@@Thedisciplemike it's not infering... in whose image are made in? Genesis said God (Father) and what did the new testament say? (Jesus) and wasn't the Spirit of God with God as he hovered over the surface of the deep? The "us" is to the trinity not unto the angels.
I have Hebrew Roots friends and SDA friends that deny the Trinity, so I am always looking to learn more about defending this important doctrine. Stumbles upon this and am loving it. Thank you, Anthony and all glory to our triune God- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!
I'm a convert to SDA. I have issues with the Trinity teaching. I believe in the Father, His Son and the Spirit of God/Spirit of Christ. The Father/Son relationship is one of the most important Truths in all of God's word. It is a real Father/Son relationship. A real Father. And a real Son. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit OF God/the Spirit of Christ. It's their Spirit. I worship the Father and the Son alone. I just thought I'd share. Peace
@@truthbebold4009 the Holy Spirit is given the same attributes as God the Father and as Christ, as a distinct Person in the Godhead. The HS grieves, teaches, convicts, and more.
I've only just started this video and I'm already so glad that you're tackling Heiser in an in depth and accurate manner and not in a reactionary way, like many less scholarly trinitarians tend to do.
Thanks Anthony for your explanation. Very clear, I am personaly convinced with your arguments ! God bless you a lot and Heiser as well. Glory to the Father, Jesus and our Beautiful Holy Spirit
This was great, I love listening to you and Dr. Heiser! I'm fascinated with, and inclined to believe, his views on the divine counsel, however I do think that reading Genesis 1:26 as an address to the Godhead is the correct interpretation
I was struggling with this issue a while back. I prayed about it and wrote about it in my prayer journal for months. When I struggle with stuff like that, I tend to just want to get what I need from the Lord, so I don't seek outside influence on the subject. I kept having the same question over and over again, "Lord, are you one as in one, or is it three is one? Help me to understand. I can't wrap my head around this". Then one day, finally done with not being settled on the issue, I raised my head toward heaven and asked again. The very thing I heard in my spirit was straight out of Gen 1:26. It swelled in my heart and there was rejoicing. Shortly after that, a friend came over for fellowship. I was happy to tell her my testimony regarding my answer and let her know how long I struggled with this. She looks at me and just repeats what she read out of a book by M. Heiser. Now, I've never read anything by him, don't have a desire to, so I ain't. But I had the same objection as you, we are not made in the image of angels. Your video was a confirmation to me. Thank you
@@IsJesusGod. In Mark 12:29 the word used here is "Echad." Which literally means 1 but many,the same word Is used in Genesis 2:24 which is Adam and eve becoming 1,which proves the trinity doctrine,If the scribe in Mark 12:29 didn't want us to know he would have said "Yachid." Which means Just 1,So it is easily disproven. Please refute the video instead of spamming Verses you take out of context.
@@---wp3oc No he's not. There has always been a concept of the trinity. Please read Mark 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? Even the High Priest accusing Jesus asked if He was His Son.
@@spazomaz Do you BELIEVE what the Bible teaches? Please then send the verse saying GOD IS THREE called the CATHOLIC PAGAN TRINITY? As YOU do NOT believe GOD and His Son who ALWAYS declared GOD is ONE PERSON, how will you be SAVED, for BREAKING the FIRST commandment in Mark 12:29, that says we MUST believe GOD is ONE PERSON? ONE GOD. Christianity, having emerged from Judaism, is a monotheistic religion. Never in the New Testament does the Trinitarian concept become a "tritheism" (three Gods) nor even two. God is one, and that God is a single being is strongly declared in the Bible: The Shema of the Hebrew Scriptures: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."[Deut 6:4] The first of the Ten Commandments-"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."[5:7] And "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel and his redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."[Isa 44:6] In the New Testament: "The LORD our God is one."[Mk 12:29] Scripture contains neither the word Trinity, nor an expressly formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it “bears witness to” the activity of: THE GOD. Antichrists deny the Father and the son. *AND THE TRINITY DOCTRINE DENIES A LITERAL FATHER AND SON.* Instead, the Father and the Son are the same, co-equal, same everything, and each fully God while comprising one God. This is how you are deceived into denying the Father and the Son. “Such a person is the antichrist-denying the Father and the Son” - John. Part 01 - Further, God clearly shows us what it is to be a Father and to have a son. We are without excuse for denying the Father and the Son. The Trinity Doctrine But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, AND ONLY A FEW FIND IT.…Matthew 7:12 -14. TRINITARIANS, FOLLOW the Catholic MAIN trinity doctrine they created. The New Bible Dictionary, 2nd edition by J.D. Douglas, page 1221, admits that the doctrine of the trinity does not come from the Scriptures, but from philosophy influenced by paganism. The Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia Volume 11, page 928, gives us the following facts about the trinity. Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Religions of Ancient Greece and Babylonia, by A. H. Sayce. pages 229-230, clearly tells us that the Greek philosophical ideas were developed in Alexandria, Egypt from the pagan mystery religions. List of Catholic Doctrines. 1. TRINITY --- “The mystery (see Rev. 17:5) of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the catholic church IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.’” MATTHEW 15:9. The Cathecism of the Catholic Church admits the Church (not the Bible) had to come up with terms of "philosophical" (pagan/Greek) origin to explain it:: 251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance," "person," or "hypostasis," "relation" and so on (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 74). Here is what it is recorded that a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote, around the middle of the fourth century, where certain aspects of trinitarianism came from--paganism: Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ). Dean Matthews, DD, D. Litt.: • • “It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity formed no part of the original message. St. Paul did not know it, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed” (God in Christian Experience, p. 180). “The evolution of the Trinity: No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus or preached by the earliest Christians or consciously held by any writer of the NT. It was in fact slowly worked out in the course of the first few centuries in an attempt to give an intelligible doctrine of God” (The Image of the Invisible God, SCM Press, 1982, Dr. A. T Hanson, Professor of Theology University of Hull) • It might tend to moderation and in the end agreement, if we were industrious on all occasions to represent our own doctrine (the Trinity) as wholly unintelligible (Dr. Hey, Lectures in Divinity, 2, 235 • The Trinity is a contradiction, indeed, and not merely a verbal contradiction, but an incompatibility in the human ideas conveyed. We can scarcely make a nearer approach to an exact enunciation of it, than of saying that one thing is two things. (Sadler’s Gloria Patri, p. 39, A. H. Newman). Jesus said: Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! Matthew 11:15. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the SON of God? 1 John 5:5. There are NO such teaching saying we MUST BELIEVE Jesus is GOD or A TRINITY, but as St john has said: but he that believeth that *JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD?* 1 John 5:5. Notice we MUST believe Jesus is *THE SON OF GOD* 1 John 5:5. And yet MOST have been DECEIVED into believing the CATHOLIC doctrine that Jesus the Son of His GOD, is instead the SAME GOD He was BORN from, which makes GOD and His SON into LIARS, who have always declared they are a LITERAL Father and SON, and that GOD amazingly GAVE and SENT His SON, who BOTH have never taught, GOD GAVE HIMSELF, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, but that GOD gave His BEGOTTEN SON Jesus, NOT to condemn us, but save us by GODS own Son PAYING THE PRICE FOR OUR SINS. And as Jesus has said: ETERNAL LIFE is believing His Father GOD, is the only ONE TRUE GOD, alone. John 17:3. *Which is the FIRST commandment one MUST believe, that GOD IS one person, NOT THREE CALLED THE CATHOLIC PAGAN TRINITY, Mark 12:29.* You were shown these things so that you might know that the *LORD is GOD; BESIDES HIM THERE IS NO OTHER.* Deuteronomy 4:35. This ONE single scripture of Deuteronomy 4:35, PROVES the TRINITY is false, because the TRINITY teaches there are THREE Gods SIDE by SIDE, and not ONE GOD. When we see the massive deception of the TRINITY faith, it is of no surprise why Jesus said: MANY ARE CALLED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN.
In ~7:47 Anthony asks if it would have been acceptable for God if the children of Israel spoke in such a way as to say “we all agree on what you are saying but only 1 person is actually going to do it”. The ironic thing is that only 1 person actually lived according to God’s will.
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Repeated 3 times there. Because God gave Moses a minimum word requirement.
Why would God be speaking to the Heavenly hosts in regards to Creation? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were involved in the creation of Man. Angels had no part in the creation of Man.
@@toriomain I'm trying to remember who, but I remember a commentator who believed the reference was to the council arguing that Genesis 1.26-27 are explicitly there to DENY the other beings played a part in creation. That is, verse 26 as basically "yes other divine beings exist" and then verse 27 switches to singulars to say in essence "but none of them helped in creation." Which would conform well with Job 38.
@@EulersIdentityCrisis That’s a classic case of subterfuge, denying what one text says (v. 26) in the name of another text (v. 27). The Trinitarian view does justice to both texts without trying to neutralize one with the other. The One God who created man (v. 27) is multi-personal (v. 26).
@@MrCharlesMartel It's a straight forward reading of the text. No one is trying to neutralize anything. I understand not seeing it that way. I was like 90% on board with "it's the trinity." But I it's a tossup for me now. But to call it subterfuge seems uncharitable.
I wonder what your take is on the "divine council" and the existence of "other gods" , Mr Rogers? I like and appreciate Michael Heiser's thorough and passionate work, but his explanation in this matter sounds effortful and smells sweaty to me, too.
There are other 'gods' in relative to our fallen position. The Bible does say 'gods' and that there are fallen angels and demons who by their very nature and abilities, would be far above us in our fallen nature and indeed god-like which is why they receive illegitimate worship. But none of them are YHWH who is The God, The Almighty etc. He is the only God worthy to be worshipped because only He can exclusively claim the title of God (all seeing, all knowing, all powerful, without beginning or end etc.). All the other spiritual entities do not have the title of 'god' when they are compared with God, if you see what I am saying? They fall *infinitely* short of YHWH 🙂. They only have the title of 'god' when illegitimate worship is ascribed to them by fallen human beings, which of course is wrong. See Exodus 20:1-11 '1And God spake all these words, saying, 2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.' It's clear that LORD (YHWH) is God and only He is to be worshipped as God. God bless you 😎✝️📜
Yes your quite right (Anthony ) Dr Heiser has done a lot of good works !!! > like his ( The Jewish Trinity Seminar ) ( Reversing Hermon book and seminar ) His ( Angel and Demon books ) his Podcast are all excellent and well worth checking out > Thank you .
What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand. God created us according to His own image and likeness. Godly. Mankind/the first Adam fell. The image of God in man got lost. That's why there is all this predicament on earth (selfishness, greed, lust, wars, sicknesses, death, etc). We are all born into that mess. For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ. With His own once and for all perefect sacrifice, He paid the debt for the fall of man for us, so we can be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. An amazing act of grace and love by our creator. That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all and walked in unselfish love. And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding, power and transform us back to origin. Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come. So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand. Hence the divine healing miracles we experience. God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after in Gen 1. The image we lost in the fall of man. The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us. What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing. It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle. He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love. Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh. For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth. He said: "Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc. I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name". Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!! So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit. You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator. You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace. A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam. Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever. Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote: "As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again". "IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)" "The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power". So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing! In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote: "By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man". The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!! Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness. He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind". "I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."
I wanted to listen to more videos of Michael Heiser but when he talked about Genesis I though mmm he might confuse me and Stop watching him I prefer Anthony Roger, Also I think when people go too deep tent to error more
Thanks for the truth, I agree fully with you! Its reading the TRINITY into the Old Testament? As if the TRINITY didn't exist in the Old Testament??? How absurd! It seems the anti-Trinitarians always want to eliminate the plain references to the Trinity in the Old Testament.
Michael Heiser WAS a Trinitarian. What are you talking about? Tbh the more I look into it, although I’m a Trinitarian also, I think he was right about Genesis 1:26 not necessarily referring to the Trinity, but rather divine plural majesty.
Paused @9:21 ....this is what comes to mind: Genesis 1:1-3 [1]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2]And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3]And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Here, in the beginning of the chapter, we already see the Trinity ...God (the Father) spoke (the Word) and the Spirit (of God) moved upon the face of the deep.
I admire Heiser, but the impression he gave when he introduced The Unseen Realm is that the views he showed there were a consensus, if not a majority view in scholarship. Again, "impression," intended or unintended. He said that the teachings are not originally his, to which I agree. But is his book a reflection of scholarship? Not really!
Thank you! I've been thinking about it recently. To me it doesn't make sense since the following verse explicitly says "in the image of God". Surely that excludes anyone beside God. But I don't know how to deal with the Psalm passage Heiser brings up about God's getting angry with the other members of the "divine plural".
I agree this passage is not about counsel of elohim (spirits). This is about the Godhead. I would say that Psalm 82 makes most sense as an assembly of elohim and some of them likely outrank angels (princes) also mentioned. I see no issue also with God creating spirits greater than angels an those beings falling.
Anthony, that was really well done and it's appreciated that you stick to the Scripture and put forth your counter-argument without being polemical (as so many do). Keep up the great work and may the Lord bless you and your family greatly.
Excellent as always Brother Anthony. Another issue i see with his interpretation of the angels being present and “let’s get pizza” is when I tell that to people they all HAVE THE CAPABILITY of accomplishing that same task alone.. big problem in my opinion.
Genesis 1:26 imply that there were multiple gods involved in creation? “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,’” (Genesis 1:26). This verse has been woefully abused by a variety of unbiblical religious groups to insist that there must have been more than one god involved in the creation of the world. For example, in one of the Mormon Scriptures, this verse is modified and “explained” as: “And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,” (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 4:26). Jehovah’s Witnesses only believe in one eternal, almighty God. They teach, however, that Jesus (who they consider to be Michael the Archangel) was the first and greatest creation and is himself a “god” of sorts. They, thus, explain Genesis 1:26 by saying: “When God used ‘us’ and ‘our,’ he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation, the master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus,” (Should You Believe in the Trinity, 1989, pg 14). Likewise, the World Mission Society Church of God (who claim that there is an eternal mother goddess alongside God) insists that: “When God spoke, God used the plural terms “us” and “our” instead of using the singular terms “me” and “my.” Through this observation, we can see that there is not just one God, but two. That is, God our Father and God our Mother, who together created mankind,”1 While each of these interpretations is very different, they all share the assumption that when God spoke using plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26, it could only mean that God was addressing some other divine being (or beings) who, in some sense, shared with Him in the work of creation. The most glaring flaw in this interpretation is that the very next verse goes on to explain that God created man by Himself and in His own singular image: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them,” (Genesis 1:27). God says, “let us make,” and then He alone makes. God proposes to make man in Our image and then makes man in His image, not in the image of Himself and someone else. This is consistent with the rest of Scripture, which says, for example, that God personally made the earth, created man upon it, and even stretched out the heavens with His own hands (Isaiah 45:12). He did not need nor have an angelic craftsman, a divine council, or a heavenly consort in bringing the world or mankind into existence, as “the builder of all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4). “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone,” (Isaiah 44:24). Nowhere in Scripture is a man ever said to be made in the image of “the gods,” nor in the image of God and an archangel. While both male and female are made in the image of God, they are all said to be made in His image, not in His and Her images. One singular God alone made humanity in His own unique image, and this is what God was referring to when He said, “let Us make man in Our image.” These pronouns, though plural, are referring to Jehovah God alone. The best explanation for this language is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. There is only one God, and He created man in His image. This God, however, exists in three distinct, equal, and interactive persons. God has fellowship and communion within His own nature in a manner that finite beings like ourselves do not. The eternal Father, Son, and Spirit can speak to and interact with one another, but they are not three different gods or three separate beings. It is one God, one Divine Being, existing simultaneously as three distinct persons. This is marvelous, but should it surprise us that God Almighty is marvelous? It also fits the text: God creates the world and makes man. His Spirit moves over the waters (Genesis 1:2), and His “breath” (same Hebrew word as “Spirit”) brings life to man (Genesis 2:7). It is God’s Spirit whom He sends forth to continue to create and give life on the earth (Psalm 104:30). God commands “let there be” and there is, be it light, land, seas, or living things. The heavens were made “by the word of the LORD,” (Psalm 33:6). Yet, God’s Word is not mere sounds coming out of His mouth. God spoke, and the man was, yet God formed man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7) and made all creation “with his own hands,” (Isaiah 45:12). Indeed, John tells us: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being,” (John 1:1-3). And, in the coming of Jesus Christ, that: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14). When God said, “let us make man in our image,” He was not speaking to another god. God was speaking to His own Word, who was with God and, in fact, was God. God was not talking to a spirit creature he had made. He was speaking to His own Spirit. God, through His own Word and Spirit, made man in His own singular image. This is the glorious truth of Scripture.
Jeremiah Rowe sr. You did a marvelous job of explaining how a verse of Scripture can be abused by those with an agenda, then circled back to correctly render it properly and doctrinally. It was a pleasure to read your post !
Genesis 1:26 Trinitarian Deception, (Let Us)? World English Bible God said, (Let us) make man in (our) image, after (our) likeness. Trinitarians believe because GOD said (Let Us) make man in (our) image, after our likeness, GOD was talking to the two members of the TRINITY who they believe are Jesus and a Separate person called the Holy Spirit. However, very sadly, Trinitarians have become experts at contradicting the word of GOD, because GOD always says He was ALONE doing the creating BY MYSELF in many verses like Isaiah 44:24: Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who ALONE stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth BY MYSELF. Isaiah 44:24 Notice in the next verse of Genesis 1:27: So (God) created man in (His) own image; in the image of (God He) created him; male and female (He) created them. BSB. Notice how we do NOT read: And (WE) created man in (OUR) Image, as we would expect if GOD was talking to His SON Jesus, but instead we read the singular words for GOD with the singular word (HE) and (HIM) for ONE PERSON who is doing the creating just as we are told by GOD Himself in Isaiah 44:24. God of Israel, with singular verb. In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'", Elohim is singular. Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we").[11] 11. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar: 124g, without article 125f, with article 126e, with the singular 145h, with plural 132h,145i"
When God said, “let us make man in our image,” He was not speaking to another god. God was speaking to His own Word, who was with God and, in fact, was God. God was not talking to a spirit creature he had made. He was speaking to His own Spirit. God, through His own Word and Spirit, made man in His own singular image. This is the glorious truth of Scripture. ----------------------------------------------------------- So according to you, there are THREE GODS? 1. GOD the Father. 2. GOD the SON. 3. GOD the Holy Spirit. This alone proves the TRINITY is false.
@@IsJesusGod. This reminds me of a 2d character hearing about a 3d-figure and saying: so there are multiple shapes but it is still one shape? This alone proves that a 3d-figure cannot be true. And yes, probably there is something wrong with the image above. Just as the example of the unity in marriage is becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24, Mat 19:5, Mark 10:8, Eph 5:31). Love is not self-seeking so you need someone to love, but God is love and does not need anything. However, I just belief that God can be more complex than I understand/see at the moment.
@@tieskedh GOD tells us over, and over again how He is ONE person and GOD alone on His own. And yet what is so simple to understand, most refuse to understand.
Hey Anthony, I was referred here by a Facebook friend and found the video of interest. Here is an experiment for you that I think demonstrates Heiser’s position has overwhelmingly more evidence: Download Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis PDF from the University of Chicago website. The document is 170 pages. In the PDF search box type the cohortative phrase “Let us” then count how many times the construct is used in Mesopotamian texts in similar contexts to Genesis 1 to refer to divine council members addressing each other. I believe this will convince you this construct was the literary standard for having divine beings address each other in Genesis’ Near Eastern context. Examples: pages 19 (line 40, 46), 23 (line 121, 125, 127), 48 (lines 51, 53), 53 (line 154), 69 (line 26) wherein the gods use the cohortative in the creation of man: “Let us slay two Lamga gods. With their blood let us create mankind.”
I'm working on a Masters in Theology now and I am constantly stunned by many of the so called "scholars." I think they're poor logicians who are too consumed by their own interpretive models. The best Theologians are also good Philosophers, who not only exegete the text but also rationally assess it against the rest of Scripture.
Thanks for this video and I do agree with what you presented. I not sure what I am about to present is how Michael Heiser is viewing the information he has gathered, so what I think is he is presenting what the Hebrews view of this text is a before Christ and not after Christ view. I look at it like a big puzzle and the biggest piece is in the center and one could have a different view until that piece is put in the puzzle. In this analogy Jesus is that missing puzzle piece which now gives the correct view of the text in question.
Heiser uses a false analogy when he likens the creation of man to getting pizza. One is doing, the other is getting. Better to use the analogy of making pizza, but imagining a team of cooks busily preparing the ingredients for making pizza is not quite what Heiser had in mind.
Thank you SO much for this video!!!! This is seriously helpful! Thank you so much. Another topic you should talk about is Michael Heiser's view that Genesis 1:26-28 are about creating many humans and that the account in Genesis two regarding Adam and Eve is about two specific humans he later created to be like high priests of the already existing human race. He has a bunch of pretty twisted theories like that, and I have a lot of friends who trust him! I was open to him when I first started listening to him but after his series on the Divine council I realized he's not someone I want to trust.
I absolutely agree with Dr Heiser on this one ( Anthony ) ! and i'm so sorry that you don't ? > Dr Heiser is a truely wonderfull teacher !!! > ( i'm glad you have his book > The Unseen Realm ) his podcast and seminars are a real blessing to all of us . thank you .
For shame. Too many people follow Heiser on everything he says and can't think clearly through simple issues. The Triune God made man, not angels. That makes it easy to decide who God was speaking to.
@@MrCharlesMartel Dear Sir ! > The only one here who can't think clearly is you ? > and i quote ( The Triune God made man ; NOT ANGELS )? > So my question to you is ( where do Angels come from ) ?
@@paulcoffey2667 You misread what I said. The Triune God is the creator and maker of all things. My point is that it was the Triune God and not the angels who made man.
Amazing Gods Wisdom took on form just like His word did ... in my oppinion critics and believers have way more that a trinity of issues to answer ..... more like many ... Glory to God
Thank you. God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM, this is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:13-15) Jesus answered, "Truly I tell you, before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58)
I wonder if Heiser (who I respect highly) is looking at these as two separate literary works that belong together in a thematic way but not literarily together. Then you could see why he might use the term 'anachronistic'. However, your point on his anachronism is well taken. I don't know if you get my meaning, but in the historical context, the Tanakh is a very different book from a different age from the New Testament, which as we all know came much later. Just my musing...
Hey Anthony. I have a few questions I have been thinking about. if Christ is the Angel of the Lord, then that means prior before he was his mother womb as a baby, it was recorded that became a Man temporarily in Judges as Malak Yahweh. Doesn't that mean he ceased being human to become human again in his mother Womb? Wouldn't that imply that his human life ceased to exist with his human body? how did he do that with out dying.
@@johnle231 I don't know man. the Angel had conversation in Judges 13 that makes look like he is claiming to be human " 9And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God returned to the woman as she was sitting in the field; but her husband Manoah was not with her. 10The woman ran quickly to tell her husband, “Behold, the man who came to me the other day has reappeared!” 11So Manoah got up and followed his wife. When he came to the man, he asked, “Are you the man who spoke to my wife?” “I am,” he said.
@@p.b3880 The Lord and two angels appear to Abraham in ch. 18,19 is this Visible YHWH a man or are the two angels men ? They appear as men but are not human.
Angels and God appearing in the form or shape of a man in the Old Testament doesn’t mean they actually take on the NATURE of man. For example, the Holy Spirit appeared visibly in the shape of a dove, that doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit is a dove by nature. So the Angel of the LORD appearing visibly as man in the OT doesn’t mean he has taken on a human nature. That only happens once in the Incarnation of Jesus where he actually becomes flesh (has a real human nature).
I take that you missed the point of necessity of saying it if there is omniscience among the members of the trinity. However, if it’s the heavenly host it’s perfectly natural to expect the enunciation. Pardon if my English gets in the way. If need clarification I will try my best.
Great exposition Anthony. This is an important topic that had to be addressed as Heiser's view (not original to him of course) has caused a measure of confusion among his Christian readers.
What I would like to know is what is Michael Heiser‘s motivation for claiming God is speaking to angels if he (MH) does in fact believe in the Trinity? I mean, even somebody as uneducated as myself knows that the angels had no part in creation!!!! 😂
@ matthewsouthwell3500 the thing is that it is the Jewish interpretation also, so he isn’t making this up. Yet Jews don’t think God made us in the image of angels. I think this view is consistent with the Trinity, he’s just saying that God isn’t referring to them in this particular text, just like the vast majority of Trinitarian conservative scholars say about the passage today.
@@samueljennings4809 It isn't "the" Jewish interpretation. Jewish sources abound with interpretations. I can give you a dozen different interpretations found in rabbinic sources. Moreover, I can also provide Jewish sources that give a "two powers" (i.e. God and His Word) and "three powers" (i.e. God, His Word, and His Shekinah) interpretation (e.g. Targum Neofiti). In any case, it is the text of Scripture that is infallible, and the textual and intertextual evidence supplied in the video shows why the Christian church throughout its history has rightly interpreted the text in a Trinitarian way even if there is a modern downgrade trend among certain scholars.
Dr Heiser is a wonderfull teacher > his books / seminars and his podcasts are totally and highly recommanded > he's a hugh blessing to us all !!! ( Thank you Dr Heiser ) .
Thank you Anthony for not trashing Dr heiser .... he knows your correct but I think he does it as show for the critics ... nice job not trashing him ... he’s pretty smart and open minded and is the reason many , many people who left church came back because he opened to the whole truth like you do .... much love
14:42 Anthony is Right!!! " For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the *image* of his *Son,* that he might be the firstborn among many brethren " Rom 8:29
@@Pyroverbs205 There is a comic version, like a Bible/Gospel synopsis written in multiple languages, but he has authored many books. I have a good number of them. His Romans study is really great here on yt.
@@mrs.jaywojo5426 God-willing, I'll go check it out (The Door?). I've not heard of these other books or videos, but based from the comic book (if he is the same guy) it sounds like those are going to be interesting as well. Thanks for recommending those. God bless
Heiser's reading of Genesis 1:26 was not originally proposed by Heiser. The view was held by many scholars long before him. Dr. Peter Gentry also holds to a similar reading as do many other ancient near eastern scholars. I mention this because people love to make this about Heiser because he's popularized these views on RUclips quite recently. But they don't acknowledge there is a whole scholarship community that he's drawing from. Perhaps you should have a conversation with a plurality of ANE scholars on your channel and let them explain why they hold to that particular reading. See what I did there 😉.
Anthony, Great Response to Heiser’s incorrect belief on Genesis 1:26! Any way you would consider doing a response to Heiser’s view of Psalm 82?? Would love it.
Hi Craig, I do recall commenting somewhere about it in light of Jesus' usage of Psalm 82 in John 10. I just can't remember what show it was in. If I find it, I will put it up as a separate video.
Genesis 1:26 Trinitarian Deception, (Let Us)? World English Bible God said, (Let us) make man in (our) image, after (our) likeness. Trinitarians believe because GOD said (Let Us) make man in (our) image, after our likeness, GOD was talking to the two members of the TRINITY who they believe are Jesus and a Separate person called the Holy Spirit. However, very sadly, Trinitarians have become experts at contradicting the word of GOD, because GOD always says He was ALONE doing the creating BY MYSELF in many verses like Isaiah 44:24: Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who ALONE stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth BY MYSELF. Isaiah 44:24 Notice in the next verse of Genesis 1:27: So (God) created man in (His) own image; in the image of (God He) created him; male and female (He) created them. BSB. Notice how we do NOT read: And (WE) created man in (OUR) Image, as we would expect if GOD was talking to His SON Jesus, but instead we read the singular words for GOD with the singular word (HE) and (HIM) for ONE PERSON who is doing the creating just as we are told by GOD Himself in Isaiah 44:24. God of Israel, with singular verb. In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'", Elohim is singular. Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we").[11] 11. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar: 124g, without article 125f, with article 126e, with the singular 145h, with plural 132h,145i"
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says Lord God, the One being, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty. 1. Revelation 1:8, is GOD the Father, and NOT Jesus. This is easy to understand because we clearly see who the person is in this verse which” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:8. IT IS WORTH KNOWING THAT JESUS IS NEVER EVER CALLED: THE LORD GOD, OR THE ALMIGHTY. Notice below how super Trinitarian Barns Notes confirms *Revelation 1:8 should NOT be used as poof of Jesus being GOD,* contradicting what MOST Trinitarians say: And Jesus also said His Father is the only ONE true GOD in John 17;3. This concludes Revelation 1:8 is not about Jesus, but GOD almighty ALONE. Proving the Trinitarian claim is false.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Romans 9:5 FALSE Trinitarian Translations. New International Version Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. Holman Christian Standard Bible The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Messiah, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen. New King James Version of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. There are many modern translations that are very different and deceptive by making Paul sound like he is saying Jesus is: God over all. The oldest Bible of the Codex Vaticanus reads: the Christ the according to flesh the being over all God blessed to the ages Amen. There is a good translation by Good News Translation: they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen. The simple truth is, there are NO contradictions by Paul who only ever taught the Father is ONE PERSON and GOD ALONE, and did NOT teach in his other hand Jesus is also GOD in a TRINITY. Paul is simply referring to GOD the Father in Romans 9:5 saying: being over all God blessed to the ages Amen, as in Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. If Paul believed Jesus was GOD, there would be many teachings by Paul elsewhere in his many writings saying he believed Jesus is GOD. And yet what we find is that there are NO teachings anywhere in Paul’s many writings teaching Jesus is GOD. But instead we find quite the OPPOSITE and an amazing clear confession by Paul referring to exactly what he believed in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Yet for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. Notice Paul tells us: there is one God, and then continues to tell us who that one GOD is, by then saying, (the Father). Notice a simple Biblical tact. There is NOTHING by Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus is also GOD, or is the same One True GOD, or that the Holy Spirit is a SEPARATE person or that the One True GOD is THREE persons as taught in the TRINITY.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Actually the same is used for rhe the Father at 2 cor 11:31. ------------------------------ So you believe the Father is the SON? And in that case you DENY the Father and the SON as 1 John 2:22 tells us:
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας The simple truth is, there are NO contradictions by Paul who only ever taught the Father is ONE PERSON and GOD ALONE, and did NOT teach in his other hand Jesus is also GOD in a TRINITY. Paul is simply referring to GOD the Father in Romans 9:5 saying: being over all God blessed to the ages Amen, as in Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. If Paul believed Jesus was GOD, there would be many teachings by Paul elsewhere in his many writings saying he believed Jesus is GOD. And yet what we find is that there are NO teachings anywhere in Paul’s many writings teaching Jesus is GOD. But instead we find quite the OPPOSITE and an amazing clear confession by Paul referring to exactly what he believed in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Yet for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Do you believe that the One God became/manifested in the flesh? The One God became Man. 1 Timothy 3:16, John1:1&14, Philippians 2:6-7, 1 John 4:2. and that Jesus is both God and Man?,,,,if you do believe the above, here is the follow up question, do you believe that, there is the Father and the Son? and Jesus is both Isaiah 9:6 and Matthew 16:6, 1 timothy 2:5 and 1 John 2:23?
I absolutely love that book The Unseen Realm it's great ....but I must say ...I couldn't bring myself to agree with Michael on this either ...I heard him out and I saw what he tried to say but it just didn't comport....because when God said "our" that's plural but "image" is singular ....the Image belongs to God not the Angels so I couldn't agree with that statement ....just like we are Image bearers of God not the Angels and God
@@brandedforchrist first off I never said anything about how he "looked" that was all your inference if you want to debate you came to the wrong person ....im going to entertain this one response and that's it because I'm not one to go back and forth at all so just know I will not respond after this.... correct we are being changed into the image of Christ which is God in whom we are image bearers of as well yes the angels bear the image of God as well thats why I said not the Angels image because we are not image bearers of Angels we are image bearers of God ....the image BELONGS to Him He is what we are "imaged" after both the Angels and us and the angels are not creators there is only one creator and that is God ....go find someone else to debate with friend this response was for Anthony and not meant as a hook to see what fish I could snag into a debate with ....good day to you
I like Hieser and do agree with the Dueteronomy 32 worldview, but he however is all too eager to make verses that have nothing to do with the devine council about the devine council. He's doing this alot in his current Revelation study.
Also the idea of God calling on the angels when creating man came from Rashi an early jewish commentator who lived in the 12 century. From then on many rabbis get their writings from him. It is who who said that since the angels have not been included in God's creation, God in His humiliation then includes them. Also angel is only mentioned in Genesis chapter 3. We need to intrepret scripture with scripture Also the idea of God calling on the angels when creating man came from Rashi an early jewish commentator who lived in the 12 century. From then on many rabbis get their writings from him. It is who who said that since the angels have not been included in God's creation, God in His humiliation then includes them. Also angel is only mentioned in Genesis chapter 3. We need to interpret scripture with scripture. Please refer to One For Israel ministry on Genesis 1:26 where I obtained my comments. Thank you
So Heiser believes in the Trinity - which is from Eternity - but when God spoke "Let Us make..." the Son and the Holy Spirit were...out getting coffee?... :-D
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm they are one being. Why would they be out getting coffee. “Let us make” is a plural verb form. Look at verse 27: “So God created” is a singular verb form in the Hebrew. Why would it go from plural verb to singular verb? This wasn’t covered in the video, but it is a major part of Heiser’s argument. Elohim is translated God or gods based on the plural or singular verb form. So this leaves some questions that weren’t answered I would say.
@@nocontent4908- "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. " Repeated...3 times. Is Bible just being loquacious there?
@@cogit0ergo705 not sure what your point is. The Father, Son and Spirit created all things. Heiser believes the same thing. I’m not sure you understand the argument.
Very Good explanation!!!! Thank You for making a video on this............I posted my thoughts as well. Heiser is an apostate teacher and misleads many. Heiser NEVER mentions the 2nd Adam and that the Faithful are conformed to the 2nd Adam>>>>>>Jesus the Son of God. The same is for the sons of God in the OT, they are given that title and satus is because they are conformed to the Son of God........the sons of God are "SANCTIFIED" made Holy............Job 1: 4 and 5 tell us that.
I view Gen 1:26 as the Trinity speaking aloud for the benefit of the divine council to hear (compare Jesus speaking aloud to the Father for the sake of the listeners in John 11:42). This solves the issue of 'Why would the members of the Trinity need to inform one another, they know what each person is thinking' as IIRC Dr Heiser has mentioned before.
That is ambiguous. The issue is who is being spoken *to*, not who else might be overheating the discussion. Exegetically and historically it is the Father speaking to the Son and the Spirit. They are the ones who made man, and man was made in the image of the triune God.
@@MrCharlesMartel I would say it's the members of the Trinity speaking to one another, in order that the listeners could perceive what was decided by the Godhead.
So "let us make man in our image" so God needs help from his heavenly host to create?.. I think not being that Christ is shown in being instrumental in all of creation due to John 1 and Colossians 1 the more I listened to Heiser the more I disagreed not saying I didn't like or respect him he's with the Lord now
This is good. But I have to side with Heiser. I’ll keep studying this though. I ABSOLUTELY believe in the Trinity but I don’t believe in Genesis the “typical” way either. But love this dialogue!
What's amazing to me is, the reality is that Dr. Heiser is off and too many people just are blind to it because he SEEMS to really know what he's talking about. But as Scripture says, "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17). Dr. Heiser engages in much speculation, assumption and logical fallacies to arrive at many of his conclusions. This I've seen firsthand from reading his book "Reversing Hermon." The title alone assumes Hermon even happened, based on the apocryphal book of Enoch and a flawed misreading of Genesis 6:1-4. So people need to beware of those who seem right, but really need to step back and take a logic course and reread what they've written to understand that bad reasoning and bad hermeneutics is not eradicated simply because you learned Hebrew and some semitic languages at a non-Christian university (I speak as one who knows both Hebrew and Greek) My Hebrew professor has been teaching Hebrew for over 40 years, while Dr. Heiser just received his degree in Hebrew and Semitic languages in 2004. This means Heiser is relatively new to Hebrew and probably makes "neophyte" mistakes, as opposed to those more seasoned in the language. So I would not trust his Hebrew but so much.
Dear Sir Those are brave words ( but just words all the same ) ? > maybe you should write a paper and have it peer reviewed ? > we are all still waiting for Dr James Write rebuttle of Dr Heiser's ( psalm 82 / and 89 ) and ( john 10 ) Dr Heiser does not stand along in his views on this matter !!!! Thank you .
@@paulcoffey2667 Perhaps, but I do know what I'm talking about. Dr. Heiser is prone to speculation and logical fallacies. His exegesis is also bad, especially what he claims for Deut. 4:19, where he somehow, despite the immediate context, got "sons of God" or "angels" from "host of heaven" in that verse. Nonsense. Host of heaven there is speaking of the heavenly bodies, like sun, moon, stars, etc. It's right there in the context. But Heiser sees "sons of God" or "angels," which makes no sense in that context. Heiser not being alone doesn't prove anything. If you find someone to agree with you that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn't prove you're right; it just proves you're both wrong.
@@CRoadwarrior I do wish you all the best with your ( paper ) and then submitting it for PEER review > ( maybe you can ask Anthony for some help ) lol !!!! > End of Transmission .
@@paulcoffey2667 I don't know what it is with you and "peer reviewed" papers. How about good old, simple yet accurate Bible interpretation based on sound hermeneutics? A good deal of nonsense can come from "peer reviewed" papers; I know because I'm studying for my Masters and have seen it. The point is, nonsense and bad reasoning is just that, and that's what Heiser engages in. It is absolute nonsense to argue that "host of heaven" in Deut. 32:8 is speaking of angelic beings, as the CONTEXT rules that meaning out. This "peer" calls Heiser out on that gross error in interpretation. And since I can read both Hebrew and Greek, I'm well within my right to do so. There's your "peer review." and your "paper." The question is, how are YOU going to deal with that truth.
@@CRoadwarrior I'm not and don't have too Dr Heiser has cover all the bases with Peer reviewed material ( check his sources ) and if you still are unhappy with them > please do send Dr Heiser a run down of all his mistakes !!! > thank you and good night > End of Transmission !!!
If the "divine counsel" that Heiser believes is not really there, (because God is communicating the Trinity in Gen. 1:26), then Heiser loses a significant foundation to His theory of the "divine counsel". He needs it to be true in his mind to make the puzzle pieces fit everywhere else.
I don't see that at all. Even Anthony acknowledges the divine council idea is elsewhere. Heiser's view really depends on how the word elohim is used. While vastly referring to the singular (but multipersonal) God of Israel the word is also clearly used of spirit beings that are other than and less than god. If you deny that you deny a spiritual afterlife and the existence of angels and demons because all those things get called elohim.
@@EulersIdentityCrisis I think that the reason that Heiser wants to see Gen 1:26 as the divine counsel is to show that they are of greater value, importance, and power than others referred to as elohim. Once that is accepted, (these elohim are more significant), then you would look for where they would fit into the hierarchy of the spiritual & physical realms. This is where he justifies them being of a higher order because they would be the ones given rule or supervision over territories or countries. I don't think that he should have to rely on any value from Gen. 1:26, since God can choose to distribute authority, power, or value however He chooses for His own reasons. So, I think this idea is in Heiser's own theological framework and he believes that it is necessary for reasons that I don't see in any of his explanations or teachings. As Anthony discussed, Heiser understands the presence of the Trinity throughout the OT, so there is not a logical reason to hold to that interpretation here based on the text itself. He has some other reason(s).
Ugh, the day this Pentecostal olive branch to cults and progressives fades into irrelevance will finally be the day the church can start actually studying apologetics again. It's like this generation's deliverance ministries. Thank you for at least taking some of Heiser's nonsense to bat. I hope your tribe increases and will what I can where I can as well.
@@Mellownius That deeply and truly breaks my heart. But it's always the trend with cults. What people won't do for the truth, they'll become unnaturally passionate for a lie. Or in this case, a guy who knows how to weasel around words so much that he can't he held accountable for anything while at the same time bringing everyone's attention away from Jesus and onto the most mundane and bizarre extra-biblical literature.
@@ShadyOakMinistries I’m not sure how I feel about Heiser being a cult .... I suppose having the ability to speak Biblical Hebrew would and could afford the ability to dance around words a good bit ... I have watched most of his early work and in my opinion once you’ve seen most of it you’ve basicly seen what he says ... I don’t disagree with him about genesis 6 or any of his divine council stuff except to add it may be more of a divine assembly ... in my oppinion all of scripture is filled with heavenly assembly type language ... much older Christians still like to lean on Paul for all of their doctrine but young Christians have questions about certain things that a lot of pastors don’t know themselves much less do sermon on them so now comes Heiser and for that matter people like Rogers also ... not much need for the breakdown of Word of the Lord Angel of the Lord type info in most churches but for those who have always questioned this Heiser Rogers ken Johnson and a few others fill in nicely ... I personaly have always known or been aware and ready to recieve this full understanding ... never needed heiser or Rogers but they do add to this discussion because they speak and read Biblical Hebrew ... fascinating in my opinion ... I’m not overly concerned because Jesus said he who is not against us is on our part .. much love sir
@@Mellownius I don't claim Heiser followers are in a cult. I said he's an olive branch to cults and progressives. His handling of scripture is so sloppy and slimy that his name comes up every single time I am engaging with Mormons that want to argue for the Bible teaching there is more than one God, Muslims claiming that we are polytheists, and progressives claiming that the Bible can't be understood given how many bizarre conclusions are proposed by scholars like Heiser. He's not only a bane of people trying to outreach, but can't stand on the plain and simple truths of scripture. In trying to present something new and entertaining, he's gone beyond scripture to the Kabbalah and extra biblical literature to prove points he's all too eager to deny the moment you take them to their logical conclusion. That's why I don't want him to have any influence in apologetics. He's only causing confusion at best, and enabling deceivers at worst.
Anthony, have you tried to get Heiser to come on and talk about this stuff? He seems pretty generous with his time. I'm about 50/50 on this. One of the the things that I think the divine council answers better is the repeated language in Chapter 3 and 11. The latter two "us" references seem undoubtedly Divine Council vis a vis the serpent and Babel/Deuteronomy 32. It was really interesting you brought up Deut 32 as forming an inclusio with Genesis 1. But Deuteronomy 32 might be the most explicit Divine Council chapter in the entire bible. So even that seems to help both sides just as much. Tons more to say but I doubt Anthony reads this. lol
In the livestream where Anthony addressed this question he mentioned his intent to try to speak to Heiser at the next ETS meeting. Anthony's disagreement with Heiser is on Genesis 1:26 as a reference to the Divine Council, not to the issue of a Divine Council per se. As I understand it, whether or not the Divine Council is spoken of in Deuteronomy 32:8 is irrelevant to Anthony's point which is that Deuteronomy 32:11 speaks about God the same way Genesis 1:2 speaks about the Spirit. The Spirit was involved in the creation of the world and the recreation of Israel at the Exodus. This fits perfectly with Genesis 1:26 and the rest of the Bible which ascribes the creation of man and the world to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and never ascribes this to angels. Heiser's view requires ignoring this fact, and it also requires him to denude the language in Genesis 1:26 to make it fit with his view.
@@MrCharlesMartel Heiser doesn't argue angels were involved in creation. He isn't arguing the divine beings of verse 26 are being described as the creator of verse 27. Anthony's point about the grammar is interesting and given that's Heiser's field I'd like to hear his response. As to the inclusio, I get Anthony's point. I'm merely pointing out that there are repeated references to divine beings throughout Deuteronomy 32--far more than just verse 8. In fact references to "heavens" began and end the song. Those aren't generic references to astronomical objects either. So I would agree Chapter 32 dips into creation language. But, like Psalm 8, it does so also with references to the heavenly host and mans position juxtaposed with them.
@@MrCharlesMartel It does work when you realize the "let us" is literary standard for Mesopotamian literature. Additionally the trinity interpretation of this passage undermines the ontology of the trinity.
I’m just wondering if anyone uses the term Divine Counsel to refer to the Trinity instead of angels. Apparently that’s not how Heiser uses the term but it just seems to make sense that the Trinity would be a Divine Counsel.
This wording is problematic because it places God and the Angels at the same level. In this way, God is not the only creator of mankind. It stands to saying that angles and God are co-creators, which is wrong.
Good video Anthony, and you make convincing points - but I would differ on how the word “image” is used in Genesis 1:26. Does the Father himself have an image? Can you give any references of such in the Tanakh or NT? Does the Holy Spirit have an image? If not, how is humanity made in the image of the Father? Wouldn’t it be better to say that the “God” in Genesis 1:26-27 is the Son, as the Lord of angelic hosts, declaring to the angels that he will make man in his “image” and likeness - especially in light of John 1, Hebrews 1, & Colossians 1 which clearly say that Jesus created all things? This is where I would find some holes in your argumentation. Thanks again for sharing your view bro. Always appreciate your heart and ministry to God and his people.
And hopefully you learned that he shouldn't be given the time of day after seeing just how far he can lead people from the gospel in the worship of angels and causing disputes over endless genealogies.
@@doctorisout I'm quoting the whole passage when Paul warned Timothy about in 1 Timothy 1:4. That is in the hope those reading would look up the passage rather than assume I'm a Hebrew scholar and conclude I'm right in my application of the text.
I actually agree with Heiser on this. Genesis look at genesis through Church father lenses but Christianity and the church fathers are long after Genesis was written. So we must look at genesis in an ancient Jewish context rather than a church context. Genesis was written in response to ancient neareastsrn creation accounts. Mesopotamia and Egypt believed that multiple gods took part in creation, and so genesis continues to go with that theme, but genesis exalts God as the only creator and the others within the counsel as his counsel members rather than gods as well. Heiser’s view is actually consistent with the time and culture that genesis was written in
Plenty of issues with saying God's talking to the council of angels or anyone else other than the Son & the Holy Spirit. Just one is that no angel or another being in heaven or on earth are created in the IMAGE OF GOD, even though the angels may be called the sons of God in the OT they are NOT made in the IMAGE of God. So its understood by this statement by God that the others who His talking to have the same image as the one speaking in this case God..
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This understanding would have been unknown to the author of the OT. so ANE scholars are not looking at how other gentile church fathers looked at the text but the author of the text in his time
The FATHER IS THE ( WILL ) The WORD IS THE SON ( JESUS ) The HOLY SPIRIT IS THE ( WORKS ) THE TRINITY ( 3 as 1 GOD ) continue Let ( US ) make man in our image! The ( US ) is JESUS BEFORE HE BECAME HUMAN!! Proof John 17:5 Jesus said in his prayer…Father Glorify me with yourself WITH the Glory I had with you BEFORE the World Was!!. Another verse says…God created all things THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!! So, what do you think? Thanks for your channel
Secondly, it’s not our Will but God’s Will. It’s not our word, but Jesus is the Word of life we need. It’s not our works, but it’s the Works of the Holy Spirit that we participate in with God for His Glory!!
"Read verses Genesis 1:26, then God makes it clear in verse 1:27. "so God created man In his OWN Image"" I said this before the edit. Seems a bit misleading, what I was saying is the argument against the "divine counsel" and "angels and God" ideas. God refers to himself as plural, then doubles down that it was he in his own image made man. I believe its referring to father, son, holy spirit.
You can't pit what is said in one verse against what is said in another verse and pretend you are engaging in responsible exegesis or theology. Just like John 1:1 says that the word was "with God" AND "was God", and you can't reject one in the name of holding to the other, so Genesis 1:26-27 speaks of one God AND a plurality of persons creating man. You have to do just both to the plural and to the singular. BTW, you completely ignored everything stated in the video. But Hey, you are at least being faithful to Heiser, and that is what counts, right?
@@MrCharlesMartel God talks about himself as plural. In v26. In v 27 he says he did it in his own image. My comment must be misleading. I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. Its a great mystery though I don't fully understand. 1 timothy 3:16.
I just posted your video on Heiser's Divine Council Worldview private facebook group (4.5k members with Heiser himself as one of the Admins) and it was immediately removed... Very shady!
Anthony, your critique of Heiser is thoughtful and generous. However, I think you are missing the primary point that Heiser is trying to make. To speak of the Divine Council does not necessarily exclude the Trinity. It is just that no ancient Israelite would have understood the Trinity when Genesis was written. But they would have understood the Divine Council. The Trinity is a later development, resulting from Second Temple meditation on the Scriptures, trying to wrestle with the "Two Powers" view of God (as in Daniel 7). The doctrine of Trinity arises from the New Testament authors connecting all of the dots present in the Scriptures, as the Jewish theological tradition developed over the centuries, as part of the God's revelation process. Otherwise, if you try to read the Trinity back into Genesis 1, Jews (and others) who know what you are talking about will see this as eisegesis.
Seeing "the Divine Council" as more primitive and more basic to Israelite thought than the larger and more significant fact of God's triune existence is seriously misguided. The Torah was written for Israel, and they were certainly not unitarians just waiting for second temple Jews to understand what they didn't. Remarkably this would suggest that second temple Jews, without the benefit of the New Testament, knew what the Torah meant better than the people at the time of the Exodus and first temple Jews. This way of thinking moves in the wrong direction. If second temple Jews could pick up on multiplicity in the Godhead from the OT then surely the original audience and first temple Jews would have recognized these things as well. You should listen to Anthony's lecture on the Trinity in the Old Testament wherein he discusses how Israel knew God as Triune and would have read the OT, including passages like Genesis 1:26, in light of the way God made Himself known to them. Even if, contrary to fact, one turns a blind eye to the Trinity in the OT and says the key to this understanding didn't come along until the NT, that still cuts against Heiser's interpretation of Genesis 1:26 and favors a Trinitarian reading of the text. The NT teaches that God is Triune, that all three persons are eternal, that all were present and accounted for and active in creation, and that man was made and is being remade into the image of the Son by the Spirit. Heiser's grammatical argument doesn't work for the reason Anthony pointed out, and neither does his argument from anachronism, unless of course you buy into Heiser's novel (and easily falsifiable) notion that the Divine Council is the be all and end all of OT revelation and is something to be found under every rock and the Trinity is nowhere in sight.
@@MrCharlesMartel Please look at Heiser's work on "The Two Powers". To suggest that the Divine Council and the Trinity are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy. It is just that it took awhile for the OT people of God to discover God's Triune nature, as ultimately pointed to in the NT. Beware of the trap set by 19th century German higher criticism. It will take you down before you know what happened to you.
@@clarkemorledge2398 First, I didn't say that Heiser views the Trinity and the Divine Council as mutually exclusive. I took issue with the notion that the Divine Council was part and parcel of ancient Israelite belief and the Trinity was not. The Trinity was not a mere product of second temple Judaism. It is part of the deposit of faith, i.e. what God disclosed about Himself in the prophetic writings. Post-Christian Rabbinic Judaism's attempts to suppress this belief attest to its prior revelation; Rabbinic Judaism did not give rise to it, and neither did second temple Judaism against which it was reacting. Second, I pointed out that there is a striking incongruity in your line of thinking: somehow second temple Jews, on your view, were able to see in the OT, without the benefit of the NT, what earlier Jews were not able to see. If that is the case, then it follows quite easily that even more ancient Jews, those to whom these things were originally revealed, were all the more in a good position to recognize the truth about God Triune. Third, I took issue with the idea that recognizing the presence of a Divine Council idea in the OT means that everything is about the Divine Council. It isn't. Just because someone gets a new hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail. Fourth, if, as you grant, the NT authors taught that God is Triune, and if this really is the truth about God, then it was true all the way back in Genesis 1. And if, as I assume you also grant, the NT teaches that the Triune God made man, and that man is being renewed into the image of the Son by the Spirit, then this has direct bearing on the meaning of Genesis 1:26. More could be said, but I will conclude with this: you should take seriously your own exhortation about falling prey to novel theories such as those of 19th century higher critics, who also didn't believe that the OT revealed the Trinity and didn't believe that ancient Israelites knew God as Triune. The church for 1800 years confessed that God is Triune on the basis of both Testament, not simply the NT, and it is only the advent of higher criticism that changed all of that.
@@MrCharlesMartel Thank you for kindly clarifying your position. I should then clarify mine: I am not claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity was a mere product of Second Temple Judaism, nor that it was not part of the deposit of faith, originally (nor is Heiser). The Trinity was always there from the beginning, but it was not until the Second Temple Judaism period that we have evidence that Jews were starting to become aware of the theological treasure that lay embedded and yet undiscovered within their own Scriptures. That is the whole point of progressive revelation, that God slowly brought to mind those truths that had always been there. The NT is the culmination of that progressive revelatory process, where all of the dots are finally connected. Progressive revelation is not some new idea, stemming back to 19th century higher critics. Rather, you can find this in the Reformation, and even going back to the early church! I know that you mean well, but let me just focus on this: You somehow have come to believe that the ancient Israelites, if I understand you correctly, consciously held to a Trinitarian theology prior to the Babylonian Exile. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?
@@clarkemorledge2398 You are working hard to clean up one point of confusion in your previous comments but the incongruity remains and isn't resolved by your appeal to "progressive revelation". An appeal to progressive revelation doesn't help for several reasons. First, as I already pointed out, the entire church for the first 1800 years, from the early fathers and continuing through the Medieval, Reformation, and even the Post-Reformation period believed that the Trinity was revealed and made known in the Old Testament. "The Reformed orthodox insisted--against the Socinians--that a plurality of persons is proved not only from the New but also from the Old Testament. On this point, their assumptions were fully in according with the teachings of all centuries of Christianity, from the patristic period and the Middle Ages through the Reformation. In particular, the Reformed orthodox concern to identify a Trinitarian faith in the Old Testament echoes the traditional assumption, emphasized by early Reformed tradition, of the unity of the faith and of the promise of salvation from the beginnings of the biblical narrative, an assumption that included the claim that fundamental teachings of Christianity were available to the patriarchs." (Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. IV).
Take it one step further ...Ariel Cohen Aloro has a channel , he’s like 1000 year old rabbi from the likes of Rabbi Yakuri ... this guy is born again and is literaly dropping bombs on any narrative that states the Old Testament does not speak of Jesus ... he even uses all their pesky little vowel points and adds it all up where literaly every word in scripture points to trinity ... he’s hard to follow because he speaks some English but has no translator but if you keep watching you can pick up on it ..... legit fire ... just dropped a new video today ... 🤩🤩🤩💣💣💣🔥🔥🔥⚔️⚔️⚔️
Heiser teaches some weird junk IMO He is like an ancient alien theorist to me
3 года назад+1
@@toomanymarys7355 he focuses on angels and men by exalting them as “divine” beings. And he needs the book of Enoch to support some of his beliefs. Yet not even the Catholic Church added the book of Enoch to their Bible. And as you can see in this video he has to reject the traditional way we interpret Genesis 1:26 to support his beliefs.
How did Heiser miss such a glaring problem? His hypothesis implies we were also made in the image of angels?!? He should call Anthony in the future and run his ideas by him before he makes them public.
Fairly good review thanks ....but the answer is right there in front of you. As you explain this it becomes more clearer. It's the trinty (the creative trinity) GOD (3 in 1) who is speaking to the heavenly hosts (not to each other.) you do miss a key verse in Job 38v6-7 On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone, 7while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"as God layed the corner stone and foundations the Sons of God clapped and the morning stars sang for joy. They are involved as spectators. This works out in Exodus 32v39 it says the people made the the golden calf that Aaron made. The people were involved as spectators.
The divine counsel (not council) that preceded man's was between the members of the Trinity. Job 38 doesn't say that angels made man, so it is not relevant to Genesis 1:26 and who is being addressed. Also, there is no "Exodus 32v39". You ignored virtually the entire video to make one bad point. Oy vey!
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I like Michael Heiser a lot, however I agree with Anthony Rogers on this one. Genesis 1:26 is definitely without a doubt referring to the Trinity.
I think he is referring to both the Trinity and the heavenly hosts.
You have to infer three here. Nowhere is it stated. I'm not saying you are wrong or right. But it's still an inference
@SheepOfChrist818 I agree
@@Thedisciplemike it's not infering... in whose image are made in? Genesis said God (Father) and what did the new testament say? (Jesus) and wasn't the Spirit of God with God as he hovered over the surface of the deep? The "us" is to the trinity not unto the angels.
@@Prosperity-o4y i agree
I love when brilliant minds disagree but are able to articulate it sensibly.... I love Heiser and you already know I rock with my guy A. Rogers!
I have Hebrew Roots friends and SDA friends that deny the Trinity, so I am always looking to learn more about defending this important doctrine. Stumbles upon this and am loving it. Thank you, Anthony and all glory to our triune God- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!
I'm a convert to SDA. I have issues with the Trinity teaching. I believe in the Father, His Son and the Spirit of God/Spirit of Christ. The Father/Son relationship is one of the most important Truths in all of God's word. It is a real Father/Son relationship. A real Father. And a real Son. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit OF God/the Spirit of Christ. It's their Spirit. I worship the Father and the Son alone. I just thought I'd share. Peace
@@truthbebold4009 the Holy Spirit is given the same attributes as God the Father and as Christ, as a distinct Person in the Godhead. The HS grieves, teaches, convicts, and more.
I've only just started this video and I'm already so glad that you're tackling Heiser in an in depth and accurate manner and not in a reactionary way, like many less scholarly trinitarians tend to do.
Thanks Anthony for your explanation. Very clear, I am personaly convinced with your arguments !
God bless you a lot and Heiser as well.
Glory to the Father, Jesus and our Beautiful Holy Spirit
This was great, I love listening to you and Dr. Heiser! I'm fascinated with, and inclined to believe, his views on the divine counsel, however I do think that reading Genesis 1:26 as an address to the Godhead is the correct interpretation
I was struggling with this issue a while back. I prayed about it and wrote about it in my prayer journal for months. When I struggle with stuff like that, I tend to just want to get what I need from the Lord, so I don't seek outside influence on the subject. I kept having the same question over and over again, "Lord, are you one as in one, or is it three is one? Help me to understand. I can't wrap my head around this".
Then one day, finally done with not being settled on the issue, I raised my head toward heaven and asked again. The very thing I heard in my spirit was straight out of Gen 1:26. It swelled in my heart and there was rejoicing.
Shortly after that, a friend came over for fellowship. I was happy to tell her my testimony regarding my answer and let her know how long I struggled with this. She looks at me and just repeats what she read out of a book by M. Heiser. Now, I've never read anything by him, don't have a desire to, so I ain't. But I had the same objection as you, we are not made in the image of angels. Your video was a confirmation to me. Thank you
The TRINITY is false. GOD is ONE person and GOD ALONE as Jesus said in John 17:3, Mark 12:29.
@@IsJesusGod. In Mark 12:29 the word used here is "Echad." Which literally means 1 but many,the same word Is used in Genesis 2:24 which is Adam and eve becoming 1,which proves the trinity doctrine,If the scribe in Mark 12:29 didn't want us to know he would have said "Yachid." Which means Just 1,So it is easily disproven. Please refute the video instead of spamming Verses you take out of context.
Don't confuse your feelings for a proper interpretation of the Bible; Heiser is right about Genesis 1:26.
@@---wp3oc No he's not. There has always been a concept of the trinity. Please read Mark 14:61
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
Even the High Priest accusing Jesus asked if He was His Son.
@@spazomaz Do you BELIEVE what the Bible teaches? Please then send the verse saying GOD IS THREE called the CATHOLIC PAGAN TRINITY?
As YOU do NOT believe GOD and His Son who ALWAYS declared GOD is ONE PERSON, how will you be SAVED, for BREAKING the FIRST commandment in Mark 12:29, that says we MUST believe GOD is ONE PERSON?
ONE GOD.
Christianity, having emerged from Judaism, is a monotheistic religion. Never in the New Testament does the Trinitarian concept become a "tritheism" (three Gods) nor even two. God is one, and that God is a single being is strongly declared in the Bible:
The Shema of the Hebrew Scriptures: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."[Deut 6:4]
The first of the Ten Commandments-"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."[5:7]
And "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel and his redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."[Isa 44:6]
In the New Testament: "The LORD our God is one."[Mk 12:29]
Scripture contains neither the word Trinity, nor an expressly formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it “bears witness to” the activity of: THE GOD.
Antichrists deny the Father and the son.
*AND THE TRINITY DOCTRINE DENIES A LITERAL FATHER AND SON.* Instead, the Father and the Son are the same, co-equal, same everything, and each fully God while comprising one God.
This is how you are deceived into denying the Father and the Son.
“Such a person is the antichrist-denying the Father and the Son” - John. Part 01 -
Further, God clearly shows us what it is to be a Father and to have a son. We are without excuse for denying the Father and the Son.
The Trinity Doctrine
But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, AND ONLY A FEW FIND IT.…Matthew 7:12 -14.
TRINITARIANS, FOLLOW the Catholic MAIN trinity doctrine they created.
The New Bible Dictionary, 2nd edition by J.D. Douglas, page 1221, admits that the doctrine of the trinity does not come from the Scriptures, but from philosophy influenced by paganism.
The Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia Volume 11, page 928, gives us the following facts about the trinity.
Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
The Religions of Ancient Greece and Babylonia, by A. H. Sayce. pages 229-230, clearly tells us that the Greek philosophical ideas were developed in Alexandria, Egypt from the pagan mystery religions.
List of Catholic Doctrines.
1. TRINITY --- “The mystery (see Rev. 17:5) of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the catholic church
IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.’” MATTHEW 15:9.
The Cathecism of the Catholic Church admits the Church (not the Bible) had to come up with terms of "philosophical" (pagan/Greek) origin to explain it::
251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance," "person," or "hypostasis," "relation" and so on (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 74).
Here is what it is recorded that a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote, around the middle of the fourth century, where certain aspects of trinitarianism came from--paganism:
Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).
Dean Matthews, DD, D. Litt.:
•
• “It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity formed no part of the original message. St. Paul did not know it, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed” (God in Christian Experience, p. 180).
“The evolution of the Trinity: No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus or preached by the earliest Christians or consciously held by any writer of the NT. It was in fact slowly worked out in the course of the first few centuries in an attempt to give an intelligible doctrine of God” (The Image of the Invisible God, SCM Press, 1982, Dr. A. T Hanson, Professor of Theology University of Hull)
• It might tend to moderation and in the end agreement, if we were industrious on all occasions to represent our own doctrine (the Trinity) as wholly unintelligible (Dr. Hey, Lectures in Divinity, 2, 235
• The Trinity is a contradiction, indeed, and not merely a verbal contradiction, but an incompatibility in the human ideas conveyed. We can scarcely make a nearer approach to an exact enunciation of it, than of saying that one thing is two things. (Sadler’s Gloria Patri, p. 39, A. H. Newman).
Jesus said: Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! Matthew 11:15.
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the SON of God? 1 John 5:5.
There are NO such teaching saying we MUST BELIEVE Jesus is GOD or A TRINITY, but as St john has said: but he that believeth that *JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD?* 1 John 5:5.
Notice we MUST believe Jesus is *THE SON OF GOD* 1 John 5:5.
And yet MOST have been DECEIVED into believing the CATHOLIC doctrine that Jesus the Son of His GOD, is instead the SAME GOD He was BORN from, which makes GOD and His SON into LIARS, who have always declared they are a LITERAL Father and SON, and that GOD amazingly GAVE and SENT His SON, who BOTH have never taught, GOD GAVE HIMSELF, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, but that GOD gave His BEGOTTEN SON Jesus, NOT to condemn us, but save us by GODS own Son PAYING THE PRICE FOR OUR SINS.
And as Jesus has said: ETERNAL LIFE is believing His Father GOD, is the only ONE TRUE GOD, alone. John 17:3. *Which is the FIRST commandment one MUST believe, that GOD IS one person, NOT THREE CALLED THE CATHOLIC PAGAN TRINITY, Mark 12:29.*
You were shown these things so that you might know that the *LORD is GOD; BESIDES HIM THERE IS NO OTHER.* Deuteronomy 4:35.
This ONE single scripture of Deuteronomy 4:35, PROVES the TRINITY is false, because the TRINITY teaches there are THREE Gods SIDE by SIDE, and not ONE GOD.
When we see the massive deception of the TRINITY faith, it is of no surprise why Jesus said: MANY ARE CALLED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN.
In ~7:47 Anthony asks if it would have been acceptable for God if the children of Israel spoke in such a way as to say “we all agree on what you are saying but only 1 person is actually going to do it”. The ironic thing is that only 1 person actually lived according to God’s will.
clever.
I was literally JUST thinking about this less than two weeks ago so this is perfectly timed. Thanks Anthony!
it's not "perfect timing" . it's God's grace!
Thank you brother!!!! I was confused but you helped me you male sense again of that chapter
Heiser like every great scholar has oversights. We are all fallen, and should accept a correction from brothets with humility and gratitude
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Repeated 3 times there. Because God gave Moses a minimum word requirement.
Why would God be speaking to the Heavenly hosts in regards to Creation? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were involved in the creation of Man. Angels had no part in the creation of Man.
Amen, brother!
Dr. Heiser never said Angels had a part in creation, did u not hear the pizza analogy?
@@toriomain I'm trying to remember who, but I remember a commentator who believed the reference was to the council arguing that Genesis 1.26-27 are explicitly there to DENY the other beings played a part in creation. That is, verse 26 as basically "yes other divine beings exist" and then verse 27 switches to singulars to say in essence "but none of them helped in creation." Which would conform well with Job 38.
@@EulersIdentityCrisis That’s a classic case of subterfuge, denying what one text says (v. 26) in the name of another text (v. 27). The Trinitarian view does justice to both texts without trying to neutralize one with the other. The One God who created man (v. 27) is multi-personal (v. 26).
@@MrCharlesMartel It's a straight forward reading of the text. No one is trying to neutralize anything. I understand not seeing it that way. I was like 90% on board with "it's the trinity." But I it's a tossup for me now. But to call it subterfuge seems uncharitable.
I wonder what your take is on the "divine council" and the existence of "other gods" , Mr Rogers?
I like and appreciate Michael Heiser's thorough and passionate work, but his explanation in this matter sounds effortful and smells sweaty to me, too.
There are other 'gods' in relative to our fallen position. The Bible does say 'gods' and that there are fallen angels and demons who by their very nature and abilities, would be far above us in our fallen nature and indeed god-like which is why they receive illegitimate worship. But none of them are YHWH who is The God, The Almighty etc. He is the only God worthy to be worshipped because only He can exclusively claim the title of God (all seeing, all knowing, all powerful, without beginning or end etc.). All the other spiritual entities do not have the title of 'god' when they are compared with God, if you see what I am saying? They fall *infinitely* short of YHWH 🙂. They only have the title of 'god' when illegitimate worship is ascribed to them by fallen human beings, which of course is wrong. See Exodus 20:1-11
'1And God spake all these words, saying,
2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.'
It's clear that LORD (YHWH) is God and only He is to be worshipped as God.
God bless you 😎✝️📜
So you don't believe in angels? They are a part of the divine council
I love the fact that Believers can debate and discuss IN LOVE ... WELL FONE ANTHONY ON YOUR OPENING
Yes your quite right (Anthony ) Dr Heiser has done a lot of good works !!! > like his ( The Jewish Trinity Seminar ) ( Reversing Hermon book and seminar ) His ( Angel and Demon books ) his Podcast are all excellent and well worth checking out > Thank you .
What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand.
God created us according to His own image and likeness. Godly.
Mankind/the first Adam fell. The image of God in man got lost. That's why there is all this predicament on earth (selfishness, greed, lust, wars, sicknesses, death, etc).
We are all born into that mess.
For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ.
With His own once and for all perefect sacrifice, He paid the debt for the fall of man for us, so we can be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. An amazing act of grace and love by our creator.
That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all and walked in unselfish love.
And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding, power and transform us back to origin.
Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come.
So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand.
Hence the divine healing miracles we experience.
God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam.
Christ, the exact image of the invisible God.
The image we were created after in Gen 1.
The image we lost in the fall of man.
The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us.
What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing.
It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle.
He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love.
Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh.
For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth.
He said:
"Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc.
I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name".
Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!!
So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ.
Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit.
You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator.
You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace.
A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam.
Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever.
Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote:
"As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again".
"IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)"
"The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power".
So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing!
In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote:
"By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man".
The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!!
Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness.
He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind".
"I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."
Thank you for this!
Thank you so much. Greetings from Mexico
Hi Luis. You are welcome.
Excellent defense of a traditional reading.
I wanted to listen to more videos of Michael Heiser but when he talked about Genesis I though mmm he might confuse me and Stop watching him I prefer Anthony Roger, Also I think when people go too deep tent to error more
Thanks for the truth, I agree fully with you! Its reading the TRINITY into the Old Testament? As if the TRINITY didn't exist in the Old Testament??? How absurd! It seems the anti-Trinitarians always want to eliminate the plain references to the Trinity in the Old Testament.
Michael Heiser WAS a Trinitarian. What are you talking about?
Tbh the more I look into it, although I’m a Trinitarian also, I think he was right about Genesis 1:26 not necessarily referring to the Trinity, but rather divine plural majesty.
Paused @9:21 ....this is what comes to mind:
Genesis 1:1-3
[1]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2]And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3]And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Here, in the beginning of the chapter, we already see the Trinity ...God (the Father) spoke (the Word) and the Spirit (of God) moved upon the face of the deep.
I admire Heiser, but the impression he gave when he introduced The Unseen Realm is that the views he showed there were a consensus, if not a majority view in scholarship. Again, "impression," intended or unintended. He said that the teachings are not originally his, to which I agree. But is his book a reflection of scholarship? Not really!
Completely agree with Anthony as it's logical!
Thank you! I've been thinking about it recently. To me it doesn't make sense since the following verse explicitly says "in the image of God". Surely that excludes anyone beside God. But I don't know how to deal with the Psalm passage Heiser brings up about God's getting angry with the other members of the "divine plural".
I agree this passage is not about counsel of elohim (spirits). This is about the Godhead. I would say that Psalm 82 makes most sense as an assembly of elohim and some of them likely outrank angels (princes) also mentioned. I see no issue also with God creating spirits greater than angels an those beings falling.
@vlad yes indeed.
And the singularity used in 1:27
Great video Anthony
Hey wait a minute, I just saw you on CIRA. How did u grow your beard back so fast!!
This clip is from an earlier live stream. It's from a few months ago I think.
Miracle Gro
By hanging around Muslims too much. LOL
Anthony, that was really well done and it's appreciated that you stick to the Scripture and put forth your counter-argument without being polemical (as so many do). Keep up the great work and may the Lord bless you and your family greatly.
When you say ‘always always always’, do you mean always?😆 Thank you brother, this is brilliant. This helps so much with my Bible study.
Given we are told we are made in the image of God, that text is talking about a plurality of persons in the Godhead.
Excellent as always Brother Anthony. Another issue i see with his interpretation of the angels being present and “let’s get pizza” is when I tell that to people they all HAVE THE CAPABILITY of accomplishing that same task alone.. big problem in my opinion.
Genesis 1:26 imply that there were multiple gods involved in creation?
“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,’” (Genesis 1:26).
This verse has been woefully abused by a variety of unbiblical religious groups to insist that there must have been more than one god involved in the creation of the world. For example, in one of the Mormon Scriptures, this verse is modified and “explained” as:
“And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,” (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 4:26).
Jehovah’s Witnesses only believe in one eternal, almighty God. They teach, however, that Jesus (who they consider to be Michael the Archangel) was the first and greatest creation and is himself a “god” of sorts. They, thus, explain Genesis 1:26 by saying:
“When God used ‘us’ and ‘our,’ he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation, the master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus,” (Should You Believe in the Trinity, 1989, pg 14).
Likewise, the World Mission Society Church of God (who claim that there is an eternal mother goddess alongside God) insists that:
“When God spoke, God used the plural terms “us” and “our” instead of using the singular terms “me” and “my.” Through this observation, we can see that there is not just one God, but two. That is, God our Father and God our Mother, who together created mankind,”1
While each of these interpretations is very different, they all share the assumption that when God spoke using plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26, it could only mean that God was addressing some other divine being (or beings) who, in some sense, shared with Him in the work of creation. The most glaring flaw in this interpretation is that the very next verse goes on to explain that God created man by Himself and in His own singular image:
“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them,” (Genesis 1:27).
God says, “let us make,” and then He alone makes. God proposes to make man in Our image and then makes man in His image, not in the image of Himself and someone else. This is consistent with the rest of Scripture, which says, for example, that God personally made the earth, created man upon it, and even stretched out the heavens with His own hands (Isaiah 45:12). He did not need nor have an angelic craftsman, a divine council, or a heavenly consort in bringing the world or mankind into existence, as “the builder of all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).
“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone,” (Isaiah 44:24).
Nowhere in Scripture is a man ever said to be made in the image of “the gods,” nor in the image of God and an archangel. While both male and female are made in the image of God, they are all said to be made in His image, not in His and Her images. One singular God alone made humanity in His own unique image, and this is what God was referring to when He said, “let Us make man in Our image.” These pronouns, though plural, are referring to Jehovah God alone.
The best explanation for this language is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. There is only one God, and He created man in His image. This God, however, exists in three distinct, equal, and interactive persons. God has fellowship and communion within His own nature in a manner that finite beings like ourselves do not. The eternal Father, Son, and Spirit can speak to and interact with one another, but they are not three different gods or three separate beings. It is one God, one Divine Being, existing simultaneously as three distinct persons. This is marvelous, but should it surprise us that God Almighty is marvelous? It also fits the text:
God creates the world and makes man. His Spirit moves over the waters (Genesis 1:2), and His “breath” (same Hebrew word as “Spirit”) brings life to man (Genesis 2:7). It is God’s Spirit whom He sends forth to continue to create and give life on the earth (Psalm 104:30). God commands “let there be” and there is, be it light, land, seas, or living things. The heavens were made “by the word of the LORD,” (Psalm 33:6). Yet, God’s Word is not mere sounds coming out of His mouth. God spoke, and the man was, yet God formed man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7) and made all creation “with his own hands,” (Isaiah 45:12). Indeed, John tells us:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being,” (John 1:1-3).
And, in the coming of Jesus Christ, that:
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
When God said, “let us make man in our image,” He was not speaking to another god. God was speaking to His own Word, who was with God and, in fact, was God. God was not talking to a spirit creature he had made. He was speaking to His own Spirit. God, through His own Word and Spirit, made man in His own singular image. This is the glorious truth of Scripture.
Jeremiah Rowe sr.
You did a marvelous job of explaining how a verse of Scripture can be abused by those with an agenda, then circled back to correctly render it properly and doctrinally. It was a pleasure to read your post !
Genesis 1:26 Trinitarian Deception, (Let Us)?
World English Bible
God said, (Let us) make man in (our) image, after (our) likeness.
Trinitarians believe because GOD said (Let Us) make man in (our) image, after our likeness, GOD was talking to the two members of the TRINITY who they believe are Jesus and a Separate person called the Holy Spirit.
However, very sadly, Trinitarians have become experts at contradicting the word of GOD, because GOD always says He was ALONE doing the creating BY MYSELF in many verses like Isaiah 44:24: Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who ALONE stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth BY MYSELF.
Isaiah 44:24
Notice in the next verse of Genesis 1:27: So (God) created man in (His) own image; in the image of (God He) created him; male and female (He) created them. BSB.
Notice how we do NOT read: And (WE) created man in (OUR) Image, as we would expect if GOD was talking to His SON Jesus, but instead we read the singular words for GOD with the singular word (HE) and (HIM) for ONE PERSON who is doing the creating just as we are told by GOD Himself in Isaiah 44:24.
God of Israel, with singular verb.
In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'", Elohim is singular. Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we").[11]
11. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar: 124g, without article 125f, with article 126e, with the singular 145h, with plural 132h,145i"
When God said, “let us make man in our image,” He was not speaking to another god. God was speaking to His own Word, who was with God and, in fact, was God. God was not talking to a spirit creature he had made. He was speaking to His own Spirit. God, through His own Word and Spirit, made man in His own singular image. This is the glorious truth of Scripture.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So according to you, there are THREE GODS?
1. GOD the Father.
2. GOD the SON.
3. GOD the Holy Spirit.
This alone proves the TRINITY is false.
@@IsJesusGod. This reminds me of a 2d character hearing about a 3d-figure and saying: so there are multiple shapes but it is still one shape? This alone proves that a 3d-figure cannot be true.
And yes, probably there is something wrong with the image above. Just as the example of the unity in marriage is becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24, Mat 19:5, Mark 10:8, Eph 5:31). Love is not self-seeking so you need someone to love, but God is love and does not need anything.
However, I just belief that God can be more complex than I understand/see at the moment.
@@tieskedh GOD tells us over, and over again how He is ONE person and GOD alone on His own.
And yet what is so simple to understand, most refuse to understand.
Hey Anthony, I was referred here by a Facebook friend and found the video of interest. Here is an experiment for you that I think demonstrates Heiser’s position has overwhelmingly more evidence:
Download Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis PDF from the University of Chicago website. The document is 170 pages. In the PDF search box type the cohortative phrase “Let us” then count how many times the construct is used in Mesopotamian texts in similar contexts to Genesis 1 to refer to divine council members addressing each other.
I believe this will convince you this construct was the literary standard for having divine beings address each other in Genesis’ Near Eastern context. Examples: pages 19 (line 40, 46), 23 (line 121, 125, 127), 48 (lines 51, 53), 53 (line 154), 69 (line 26) wherein the gods use the cohortative in the creation of man: “Let us slay two Lamga gods. With their blood let us create mankind.”
I'm working on a Masters in Theology now and I am constantly stunned by many of the so called "scholars." I think they're poor logicians who are too consumed by their own interpretive models. The best Theologians are also good Philosophers, who not only exegete the text but also rationally assess it against the rest of Scripture.
What area are you specialising in?
@@MrChemenger
It's specializing in Apologetics, but because it is still a Theology degree there is a lot of overlap with Biblical studies.
Thanks for this video and I do agree with what you presented. I not sure what I am about to present is how Michael Heiser is viewing the information he has gathered, so what I think is he is presenting what the Hebrews view of this text is a before Christ and not after Christ view. I look at it like a big puzzle and the biggest piece is in the center and one could have a different view until that piece is put in the puzzle. In this analogy Jesus is that missing puzzle piece which now gives the correct view of the text in question.
Great stuff here. Respect!
Great job. I agree with your view from Hebrew. I make the same points from Hebrew.
Thank you really enjoyed your Old Testament references for the Trinity. Great work
The pagan trinity is not taught in the Holy Bible, because it is a terrible deception that DENIES the Christ 1 John 2:22.
@@IsJesusGod. Refute the video
@@spazomaz Already have done.
This is sooooo gooooood
Heiser uses a false analogy when he likens the creation of man to getting pizza. One is doing, the other is getting. Better to use the analogy of making pizza, but imagining a team of cooks busily preparing the ingredients for making pizza is not quite what Heiser had in mind.
I'd like to also note that when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, it says YHWH called down fire from YHWH. Thats definitely a 2 personage statement.
Thank you SO much for this video!!!!
This is seriously helpful! Thank you so much.
Another topic you should talk about is Michael Heiser's view that Genesis 1:26-28 are about creating many humans and that the account in Genesis two regarding Adam and Eve is about two specific humans he later created to be like high priests of the already existing human race.
He has a bunch of pretty twisted theories like that, and I have a lot of friends who trust him! I was open to him when I first started listening to him but after his series on the Divine council I realized he's not someone I want to trust.
I absolutely agree with Dr Heiser on this one ( Anthony ) ! and i'm so sorry that you don't ? > Dr Heiser is a truely wonderfull teacher !!! > ( i'm glad you have his book > The Unseen Realm ) his podcast and seminars are a real blessing to all of us . thank you .
For shame. Too many people follow Heiser on everything he says and can't think clearly through simple issues. The Triune God made man, not angels. That makes it easy to decide who God was speaking to.
@@MrCharlesMartel Dear Sir ! > The only one here who can't think clearly is you ? > and i quote ( The Triune God made man ; NOT ANGELS )? > So my question to you is ( where do Angels come from ) ?
@@paulcoffey2667 You misread what I said. The Triune God is the creator and maker of all things. My point is that it was the Triune God and not the angels who made man.
With wisdom God created the heavens and the earth
With Jesus, by Jesus, through Jesus
Amazing Gods Wisdom took on form just like His word did ... in my oppinion critics and believers have way more that a trinity of issues to answer ..... more like many ...
Glory to God
@@Mellownius - no.
@@Charles.Wright thank you for your detailed annalsys ... could you also put a bow on top please 😉
Very good. Thank you!
Thank you.
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM, this is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:13-15)
Jesus answered, "Truly I tell you, before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58)
I wonder if Heiser (who I respect highly) is looking at these as two separate literary works that belong together in a thematic way but not literarily together. Then you could see why he might use the term 'anachronistic'. However, your point on his anachronism is well taken. I don't know if you get my meaning, but in the historical context, the Tanakh is a very different book from a different age from the New Testament, which as we all know came much later. Just my musing...
Great beard my man 👍
Thanks
Hey Anthony. I have a few questions I have been thinking about. if Christ is the Angel of the Lord, then that means prior before he was his mother womb as a baby, it was recorded that became a Man temporarily in Judges as Malak Yahweh. Doesn't that mean he ceased being human to become human again in his mother Womb? Wouldn't that imply that his human life ceased to exist with his human body? how did he do that with out dying.
Perhaps in Old Testament, Jesus wasn’t yet an actual human even though he appeared as one?
@@johnle231 I don't know man. the Angel had conversation in Judges 13 that makes look like he is claiming to be human " 9And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God returned to the woman as she was sitting in the field; but her husband Manoah was not with her. 10The woman ran quickly to tell her husband, “Behold, the man who came to me the other day has reappeared!”
11So Manoah got up and followed his wife. When he came to the man, he asked, “Are you the man who spoke to my wife?”
“I am,” he said.
@@p.b3880 The Lord and two angels appear to Abraham in ch. 18,19 is this Visible YHWH a man or are the two angels men ? They appear as men but are not human.
@@davidjanbaz7728 so they where men, but not human? I am not saying any of you are wrong, but I just looking for the answer.
Angels and God appearing in the form or shape of a man in the Old Testament doesn’t mean they actually take on the NATURE of man. For example, the Holy Spirit appeared visibly in the shape of a dove, that doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit is a dove by nature. So the Angel of the LORD appearing visibly as man in the OT doesn’t mean he has taken on a human nature. That only happens once in the Incarnation of Jesus where he actually becomes flesh (has a real human nature).
Why would God announce to himself that he is making man kind in his own image?
Great video
I take that you missed the point of necessity of saying it if there is omniscience among the members of the trinity. However, if it’s the heavenly host it’s perfectly natural to expect the enunciation.
Pardon if my English gets in the way. If need clarification I will try my best.
Great exposition Anthony. This is an important topic that had to be addressed as Heiser's view (not original to him of course) has caused a measure of confusion among his Christian readers.
What I would like to know is what is Michael Heiser‘s motivation for claiming God is speaking to angels if he (MH) does in fact believe in the Trinity? I mean, even somebody as uneducated as myself knows that the angels had no part in creation!!!! 😂
@ matthewsouthwell3500 the thing is that it is the Jewish interpretation also, so he isn’t making this up. Yet Jews don’t think God made us in the image of angels.
I think this view is consistent with the Trinity, he’s just saying that God isn’t referring to them in this particular text, just like the vast majority of Trinitarian conservative scholars say about the passage today.
@@samueljennings4809 It isn't "the" Jewish interpretation. Jewish sources abound with interpretations. I can give you a dozen different interpretations found in rabbinic sources. Moreover, I can also provide Jewish sources that give a "two powers" (i.e. God and His Word) and "three powers" (i.e. God, His Word, and His Shekinah) interpretation (e.g. Targum Neofiti). In any case, it is the text of Scripture that is infallible, and the textual and intertextual evidence supplied in the video shows why the Christian church throughout its history has rightly interpreted the text in a Trinitarian way even if there is a modern downgrade trend among certain scholars.
Dr Heiser is a wonderfull teacher > his books / seminars and his podcasts are totally and highly recommanded > he's a hugh blessing to us all !!! ( Thank you Dr Heiser ) .
Thank you Anthony for not trashing Dr heiser .... he knows your correct but I think he does it as show for the critics ... nice job not trashing him ... he’s pretty smart and open minded and is the reason many , many people who left church came back because he opened to the whole truth like you do .... much love
can't tell you how thankful I am that you are willing to correct others. Hoping Heiser can be corrected! GBU bro!
14:42 Anthony is Right!!!
" For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the *image* of his *Son,* that he might be the firstborn among many brethren " Rom 8:29
Have you heard of Michael Pearl? He has some great content at The Door, here on RUclips. I appreciate the content you both put out.
Michael Pearl? The one who wrote for that free Bible comic book or something?
@@Pyroverbs205 There is a comic version, like a Bible/Gospel synopsis written in multiple languages, but he has authored many books. I have a good number of them.
His Romans study is really great here on yt.
@@mrs.jaywojo5426 God-willing, I'll go check it out (The Door?). I've not heard of these other books or videos, but based from the comic book (if he is the same guy) it sounds like those are going to be interesting as well. Thanks for recommending those. God bless
Heiser's reading of Genesis 1:26 was not originally proposed by Heiser. The view was held by many scholars long before him. Dr. Peter Gentry also holds to a similar reading as do many other ancient near eastern scholars.
I mention this because people love to make this about Heiser because he's popularized these views on RUclips quite recently. But they don't acknowledge there is a whole scholarship community that he's drawing from.
Perhaps you should have a conversation with a plurality of ANE scholars on your channel and let them explain why they hold to that particular reading. See what I did there 😉.
Yes, I see what you did there: you ignored the argumentation set forth in the video and appealed to authority. Downright impressive!!!
Anthony, Great Response to Heiser’s incorrect belief on Genesis 1:26!
Any way you would consider doing a response to Heiser’s view of Psalm 82?? Would love it.
Hi Craig, I do recall commenting somewhere about it in light of Jesus' usage of Psalm 82 in John 10. I just can't remember what show it was in. If I find it, I will put it up as a separate video.
What about Genesis 3:22
Then the LORD God said,
"Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.
Where are the angels?
Thank you
Genesis 1:26 Trinitarian Deception, (Let Us)?
World English Bible
God said, (Let us) make man in (our) image, after (our) likeness.
Trinitarians believe because GOD said (Let Us) make man in (our) image, after our likeness, GOD was talking to the two members of the TRINITY who they believe are Jesus and a Separate person called the Holy Spirit.
However, very sadly, Trinitarians have become experts at contradicting the word of GOD, because GOD always says He was ALONE doing the creating BY MYSELF in many verses like Isaiah 44:24: Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who ALONE stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth BY MYSELF.
Isaiah 44:24
Notice in the next verse of Genesis 1:27: So (God) created man in (His) own image; in the image of (God He) created him; male and female (He) created them. BSB.
Notice how we do NOT read: And (WE) created man in (OUR) Image, as we would expect if GOD was talking to His SON Jesus, but instead we read the singular words for GOD with the singular word (HE) and (HIM) for ONE PERSON who is doing the creating just as we are told by GOD Himself in Isaiah 44:24.
God of Israel, with singular verb.
In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'", Elohim is singular. Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we").[11]
11. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar: 124g, without article 125f, with article 126e, with the singular 145h, with plural 132h,145i"
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Revelation 1:8,
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says Lord God, the One being, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty.
1. Revelation 1:8,
is GOD the Father, and NOT Jesus.
This is easy to understand because we clearly see who the person is in this verse which” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:8.
IT IS WORTH KNOWING THAT JESUS IS NEVER EVER CALLED: THE LORD GOD, OR THE ALMIGHTY.
Notice below how super Trinitarian Barns Notes confirms *Revelation 1:8 should NOT be used as poof of Jesus being GOD,* contradicting what MOST Trinitarians say:
And Jesus also said His Father is the only ONE true GOD in John 17;3.
This concludes Revelation 1:8 is not about Jesus, but GOD almighty ALONE.
Proving the Trinitarian claim is false.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Romans 9:5 FALSE Trinitarian Translations.
New International Version
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Messiah, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen.
New King James Version
of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
There are many modern translations that are very different and deceptive by making Paul sound like he is saying Jesus is: God over all.
The oldest Bible of the Codex Vaticanus reads: the Christ the according to flesh the being over all God blessed to the ages Amen.
There is a good translation by Good News Translation:
they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race.
May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen.
The simple truth is, there are NO contradictions by Paul who only ever taught the Father is ONE PERSON and GOD ALONE, and did NOT teach in his other hand Jesus is also GOD in a TRINITY.
Paul is simply referring to GOD the Father in Romans 9:5 saying: being over all God blessed to the ages Amen, as in Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
If Paul believed Jesus was GOD, there would be many teachings by Paul elsewhere in his many writings saying he believed Jesus is GOD.
And yet what we find is that there are NO teachings anywhere in Paul’s many writings teaching Jesus is GOD.
But instead we find quite the OPPOSITE and an amazing clear confession by Paul referring to exactly what he believed in 1 Corinthians 8:6,
Yet for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Notice Paul tells us: there is one God, and then continues to tell us who that one GOD is, by then saying, (the Father).
Notice a simple Biblical tact.
There is NOTHING by Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus is also GOD, or is the same One True GOD, or that the Holy Spirit is a SEPARATE person or that the One True GOD is THREE persons as taught in the TRINITY.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Actually the same is used for rhe the Father at 2 cor 11:31.
------------------------------
So you believe the Father is the SON?
And in that case you DENY the Father and the SON as 1 John 2:22 tells us:
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας The simple truth is, there are NO contradictions by Paul who only ever taught the Father is ONE PERSON and GOD ALONE, and did NOT teach in his other hand Jesus is also GOD in a TRINITY.
Paul is simply referring to GOD the Father in Romans 9:5 saying: being over all God blessed to the ages Amen, as in Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
If Paul believed Jesus was GOD, there would be many teachings by Paul elsewhere in his many writings saying he believed Jesus is GOD.
And yet what we find is that there are NO teachings anywhere in Paul’s many writings teaching Jesus is GOD.
But instead we find quite the OPPOSITE and an amazing clear confession by Paul referring to exactly what he believed in 1 Corinthians 8:6,
Yet for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Do you believe that the One God became/manifested in the flesh? The One God became Man. 1 Timothy 3:16, John1:1&14, Philippians 2:6-7, 1 John 4:2. and that Jesus is both God and Man?,,,,if you do believe the above, here is the follow up question, do you believe that, there is the Father and the Son? and Jesus is both Isaiah 9:6 and Matthew 16:6, 1 timothy 2:5 and 1 John 2:23?
I absolutely love that book The Unseen Realm it's great ....but I must say ...I couldn't bring myself to agree with Michael on this either ...I heard him out and I saw what he tried to say but it just didn't comport....because when God said "our" that's plural but "image" is singular ....the Image belongs to God not the Angels so I couldn't agree with that statement ....just like we are Image bearers of God not the Angels and God
@@brandedforchrist first off I never said anything about how he "looked" that was all your inference if you want to debate you came to the wrong person ....im going to entertain this one response and that's it because I'm not one to go back and forth at all so just know I will not respond after this.... correct we are being changed into the image of Christ which is God in whom we are image bearers of as well yes the angels bear the image of God as well thats why I said not the Angels image because we are not image bearers of Angels we are image bearers of God ....the image BELONGS to Him He is what we are "imaged" after both the Angels and us and the angels are not creators there is only one creator and that is God ....go find someone else to debate with friend this response was for Anthony and not meant as a hook to see what fish I could snag into a debate with ....good day to you
Why do you love the book? Just asking
I like Hieser and do agree with the Dueteronomy 32 worldview, but he however is all too eager to make verses that have nothing to do with the devine council about the devine council. He's doing this alot in his current Revelation study.
Also the idea of God calling on the angels when creating man came from Rashi an early jewish commentator who lived in the 12 century.
From then on many rabbis get their writings from him.
It is who who said that since the angels have not been included in God's creation, God in His humiliation then includes them.
Also angel is only mentioned in Genesis chapter 3.
We need to intrepret scripture with scripture
Also the idea of God calling on the angels when creating man came from Rashi an early jewish commentator who lived in the 12 century.
From then on many rabbis get their writings from him.
It is who who said that since the angels have not been included in God's creation, God in His humiliation then includes them.
Also angel is only mentioned in Genesis chapter 3.
We need to interpret scripture with scripture.
Please refer to One For Israel ministry on Genesis 1:26 where I obtained my comments.
Thank you
So Heiser believes in the Trinity - which is from Eternity - but when God spoke "Let Us make..." the Son and the Holy Spirit were...out getting coffee?... :-D
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm they are one being. Why would they be out getting coffee. “Let us make” is a plural verb form. Look at verse 27: “So God created” is a singular verb form in the Hebrew. Why would it go from plural verb to singular verb? This wasn’t covered in the video, but it is a major part of Heiser’s argument. Elohim is translated God or gods based on the plural or singular verb form. So this leaves some questions that weren’t answered I would say.
@@nocontent4908- "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. "
Repeated...3 times. Is Bible just being loquacious there?
@@cogit0ergo705 not sure what your point is. The Father, Son and Spirit created all things. Heiser believes the same thing. I’m not sure you understand the argument.
@@nocontent4908 - I do. You don't understand that his argument is incoherent. :-D
Very Good explanation!!!! Thank You for making a video on this............I posted my thoughts as well. Heiser is an apostate teacher and misleads many. Heiser NEVER mentions the 2nd Adam and that the Faithful are conformed to the 2nd Adam>>>>>>Jesus the Son of God. The same is for the sons of God in the OT, they are given that title and satus is because they are conformed to the Son of God........the sons of God are "SANCTIFIED" made Holy............Job 1: 4 and 5 tell us that.
I view Gen 1:26 as the Trinity speaking aloud for the benefit of the divine council to hear (compare Jesus speaking aloud to the Father for the sake of the listeners in John 11:42). This solves the issue of 'Why would the members of the Trinity need to inform one another, they know what each person is thinking' as IIRC Dr Heiser has mentioned before.
That is ambiguous. The issue is who is being spoken *to*, not who else might be overheating the discussion. Exegetically and historically it is the Father speaking to the Son and the Spirit. They are the ones who made man, and man was made in the image of the triune God.
@@MrCharlesMartel I would say it's the members of the Trinity speaking to one another, in order that the listeners could perceive what was decided by the Godhead.
So "let us make man in our image" so God needs help from his heavenly host to create?.. I think not being that Christ is shown in being instrumental in all of creation due to John 1 and Colossians 1 the more I listened to Heiser the more I disagreed not saying I didn't like or respect him he's with the Lord now
Which person of the Trinity was Gen 3::22 to?
Your question is hard to understand. I would love to answer this but I'm not sure what you're asking.
This is good. But I have to side with Heiser. I’ll keep studying this though. I ABSOLUTELY believe in the Trinity but I don’t believe in Genesis the “typical” way either. But love this dialogue!
I hope Jesus becomes enough for you again someday.
What's amazing to me is, the reality is that Dr. Heiser is off and too many people just are blind to it because he SEEMS to really know what he's talking about. But as Scripture says, "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17). Dr. Heiser engages in much speculation, assumption and logical fallacies to arrive at many of his conclusions.
This I've seen firsthand from reading his book "Reversing Hermon." The title alone assumes Hermon even happened, based on the apocryphal book of Enoch and a flawed misreading of Genesis 6:1-4. So people need to beware of those who seem right, but really need to step back and take a logic course and reread what they've written to understand that bad reasoning and bad hermeneutics is not eradicated simply because you learned Hebrew and some semitic languages at a non-Christian university (I speak as one who knows both Hebrew and Greek)
My Hebrew professor has been teaching Hebrew for over 40 years, while Dr. Heiser just received his degree in Hebrew and Semitic languages in 2004. This means Heiser is relatively new to Hebrew and probably makes "neophyte" mistakes, as opposed to those more seasoned in the language. So I would not trust his Hebrew but so much.
Dear Sir Those are brave words ( but just words all the same ) ? > maybe you should write a paper and have it peer reviewed ? > we are all still waiting for Dr James Write rebuttle of Dr Heiser's ( psalm 82 / and 89 ) and ( john 10 ) Dr Heiser does not stand along in his views on this matter !!!! Thank you .
@@paulcoffey2667 Perhaps, but I do know what I'm talking about. Dr. Heiser is prone to speculation and logical fallacies.
His exegesis is also bad, especially what he claims for Deut. 4:19, where he somehow, despite the immediate context, got "sons of God" or "angels" from "host of heaven" in that verse. Nonsense. Host of heaven there is speaking of the heavenly bodies, like sun, moon, stars, etc. It's right there in the context.
But Heiser sees "sons of God" or "angels," which makes no sense in that context.
Heiser not being alone doesn't prove anything. If you find someone to agree with you that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn't prove you're right; it just proves you're both wrong.
@@CRoadwarrior I do wish you all the best with your ( paper ) and then submitting it for PEER review > ( maybe you can ask Anthony for some help ) lol !!!! > End of Transmission .
@@paulcoffey2667 I don't know what it is with you and "peer reviewed" papers. How about good old, simple yet accurate Bible interpretation based on sound hermeneutics? A good deal of nonsense can come from "peer reviewed" papers; I know because I'm studying for my Masters and have seen it. The point is, nonsense and bad reasoning is just that, and that's what Heiser engages in. It is absolute nonsense to argue that "host of heaven" in Deut. 32:8 is speaking of angelic beings, as the CONTEXT rules that meaning out. This "peer" calls Heiser out on that gross error in interpretation. And since I can read both Hebrew and Greek, I'm well within my right to do so. There's your "peer review." and your "paper." The question is, how are YOU going to deal with that truth.
@@CRoadwarrior I'm not and don't have too Dr Heiser has cover all the bases with Peer reviewed material ( check his sources ) and if you still are unhappy with them > please do send Dr Heiser a run down of all his mistakes !!! > thank you and good night > End of Transmission !!!
If the "divine counsel" that Heiser believes is not really there, (because God is communicating the Trinity in Gen. 1:26), then Heiser loses a significant foundation to His theory of the "divine counsel". He needs it to be true in his mind to make the puzzle pieces fit everywhere else.
I don't see that at all. Even Anthony acknowledges the divine council idea is elsewhere. Heiser's view really depends on how the word elohim is used. While vastly referring to the singular (but multipersonal) God of Israel the word is also clearly used of spirit beings that are other than and less than god. If you deny that you deny a spiritual afterlife and the existence of angels and demons because all those things get called elohim.
@@EulersIdentityCrisis I think that the reason that Heiser wants to see Gen 1:26 as the divine counsel is to show that they are of greater value, importance, and power than others referred to as elohim. Once that is accepted, (these elohim are more significant), then you would look for where they would fit into the hierarchy of the spiritual & physical realms. This is where he justifies them being of a higher order because they would be the ones given rule or supervision over territories or countries.
I don't think that he should have to rely on any value from Gen. 1:26, since God can choose to distribute authority, power, or value however He chooses for His own reasons.
So, I think this idea is in Heiser's own theological framework and he believes that it is necessary for reasons that I don't see in any of his explanations or teachings. As Anthony discussed, Heiser understands the presence of the Trinity throughout the OT, so there is not a logical reason to hold to that interpretation here based on the text itself. He has some other reason(s).
I think he starts w/ Psalm 82 as foundational ....
Ugh, the day this Pentecostal olive branch to cults and progressives fades into irrelevance will finally be the day the church can start actually studying apologetics again. It's like this generation's deliverance ministries. Thank you for at least taking some of Heiser's nonsense to bat. I hope your tribe increases and will what I can where I can as well.
🤔heiser is the reason many people want to study apologetics again ...
@@Mellownius That deeply and truly breaks my heart. But it's always the trend with cults. What people won't do for the truth, they'll become unnaturally passionate for a lie. Or in this case, a guy who knows how to weasel around words so much that he can't he held accountable for anything while at the same time bringing everyone's attention away from Jesus and onto the most mundane and bizarre extra-biblical literature.
@@ShadyOakMinistries I’m not sure how I feel about Heiser being a cult .... I suppose having the ability to speak Biblical Hebrew would and could afford the ability to dance around words a good bit ... I have watched most of his early work and in my opinion once you’ve seen most of it you’ve basicly seen what he says ... I don’t disagree with him about genesis 6 or any of his divine council stuff except to add it may be more of a divine assembly ... in my oppinion all of scripture is filled with heavenly assembly type language ... much older Christians still like to lean on Paul for all of their doctrine but young Christians have questions about certain things that a lot of pastors don’t know themselves much less do sermon on them so now comes Heiser and for that matter people like Rogers also ... not much need for the breakdown of Word of the Lord Angel of the Lord type info in most churches but for those who have always questioned this Heiser Rogers ken Johnson and a few others fill in nicely ... I personaly have always known or been aware and ready to recieve this full understanding ... never needed heiser or Rogers but they do add to this discussion because they speak and read Biblical Hebrew ... fascinating in my opinion ... I’m not overly concerned because Jesus said he who is not against us is on our part .. much love sir
@@Mellownius I don't claim Heiser followers are in a cult. I said he's an olive branch to cults and progressives. His handling of scripture is so sloppy and slimy that his name comes up every single time I am engaging with Mormons that want to argue for the Bible teaching there is more than one God, Muslims claiming that we are polytheists, and progressives claiming that the Bible can't be understood given how many bizarre conclusions are proposed by scholars like Heiser. He's not only a bane of people trying to outreach, but can't stand on the plain and simple truths of scripture. In trying to present something new and entertaining, he's gone beyond scripture to the Kabbalah and extra biblical literature to prove points he's all too eager to deny the moment you take them to their logical conclusion. That's why I don't want him to have any influence in apologetics. He's only causing confusion at best, and enabling deceivers at worst.
Not true. In fact he was asked to present his argument against the LDS using his arguments to support their theology.
Google Heiser BYU
Anthony, have you tried to get Heiser to come on and talk about this stuff? He seems pretty generous with his time.
I'm about 50/50 on this. One of the the things that I think the divine council answers better is the repeated language in Chapter 3 and 11. The latter two "us" references seem undoubtedly Divine Council vis a vis the serpent and Babel/Deuteronomy 32. It was really interesting you brought up Deut 32 as forming an inclusio with Genesis 1. But Deuteronomy 32 might be the most explicit Divine Council chapter in the entire bible. So even that seems to help both sides just as much.
Tons more to say but I doubt Anthony reads this. lol
In the livestream where Anthony addressed this question he mentioned his intent to try to speak to Heiser at the next ETS meeting.
Anthony's disagreement with Heiser is on Genesis 1:26 as a reference to the Divine Council, not to the issue of a Divine Council per se. As I understand it, whether or not the Divine Council is spoken of in Deuteronomy 32:8 is irrelevant to Anthony's point which is that Deuteronomy 32:11 speaks about God the same way Genesis 1:2 speaks about the Spirit. The Spirit was involved in the creation of the world and the recreation of Israel at the Exodus. This fits perfectly with Genesis 1:26 and the rest of the Bible which ascribes the creation of man and the world to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and never ascribes this to angels. Heiser's view requires ignoring this fact, and it also requires him to denude the language in Genesis 1:26 to make it fit with his view.
@@MrCharlesMartel Heiser doesn't argue angels were involved in creation. He isn't arguing the divine beings of verse 26 are being described as the creator of verse 27. Anthony's point about the grammar is interesting and given that's Heiser's field I'd like to hear his response. As to the inclusio, I get Anthony's point. I'm merely pointing out that there are repeated references to divine beings throughout Deuteronomy 32--far more than just verse 8. In fact references to "heavens" began and end the song. Those aren't generic references to astronomical objects either. So I would agree Chapter 32 dips into creation language. But, like Psalm 8, it does so also with references to the heavenly host and mans position juxtaposed with them.
@@EulersIdentityCrisis “Heiser doesn’t argue angels were involved in creation.” Exactly. Which is why his interpretation doesn’t work.
Debate him?
@@MrCharlesMartel It does work when you realize the "let us" is literary standard for Mesopotamian literature.
Additionally the trinity interpretation of this passage undermines the ontology of the trinity.
I’m just wondering if anyone uses the term Divine Counsel to refer to the Trinity instead of angels. Apparently that’s not how Heiser uses the term but it just seems to make sense that the Trinity would be a Divine Counsel.
This wording is problematic because it places God and the Angels at the same level.
In this way, God is not the only creator of mankind. It stands to saying that angles and God are co-creators, which is wrong.
Good video Anthony, and you make convincing points - but I would differ on how the word “image” is used in Genesis 1:26.
Does the Father himself have an image? Can you give any references of such in the Tanakh or NT? Does the Holy Spirit have an image? If not, how is humanity made in the image of the Father? Wouldn’t it be better to say that the “God” in Genesis 1:26-27 is the Son, as the Lord of angelic hosts, declaring to the angels that he will make man in his “image” and likeness - especially in light of John 1, Hebrews 1, & Colossians 1 which clearly say that Jesus created all things?
This is where I would find some holes in your argumentation. Thanks again for sharing your view bro. Always appreciate your heart and ministry to God and his people.
I read two of his books, ""unseen Realm"".. Psalms 82:1.
(2)"""" Supernatural"""
And hopefully you learned that he shouldn't be given the time of day after seeing just how far he can lead people from the gospel in the worship of angels and causing disputes over endless genealogies.
@@ShadyOakMinistries genealogies? How did that get smuggled in🙂
@@doctorisout I'm quoting the whole passage when Paul warned Timothy about in 1 Timothy 1:4. That is in the hope those reading would look up the passage rather than assume I'm a Hebrew scholar and conclude I'm right in my application of the text.
Anthony: You are bad.
I actually agree with Heiser on this. Genesis look at genesis through Church father lenses but Christianity and the church fathers are long after Genesis was written. So we must look at genesis in an ancient Jewish context rather than a church context. Genesis was written in response to ancient neareastsrn creation accounts. Mesopotamia and Egypt believed that multiple gods took part in creation, and so genesis continues to go with that theme, but genesis exalts God as the only creator and the others within the counsel as his counsel members rather than gods as well. Heiser’s view is actually consistent with the time and culture that genesis was written in
Love Heiser’s work but must agree with anthony regarding to this topic. Genesis 1:26 is the Trinity.
Mr Heiser just seems to get it wrong on so many scriptures he try to bring "new knowledge" to.. he is like a modern day gnostic.
Plenty of issues with saying God's talking to the council of angels or anyone else other than the Son & the Holy Spirit. Just one is that no angel or another being in heaven or on earth are created in the IMAGE OF GOD, even though the angels may be called the sons of God in the OT they are NOT made in the IMAGE of God. So its understood by this statement by God that the others who His talking to have the same image as the one speaking in this case God..
What is your concept of "image bearing"? God really doesn't need a bearer in a realm where he already abides (heaven), so yeah..your point is mute.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This understanding would have been unknown to the author of the OT. so ANE scholars are not looking at how other gentile church fathers looked at the text but the author of the text in his time
Curious ... would it not be better served to say divine assembly as opposed to divine council ?
You miss your beard, don't you?
The FATHER IS THE ( WILL )
The WORD IS THE SON ( JESUS )
The HOLY SPIRIT IS THE ( WORKS )
THE TRINITY ( 3 as 1 GOD ) continue
Let ( US ) make man in our image!
The ( US ) is JESUS BEFORE HE BECAME HUMAN!! Proof John 17:5
Jesus said in his prayer…Father Glorify me with yourself WITH the Glory I had with you BEFORE the World Was!!. Another verse says…God created all things THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!! So, what do you think? Thanks for your channel
Secondly, it’s not our Will but God’s Will.
It’s not our word, but Jesus is the Word of life we need.
It’s not our works, but it’s the Works of the Holy Spirit that we participate in with God for His Glory!!
"Read verses Genesis 1:26, then God makes it clear in verse 1:27. "so God created man In his OWN Image"" I said this before the edit. Seems a bit misleading, what I was saying is the argument against the "divine counsel" and "angels and God" ideas. God refers to himself as plural, then doubles down that it was he in his own image made man. I believe its referring to father, son, holy spirit.
You can't pit what is said in one verse against what is said in another verse and pretend you are engaging in responsible exegesis or theology. Just like John 1:1 says that the word was "with God" AND "was God", and you can't reject one in the name of holding to the other, so Genesis 1:26-27 speaks of one God AND a plurality of persons creating man. You have to do just both to the plural and to the singular. BTW, you completely ignored everything stated in the video. But Hey, you are at least being faithful to Heiser, and that is what counts, right?
@@MrCharlesMartel God talks about himself as plural. In v26. In v 27 he says he did it in his own image. My comment must be misleading. I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. Its a great mystery though I don't fully understand. 1 timothy 3:16.
Michael's interpretation is tortured here.
Agreed 🤦♂️👊✌
I just posted your video on Heiser's Divine Council Worldview private facebook group (4.5k members with Heiser himself as one of the Admins) and it was immediately removed... Very shady!
Anthony, your critique of Heiser is thoughtful and generous. However, I think you are missing the primary point that Heiser is trying to make. To speak of the Divine Council does not necessarily exclude the Trinity. It is just that no ancient Israelite would have understood the Trinity when Genesis was written. But they would have understood the Divine Council. The Trinity is a later development, resulting from Second Temple meditation on the Scriptures, trying to wrestle with the "Two Powers" view of God (as in Daniel 7). The doctrine of Trinity arises from the New Testament authors connecting all of the dots present in the Scriptures, as the Jewish theological tradition developed over the centuries, as part of the God's revelation process. Otherwise, if you try to read the Trinity back into Genesis 1, Jews (and others) who know what you are talking about will see this as eisegesis.
Seeing "the Divine Council" as more primitive and more basic to Israelite thought than the larger and more significant fact of God's triune existence is seriously misguided. The Torah was written for Israel, and they were certainly not unitarians just waiting for second temple Jews to understand what they didn't. Remarkably this would suggest that second temple Jews, without the benefit of the New Testament, knew what the Torah meant better than the people at the time of the Exodus and first temple Jews. This way of thinking moves in the wrong direction. If second temple Jews could pick up on multiplicity in the Godhead from the OT then surely the original audience and first temple Jews would have recognized these things as well. You should listen to Anthony's lecture on the Trinity in the Old Testament wherein he discusses how Israel knew God as Triune and would have read the OT, including passages like Genesis 1:26, in light of the way God made Himself known to them.
Even if, contrary to fact, one turns a blind eye to the Trinity in the OT and says the key to this understanding didn't come along until the NT, that still cuts against Heiser's interpretation of Genesis 1:26 and favors a Trinitarian reading of the text. The NT teaches that God is Triune, that all three persons are eternal, that all were present and accounted for and active in creation, and that man was made and is being remade into the image of the Son by the Spirit. Heiser's grammatical argument doesn't work for the reason Anthony pointed out, and neither does his argument from anachronism, unless of course you buy into Heiser's novel (and easily falsifiable) notion that the Divine Council is the be all and end all of OT revelation and is something to be found under every rock and the Trinity is nowhere in sight.
@@MrCharlesMartel Please look at Heiser's work on "The Two Powers". To suggest that the Divine Council and the Trinity are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy. It is just that it took awhile for the OT people of God to discover God's Triune nature, as ultimately pointed to in the NT. Beware of the trap set by 19th century German higher criticism. It will take you down before you know what happened to you.
@@clarkemorledge2398 First, I didn't say that Heiser views the Trinity and the Divine Council as mutually exclusive. I took issue with the notion that the Divine Council was part and parcel of ancient Israelite belief and the Trinity was not. The Trinity was not a mere product of second temple Judaism. It is part of the deposit of faith, i.e. what God disclosed about Himself in the prophetic writings. Post-Christian Rabbinic Judaism's attempts to suppress this belief attest to its prior revelation; Rabbinic Judaism did not give rise to it, and neither did second temple Judaism against which it was reacting. Second, I pointed out that there is a striking incongruity in your line of thinking: somehow second temple Jews, on your view, were able to see in the OT, without the benefit of the NT, what earlier Jews were not able to see. If that is the case, then it follows quite easily that even more ancient Jews, those to whom these things were originally revealed, were all the more in a good position to recognize the truth about God Triune. Third, I took issue with the idea that recognizing the presence of a Divine Council idea in the OT means that everything is about the Divine Council. It isn't. Just because someone gets a new hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail. Fourth, if, as you grant, the NT authors taught that God is Triune, and if this really is the truth about God, then it was true all the way back in Genesis 1. And if, as I assume you also grant, the NT teaches that the Triune God made man, and that man is being renewed into the image of the Son by the Spirit, then this has direct bearing on the meaning of Genesis 1:26. More could be said, but I will conclude with this: you should take seriously your own exhortation about falling prey to novel theories such as those of 19th century higher critics, who also didn't believe that the OT revealed the Trinity and didn't believe that ancient Israelites knew God as Triune. The church for 1800 years confessed that God is Triune on the basis of both Testament, not simply the NT, and it is only the advent of higher criticism that changed all of that.
@@MrCharlesMartel Thank you for kindly clarifying your position. I should then clarify mine: I am not claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity was a mere product of Second Temple Judaism, nor that it was not part of the deposit of faith, originally (nor is Heiser). The Trinity was always there from the beginning, but it was not until the Second Temple Judaism period that we have evidence that Jews were starting to become aware of the theological treasure that lay embedded and yet undiscovered within their own Scriptures. That is the whole point of progressive revelation, that God slowly brought to mind those truths that had always been there. The NT is the culmination of that progressive revelatory process, where all of the dots are finally connected. Progressive revelation is not some new idea, stemming back to 19th century higher critics. Rather, you can find this in the Reformation, and even going back to the early church! I know that you mean well, but let me just focus on this: You somehow have come to believe that the ancient Israelites, if I understand you correctly, consciously held to a Trinitarian theology prior to the Babylonian Exile. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?
@@clarkemorledge2398 You are working hard to clean up one point of confusion in your previous comments but the incongruity remains and isn't resolved by your appeal to "progressive revelation". An appeal to progressive revelation doesn't help for several reasons. First, as I already pointed out, the entire church for the first 1800 years, from the early fathers and continuing through the Medieval, Reformation, and even the Post-Reformation period believed that the Trinity was revealed and made known in the Old Testament.
"The Reformed orthodox insisted--against the Socinians--that a plurality of persons is proved not only from the New but also from the Old Testament. On this point, their assumptions were fully in according with the teachings of all centuries of Christianity, from the patristic period and the Middle Ages through the Reformation. In particular, the Reformed orthodox concern to identify a Trinitarian faith in the Old Testament echoes the traditional assumption, emphasized by early Reformed tradition, of the unity of the faith and of the promise of salvation from the beginnings of the biblical narrative, an assumption that included the claim that fundamental teachings of Christianity were available to the patriarchs." (Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. IV).
I watched his latest video and got a check. He's trying to be too clever.
Take it one step further ...Ariel Cohen Aloro has a channel , he’s like 1000 year old rabbi from the likes of Rabbi Yakuri ... this guy is born again and is literaly dropping bombs on any narrative that states the Old Testament does not speak of Jesus ... he even uses all their pesky little vowel points and adds it all up where literaly every word in scripture points to trinity ... he’s hard to follow because he speaks some English but has no translator but if you keep watching you can pick up on it ..... legit fire ... just dropped a new video today ... 🤩🤩🤩💣💣💣🔥🔥🔥⚔️⚔️⚔️
Cool thx
@@johnle231 check out Gerald shroeder also ...
@@Mellownius
Cool. They’re by the Bible people?
Heiser teaches some weird junk IMO
He is like an ancient alien theorist to me
@@toomanymarys7355 he focuses on angels and men by exalting them as “divine” beings. And he needs the book of Enoch to support some of his beliefs. Yet not even the Catholic Church added the book of Enoch to their Bible. And as you can see in this video he has to reject the traditional way we interpret Genesis 1:26 to support his beliefs.
How did Heiser miss such a glaring problem? His hypothesis implies we were also made in the image of angels?!? He should call Anthony in the future and run his ideas by him before he makes them public.
Fairly good review thanks ....but the answer is right there in front of you. As you explain this it becomes more clearer.
It's the trinty (the creative trinity) GOD (3 in 1) who is speaking to the heavenly hosts (not to each other.)
you do miss a key verse in Job 38v6-7
On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone, 7while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"as God layed the corner stone and foundations the Sons of God clapped and the morning stars sang for joy.
They are involved as spectators. This works out in Exodus 32v39 it says the people made the the golden calf that Aaron made. The people were involved as spectators.
The divine counsel (not council) that preceded man's was between the members of the Trinity. Job 38 doesn't say that angels made man, so it is not relevant to Genesis 1:26 and who is being addressed. Also, there is no "Exodus 32v39". You ignored virtually the entire video to make one bad point. Oy vey!