xjwsforChrist

Okay, dear ones (and peace to you all!), try this: try reading the essay again, this time remembering what you know about the Christ... Who and What HE is... and what Israel knew (or should have known)... about him (i.e., Daniel 10:5-11, 17-21 compare with Revelation 1:12-16; Psalm 110:1, 2; John 8:12-58; Hebrews 11:25, 26, etc.

Now, consider:

Just as the Hebrew word for "spirit"... ruwach... was transliterated to mean both JAH's breath/life, etc. AND His (HOLY) Spirit (Whom Israel SHOULD have known - (2 Corinthians 3:16 ) - it also applies to ANGELS . The Hebrew word transliterated as "angel"... malak... ALSO applies to being which are SPIRIT ( Psalm 104:4).

BUT... CHRIST... is ALSO JAH's messenger ... yes? Indeed, Christ is JAH's FOREMOST messenger... spokesman... mouthpiece... "Word." Yet, Christ is not an angel; he is a SON. Hebrews 1:4-11 And, not counting the other seed of "Sarah," the heavenly "Woman"... JAH only had TWO sons: Sarah's (heaven's) child, "Isaac" (Christ)... and "Hagar's" (earth's) child, "Ishmael" (Adham). Matthew 17:5; Luke 4:3:37

Because of this... because of ENTIRELY MISSING CHRIST (Psalm 2:1-12 )... Dr. Heiser has made the EXACT same mistake AS Israel did... as the Jewish scribes did... as the Jewish priests and religiius leaders did (and do!)... as all Bible translators have and do... and all Bible "scholars" have and do! They are BLIND... and so can't SEE him... IN THE OT... because the refuse to SEE HIM THERE. They REFUSE to acknowledge his EXISTENCE... and PRESENCE HERE ... BEFORE his PHYSICAL manifestation in the flesh! And so they don't go to HIM to receive ears as to where to LOOK... or eyes to SEE... WHERE he is mentioned/referred to there.

Even the WTBTS - They KNOW (and so TEACH) that DAVID was referring to Christ as the second "Lord" mentioned at Psalm 110:1, 2 . Yet, in the other instances, they give glory to others. For instance, Daniel's vision, they give the glory to Gabriel. And in John's vision, they give the glory to Michael. Yet, Daniel and John saw the EXACT SAME person. AND... the "heavenly host' are NOT sons of JAH, but are servants to JAH... AND TO the sons of JAH. Hebrews 1:13, 14

WE, though, who are truly counted among the sons of God... don't have to lean on our own understanding. Because WE have been given a LIGHT (John 1:1-9; 8:12). Given... NOT just to save us, but to HELP us see! He, the very "angel"... or more properly transliterated, SPIRIT... that Dr. Heiser... and SO many others... are "stumbling OVER." He, the ONLY One second to the MOST High, MOST HOLY God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel)... JaHVeH: His SON, by His FREE Wife Sarah, the Jerusalem ABOVE. That one is JAHESHUA, the HOLY One of Israel and CHOSEN One of JAH (MischaJAH).

Look to and listen to HIM as you read Dr. Heiser's dissertation. THEN let me know if you see the holes and errors.

Peace to you all!

YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave OF That One,

Shel

Christ... is not just the Way, Truth, Life, Word, Wisdom, Door, Narrow Gate, etc., dear ones (peace to you all!). He is the CIPHER DECODER KEY. When you listen to/look at HIM... the TRUTH... as to ALL things... is revealed.

Picture, if you will, a code. Whether the Bible, various books of the Bible, scripture, the Revelation... and ANYTHING written... or SAID... as to these. You look at or listen to these things and they SEEM to state/show one thing. THEN... you take, say, a wheel with holes punched in various places and place it OVER what you are reading... or a specially created set of earphones, which you put on and THEN listen to what is being said... and, lo, and behold... you are able to see/hear the TRUE message. Or see where the written/stated message is in error.

THAT is how it works. That is how one can hear or see: "test" it, with CHRIST as the "key" to the "code".

I hope that helps!

Peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel

Hi Shel,
Thanks, as always, for sharing your understanding on these matters.

Dr. Heisler is very much the academic, in that I mean that he doesn't voice a denominational view, he simply takes what the writings say AS they say it.
He doesn't try to interpret the text beyond what it actually says, in conjuction with the other writings that are related.
An example:
His view that the sons of God in Genesis are angels is based the fact that everywhere else where the term sons of God is used applies to angels.
He disagrees with some scholars that say that it means the sons of Seth because they (those scholars) state that angels can't have sex because of what Jesus said about them in heaven.

In short, he doesn't really go beyond what is written and share his personal understandings because, well, there is no evidence beyond what is written.

As for your debate with the likes of Dawkins,
Having written and exchanged emails with the man some time back I can assure you he is a very militant atheist and he has created his own god and has shown this god of his to be deplorable.
Of course he believes that this god he has created is THE god of the bible, so...

There are many errors in the article. In particular, the 'three yahweh's' for instance. Jahveh is One. Jaheshua is One. The Holy Spirit is Jaheshua. The 'holy spirit' is the life, water of life, anointing, poured out from the Son, given to Him without end from His Father.


So what you said above, Shelby, I found very telling. He has made the same mistake as many who call themselves Christians today, and as Israel did before: in that he does not see Christ. So that Christ is taken out of the equation. This is what the 'trinity' does, maybe not for everyone but in general. Now there is once again a slot/position/need for man to be the mediator between man and God.

Films/shows also take Christ out (except for the ones specifically about 'Jesus')... even the Bruce Almighty films (which i enjoyed)... there is no Christ. It is only God.



I did find it interesting about El (God Most High) having a wife Asherah. I have heard that before of course, but this time when reading this, the Spirit reminded immediately of "Sarah", the free woman above, the spiritual realm: the wife of Jah. So that this truth could have 'devolved' into a formation of the 'goddess' Asherah. All based on NOT understanding the truth of the wife of Jah. The continuation of that misunderstanding is in this man's article, and certainly other scholars' articles and theories and conclusions, and then more false information is built based upon the original misunderstanding.

Therein lies the problem of building ANYTHING about Jah upon anything other than Christ.

Something one might not be able to do if one can neither see nor hear Him.


Peace to you all (and always good to hear from you Paul),
your sister and servant, and fellow slave of Christ,
tammy

I bolded and underlined Word in the above quote by SHelby. Because that was poignant and simple... messenger, spokesman, mouthpiece... Word.





Interesting that you did exchange letters with him, Paul. Sometimes I get to assuming that such people are out of our reach and would never respond. But he would have to respond wouldn't he? He wouldn't be able to NOT respond.


As to the god Mr. Dawkins has invented, I think we need only look to his followers, who believe in that same god, to know what god Dawkins promotes as THE god. Though his entire work against that 'god' is the equivalent really of a strawman, easy to tear down. But confronted with the Truth (Christ, and the Father He shows us), his (or at least his followers, since I have never spoken to Mr. Dawkins) arguments fail. Unfortunately, religion has given them fuel for their strawman god, even helping to invent that god FOR them.



Peace again to you,
your servant and sister, and fellow slave of Christ,
tammy

Greetings, brother P! Peace to you and thanks, again, for YOUR sharing.



He is very much an academic, yes, but not sure he doesn't voice a "denominational" view. For one, his primary source (as to the Bible) seems to be the KJV. Add that to the following, and well...



And...



So, while Dr. Heiser may not voice a traditional "denominational" (i.e., Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jehovah's Witness, etc.) view, he certainly ascribes to the overarching belief (in a Trinity) that MOST of these [denominations] are founded on, believe, and teach.



Yes, but his interpretations start on a false premise: they use are based on the current Hebrew OT text (regardless of the version). But that's an error because that text is based on GREEK and/or ARAMAIC... from a few/several millenia LATER. Remember, the "Hebrew" we have today NOT the Hebrew of the original writings. NONE of those even exist.



Used by the early (Septuagint) scribes, yes! But what did Christ say of those scribes? "WOE to you... scribes!" The writer of Hebrews, Lazarus, who was one of our Lord's chosen apostles, however, corrected that error, yes? Hebrews 1:5-14 So, regardless of whether such WERE sons (they aren't) or not, one cannot push the letter to the Hebrews as being accurate on this AND still believe angels to be sons of God. The one unmistakably contradicts the other... yes?



Both of these opinions are errors, though - angels can't have sex IN THE SPIRIT VESSEL, the "WHITE" robe, which is what our dear Lord was referring to when he said that those who belong to him would become "like the angels." If, however, they put on FLESH, they can. Some did. Because those who belong to Christ, once having received a "white" robe... or clean, spirit body... won't have need of ANYTHING, they won't have need to "marry."



But (1) what is written is HUGELY flawed (Jeremiah 8:8; Matthew 23:13, 15, 25, 27, 29; and (2) there IS evidence "beyond what is written." There ABSOLUTELY is. And we can know of it if we DO what Christ SAYS:

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." John 5:39, 40



Yes, I have no doubt. He needed to because he had "nowhere" else to go, once he was unable to reconcile the "god of the Bible" that religion created. So, he had to create a god for himself, one that he could explain (to himself) and others who had the same problem. Their position is that their is EITHER only the god that religion has created... and they have made even worse... or no god at all. Never really occurs to them that there is a third possibility. Because the only thing they "know" ABOUT "God", they received from religion. There is very little outside of religion that even goes there. Christ, however, is totally outside religion.



Yes. I understand why Dr. Heiser believes what he believes, dear P - he, too, is trying to reconcile what (certain) religions teach with certain writings. But, again, he forgets as to the credibility of the writings themselves, or the meaning/transliterations of the words.

Peace to you and to your dear household!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel

How do you feel about the texts of the dead sea scrolls then?

I feel this way, dear brother (peace to you!):

1. Jeremiah prophesied as to the fall of Jerusalem to the Chaldeans. That prophesy came true (in 587 BCE).

2. He also prophesied that the false stylus of the secretaries (scribes) would be partly responsible for that fall (Jeremiah 8:1-22, especially verse

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls are reported to have been written from around 408 BCE to 318 CE (and hence after the fall of Jerusalem).

If the styli of the copyists were false up TO 587 BCE, then it stands to reason that the styli of everything copied AFTER that point, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, did so as well. Or at least, included the original errors.

I hope that helps!

Peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel