slanderous video the. He has shown is his true Character.
There are a ton of videos now of critiques of Doreen’s “documentary” in which they recovered the videos she hid on her channel. They played this documentary and the actual video of Dr Heiser and he said the Exact opposite of what Doreen said. She called Dr Heiser a gnostic polytheist! He was nothing of the sort! She made a real mistake with this…
You chose to be affiliated with Doreen and crew. You admit to not knowing anything about Doreen's panel, however, smart enough to know their topic and message and agreed to present. Also, you seem educated enough that you could have reminded the crew that it is healthy to debate and learn, but not to personally attack a person. That is on you.
100% cooper simply makes excuses for his bad behavior in this video.
It's wild you even have to spell this out for people. Thanks for being a good example of dealing with ridiculous criticism with grace!
I think you are missing the point…the issue isn’t with the criticisms…the issue is with the fact that he collaborated on a slanderous collaboration.
@@amieroberg5252 Question is to Dr. Cooper, would he still participate in a collaboration video video against someone if he had knew it was only slanderous?
He's response in another comment was No.
Nobody in that video had studied or understood anything Dr. Heiser was putting forth. Labeling him as a polytheist is laughable at best. Then, the complete disrespect towards him (ad hominems) was shocking. If you want to critique something or someone, it's "kinda" important to understand the doctrines/premises and know the individual. It's rather funny these folks waited till he died before going on their doctrinal and character witch hunt.
This wasnt helpful. I still enjoy your content though.
Cooper is like “ua-cam.com/video/zxRYF2s-wLc/v-deo.htmlsi=p7CYETkZ4PPSapIZ” 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, basically.
HEY RemmantRadio, why do you ignore comments, I posted this on your channel and you guys just IGNORE this comment. I hope you understand before Christ returns there will be a lot of FASLE teaching within the church, Heiser was part of the false teaching, you guys put Heiser on a Pedestal and very sadly by doing that you push Jesus aside.
Here is what I posted on your channel.......
....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
Based
😂
The sad part about this whole thing is that you waited to the man died before you came out with this and it doesn't give him a opportunity to defend his position
..
Agree with @TheRemnantRadio . You were clearly the most responsible person in Doreen Virtue's video. No need to apologize. I disagree with your assessment of Heiser's methodology, but it just seems weird that someone thought you should have to apologize for something.
Even though I would agree with Heiser in his interpretation, I really respect how you handled your disagreement. Thank you for being a man of integrity, Dr. Cooper. God bless
Last night I had a dream that you were in and you said something mean to me.
I demand you apologize now!
😂
I think you do a great job articulating the current and growing problem in popular Christianity. I long for the day that we get rid of this guilt by assiciation attitude.
Or you can just be omnicient and never run into this problem again.
As someone who agrees more with Heiser than you, but I really enjoy your content as I have been looking into lutherian theology, I think you are right in not apologizing for someone else's problems.
I didn't even finish watching the Doreen video because almost immediately i witnessed absolute SLANDER. slander is sin. Not to mention the cowardice on doreen's part to after He has passed and cannot defend his position. I WILL watch the full video to determine your part in this cowardice act, Mr. Cooper. You were a part of the whole which in my opinion gives you a responsibility to condemn slanderous stayements made by other parts of the whole. The apostle paul held the coats of those who stoned Stephen.
This is the correct response.
Great video Dr. Cooper. You have nothing to apologize for; those demanding an apology need to learn to think and take a step back from the golden calf of Heiser.
It would have been nice and proper if you have just said in this video that you believe that the late Dr. Heiser was a real born again Christian and not a polyteist.
@@angelbonilla4243 I've said that in all the videos I've done on the subject.
@@DrJordanBCooperI believe you. But then, why have you allowed your name and reputation to be connected in any way to that travesty of a video? Why have you not requested that your segments and name be removed? To remain in the Virtue video is to give tacit approval to all that was said.
@@pennyc8572This video appears to have been pieced together from different interviews at different times.
Your little story about the artist means nothing. Joining a group to say negative things about somebody else requires a little bit of work to find out who they are and what they’re gonna say. Playing ignorant is no defense..
u should explicitly distance urself from those ppl and ask for ur segment to be removed..
Was his segment misleading? Why should it be removed?
@@billbadson7598 I posted a top-level comment detailing 4 different misleading points from his segment. I'm sure there were many others as well.
@@ancalagonyt If he himself is misleading, what point is there to "distance himself" from "those people," if he's the one at fault?
Could you copy/paste that top level comment?
@@billbadson7598 He's not the only one being misleading.
Copy/paste of top level comment:
You said in the video that "he has a very loose use of the term god". This is factually inaccurate; he defines his terms clearly, especially when there's a chance he could be misunderstood.
You said he "believes that the Old Testament uses that term [god] with reference to other kinds of spiritual beings". This is false. It is not a belief on his part, and the word being used is the word elohim, which he makes clear. That the OT uses the term elohim to refer to spiritual beings other than God in the singular is made clear in, for example, the text of Psalm 82 and the incident with the medium at Endor. This is not an interpretation, it's just a fact in the text of the Old Testament.
You said that he "doesn't have this very strong distinction between God as other than creation". This is utterly ridiculous, and I have no idea where you could have gotten such an idea. You certainly didn't get it from something Michael Heiser said or wrote.
You said that "I think the way he expresses it is that he has discovered things that nobody else has discovered before."
This one is just stunning. It is literally the exact opposite of what Michael Heiser actually said. Here's what he actually said "The dirty little secret of Unseen Realm and the work I do is that Mike never had an original thought." What you claimed that he said and what he actually said could not possibly be farther apart.
@@ancalagonyt Thank you for reposting, I couldn't find the original comment.
Ecclesiastes 3:7 A time to tear and a time to mend, A time to be quiet and a time to speak. Galatians 5: 14-15 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
you have a moral obligation to watch the video and take decisive action in response to what you see.
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless" -Bonhoeffer
Absolutely right! Only apologize for what you are responsible for IF it merits an apology. Ignore social media "cancel culture."
Who is Heiser
Don't worry Dr. Cooper, your appearance was excellent and you have nothing to apologise for. By the way, I noticed you never finished your series on Heiser. Perhaps now would be a good time to do so.
Ya, a person shouldn't be judged like a turnip simply by having spoken or been associated in any way with someone with a strange opinion.
Far be it from Lutheran ways...
The video I saw criticizing Michael Heiser was not a documentary, but what looked like a hosted, real-time discussion between three or four individuals. Were you part of that discussion, or not?
Gotta love it when people fail to understand that just because you appear in a documentary does not mean you agree with everything in the documentary. A little too much guilt by association for my taste.
Who is Michael Heiser?
We are in a culture where apologies are demanded of people for things they had nothing to do with and, unfortunately, some knuckle under and do it. Offense and blame are an epidemic. Good for you for standing your ground. Maybe we will return to sanity someday.
Nothing to do with? Should he take no responsibility for the documentaries he himself appears in willingly
Honestly, even the point you raised in the video showed a misunderstanding of Heiser's own views. While you may not have understood how your words would be use in the Heiser hitpiece (that video really doesn't fit the definition of a documentary since it did not provide a factual record or report), I think it would be good to consider reaching out to Doreen asking to be removed or having her correct the record on what was said since you were involved in the video. Not doing so seems similar to saying "I'm not my brother's keeper."
Great job Jordan. I agree with you 100%.
A similar situation actually happened to Dr. Heiser on a documentary about aliens. He was put alongside other people in the film and his sayings stitched together with theirs to make it seem like he was in agreement with them on far more than he really was.
NEVER should we apologize for another persons comments. And for those who say you misquoted Heiser... I posted below that anyone can find one thing Heiser said somewhere that refutes what he says somewhere else. He was a master at semantics.
No apologies necessary. You did nothing wrong. I don't buy the accusation that you gave credibility to the statements of others.
Your response to those who criticized you are spot on.
I'm not sure dr cooper even clearly knows Heiser's positions. To be involved in this kind of hit piece is disrespectful.
I think the timing of the whole thing leaves an extremely sour taste for most of us. Why wait until he is gone to come out with a documentary like this? Does not make any good Christian sense. Did "these people" have other opinions while he was alive? Almost as crazy as holding that Dr Cooper has to apologize for anything.
I'm done with Dr. Cooper, wish him the best . Unsubscribing from his channel.
Very weird thing for people to be mad at you about. We support you, Dr. Cooper.
Perhaps have a bit more discernment before agreeing to get involved in a project and asking questions regarding that project. Man up and accept responsibility for your involvement in a project that you admittedly did not research. Like it or not, you were a part of a body of work that misrepresented a man who can no longer defend himself. This video response was full of excuses and self justifications.
"Theosis." Ever notice that it's only men who are interested in topics like "theosis"? As a rule, even the most Christian woman is *totally* uninterested in controversies over theology. Ever wonder why that is?
It was an inaccurate, dishonest, tendentious, and academically uninformed hatchet job of Dr. Heiser.