The problem with arguing Heiser is that Heiser comes from a theological position that supersedes the church fathers of the 3rd century and goes back to 2nd temple Judaism. So this gentlemen’s arguments fall short in that it’s doesn’t matter if you embrace Heiser or not, as Heiser’s theological construct (as Heiser claims) is what was believed at the time when the New Testament source material was claimed to have been written. I think this was also mentioned in previous comments, but Heiser does not present anything new, but rather is a collector and re-distributor of scholarly work on the topic that most Evangelical scholars are not very comfortable disseminating and go against the “traditional” Christisn theological narrative of the church fathers, leading to now. Therefore, again. Going against Heiser’s conclusion of his 2nd temple Judaism theology/cosmology using theology drafted hundreds of years later makes no sense. You cannot prove Heiser’s theology from antiquity wrong using modern theology derived from our church fathers. It not relative! You can say, the theology evolved from one to another, but unless you argue Heiser’s theology in its contexts “tit for tat” and come up with your own 2nd temple Judaism theory or prove it false, you have no argument against Heiser. We get that you don’t like it, it maybe wrong, may not be accurate theology to modern ears, but unless you start getting deep into history and Death Sea Scroll stuff, good luck trying to prove him wrong.

I feel like a lot of people don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of what Heiser says, they might disagree with his wording. But what I will say, is that I don’t think someone has to necessarily be right about everything to be considered worth turning your ear to and hearing what they have to say. God bless all my brothers and sisters seeking out truth!

For all that is worthy, it is a healthy thing that someone critique Heiser's teachings. No one is inerrant.

Actually I went from the Sethite interpretation of Gen 6 to Heiser’s view after studying the various sources.

Dr Heiser says in nearly every lecture and makes it known in his books that the material is far from unique to him. His goal is to take high end scholarly material related to old and new testament and make it decepherable. But I can see how some may feel completely hit off guard as though something new or foreign (concealed but now revealed) has come along. Loved the video and I believe you made some valid points.

I also noticed the possible Open Theism of Heiser and Dr. Cooper is the first one to mention that. That makes me realize I was not off in that.

Are you familiar with Stephen De Young? He is an eastern Orthodox theologian who makes simmilar arguments to Heiser.

Yeah, you don't understand Heiser. You don't understand his views on Satan and Job, and why Heiser believes what he believes, and you've misrepresented his views. The fact Heiser is able to have such a high view of biblical divine inspiration while acknowledging some aspects of critical scholarship is a testament to how open and honest Heiser is while also smart to be able to work through it all. This video is a joke. I'll stick with Dr Heiser's material than the flat alternatives of other protestant views.

Fascinating that you should lead with Heiser’s understanding of the image of God. He is the first scholar or theological or player, to have a compelling argument for life from conception to death, and including people of diminished physical and mental capacity, all based in mankind being made in the image of God.

Regarding the power of idols, I was fascinated by Athanasios' treatment in 'on the incarnation'. That after the devil was bound by Christ the idols lost all their power, used as an argument for Christ against the gentiles

Did I miss something? It seems like the only interaction with the word “Elohim” was from Genesis 1. No mention of Psalm 82; Psalm 89:5-7; Job 38:4-7; Judges 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33; 1 Samuel 28:13 All these places where the word Elohim occurs and clearly does not refer to The God of Israel

I'm seven minutes in and I can already tell you the subtext (deeper meaning) behind the pretext. Heiser was not a Calvinist, sometimes even a critic of Calvinism. Calvinists view such Christians as unsaved, so their Biblical exegesis is flawed.

I think you try to be fair but also be better to get to the point of topic and also not go off on little tangents. People's time is often limited so staying focused on topic without spending so much time on expanding details on other things would be satisfactory. Thank you.

1. I get what you are trying to say, I have a few problems with it though. It isn't as simple as Monotheism. Thats something that later was used to explain it but then how do you explain the command in the Pentateuch to Destroy all the Ashera Poles. 2. I would be quite curious to know who god was speaking to in the "Counsel of Gods" in the book of Job when he gave Satan permission to test Job, as well as the psalm 82 " God takes a stand in the divine counsel, gives judgement in the midst of the gods. How long will you just unjustly and favor the cause of the wicked? Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy. Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked/ the gods neither know nor understand, wandering about in the darkness, and all the world's foundations shake. I declare: "Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, Yet like any mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for yours are the nations. I am trying to understand then who is God speaking to in that psalm.

Hello..i still haven't heard any credible points disputing Heiser? If I'm not mistaken, all Heiser is saying is that you need to interpret the Scripture in its own context through the minds of the original authors of its time.. Not regurgitate theological dogma through traditions...if you don't like what the text emulates, you shouldn't blame the messenger..

I agree this is the best response I know to rebut Dr Heiser, but it is still very poorly answered It needs to be taken seriously please find a book that has the hebrew properly written and deal with just one subject example "angels rebel anytime , give quotes etc ... Dr Cooper wasn't even sure if he had said it. I am coming to a conclusion this is becoming like a reformation moment ....rescuing the bible back from the medieval times. This maybe not a bad thing as the Unseen Realm book does make a lot of logical sense.

The ha-satan in Job is clearly not the Satan of the NT. the text itself doesn’t lead you to “Satan”, unless you start presupposing it is.

He starts talking about elohim at about 30:00

I don't agree with Heiser on everything, however the pagan gods exist and they are fallen angels, the Bible explicitly says so...period.

Oh. You are reformed. I see why you need to disagree. Dr Heiser is not, as far as I know, unique in any of his views. He and I began discussing this in 2009, and he pointed me to his source material. I was one of many who gave him initial feedback on his initial draft of what became TUR. We landed in different spots on some things, but I remain convinced he is entirely correct on the supernatural worldview of first century Judaism and the OT.

Show me where Heiser is wrong please. Saying that you disagree because you like another perspective is not proof of anything. The talk is so nebulous as to be completely useless. Get to the point please.

My criticism of Dr Heiser is that he needs to pick out better shirts to wear.. Luther pointes out that in the last days we will know more about Angels and now we do..thanks to people like Heiser and archeology... and videos. We are in the last days.. population explosion, the great falling away which happened in the 19th century... Darwinism, Communism and Feminism and in the 21st century the manipulation of our DNA... Yes we know a lot more than the great reformers. They may have had a different opinion today than they had 100, 200 or 500 years ago. PS Luther observed that science would one day be turned against Christianity..He was very critical of what they were using astronomy for.

We shouldn't let impose our modern theology onto a text written by Ancient Near-Eastern authors.

The angels in Hell were condemned for leaving their first estate and going after strange flesh. Supernatural nephilim is the original interpretation. Not sure why Dr. Cooper is afraid of this.

Actually not moved at all with this argument. Not even a little. We should all try to understand the grammar of it and agree that heiser is correct

This video is not worth your time. Cooper’s arguments aren’t very strong-a lot of assertions and flat disagreements without much substantive argumentation. Heiser’s views are based on very low-level analysis of the language, surrounding languages, cultural contexts, and contemporary literature. The meaning of the text in The Bible is inextricably linked to the meaning of the language used by the authors, and what it meant to them. So to really deconstruct his view, one would need to engage the arguments down to that level. This video doesn’t do that.

Édit: does ANYONE have the answer? The will IS in bondage to sin? Or WAS? Is your will in bondage to sin, pastor? This ties in with my earlier question you maybe didn’t have time for: When are you forgiven for one particular actual sin and how (practically) do you pray for forgiveness / receive absolution? Are you already forgiven before you confess? If not, what if you fail to confess a mortal sin? Do you pray for forgiveness silently (in your head, so to speak?) What’s the process? How do you receive absolution if alone? Do you say “forgive me for x….[pause]…thank you for forgiving me..”? And what if you just have guilt feelings but don’t put words to them? Is that enough? I recommend a pastoral series on how to live as a Lutheran.

as you’re considering different content options, doing a program on infant baptism would be great

Heiser shows the 3 divine rebellions as described in Scripture and that informs the perspective on free will for divine beings. Not angels, as angel is a job description, but sons of God as described in Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 89, and elsewhere. There is a psalm that says that God couldn't trust his heavenly council, which also explains this idea. It's well founded in Scripture. Your main issue is that you insist on elevating the teaching of your traditions from the church fathers over the actual context of the Bible, which is ancient and has nothing to do with dark age Europe. Luther in particular has some serious problems with doctrine, given the extreme antisemitism he produced. How do you reconcile the call to burn down synagogues and kill rabbis when our messiah is and always will be Jewish? That alone should give you pause for blindly adhering to the teaching of men over the in context writing in Scripture.

With all do respect, please present "your view" of Divine Council. Setting up for a discussion to go against another one's interpretation and teaching is building on a negative platform. I think it would have been more appropriate to discuss "Your Interpretation" and leave Heiser out of your discussion. I tried to listen to you, but you are "reacting" instead of acting on how the Word speaks to you. Heiser did us a great service before his departure to "graduation and glory". May I suggest you take this video down, and present your own view as you see it. I wonder if you really would be able to present your base of discussion in a way that challenges me. Right now, as I listened to you, it was a "he said this...." and "he said that". Perhaps if you were to debate in a dialogue that gives the other person and chance to respond and clarify your own "misunderstandings". In theology, most theologians are blatantly pragmatic as they are not running on emotions, but on correct interpretation of the WORD. I am thankful for Dr. Heiser's work. He knew over 22 semitic languages and was faithful to teach us all to be our own "theologian" and to discern for ourselves what the WORD is saying. I hope you take this as an observation and not a criticism. I also know that he was faithful to his walk with the LORD. Thank you for hearing me out.

You really nailed it when you highlighted the centrality of libertarian free will to Heiser's view.

You claim that Heiser's ideas spring from the idea of a "libertarian free will". I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but Heiser's ideas definitely don't spring from anything resembling that. They come, quite explicitly, from the Old Testament and the 2nd Temple Jewish literature and other Ancient Near East literature for context. Text in context is where he gets these ideas, and many of them are just something some other scholar wrote about first. Free will, libertarian or otherwise, has nothing to do with it. You complain about Heiser talking about freedom for humans and angels, and you say "it's a little bit odd". No, actually, you saying that's odd is what's odd. If you want to disagree with him on that minor point, go right ahead, but understand that (1) it's not something he dwells on a lot, and (2) it is not in any way foundational to his ideas. Also, if your odd ideas about lack of freedom are somehow compatible with the Bible, I'm sure you could make them fit comfortably with Heiser's ideas at least as easily. You claim that Lutheran and Reformed theology is incompatible with the idea of freedom. This does not accord with my understanding of Reformed theology. My understanding comes from a Calvinist pastor on youtube, Paul Vanderklay, and what I get from him is that God is sovereign and that humans are also free. Frankly, if your theology says humans aren't free, you're practically accusing God of being a monster, who mind controls people into sinning so he can throw them in hell, for no good reason. But again, the problems your theology would have aren't with Heiser, they're with the Bible. I think you're misrepresenting Heiser by saying that imaging God is only an activity. He says that imaging God is an active thing, but also that it's inherent in every human being at every point in life, and that thus it doesn't depend on any attributes. He does clearly say that God shares his attributes with us. Heiser doesn't say the image of God is "partial". He's actually adamantly against exactly that. It's either there or it's not, period. The scripture about being conformed to the image of God is not something Heiser would have a problem with, he'd just say something along the lines of "there is an activity of being the image of God, or imaging God, and that's what that passage is about". He likes to refer to is as imaging God, or being an imager, rather than as a noun phrase "the image of God". It's weird hearing you criticize Heiser on the imago Dei, because all you do is agree with him, you're just using slightly different wording to say the exact same thing. In talking about development of doctrine and Satan, you're again misrepresenting Heiser. Heiser *does not* accept the critical wishy washy views. He has said specifically with reference to the later identification of "Ha Satan" with the serpent in the garden that it's a good and reasonable identification. There was historically a development of doctrine, such that the author of Job in Hebrew actually said "Ha Satan", or "the accuser", which is a job description. The development was the identification of the accuser of Job with the serpent in Genesis. This has nothing to do with critical wishy washy nonsense. It's a description of how the doctrine developed. You claim that somehow it would be difficult to sustain this view and also a high view of scripture, but that's just because you don't understand his view at all. As an attempt at rebutting Heiser, you talk about two other scholars, who wrote 100 years ago, who addressed some of the same topics. You then explain that they wrote in German, and you don't read German. So, some older scholars, who may or may not be out of date on any particular topic, may or may not have disagreed with Heiser, and you can't tell us what they said, and we can't find out, unless we speak German. That is *not* a convincing argument. You accuse Heiser of believing that God divided up the nations. But that's literally what the Bible says. You are misrepresenting Heiser again, by not explaining his position. You claim he's saying that ancient Israel was henotheistic. Not in the sense you're claiming. A fuller explanation would require getting into how Heiser talks about the word Elohim. The claim that Heiser believes that God is only the God of Israel in the Old Testament is false. Instead, Heiser's view is that Israel worships the true God of the universe, while every other nation worships lesser created beings who disobeyed God. Your claim that Heiser said monotheism isn't the best way to look at ancient Israelite religion sounds very off. It's possible that he said something similar, but if he did, he would have included enough explanation that it would be clear what he meant. If he did say something similar, then you've stripped off that explanation, which is wilfully misleading, at best. There are parts of his views that could be misunderstood, and when he discusses them, he always includes enough clarification to avoid that misunderstanding, in the same place where he's presenting that part of his view. Your claim that Heiser believes in an angelic role in creation is false. He says no such thing. It's not clear what your argument about Elohim was about. You quote a guy saying something not quite identical to what Heiser says about that, but almost the same and totally compatible, then you act like you've debunked something, leaving us clueless about what you think you've debunked, or how you think it happened. You also haven't even engaged in Heiser's argument about what Elohim means in detail. You claim that followers of Heiser say that being a monotheist is like saying no angels or demons exist. I don't believe you at all. This doesn't sound like something Heiser would say, and I've watched you misrepresent him over and over, so I don't believe you're accurately representing what they *actually* said. "The guys I'm familiar with all used the term 'monotheism'." Well, guess what? Michael Heiser uses that term too! So here you are, misrepresenting him once more. You quote somebody saying that Jehovah didn't develop from condensing many gods into one. Guess what? Heiser would say exactly the same thing. You quote somebody trying to disagree with Heiser, who quote Bible verses that fail utterly to establish the point they want. You quote somebody arguing that other gods are called "breaths" or "nothing". That's interesting, but doesn't establish your point. A more linguistic look at the underlying word would probably bring illumination. But even without knowing the underlying word, I know that the word for "breath" and "spirit" are the same, and calling them nothing could easily be a reference not to nonexistence, but to comparative importance. The nullity of idols doesn't demonstrate a lack of existence of anything being worshiped by pagans. What it demonstrates is the nullity of idols. The "God or Satan" alleged contradiction should be hard for you to deal with, given your rejection of agency for angels and humans. Interpreting Satan not as a name of a being, but as a job description would give you an out for this. You're caught here in a trap of your own making. You've got two separate ways out of this, but you don't want to let yourself take either one. According to the theology you laid out earlier, you shouldn't be able to say it's true that Satan did the thing, because that would mean that Satan could act as an agent. But you do anyway. Then you go on an mention secondary causes, which flat contradicts your earlier theological assertions that humans and angels don't have freedom. The justification of primary and secondary causes is that God allows us to be real secondary causes. Otherwise, why need two types of causes? You claim he is "adamant against Calvinism", but I don't think that's true. I've never so much as heard him mention Calvinism. I don't think he's interested in Calvinism. "There's lying spirits that God allows to be sent to prophets". This doesn't work. God doesn't just allow this. He sends them. There is literally a Divine Council scene where God asks the members of the council how to arrange some king's death. Then one says "I'll go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of his prophets", and God says to go do that. Michael Heiser doesn't have much explaining to do with that text. He just reads it, and says, yeah, that's what it says happened, and that's what happened. But your view would have a great deal of difficulty with it. That's the kind of thing you should be trying to tackle, the places where you have a hard time and Heiser doesn't. Or, if you can find a passage where his view would have a hard time, go over that, and how your view makes it easier. If you could do either of those things, that would potentially be convincing. But this misrepresentation of Heiser's views, followed by smearing his followers with namecalling doesn't work. And neither does quoting pieces of some older scholar without going over a comparison of how Heiser does it. It's fine to read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. But we shouldn't be reading the New Testament back retroactively, as if it were overwriting the Old Testament. If we do that, we won't understand much of what's in the Old Testament, and we won't even understand many things in the New Testament.

This is probably the fifth or sixth video rebuttal of Heiser's work that I have watched. Like the rest, it is not a rebuttal at all, because all it does is restate all the views that Heiser already dealt with in his work. In fact, that's the point of his books and teachings; that all these non‐supernatural views fall short. Do you think that in the 20 or so years Heiser has worked on this, that he was completely unaware of these scholars? You seem to be a nice person and are not condescending like others, but this falls woefully short of being a rebuttal. Shalom.

I really want to hear any apostle related church-father commentary on Divine Council material, such as on Polycarp level. Not some church father that separated by a hundreds years from the second temple period like Augustine.

"For the truth shall be spoken; since of old these evil demons, effecting apparitions of themselves, both defiled women and corrupted boys, and showed such fearful sights to men, that those who did not use their reason in judging of the actions that were done, were struck with terror; and being carried away by fear, and not knowing that these were demons, they called them gods, and gave to each the name which each of the demons chose for himself." - Justin Martyr, First Apology, 2nd Century

Where did the authorites, principalities, and rulers of darkness, as mentioned in Eph 3:10 and Eph 6, come from?

Isn't there a spirit giving a suggestion in 1 Kings 22:19-23? Yes, it's God administering his judgment, but a spirit tells God how he will complete the judgment.

You don't seem to address the "principalities" and "powers" that existed and were discussed in Daniel. They were the fallen angels, they were the gods of humanity. As an opportunity to show God wasn't making the right choice they entice man to follow them. Greek and Roman gods disappeared after Paul and the apostles unseated them in the early church. The eastern gods still exist because Paul wasn't allowed to go there. The Divine counsel isn't the only Elohim in the heavens. It's not rocket science.

I get Heissers hermanuetic, but if you stretch it out further than he may have not been willing to take it you can end up in some dangerous waters. Heisser believed we should be reading and interpreting the old testament through the lense of jews during 2nd temple judaism, and thats the best way to view it. These are jews that didnt have a full revelation of Messiah, and largely rejected Jesus as Messiah. Much of what we believe about Jesus and salvation and the trinity etc. jews under second temple Judaism would have considered anathema. He wants to claim that its anacronistic to see the trinity in the Genesis account, but thats exactly how the apostles developed their theology. They were looking for Christ and the gospel and its patterns of revelation concealed in the shadow of the old. I guess it just boils down to consensus orthodoxy versus consistent orthodoxy. Heisser himself said that he didnt do debates which I think did his credibility a disservice. When you put your ideas out there in the public square, you should want to have your ideas cross examined if they are truly right.

Hello there Dr Jordan Cooper Another enlighten content. More thought provoking material to think about.. By the way I am not saying this to boost your ego up. I would like to say that you are one of my personal favourite Christian KZfaq channel. Once again thank you ✝️✝️❤️

You think alot as opposed to what scripture says

Is there more than one Michael Heiser? You seem to know another one other than the one I know of.

Gotta say, this is a much better and more professional response to Heiser than most I’ve seen. Well done, Doctor.

First, Compelling is a feeling. "Not as compelling as a lot of people think..." is a nonsense sentence. If a lot of people feel it's compelling, well that's basically the definition of compelling. Second I dont like and generally mistrust "fast talkers". They are generally that way because they dont actually believe what they're saying and don't want to allow anyone to issue a challenge to it, Funny how that is, even on KZfaq where everything is one sided... lol Third is....I also dislike the begging. When you do it at the beginning it also shows lack of faith in your own presentation and the belief that we won't watch until the end. It's harder to skip at the beginning but these things give me doubt that whatever "theology" you are going to present is weak and has no basis. BUT there are some things that I disagree with Dr. Heiser also. He is no more perfect than the rest of us.... This is before the 3 minute mark.... let's see how long I last.

Ahh yes, no freedom. God delights in his own will which is to compel creatures into sin. Sin, which he later takes very personally.

@44:00 You are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what ancient Israelites believed if you think simply stating "There is no god like Yahweh" means they didn't believe the gods of other nations weren't real! It'd be like you saying there are no other football teams in the NFL compared to the Bills! The Jets are nothings. This isn't complicated rhetoric here... Also, calling another persons god, like Baal, a "demon" is far from saying that they are participating in sacrifice ( 1 Cor 10) to something that does not exist at all! Lutheran theology is clueless as to the mythological back story to demons, but early Christians still familiar with fables like 1 Enoch which were taken to be prophetic, absolutely knew who these other gods were and where they came from!

In this recent video, Cooper spent the first 32 minutes and 46 seconds without referring to any source material, despite the video's stated goal of critiquing Michael Heiser. I appreciate discussions like these, but the lack of direct engagement with Heiser's work for over half an hour was disappointing. Cooper offered interpretations rather than focused critiques, missing an opportunity to engage substantively with Heiser's arguments. Ideally, Cooper should present Heiser's original citations and the foundational sources Heiser uses, especially since Heiser himself admits to building on existing ideas rather than introducing original thoughts. Furthermore, Cooper misrepresents Heiser’s views on monotheism without providing sources for Heiser’s claims. When Cooper finally referenced a source, it failed to address Heiser’s specific distinctions between Angels and the ‘sons of God’-a point on which Heiser would find some agreement with the source Cooper used. In his book "The Unseen Realm," Heiser describes demons as the disembodied souls of the Nephilim, which further highlights the inaccuracies in Cooper's critique For a meaningful critique, it’s crucial that Cooper accurately represents Heiser’s positions and the basis of his arguments. This would pave the way for a substantive dialogue and a true critique of Heiser's work. As it stands, the credibility of Cooper's critiques suffers due to these misrepresentations, and those familiar with Heiser's work can easily recognize these discrepancies.

I’m looking for part 4 of the Heiser content, particularly your perspective of the NT Enochian stuff. Love your work! Thanks.

I don't see how Heiser gets credit for divine council theology. A cultures had fantasy literature. Function is a near eastern thing, ontology was a western Greek thing.

Dr. Cooper, I greatly appreciate the way you presented your side. I thought you were polite and gracious. I disagree with your perspective, but that's okay. These topics should never divide us. There's an issue that I believe you misrepresented Dr. Heiser's view. He was making the argument that the "gods" were the disobedient sons of God. Not that they were "gods" in the way that we think today. These would be the created supernatural beings. Dr. Heiser fully believed in One True God. This idea can be shown in 1 Cor 10:20 where Paul references Duet 32:17. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood you and that's what you were saying.

I think you may be being a little disingenuous here with regards to Heiser claiming to have found some new interpretation of the sons of God /divine council argument . Heiser consistently states that the ideas concerning these subjects are not his in origin .

I find it funny that you say you don’t even like languages. Have you looked at Dr. Heiser‘s Pedegree? You say the other people with language skills and near Eastern context have different views? It’s laughable that you trying to discredit Heiser saying by appealing to other people about translation’s. Of course there will be some disagreements! You can put three theologians in a room and have seven different opinions. But that does not invalidate Heiser. you just might see it differently, you may be so hung up in your church tradition you are immovable and unreachable. I don’t buy 100% of Heiser. I don’t believe 100% of what I believe! I always want to leave myself room to taken new information, learn, grow, and to let new information inform me.

What are the differences between the AALC and the ELDONA and why did you not join the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. The ELDONA has Bishop James Heiser.

Turned this off when he said the Seithite view was his preferred explanation of Gen 6. Not Biblical at all.

I'm a native german speaker, could you give me the sources?

Haven’t watched the whole thing but had a question about biblical theology as you explained it (perhaps you clarify later in the video). I got the impression that you were saying that biblical theology was somehow inherently “critical”, or that it necessarily assumes form criticism or source criticism or religio-historical criticism? It seemed to me you were defining biblical theology as a field that sets itself up as a denial of the possibility of systematic theology or one that assumes the denial of inspiration? It’s my understanding that biblical theology is merely the attempt to explicate the theology of the text of scripture itself, and is a complimentary field of theology alongside systematic and historical theology, with its own goals and methods. I’m just thinking about the contemporary explosion of evangelical biblical theology in recent times with people like Beale, Shreiner, Hamilton, Alexander, House, Sailhamer Morales etc. These are thoroughly evangelical and affirm inspiration, don’t affirm liberal conclusions (either of theology or biblical studies). Probably I’ve misunderstood you?

Lol so funny. “And he is wrong there.” Never thinking that you could be wrong! Lol. I think imago dei is a bit be a bit of both operationally and ontologically speaking.

The will is in bondage - before 1 is redeemed. The will remains hindered (we must fight the good fight of faith) but we are enabled by grace to choose to keep our faith. We can also choose to discard our faith. This is why I am not a Calvinist or an Arminian. I am a "neitherist". The one way a believer can lose their soul after redemption is through apostasy. If a person was not a true genuine believer they could not commit apostasy because they would have nothing to apostatize from. Apostasy being a true, genuine & complete rejection of 1's faith - not mere doubt. And this is coming from 1 who holds Luther as a hero of his faith.

You seem to be challenging Dr Heiser without pay attention to the basis of his thesis but consistently read and analyze him through the grid of your own theological basis which deliberately convolute his argument which to me does nothing in terms of exposing shortcomings about his thesis which you don't.

I’m with Heiser. His view has more support from Scripture.

In review of Heiser's videos I noticed, like many authors, he often speaks to his audience. So his interpretation seems to change depending on who he is talking to or being interviewed by. It comes across as disingenuous.

Your videos coming up for me after Heisers death - this is interesting, to say the least.

Dr. Cooper, this is helpful but you could make this experience even more helpful by providing the links to Episode 1 and 2 in the description box.

If you skip the first thirty minutes, you can get to where he kinda starts addressing some of Heiser's view, but most of it is about a couple of 18th century German guys. This guy is a bit hard to follow. Edit: He seems like a nice person though. 🙏✝️🙏

no its not what mike thinks ? its what the bible explicitly says ....the nations are worshiped.

I'm Reformed but still find Heiser's arguments compelling. I agree with you that Heiser's view of free will are firmly outside the Reformed and Lutheran perspective (for all of Heiser's interesting, very logical arguments, he somehow is completely blind on election...odd and puzzling that he seems to pre-suppose free will rather than dealing directly with the arguments).

Not Dr Heiser's peer. Jeers from the balcony.

Where is part 4?

We worship the God of freedom who gifted man with free will, has as painful as it may be respected man’s choices in choosing him or separation from him, who created his people in an act of freeing them from slavery.

Why would anyone want an alternative?

Im a 5 point Calvinist, so I disagree with Heiser on his views on free will.I do agree with his devine council view, but whatever comes to pass , in Heaven and on Earth, were determined, by God ,before the foundation of the world.

Heiser says “monotheism” is misleading because it leads people to think the Bible is “monoelohimist” which it most definitely is not. Hope that helps. 👍

Jordan, I sure would appreciate you tackling the NT passages used to support Hesier’s view. Still hoping.

WARNING: Calvinistic determinism follows!

How delightful is to hear you Dr. Cooper. I have learnt a lot today and you outlined it pretty clearly for the common lay person. Thanks again! May God bless your YT channel.

A full thirty minutes of just giving background, some relevant and most not, before you really get started. You sir, are definitely a Lutheran scholar!

Just like the title of the video, it is an alternative of Heiser's Divine Council theology. As i dont hear any of rebuttal of Heiser's point, summed this video in one sentence is like "i dont take this view, and this is alternative." instead of explaining why on that point Dr Heiser is wrong, and lay your arguments there with the textual evidence or something, but you just cite some book/argue said 'here the passage should be read or understand like this.'. I dont find this a compelling rebuttal, but a bunch of statements here and there.

Sounds like Heiser's the author of confusion.

You my friend is sorely mistaken on this, just like you are mistaken about baptismal regeneration, to name only one thing.... back to the Bible for you, as opposed to your self chosen ecclesiastical and philosophical traditions.

I appreciate you taking the time to present an alternate view...I would suggest having a better working knowledge of the Old Testament before taking on a man like Heiser. The example you quoted with regard to the false spirit being sent to the prophets illustrates how little you know about this topic. They weren't true prophets...they were the prophets of Ahab and God specifically asks the advice of counsel before settling on sending the one that proposes going with a false message....which directly contradicts your entire premise.

Heiser claims imaging God is about status not "function". Not even 10min and you have misrepresent his position already lol. You are trying to connect regeneration in the NT in conjunction with what human beings were created to be by God. Yikes. Hold that L bro.

Heisers views are more dangerous than many are considering. They position the Bible towards Mormonism in a lot of ways as an example. Heiser is like many theologians in that they seek a thrilling topic and do damage to Christianity in their arrogant attempts at making a name for themselves

Will you please do the fourth and final part of this series, dealing with Peter and Jude? You're one of the few people out there offering a critique of Heiser's theory on Genesis 6.

You got Mike all wrong. They might be thought of as gods, but they're just angels and YHVH handed us over to them because that's what we wanted.

No Trinity exists. The almighty God was ABLE to do ALL HIS WORK even before the creation of the world and He also DID IT. Indeed - for LOGICAL reasons - it was more appropriate to do his work at that time than now in real-time. This means that his work is now COMPLETED and his POWER ALONE will automatically perform all the planned God's actions. Since his work was completed (but only from the God's point of view not ours!), his almighty power was no longer necessary, so that He got rid of it to become like a normal man, with no power at all: the Son of God. "Son" means He DERIVES from God, He is not an actual Son. This all means that the almighty God only dwells in that far distant past, He was never here "the world has not known you" (Jn. 17:25), only Jesus DID it (i.e. in that distant past). This is why "No man has seen God at any time", INVISIBILITY has nothing to do with that, the reason is that He is MISSING. A kind of "temporal bridge" exists though, so that God is able to be here in our present time, however only in the LIMITED form of a spirit "God is a spirit", i.e. NOBODY is actually here. God is a SPIRIT PRESENCE here: He is fully here with HIS FEELINGS, He can hear us, He can take actions, He can talk. He is the "Father who is a spirit" and is called indifferently either "Holy Father" or "Holy Spirit" by Jesus.This is why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered the most important by Jesus. Since God is not here in HIS FULLNESS, Jesus is the ONLY KING of heaven, not God. Jesus sits in heaven next to the POWER of God (a thing which works ALONE, see above). Jesus is like a normal man now, whilst the almighty God is the almighty God, i.e. they are quite different. You could say that God is more than ONE and less than TWO because the Father and the Son are not the same ONE, yet are not TWO distinct Persons. ("I am in the Father and the Father in me").

So how long have you been delusional ? Just remember there is nothing wrong with building castles in the air. Just don't try to move in. The rent is very high and insurance is unlikely to pay for it.

This is my 3rd attempt to watch this. What is this kid sure about? Like, at all ???

Just stop. You are no where near the scholar MSH is. Your are wrong (as to be expected from a Lutheran - Luther was wrong about most things so are you).

Your Lutheran /Augustinian tradition googles prevent good Biblical theology.

Very good. Thank you. I don't think Heiser should be embraced rapidly but with great caution. I for one don't follow him and find many things I cannot agree with.

They are NOT from 4 different sources, there are no contradictions, nor a gap in Genesis, and it id VERY GOOD that the Lord 'creates' evil and I can prove all of the above using only the common bible. ~ prophet of YHWH

You don't say very much, and quote everybody in the World, while going to the Bible very little. I don't think elohim is only plural in anyway shape or form, and we can see this in how it is used, for example, 1 Kings 11:33. Now it can be referring to more than one god, which means this word is used to describe both singular or plural by the context. I think the concept of only a plural form is something that has crept in after the Old Testament was written. In English sheep is a good example of this, because you only know the form of the word sheep by the context! If you believe Jesus is God, and that is easy to prove, then you have two Gods. John 20:17. We also see that the Father is the one to be worshiped, 1 Corinthians 8:6. We also have John 4:20-23 where Jesus clearly states that the Father is the one the Jews worshiped. Jesus never tells us to worship or even play to Him, but to the Father alone.

Dr .Jordan is always on the wrong side lol

Why is this clip on my feed!!! 😴

Some of what Heiser taught was wrong. One can say that the most Heiser contributed was his open approach to scripture that most Protestants and Catholics missed and needs. My biggest problem with him was his egotistical academia attitude and, most importantly, his antinomianism. I put little stock in a man that teaches that Yeshua and Paul were torahless. If you can’t come to the conclusion that Paul and all the disciples kept Shabbat and the rest, even while in the diaspora, then quite frankly you have no business teaching. You still need the basics- milk. Scripture is always the final authority. Building theology on the testimony of two three witness is the only way to go. Don’t ever speak of scripture and the things in scripture like Heiser did. Things will not do well for you. Don’t talk down to people like he did. Have reverence and respect for the subject and for scripture. We all struggle with something but I did not like Heisers secular professor attitude. I saw his attitude at the secular university in Religious Studies program.

Thank you for dealing with Heiser from such a broad view of existing scholastic works. He has a very strong following of individuals who have had an “aha” moment, as though Heiser is proposing something previously hidden, but now revealed due to his “unique expertise in ancient eastern languages.” There can be an unhealthy desire amongst many for illegitimate certainty, that is, certainty beyond what the scriptures reveal.

after 20 minutes of this video, I am bored. Especially since every five minutes you talk about a book that you're selling on your website. A free advertising video.

20:19 theologians in old testament

The followers of Heiser ?.

Your KDP paperbacks Christification and TRoO biffed the Greek when I bought them last(?) year as well. It was kind of annoying as it lopped off the remainder of the English text of the line too! Do they not send samples to check before distribution?