The latest episode is now live. There’s an attached essay from Anchor-Yale Bible Dictionary that expands on the discussion of the word Christos (χριστος), part of the episode focus.
Naked Bible Podcast Episode 41 – Acts 3
13 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Naked Bible Podcast Episode 41 – Acts 3 | Dr. Michael S. Heiser | Talmidimblogging - […] https://drmsh.com/2015/03/20/naked-bible-podcast-episode-41-acts-3/ […]
Support Miqlat
Keep ’em coming!!!
Thank you so much for another fascinating episode!!!!
Excellent podcast episode!
I liked to have been reminded that a dying Messiah is not to be found any OT passage (esp. Is 53), but that it’s found throughout the OT as a whole (“Mosaic”).
Hi Mike. Noticed that this episode has not yet downloaded on my iTunes podcast. So I deleted the naked bible app and tried to reinstall it, and it now won’t let me subsribe to it? Just wanted you aware in case there was some issue on the software or system side on your end. I love the podcast and pretty much all of your writings and insights 🙂
You’ll need to email Trey about that – see his email address on the podcast site.
I’ve been trying to play catch up with all your Podcast episodes.
I love reading your posts, however I’m an android user, so the podcast has been giving me problems on my phone.
My work phone is an iPhone, so I’ve been able(forced) to use that.
Great material!
thanks!
Because of a job change I haven’t been able to read your blog as much as I used to. I came back the other day and was pleased to see the new format for the podcast. I was one of the voices asking for a longer podcast when it first started.
I know it’s a ton of work, but the podcast format reaches so many of us who are stuck in commutes and other places where we can’t read. Thank you for putting it out there!
you’re welcome!
Hello Dr. Heiser. I realize this has nothing to due with podcast, but you have answered my question here before. I am doing a small group on the Book of Jude and have come to verses 5-7. While studying, I came across this video https://youtu.be/N9oLhayayb0 and this website. Now from the brief overview I did, I believe this guy is not Trinitarian among other beliefs. Back to point. I was curios as to whether or not you or anyone knew of he’s views or work and if you could give quick comment. I work 50 hrs a week and trying to avoid wasted reading time. He has this premise:
We have seen, then, that Angels are beings…
* with God’s eternal nature
* who cannot sin
* who always do God’s commands
* and who are the beings through whom God’s spirit-power speaks and works (Ps. 104:4).
This makes me think of 1 Timothy 5:21(elect angels).
At http://www.realdevil.info/5-29.htm
under suggested explainations, he writes “The rebellion of the 250 princes of Israel in the wilderness led by Korah, Dathan and Abiram, as recorded in Numbers 16, seems to fit quite well…..And note that there is no Biblical record of rebellious Heavenly angels being judged and thrown down to earth.
Ok have to go to work. realize post is a bit long. Just thought I would cast out my line and maybe get a bite when I get back. Thanks Peace and Grace
The first premise you list isn’t clear — what is meant by “God’s eternal nature”?
The second premise is flawed. If it was true, God would have no reason to not trust his holy ones (Job 4:18; 15:15)
The third premise is flawed because the second one is. And both are flawed because they portray angels as being what God is (perfect in the exercise of attributes like free will). They are lesser than he is, by definition.
The fourth premise applies equally to humans who have the Holy Spirit or (in OT language) the Spirit “comes upon” – so I don’t know what the point is.
“Elect angels” is (given the way the NT talks about election – which is different than the OT) basically a synonym for “angels loyal to God.” It doesn’t mean they are God (see above) or cannot sin (see the Job references). It means they are loyal to him (as opposed to being in rebellion).
I’m going here on your description. As my email disclaimer notes, I don’t review videos for people. I work about 70-80 hours a week between my day job, two online teaching jobs, writing commitments, and stuff I do online.
Back from work. Wow! didn’t think I would actually get a response. And it was so quick. Thank you. Sorry for the sloppy/rushed post. I was in hurry. I did a little more investigation on Duncan Heaster, the author of The RealDevil.info. Turns out he is a Christadelphian, I believe. Don’t think I have known any in person. Anyway, it was his mentioning in the video clip I came across of Jude’s use of Enoch that got me thinking. He states, “It’s been observed that there are “more than thirty” allusions to the popular first century BC ‘Book of Enoch’ in 2 Peter and Jude. This book claimed that 200 Angels were expelled from Heaven and then married beautiful women on earth. Peter and Jude allude to it in order to show how wrong it is…..In the Book of Enoch, it is claimed that the righteous Angel Michael brings accusation against the 200 supposedly rebellious Angels But Peter consciously contradicts this by stressing that “angels do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord” (2 Pet. 2:11), and Jude is even more specific by saying that this is true of Michael the Archangel (Jude 9). According to the Book of Enoch, the man Enoch judges the sinful Angels, but 2 Peter 3 warns that actually Angels will come with Lord Jesus in order to judge men. We can now understand why Peter claims that “bold and arrogant these men (the false teachers) are not afraid to slander celestial beings” (2 Pet. 2:10)- i.e. the Angels. The Book of Enoch slandered Angels by claiming 200 of them sinned. As Jude 8 puts it, the false teachers “reject authority and slander celestial beings”.”
I had never heard this view before. Any comments. Also as a side note, while briefly going over Heaster’s site; I came across something that reminded me of one of your baptism talks from a different perspective. Regarding the believe in the Devil and fallen angels, he wrote, “Instead of recognizing that these were all merely speculations, Irenaeus and Tertullian went on to insist that belief in Satan was a core doctrine of Christianity. Tertullian insisted that at baptism, the candidate must rebuke Satan (1). Effectively, Tertullian [later supported in this by Hippolytus] were making their view of Satan a fundamental part of the Christian faith; without accepting it, a person couldn’t be baptized into the Christian faith. The candidate had to state: “I renounce you, Satan, and your angels”. This was a far cry to the New Testament accounts of men and women confessing their sins and being baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of them.”
I saw several red flags while investigating, but it has caused me think. Ok it is late and I am beginning to ramble. Let me at least take time to thank you for your work and encourage you to keep it up. I also love the new podcast.
p.s. What do you think (heteros sarx) is referring to in Jude 1:7? I noticed the Lexham Bible uses (unnatural desire)
The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.
Peace and Grace
Dear dr. Heiser,
Your comment on ‘Let me see the faith of the lame man at the beautiful gate’ made me think (which is a good thing)… Acts 3:16 informs us that the man’s faith in the Name -faith which originateted from God- was what gave health to the lame man. So I agree that before the lame man’s encounter with Peter and John the man didn’t exercise faith. It seems that he recieved instant faith on the mentioning of the Name Jezus Christ. This shows me that there are different kinds of faith through which God accomplishes his desire to heal, deliver, bless and save.
Anyhow keep up the good work by making me think more!
KR, J. de Kraker