@@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.
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.
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.
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.
Quit being a beta. The dude doesn’t even know the other dudes. Since you are a beta, I would like you to apologize for the trans drag shows in front of children that goes on across the country.
I would HIGHLY disagree with this. Show me anyone that sees Isaiah 14:12-15 as about Satan before Origin during his heretical analogy stage? Also anyone before Scofield's Bible? This is a modern idea and not something historical and certainly not during the Old Testament people.
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.
ANYTHING can make sense if you start with the conclusion you want then work backwards, cherry-picking things to support your desired outcome. This was how Dr. Heiser approached things, I'm assuming to push his beliefs, sell books or get popular, whatever. Tell me what you want to believe, and I will "prove" it to you...will it help if I tell you I have credentials?
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. 😂😂😂😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ruclips.net/user/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.
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
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.
You got roped into a posthumous hatchet job where the other people were acting very poorly and inappropriately. Numerous misrepresentations were made of Heiser's words and work. If you were sincere about an apology, you should have separated yourself from the blatant falsehoods. You were hit by a guilt by association situation which looked to have been engineered by some of the other people. But you dropped the ball with this anemic explanation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i dont like debates because much hinges on your ability to perform on your feet and be snappy, which may or may not be indicative of the actual strength of an argument. I too regard them as a waste of time. Back and forth videos where each has a chance to research and think would be better.
Debates are heavily reliant on public speaking ability and rhetorical force. They really are not good tests of ideas. Written works, like written refutations and assessments of ideas, are a much better way to interact with ideas. Characters like Bart Ehrman typically "win" debates not because their ideas are better, but because they are better at public speaking.
@cmiddleton9872 I'll agree to disagree with you at this point because now debates are videotaped and have been for quite sometime and most theologians and apologists will go back over the debate and expound on things that were questioned or statements made covering even more ground. People like William Lane Craig, James White, and Robert Gagnon have done that and even provided reading material for the listener and lay person to go over and get more insight on their point of view. But there's a reason why they have moderators present in a debate setting as well.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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 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…
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.
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...
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.
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.
Gir heavens sake,all you did was comment. Let me say I followed Heiser for couple of years . Ive watched other teachers who agreed whole heartedly with him way before the book Unseen realms. I dont know he knows the original languages and ge has several very high degress. He was always open to debate . Too bad no one had the nerve to debate hime while he was alive. This is the part that really bothers me. I think he was the best and most educated teacher on RUclips
If there were a paragraph quoting you and quoting them in even the same sentences, that would be a better analogy. If you contribute to a book where you write a distinct section or speak at a conference as part of a self-contained speech, that is different. A RUclips video documentary doesn't make such distinctions. So, when you are published in a work where your words are mixed together with others, you should (I think) take the time to react to the statements adjacent to yours. You should feel more responsable.
This is so weak. 😂 If my words were used in a project that was literally produced for the purpose of mischaracterizing, maligning, and slandering ANYONE (much less a dead brother in Christ who is no longer able to defend or clarify his position), I would issue a statement disavowing the project. it’s so simple and yet you won’t do it. That speaks so loudly. This is situation is entirely different from speaking at a conference with multiple lecturers with whom you might have disagreement on a particular topic. Your analogy is not remotely the same thing as what this documentary did. Ridiculous response. Do unto others, man.
The video was outrageously misrepresentative of Heiser's work to the degree of being a slanderous hit piece rather than an academic refutation. That should have been stressed in this video response other than just being characterized as "inflammatory". It was gross.
@@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.
By "methodological issues", I'm assuming you mean starting with the conclusion you want then working backwards, cherry-picking facts and whatever else to reach your desired outcome (which is how I think Heiser approached everything).
He made a past video concerning Heiser and his work. Perhaps better to simply watch it than throw insinuations in a presumptive manner hoping they land somewhere in accordance with your own opinions.
What you did that was mistaken was being involved with something that was obviously uncharitable. The right thing to say was, “I’m sorry I was involved in this”
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."
Read the Unseen Realm! It will open your eyes and you will be able to see the true context of the Bible! Heiser was an amazing man! Definitely not a polytheist or heretical. Anyone who says that needs to have their head examined.
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.
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.
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...
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wasn't aware of the documentary, but from the content of this video and my familiarity with Dr Heiser's work, most of the criticisms and objections raised were already addressed by Heiser during his career. Heiser stated many times the conflicts and criticisms his approach created. As an Eastern Christian I find much of what Heiser taught to be the same as in the eastern tradition., which is what confounds me with many of his critics. I didn't always agree with Heiser's implications of the supernatural interpretation on the Church and its practices, but the core of his approach of his "naked bible"approach renewed my own love for scripture that was lacking in my past experience of the mainstream materialist Christian approach. Eternal Memory and Blessed repose Dr Heiser.
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.
The wolves really come out to attack you once you're dead and can't defend yourself. Mike is with the Lord now. He never forced his work onto others. Everything he did was of a high scholarly standard which is more than I can say against those who are now attacking him after he's dead.
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
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
You can only be responsible for your own views and hopefully the interviewer will responsibly communicate your views in the subsequent output, but you are never responsible for what other people who might be interviewed might say.
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
@@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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That was not a documentary. It was a conversation with flawed opinions. You should read: Reassesing the Elohim by Joel S. Burnett. Please don’t call it a documentary. I do believe an apology is owed.
Dr. Heiser is one of the most intelligent and courageous Christian scholar’s of our day ….RIP Dr. Heiser ! and if you read “Unseen Realm” you can clearly see he is not a polytheist!
"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
That makes it you’re putting him on a pedestal. Cult mindset
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quit being a beta. The dude doesn’t even know the other dudes.
Since you are a beta, I would like you to apologize for the trans drag shows in front of children that goes on across the country.
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."
I would HIGHLY disagree with this. Show me anyone that sees Isaiah 14:12-15 as about Satan before Origin during his heretical analogy stage? Also anyone before Scofield's Bible? This is a modern idea and not something historical and certainly not during the Old Testament people.
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! 😊
ANYTHING can make sense if you start with the conclusion you want then work backwards, cherry-picking things to support your desired outcome. This was how Dr. Heiser approached things, I'm assuming to push his beliefs, sell books or get popular, whatever. Tell me what you want to believe, and I will "prove" it to you...will it help if I tell you I have credentials?
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 😄
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 ruclips.net/user/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.
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
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.
Cult mindset. Defending that cultic Heiser.
There goes eight minutes I’ll never get back
Thank you for saving me 7 minutes!
You got roped into a posthumous hatchet job where the other people were acting very poorly and inappropriately. Numerous misrepresentations were made of Heiser's words and work. If you were sincere about an apology, you should have separated yourself from the blatant falsehoods. You were hit by a guilt by association situation which looked to have been engineered by some of the other people. But you dropped the ball with this anemic explanation.
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.
lol they stink of desperation, afraid of losing their jobs, ostracization, etc....
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i dont like debates because much hinges on your ability to perform on your feet and be snappy, which may or may not be indicative of the actual strength of an argument. I too regard them as a waste of time. Back and forth videos where each has a chance to research and think would be better.
Debates are heavily reliant on public speaking ability and rhetorical force. They really are not good tests of ideas. Written works, like written refutations and assessments of ideas, are a much better way to interact with ideas. Characters like Bart Ehrman typically "win" debates not because their ideas are better, but because they are better at public speaking.
@cmiddleton9872 I'll agree to disagree with you at this point because now debates are videotaped and have been for quite sometime and most theologians and apologists will go back over the debate and expound on things that were questioned or statements made covering even more ground. People like William Lane Craig, James White, and Robert Gagnon have done that and even provided reading material for the listener and lay person to go over and get more insight on their point of view. But there's a reason why they have moderators present in a debate setting as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Can't wait for those "It's over for Jordan Cooper." clickbait responses, haha.
It's Jordover.
@@ProfesserLuigi 😂
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 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…
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.
Even though i disagree with Doreens critique You were the best out of the whole panel, the others were constantly creating straw man arguments.
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...
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.
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.
Gir heavens sake,all you did was comment. Let me say I followed Heiser for couple of years . Ive watched other teachers who agreed whole heartedly with him way before the book Unseen realms. I dont know he knows the original languages and ge has several very high degress. He was always open to debate . Too bad no one had the nerve to debate hime while he was alive. This is the part that really bothers me. I think he was the best and most educated teacher on RUclips
If there were a paragraph quoting you and quoting them in even the same sentences, that would be a better analogy. If you contribute to a book where you write a distinct section or speak at a conference as part of a self-contained speech, that is different. A RUclips video documentary doesn't make such distinctions. So, when you are published in a work where your words are mixed together with others, you should (I think) take the time to react to the statements adjacent to yours. You should feel more responsable.
This is so weak. 😂
If my words were used in a project that was literally produced for the purpose of mischaracterizing, maligning, and slandering ANYONE (much less a dead brother in Christ who is no longer able to defend or clarify his position), I would issue a statement disavowing the project. it’s so simple and yet you won’t do it. That speaks so loudly.
This is situation is entirely different from speaking at a conference with multiple lecturers with whom you might have disagreement on a particular topic. Your analogy is not remotely the same thing as what this documentary did.
Ridiculous response. Do unto others, man.
The video was outrageously misrepresentative of Heiser's work to the degree of being a slanderous hit piece rather than an academic refutation.
That should have been stressed in this video response other than just being characterized as "inflammatory". It was gross.
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.
@@gabesternberg555 wild, huh?
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!
By "methodological issues", I'm assuming you mean starting with the conclusion you want then working backwards, cherry-picking facts and whatever else to reach your desired outcome (which is how I think Heiser approached everything).
He made a past video concerning Heiser and his work. Perhaps better to simply watch it than throw insinuations in a presumptive manner hoping they land somewhere in accordance with your own opinions.
What you did that was mistaken was being involved with something that was obviously uncharitable.
The right thing to say was, “I’m sorry I was involved in this”
I’m sorry I didn’t do due diligence
Oh wait you just said you don’t want to do due diligence
Do you have the link to the documentary? I share your concerns about Heiser's wack theology and biblicism.
His theology isn’t whack.
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."
Read the Unseen Realm! It will open your eyes and you will be able to see the true context of the Bible! Heiser was an amazing man! Definitely not a polytheist or heretical. Anyone who says that needs to have their head examined.
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.
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.
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...
Absolutely right! Only apologize for what you are responsible for IF it merits an apology. Ignore social media "cancel culture."
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
It's worth you correcting statements you don't agree with that are published alongside your words.
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.
I wasn't aware of the documentary, but from the content of this video and my familiarity with Dr Heiser's work, most of the criticisms and objections raised were already addressed by Heiser during his career. Heiser stated many times the conflicts and criticisms his approach created. As an Eastern Christian I find much of what Heiser taught to be the same as in the eastern tradition., which is what confounds me with many of his critics. I didn't always agree with Heiser's implications of the supernatural interpretation on the Church and its practices, but the core of his approach of his "naked bible"approach renewed my own love for scripture that was lacking in my past experience of the mainstream materialist Christian approach. Eternal Memory and Blessed repose Dr Heiser.
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.
More click bait!
Using DrMSH to get views.
It's working isn't it.
A lot of people doing it.
The wolves really come out to attack you once you're dead and can't defend yourself. Mike is with the Lord now. He never forced his work onto others. Everything he did was of a high scholarly standard which is more than I can say against those who are now attacking him after he's dead.
I don’t understand what you would be apologizing for
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
05:42 If my biggest criticism is that I approach theology as a Biblicist, that would be the most complementing rebuke I could ever receive.
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
You can only be responsible for your own views and hopefully the interviewer will responsibly communicate your views in the subsequent output, but you are never responsible for what other people who might be interviewed might say.
Cooper is like “ruclips.net/video/zxRYF2s-wLc/видео.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
😂
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.
Here for the comments 🍿
This is the correct response.
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
This wasnt helpful. I still enjoy your content though.
I'm not sure dr cooper even clearly knows Heiser's positions. To be involved in this kind of hit piece is disrespectful.
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?
Your comments section speaks for itself. So glad that my brothers and sisters see you for what you are, and are calling you out in love.
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.
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.
You could have just said you weren't your brothers keeper and it would be much shorter
"I don't apologize for things I did not say or do" seems an entirely reasonable position to hold, not only in this situation but for life in general.
Who is Michael Heiser?
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.
I'm done with Dr. Cooper, wish him the best . Unsubscribing from his channel.
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.
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.
That was not a documentary. It was a conversation with flawed opinions. You should read: Reassesing the Elohim by Joel S. Burnett. Please don’t call it a documentary. I do believe an apology is owed.
Who is Heiser
frankly dr Cooper you should have been more cautious when choosing your associates in a documentary
1Timothy 5:22
Dr. Heiser is one of the most intelligent and courageous Christian scholar’s of our day ….RIP Dr. Heiser ! and if you read “Unseen Realm” you can clearly see he is not a polytheist!
Well stated. It's disappointing you even had to respond to such claims of "guilt by association."
Bless you, brother!
-Rob
"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?
Cooper congratulations you made this 🤮 worse?
Another cult-bot following Heiser.
If this feels unfair, how do we then explain the doctrine of original sin? I'm Lutheran too btw.