E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

Post by _Markk »

Full email conversation...no editing less personal information.

Mark
Oct 23
to mshmichaelshei.

Hi Michael,

If I may ask...do you believe the deities and gods, of the nations are real gods that exist or existed?

The reason I ask is that you must know that you have a cult ( no pun intended) following with LDS folks, I was a member for 34 years...many use your understandings as that you personal believe in these gods, and were real and are real. My argument is that you believe ancient Israel believed this.
............

Michael Heiser
Oct 23 (6 days ago)

Yes, I believe that the Bible teaches there is an unseen spiritual world full of divine beings (i.e., non-human spirits). The Bible uses the term elohim for them in several places. That term has nothing to do with a unique set of attributes (it can't, since the biblical writers use it of spirit beings besides God).


I believe the above because the biblical writers believed it. I don't feel at liberty to reject what the biblical writers believed when it comes to spiritual things. If we can make up our own theology by (even in part) rejecting biblical material, by definition it won't be biblical theology.

I'm not surprised by the Mormon thing. Amazing how they find my stuff and never seem to find my article *in a Mormon journal* critiquing Mormonism's views of all this! :-) But what can you do?

http://publications.maxwellinstitute...7e13Heiser.pdf

Mike
--
Mike Heiser, PhD, Hebrew Bible & Semitic Languages
Academic Editor, Logos Bible Software
Adjunct professor, writer, blogger

............

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your speedy response...

I understand you believe in divine beings...what ever that may mean in regards to the nature of them. My question is more in regards to the Canaanite understanding of their nature. Do you believe that their gods were in the nature and being as described in the available writings? From my limited understand of these gods, they had specific rolls and "functions"..."gods of war", "gods of fertility," etc. do you believe they were actually fulfilling these rolls? ( I hope this makes sense?)

Secondly...LDS theology demands that all gods are exalted men, who through obedience to certain eternal laws can become a god, or divine being...in fact they believe that their Heavenly Father, who name is "Elohim"...was once a man, and through obedience became a God. Many LDS members use your writings as a "proof text" for this...do you believe this at all, and why or why not?

Thanks

...........

Michael Heiser

Oct 25 (4 days ago)

I don't understand the first part ... "in nature" - what does that mean? Spirit beings are "by nature" spirit. But the rest (roles) I follow. No. I don't think there's a deity in charge of having babies or anything like that. It was just normal for a pre-scientific culture to attribute things like that to the gods. For example, they knew nothing of MALE infertility since their "science" was based only on naked eye observation (you plant the seed in the woman and it grows - no kids, must be bad soil).


On the last part, I think Mormon theology in stuff like Yahweh once being a man is totally contrived and incoherent. Same for "Lucifer is Jesus' brother." Both ideas are also scripturally unjustifiable in addition to the illogic.

Kind of hard to use my writings as a proof text for this when I specifically reject in the Mormon journal (my response to Bokovoy's response to me). You can't be very literate and come out with that.

Mike
........
and yes, you can quote me.

Mike
........

Hi Michael,

You wrote "don't understand the first part ... "in nature" - what does that mean?"

Please correct me if, and where I am incorrectly interpreting your teachings and beliefs on this subject, as I am sure I am.

I believe your position is that ancient Israel believed in a pantheon of gods, or divine beings...other than humans and angels, and in line with what you have written, you also believe this. So given that...if these gods (elohims) were divine...are they the nature then of what the folks that believed in them to be...i.e...a naked lady, a snake, I believe I read one god was worshipped as half man, half bull? So while I believe you would not believe that, where do you draw the line as to what their actual nature and being is? ( I hope this makes sense, it is hard for me to put this in words)

Also...if LDS theology demands that God is an exalted man, and all men become gods by obedience to eternal laws...then, how can an exalted man be wicked and die like a man? This question is not really to you, but a point I am driving to a LDS friend I am discussing this with in regards to psalms 82 and your writings on it?

Can one just believe in the council/pantheon of gods, without having to accept these gods as the nature they were believed to be?

You are a folk hero to many LDS members, like Barker, that confirms to them that LDS thought is true Christian thought in regards to a general "polytheistic" belief all men can become a god, because, the Bible teaches a council of gods. In case you don't know, we were taught in the LDS church that all worthy men can have all the same power, knowledge, glory and dominion as God the Father...and that we can be exalted to godhood just as He was.


Thanks for trying to understand my thoughts here, sorry if it is a bit scattered.

........


Michael Heiser

Oct 26 (3 days ago)

Mark


Honestly, I'm not following. I believe in spiritual entities that the Old Testament calls elohim. None of what you described above is an Old Testament description. Any descriptions that are (cherubim, e.g.) are metaphoorical - a cherub / Akkadian karub was a "throne guardian"). I'm not sure why you are mixing artistic representations of these things with the biblical stuff.

The ideas are simple enough -- divine beings do things (govern in hierarchy, guard thrones, deliver messages, occasionally kill, etc.). These are tasks, not "natures" so I don't really even buy the categorization.


And the " all men become gods by obedience to eternal laws" is something I'd say point blank is nonsense. Wouldn't it require eternal - i.e., unfailing - obedience by the same logic? But we can't be perfect unless we are God .... so it's a flawed Catch-22.

Mike

........


Mark

Oct 26 (3 days ago)

to Michael


Sorry for my confusions, I am just trying to understand all this.

If the ancient Israelites, truly believed in the gods of the nations, then wouldn't one who believes these same deities exist, have to also accept these deities as the nature the ancient Israelites thought them to be...i.e. Asherah as a consort of El/Baal?

Maybe our disconnect is here...Did ancient Israel, in your opinion, believe the elohim in psalms 82 were the gods of the nations, that was my understanding of your belief?

My understanding is that yes, Israel did believe off and on in these gods, yet God kept correcting them through His prophets.

Thanks

.......


Michael Heiser


Oct 27 (2 days ago)

No. I don't see why that would be the case. Not every ancient text's claims can be true (they disagree and diverge). Same for the beliefs of every ancient civilization. Nothing compels me to commit logical suicide and affirm them all.

Yes, Psalm 82 draws on Deut 32:8-9.

Mike

........

to Michael

Hi Michael,

Then where do we draw the line? Which elohim in the Bible are truly divine beings...and which were just man made idols, such as in Psalms 96:4&5?

Thanks for your time and help here.

.........



Michael Heiser

Oct 27 (2 days ago)

to me

You're missing my point - I'm not following the Ugaritic and other assessments in ANE literature that you named. The Bible doesn't tell us Yahweh had a wife, for example. I'm going with the biblical version of things to articulate biblical theology (by definition, that's what we need to do).


Mike

............
mark

Oct 27 (2 days ago)

to Michael

I am even more confused now...sorry. The Bible is clear that Israel kept going back and worshipped these gods of the nations...which were to them, I assume, consorts, bulls, snakes etc? God clearly corrected them and told them not to worship these gods? So if Am I wrong to read this into the Bible? Why?

The nations believed el/baal/ had a wife/consort, they worshipped asherah, as did disobedient Israel...so I guess what you are saying is that these elohim, are different elohim than those that were at the council? So does this mean that in your opinion ancient Israel believed disobediently in false elohim that do not exist (pslams 96:4,5) , yet also in elohim that truly exist (pslams 82)?

Thanks

........

The example you gave was Asherah being a consort of Baal. Using that example, I don't think they were married (literally - and how can I even use that word of the spiritual realm?)


What the Bible affirms is that the Canaanite religion of Baal included this element. The biblical writers weren't invited to the spiritual world for the wedding (as though there was one). It doesn't comment on the "nature" of things like this other than to reject the worship of Baal. It doesn't even specifically name Baal as one of the gods of Deut 32, though that might be inferred. Consequently, I tend to only affirm what the biblical writers describe with reasonable clarity, without speculating on the rest. This much we know: there are spiritual entities / elohim. Folks living in Canaan called one (or many) "baal". That term became a proper noun in Canaanite texts. Canaanites had a "theology" about Baal, at least some of which we can read about in those texts. I see no reason to "believe" Canaanite theology other than being an accurate reflection of what they thought.. The biblical writers were hostile to that Canaanite theology and the worship of that deity. They used the terms / epithets commonly used among people of their time to talk about that deity (how else would anyone know what they were talking about?). The Bible doesn't give us a window into who Baal "really was" or what he "really did". They aren't concerned with Baal other than to diss the competing theology.

Hope that helps.

Mike

.........

to Michael

Hi Mike,

Baal was just a example I used of one of many gods of the nations, and regards to this...are not the elohims of psalms 96, including baal...nothing more that man made gods?

Do you believe the elohim of psalms 96 are as real as the elohim of psalms 82 that you told me you believe exist, I think this is where I see our disconnect and my confusion?

Thanks


........

End of conversation ...he has not responded since.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Markk,

The link to the MI paper (response?) is not working for me. Can you check it please?

Thanks
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

Post by _subgenius »

hee hee
"rolls" vs roles

Image

Image
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

Post by _Markk »

Fence Sitter wrote:Markk,

The link to the MI paper (response?) is not working for me. Can you check it please?

Thanks


It did not work for me either, but I believe this is it...

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.by ... Heiser.pdf

David B. critiqued it here...

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.by ... okovoy.pdf
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

Post by _Markk »

Michael wrote in part ( in my OP) ...


On the last part, I think Mormon theology in stuff like Yahweh once being a man is totally contrived and incoherent. Same for "Lucifer is Jesus' brother." Both ideas are also scripturally unjustifiable in addition to the illogic.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

Post by _Markk »

He also wrote...in regards to the LDS "Law of eternal progression"...

And the " all men become gods by obedience to eternal laws" is something I'd say point blank is nonsense. Wouldn't it require eternal - i.e., unfailing - obedience by the same logic? But we can't be perfect unless we are God .... so it's a flawed Catch-22.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

Post by _Markk »

I have discussed this topic with different Mopologists over the years, and asked the question below many times, and I have yet to receive a answer...?


"If the elohim is Psalms 82 are indeed gods, then according to LDS thought they would have to be exalted, perfected men? Yet this assembly that God was addressing in psalms 82 were wicked in their judgments and associated with the wicked. So, again according to the demands of LDS theology, how can an exalted perfected man, like your HF...become wicked? "
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: E mail conversation with Michael Heiser

Post by _Markk »

From a Mormon poster at CARM...

The mistake that those LDS scholars (like DCP and others) make is that they conclude that the works of modern scholars like Michael Heiser et al somehow support LDS doctrine, when in fact they undermine it. You could only come to that conclusion by looking at the subject in the most shallow and superficial way. The only thing that the works of those non-LDS scholars have in common with LDS doctrine is the word “council”. Joseph Smith in his King Follet discourse talks about a “council of the gods,” and these modern scholars also talk about something called a “divine council,” and a bunch of mindless LDS “scholars” (heaven forbid!) conclude that they must be talking about the same thing, or that their work somehow supports the teachings of Joseph Smith. Well, they don’t. They undermine it. What Joseph Smith was talking about and what these scholars are talking about are two different things. The only thing that the two have in common is the word “council”. Apart from that, everything else they conclude contradicts and undermines LDS doctrine, not support it.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Post Reply