Comments on: Israelite Backdrop to the Two Powers, Part 2 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/ Understanding the ancient Israelite context for first century Judaism's binitarian monotheism and the Christian Godhead Mon, 21 May 2012 12:46:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/#comment-34 MSH Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:56:08 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=11#comment-34 James: I'll be getting into the NT material (already am) in the remaining chapters of the Myth book draft (I assume you are/were a newsletter subscriber). Those chapters will be a succinct "divine council in the NT" primer. James: I’ll be getting into the NT material (already am) in the remaining chapters of the Myth book draft (I assume you are/were a newsletter subscriber). Those chapters will be a succinct “divine council in the NT” primer.

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/#comment-33 MSH Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:53:37 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=11#comment-33 Chris: Did you expect anything else but resistance? It's not in the Westminster Confession or the Left Behind novels, so it'll be resisted or ignored. Sorry to sound jaded, but that's the reality. Hasn't stopped me, though. I'm quite unrepentant when it comes to making people look at the text. Chris: Did you expect anything else but resistance? It’s not in the Westminster Confession or the Left Behind novels, so it’ll be resisted or ignored. Sorry to sound jaded, but that’s the reality. Hasn’t stopped me, though. I’m quite unrepentant when it comes to making people look at the text.

]]> By: James Lillis http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/#comment-29 James Lillis Sat, 31 May 2008 01:18:00 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=11#comment-29 Yes, angel can be a difficult term. It's easy for some people to look at all these scriptures involving divine beings and think - "Oh, they're just angels, right?" Sometimes the Biblical authors seem very precise with regards to divine beings e.g. Paul in his lists (seriously, who can really tell the difference between a ruler and an authority!?) However, sometimes they can be generic (e.g. author of Hebrews in chapter 1). Peter seems to do both. He refers to the Sons of God as 'angels' (2Pe 2:4), yet is more precise in v.10 (angels would not accuse the 'doxas'). In my opinion, 2Pe 2:10 has to be the classic NT reference to a three-tiered divine council. :) Yes, angel can be a difficult term. It’s easy for some people to look at all these scriptures involving divine beings and think - “Oh, they’re just angels, right?”

Sometimes the Biblical authors seem very precise with regards to divine beings e.g. Paul in his lists (seriously, who can really tell the difference between a ruler and an authority!?) However, sometimes they can be generic (e.g. author of Hebrews in chapter 1).

Peter seems to do both. He refers to the Sons of God as ‘angels’ (2Pe 2:4), yet is more precise in v.10 (angels would not accuse the ‘doxas’).

In my opinion, 2Pe 2:10 has to be the classic NT reference to a three-tiered divine council. :)

]]> By: cwmyers007 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/#comment-28 cwmyers007 Fri, 30 May 2008 15:33:09 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=11#comment-28 Dr. Heiser: Good, I see that as a completely coherent view of the heavenly host, however I am finding much contention against our view here. Apparently, there is much evangelical presuppositions that angels are not imagers and that we are unique in that respect. I totally think this is fallacious and unfounded in scripture if your interpretation of Gen. 1:26 stands true. Dr. Heiser: Good, I see that as a completely coherent view of the heavenly host, however I am finding much contention against our view here. Apparently, there is much evangelical presuppositions that angels are not imagers and that we are unique in that respect. I totally think this is fallacious and unfounded in scripture if your interpretation of Gen. 1:26 stands true.

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/#comment-27 MSH Fri, 30 May 2008 04:49:48 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=11#comment-27 Chris: Yes, though I'd say "angels (better, members of the heavenly host) are also imagers of God" -- that is, they represent God in whatever sphere or place they are commissioned. Chris: Yes, though I’d say “angels (better, members of the heavenly host) are also imagers of God” — that is, they represent God in whatever sphere or place they are commissioned.

]]> By: cwmyers007 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/#comment-24 cwmyers007 Thu, 29 May 2008 03:46:32 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=11#comment-24 Dr. Heiser, I have been using your material and ideas to argue angelology and the correct interpretation (your view) of Genesis 1:26 in my theology class. With your interpretation of Genesis 1:26 wouldn't that make the angels also bear the image of God. "Let us make mankind in OUR image, and OUR likeness"? Am I accurate in concluding this? Thanks, Chris Dr. Heiser,

I have been using your material and ideas to argue angelology and the correct interpretation (your view) of Genesis 1:26 in my theology class. With your interpretation of Genesis 1:26 wouldn’t that make the angels also bear the image of God. “Let us make mankind in OUR image, and OUR likeness”? Am I accurate in concluding this?

Thanks,
Chris

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/#comment-21 MSH Thu, 22 May 2008 07:27:19 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=11#comment-21 Chris I think the biblical picture is that, at the beginning, everyone was a monotheist (had the knowledge of the true God and, importantly, the correct relationship of the One to the Many). On the Spirit, I suspect you are on the right track. Polytheistic cultures had other gods to fulfill the roles that one sees the Spirit fulfilling (or the second Yahweh for that matter). We have to be armed with this in mind as we read the OT text. Chris

I think the biblical picture is that, at the beginning, everyone was a monotheist (had the knowledge of the true God and, importantly, the correct relationship of the One to the Many).

On the Spirit, I suspect you are on the right track. Polytheistic cultures had other gods to fulfill the roles that one sees the Spirit fulfilling (or the second Yahweh for that matter). We have to be armed with this in mind as we read the OT text.

]]> By: cwmyers007 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/israelite-backdrop-to-the-two-powers-part-2/#comment-20 cwmyers007 Thu, 22 May 2008 01:29:33 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=11#comment-20 Dr. Heiser, This is awesome stuff! I can't wait for the next post! If you can, you should also keep us updated on your recent journey to discover the details of the third person in the godhead in the Hebrew scriptures. I wonder if one of the problems with finding the third person in the Hebrew scriptures is because there was not any parallels in the surrounding cultures. I believe the Ugarit parallels do not tell us that Israel was borrowing their myths to fit their own concept of God. But rather, both the Israelite and Ugarit tradition are so similar because they are both based on truth! The Israelite tradition is the most true because they are the one true God's people who has revealed the truth to them. The Ugaritic culture were probably given over to an evil heavenly host (god) who led them astray with lies containing partial truths. Does that sound on target? If not help me out here :) Grace be with you, Chris Dr. Heiser, This is awesome stuff! I can’t wait for the next post! If you can, you should also keep us updated on your recent journey to discover the details of the third person in the godhead in the Hebrew scriptures. I wonder if one of the problems with finding the third person in the Hebrew scriptures is because there was not any parallels in the surrounding cultures. I believe the Ugarit parallels do not tell us that Israel was borrowing their myths to fit their own concept of God. But rather, both the Israelite and Ugarit tradition are so similar because they are both based on truth! The Israelite tradition is the most true because they are the one true God’s people who has revealed the truth to them. The Ugaritic culture were probably given over to an evil heavenly host (god) who led them astray with lies containing partial truths. Does that sound on target? If not help me out here :)

Grace be with you,
Chris

]]>