Heiser on Barker in FR 19/1

[William the Conqueror]

William the Conqueror,

By "Gods" it is meant the "sons of Gods" or the angels that God created (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 89:6-7).

The various nations have their respective guardian angels (Daniel 10:20-21; 12:1.).

Heiser view on this is consistent with the Catholic view. See the following links to footnotes found in the NAB Bible.

Deut 32:8

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/deuteron...omy32.htm#foot2

The sons of God: the angels; cf Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 89:6-7. Here the various nations are portrayed as having their respective guardian angels. Cf Daniel 10:20-21; 12:1.

Psalm 89:7

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm89.htm#foot3

[7] The gods: literally, "the sons of gods," "the holy ones" and "courtiers" of Psalm 89:6, 8. These heavenly spirits are members of God's court.

Psalm 82:5-8

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm82.htm#foot1

[Psalm 82] As in Psalm 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel's God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Deut 32:8-9). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Psalm 82:1) to rebuke the unjust "gods" (Psalm 82:2-4), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Psalm 82:5-7). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the psalm (Psalm 82:8 ) .

[5] The gods are blind and unable to declare what is right. Their misrule shakes earth's foundations (cf Psalm 11:3; 75:4), which God made firm in creation (Psalm 96:10).

[8] Judge the earth: according to Deut 32:8-9, Israel's God had originally assigned jurisdiction over the foreign nations to the subordinate deities, keeping Israel as a personal possession. Now God will directly take over the rulership of the whole world.

Because the reference is to heavenly spirits or sons of God or angels.

I believe Heiser shows that Mormon scholarship is not consistent with what the Bible reveals.

Johnny,

Blind, pagan angels cannot be guardian angels. If the text meant angels, Duet. 32, then I would accept fallen angels similar to I Kings 22. This agrees with Romans 1. However the Psalms 82 text says "...you will die like men..." I believe this is referring to human rulers not Bene/Elohim. Angels don't die. Men do. If you look at the Geneology of Christ given in both Matthew and Luke and I believe Matthew or Mary's geneology goes back to Adam. It says, "...Seth, the Son of Adam, the Son of God..."

[johnny]

William the Conqueror,

Blind, pagan angels cannot be guardian angels.

Sorry about the confusion ... the three footnotes that I citied above need to be looked at individually. For example the guardian angels mentioned in the Deut 32 footnote are not the blind gods in Psalm 82. The guardian angels referred to Deut 32 are guardians angels like Michael (Daniel 10:20-21; 12:1).

If the text meant angels, Duet. 32, then I would accept fallen angels similar to I Kings 22.

I am not following you, why do consider the host of heaven in 1Kings 22 as fallen?

The NAB footnote says the following about 1Kings 22:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1kings/1kings22.htm#foot1

[19-23] The prophet Micaiah uses as a last resort to deter Ahab from his foolhardy design of fighting against Ramoth-gilead the literary device of describing false prophets as messengers of a lying spirit which God, after holding counsel with his angels, permits to deceive them.

This agrees with Romans 1.

I am not following you, how does Romans 1 relate to the above Old Testment verses?

However the Psalms 82 text says "...you will die like men..." I believe this is referring to human rulers not Bene/Elohim. Angels don't die. Men do.

In Psalm 82:1,6,7 the "gods" are referring to human rulers, for example Moses is called "god" (Exod 7:1).

In Psalm 82:1 "the congregation" is reference to the heavenly assembly that is described in 1Kings 22:19.

Pss.82

[1] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

[6] I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

[7] But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

[8] Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

1Kgs.22

[19] And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

If you look at the Geneology of Christ given in both Matthew and Luke and I believe Matthew or Mary's geneology goes back to Adam. It says, "...Seth, the Son of Adam, the Son of God..."

Men are referred to son of God (Luke 3:38).

Angels or heavenly spirit creatures are referred to as sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).

If this doesn't make sense then please ask me more questions because I went through it rather quickly.

[johnny]

structurecop,

I think he means 3 Isaiah as in the third distinct section of Isaiah (chapters 55-66 [or 56-66]).

Thanks ... do you consider 1 Enoch as Holy Scripture?

This is the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen a mainstream Christian write.

For some examples I would suggest you read Michael S. Heiser paper below, below are snippets:

Israel's Divine Council, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=645

This view is common among scholars of Israelite religion, but in my judgment it fails in a number of regards. In my essay, which was originally a paper read in a thirty-minute time slot at a conference, I said little about this issue. It receives a good deal of attention in my dissertation. I summarized that material in another article published in October 2006.1 Readers can reference that article at no cost, so I will not reproduce the analysis and arguments here. A couple of observations are noteworthy. First, Psalm 82:1 does not say Yahweh is standing. Rather, it says Elohim is standing. Scholars theorize that the text once said Yahweh (this is in the so-called Elohistic psalter), which may be the case. However, there is no textual evidence for that conclusion. The idea rests solely on a hypothetical postulate. Second, Bokovoy never addressed an important issue in his discussion of the Psalm 82 scene: if Yahweh is standing as the plaintiff and not the judge (who is presumed to be Elyon in his view), then why is it that we do not see Elyon judging in Psalm 82:8? Instead of Elyon pronouncing judgment, the psalmist asks for Elohim to arise and judge—the same word used in 82:1 of the God who is standing. If we allow Bokovoy's apparent thesis—that of the name Yahweh being changed to Elohim in 82:1 due to some motive of the Elohist, then we need to have Elohim in Psalm 82:8 replacing Yahweh as well. This would mean that Yahweh is both the plaintiff who stands and the judge who judges—which defeats the notion of a separation of Yahweh and Elyon in this passage. Again, this is not the only problem with this common understanding, but these points are sufficient here.

My point is that there is no reason to conclude from the text that we are dealing here with two separate deities. That idea has arisen in tandem with critical views of Pentateuchal authorship and more knowledge of Israelite religion in its wider milieu. If one accepts any form of Mosaic authorship, it can easily be argued that Moses wrote certain statements about El and Yahweh being the same deity, and later scribes further inserted that idea into Pentateuchal material that he did not write. Of course uneducated (slave) Israelites could have been confused or even believed outright that El and Yahweh were distinct. That is not the question, though. Our goal is not (or should not be) to psychologize the biblical writer or the Israelites in general. We can only know the what (the text as it is), not the why (the reason for its final form). Certain scholars attempt to do the latter all the time, but all such attempts are only guesses, not an assessment of the text. Too much of scholarship, in my judgment, focuses on trying to identify the why when this is impossible. We can certainly entertain the why and enjoy the process, but to make conclusions that guide our understanding of the text and the people who produced it is not a sound exegetical method. The fact of redaction in this regard does not prove that we have two separate deities. Even if one rejects all notions of Mosaic authorship, it can cogently be argued that the literary artists who created the Pentateuch did so to tell the above story. To insist that their story must reflect a distinction in gods is to psychologize the authors. We know the what?we have the text and can see what was done to convey the El=Yahweh idea (they are merged in the earliest biblical material, like Deuteronomy 32). To go beyond that is to try to exegete their psyche, which cannot be done.

I ask Bokovoy to produce a single piece of evidence for the changes occurring during that time?as opposed to later, during the second century AD when "textual standardization" was occurring. The short answer is that, while everyone assumes this was a Second Temple era change, there is no proof for it.

[Kevin Christensen]

Johnny says:

The Great Angel is not consistent with scripture. Heiser addresses this fact when he says "Yahweh created the divine members of the heavenly host" and that "The Name is said to be "in" the Angel".

These phrases, extracted from Heiser's FR 19 response to Peterson, do not address Barker's case overall or claims in The Great Angel.

Does Heiser's argument depend on that matter that "she didn't overlook it", is so please explain.

If you read the post with which I initiated this thread, all was made clear, and indeed was the point of this thread. Heiser made one specific claim with regard to Barker relative to passage in a Brant Gardner FAIR essay. He claimed that Barker overlooked Hos. 1.10, and that "The Mormon material I have read has not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption."

I quoted Barker's explicit discussion of Hos. 1.10, and further find that Daniel Peterson's paper provides useful context for reading it in relation to Ps. 82. Progressing from Barker's discussion and Peterson's context, and my own reference to Ps. 82 compared to Benjamin's temple discourse, I find that LDS apologetic points have not proceeded on a flawed assumption. Rather, Hos. 1.10 fits together nicely in the context provided, thank you very much.

Pay attention Johnny, and do the logic. If the one specific claim that Heiser made in support of his one specific argument against Barker happened to be completely wrong, how well should we suppose that such an argument holds up?

I did not address Heiser's overall argument. Heiser's overall argument might even remain completely instact, other than this particular point from his note 73. The sky might not even fall, and you might not even have to slink out of town with your tale between your legs if you concede that he made a mistake here. I'm not at all interested in settling his overall case in one day, or even one year. I'm in no hurry. My concern here is with one particular point.

What ideals and theological conclusions are you referring too ... please be specific.

The ideals and conclusions of Deuteronomist Reformers. Read up on them on your own.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[johnny]

Kevin Christensen,

These phrases, extracted from Heiser's FR 19 response to Peterson, do not address Barker's case overall or claims in The Great Angel.

These phrases do address Barker's case that Jesus was an angel?

Do you believe that Jesus is a created angel like the angel Satan?

Do you believe the Lord created angels with a command like the Bible which reveals?

I did not address Heiser's overall argument. Heiser's overall argument might even remain completely instact, other than this particular point from his note 73.

That is my point Heiser's overall argument remains instact with the point you bring up. I believe it is silly to focus on this small little point that does not make any difference.

Heiser makes so many other points that revel the problems with Mormon scholarship.

[Kevin Christensen]

Heiser misrepresented Barker's text. Having observed, I commented.

Having observed you in action, I say, good bye Johnny.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[MormonMason]

Ahem...Yahweh is referred to as an angel in what remains of the OT.

He is called "the Angel which redeemed me" by Jacob (Genesis 48:15-16).

Genesis stated that Jacob wrestled with an angel who would not at that time disclose his name (32:24-30). Interestingly, he claims that he saw the face of God and prevailed when he named the place where it occurred.

What is left of Hosea directly identified this angel as Yahweh (Hosea 12:4-5).

This occurred before the name was to be found in the angel at the time of Moses. Some versions of the Bible use modified punctuation so as to hide this fact and separate Yahweh from the angel. In the Hebrew, verse 4 is all a single sentence and verse 5 also is part of the sentence notwithstanding a stop is placed between them by the masoretes. As a result of the construction and the rather obvious problems it causes, there are even those who try to hold that verse 5 is not original to the text and was added later.

Either way, biblicists are between a rock and a hard place. If this line is original, it creates theological difficulties. If not original, it means that God allowed a theological problem to creep into the inspired text. I do not envy the biblicists.

[e=mc2]

QUOTE(johnny @ Aug 27 2007, 02:34 PM)

Mormon scholars fail to contextualize the Hebrew Bible on its own terms.

Structurecop:

This is the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen a mainstream Christian write.

Kerry doth thus posteth:

Well, I know that when I use the scriptures in their Hebrew, I am then accused of misusing them as well! If I read em in English, me no gottem klu...... if I share the Hebrew or Greek insights, me become very disingenuous, or however you spell the word, you get the point. So it's doggoned if ya do, it's doggoned if ya don't, and it's doggoned if'n you even think about it one way or the other.

[Zakuska]

This was intresting... and puts to rest Johnny's notion that the "gods" in Pslams 82:6 are "Human judges".

Notice this...

Psalms 29:1; 89:6

Psalm 29 1

A psalm of David.

29:1 Acknowledge the Lord, you heavenly beings, 2

acknowledge the Lordâ??s majesty and power! 3

Psalms 89:6

89:6 For who in the skies can compare to the Lord?

Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings, 4

1 sn Psalm 29. In this hymn of praise the psalmist calls upon the heavenly assembly to acknowledge the royal splendor of the Lord. He describes the Lordâ??s devastating power as revealed in the thunderstorm and affirms that the Lord exerts this awesome might on behalf of his people. In its original context the psalm was a bold polemic against the Canaanite storm god Baal, for it affirms that the Lord is the real king who controls the elements of the storm, contrary to pagan belief. See R. B. Chisholm, Jr., â??The Polemic against Baalism in Israelâ??s Early History and Literature,â? BSac 150 (1994): 280-82.

2 tc Heb â??sons of gods,â? or â??sons of God.â? Though אֵלִים (â??elim) is vocalized as a plural form (â??godsâ?) in the MT, it is likely that the final mem is actually enclitic, rather than a plural marker. In this case one may read â??God.â? Some, following a Qumran text and the LXX, also propose the phrase occurred in the original text of Deut 32:8.

tn The phrase בְּנֵי אֵלִים (b

[MormonMason]

So, if the gods in the Psalms are divine beings or heavenly beings, and Yahweh according to certain texts of the Hebrew Bible is also called an Angel, it would seem that Margaret Barker's position on this issue stands.

One thing I find of interest, though, is the use of Elim in some of the commentaries on the Deuteronomy text and the notes of some Hebrew Bibles. Having looked at the actual fragment of Deuteronomy amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, I find the full form Elohim there. Elohim in Hebrew is composed of five consonants just as Israel is also composed of five consonants.

It does not really detract from the point, however, for sons of x means nature of x. Thus, sons of God = gods, irrespective of the degree. Anyone doubting this needs to begin his/her search for knowledge with what Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar has to say about the meaning of the construction sons of x in Hebrew Grammar.

[johnny]

MormonMason,

So, if the gods in the Psalms are divine beings or heavenly beings, and Yahweh according to certain texts of the Hebrew Bible is also called an Angel, it would seem that Margaret Barker's position on this issue stands.

Is being called an Angel, the same as being an Angel like Satan?

The Bible reveals that Yahweh created all angels.

Knowing this issue it seems that Margaret Barker's position falls apart.

[maklelan]

Mormon scholars fail to contextualize the Hebrew Bible on its own terms.

Oh, that's a riot and a half. I don't think I've heard a more ridiculous and hypocritical characterization of LDS scholarship in my life. And I suppose the Catholic church lets the Bible speak for itself?

[johnny]

maklelan,

And I suppose the Catholic church lets the Bible speak for itself?

At least the Catholic Church is consistent with the Bible, it teaches:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p5.htm#I

331 - Christ is the center of the angelic world. They are his angels: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him" [Mt 25:31]. They belong to him because they were created through and for him [Col 1:16].

[MormonMason]

MormonMason,

Is being called an Angel, the same as being an Angel like Satan?

The Bible reveals that Yahweh created all angels.

Knowing this issue it seems that Margaret Barker's position falls apart.

But when you realize that Margaret Barker's position also is that the Hebrew Bible has been modified to make it say that, her position stands and not falls. The evidence of the Scrolls that the Hebrew has been changed for theological/political reasons is becoming overwhelming. As soon as we admit that even one passage has been modified for these reasons, we must admit that if God did not stop the modification of passages of the Bible in times past, we have to admit that it could have been much worse.

For example, we have a passage that stated that Yahweh is an Angel. We have another passage whose context admits as much and another that actually states that Yahweh is who wrestled with Jacob. We have another passage that we know was modified for theological reasons. These Pharisee Masoretes and their predecessors were pretty crafty. This being in evidence, you cannot use the Bible as a text to teach that. The evidence is that the passages that state that were modified from originals that did not say what they now say.

Additionally, the passage that talks about Yahweh creating angels, to which you allude, may not even be talking about angels at all. Hosts of heaven also meant sun, moon and stars. We have to have a context of other passages from the Old Testament that state the same thing as you claim, and which also clearly identifies these same hosts created by Yahweh as angels, and that is what we do not have. But, even if you could marshall texts that say that, we go back to the facts in evidence, that the Bible as we now have it is a rewritten version that no longer says what it originally said.

As I said, the evidence of the Scrolls shows that several different versions of the same texts have been in existence, and these do have theological differences between them. Margaret Barker's position still stands....

[johnny]

MormonMason,

Additionally, the passage that talks about Yahweh creating angels, to which you allude, may not even be talking about angels at all. Hosts of heaven also meant sun, moon and stars.

The passage that talks about Yahweh creating angels is also consistent with the New Testament. It is clear that the Old Testament and the New Testament is talking about angels.

Margaret Barker's position still stands....

Margaret Barker's position is not consistent with neither the Old nor the New Testament.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Johnny,

It appears from your posts that you have not read these articles. If for some reason you have, then you clearly did not understand what you read.

Needless to say, Heiserâ??s views present serious challenges to your posts (past and present). Heiser, for example believes correctly that the word elohim always refers to literal gods, never human judges. Heiser also believes (correctly) that the term angels in the Old Testament never refers to a separate unique heavenly species in a way consistent with Catholic theology. Angels refers simply to messengers and quite often, messenger gods from the heavenly council of deities.

Heiser makes so many other points that revel the problems with Mormon scholarship.

Please note Heiserâ??s statement in the quote you provided:

"This view [that Psalm 82 originally referred to Yahweh as a son of Elyon] is common among scholars of Israelite religion." The position is not simply an LDS scholarly take.

I would agree with Heiser that Bokovoy arguments have some fatal flaws.

You really ought to return and read the articles before posting statements such as this one. Heiser never states that my arguments contain â??fatal flaws.â?

[MormonMason]

johnny,

You claim that Barker's claim is neither consistent with the Old Testament nor the New Testament. Actually, her position is quite clearly consistent with the New Testament. Given that you have made the claim that you have, it is quite clear that you have not read Barker's The Great Angel. In point of fact, you are clueless. Before you continue to make a fool out of yourself, you really should read the book so as to understand the argument.

As to the Old Testament, it is established fact that the Old Testament has been changed. As to your use of Colossians 1:16, which you quote to try to prove that Jesus created angels, did you not notice that the word angel is not used anywhere in that passage? Angels are listed elsewhere in the New Testament as different from principalities and powers where the terms are used together. Angels are nowhere listed in any New Testament scripture as being created by Jesus. If you think that the Greek term often translated all things really means that, you are as mistaken as the councils that forgot the true meaning of the Greek, which simply means the universe. Ta panta, the All, was originally a term that meant the universe and represented the ordered universe.

Since the heaven of God, the place of angels and God, existed before the creation of the universe, it is obvious that the heavens where God dwelt before the creation and the contents thereof are not part of the all things that Jesus created.

Additionally, your use of the passage is problematic in that the same term translated all things is used to speak of the reconciliation just a few verses later (verse 20) in the same paragraph. Are you saying that all things means literally that? If so, you must agree that even satan and his angels will be reconciled to God through Christ, as well as every single evil person who has ever lived. If you admit that all things does not really mean that in the passage in Colossians, you must admit that the other uses in the same paragaph may also have exceptions. The moment you do that, your entire argument is undercut.

[johnny]

David Bokovoy,

Needless to say, Heiserâ??s views present serious challenges to your posts (past and present). Heiser, for example believes correctly that the word elohim always refers to literal gods, never human judges.

See post #23 of this thread I quoted the Catholic Bible refers to them as "subordinate divine beings", not as human judges.

Heiser also believes (correctly) that the term angels in the Old Testament never refers to a separate unique heavenly species in a way consistent with Catholic theology. Angels refers simply to messengers and quite often, messenger gods from the heavenly council of deities.

Heiser is consistent with Catholic theology, angels are messenger gods, angels are part of a heavenly council. Angels are separate unique heavenly species.

"This view [that Psalm 82 originally referred to Yahweh as a son of Elyon] is common among scholars of Israelite religion." The position is not simply an LDS scholarly take.

Is the LDS scholarly position that Yahweh and Elohim are separate deities?

Is the following a LDS scholarly take, Heiser says:

"If we allow Bokovoy's apparent thesisâ??that of the name Yahweh being changed to Elohim in 82:1 due to some motive of the Elohist, then we need to have Elohim in Psalm 82:8 replacing Yahweh as well. This would mean that Yahweh is both the plaintiff who stands and the judge who judgesâ??which defeats the notion of a separation of Yahweh and Elyon in this passage. Again, this is not the only problem with this common understanding, but these points are sufficient here."

You really ought to return and read the articles before posting statements such as this one. Heiser never states that my arguments contain â??fatal flaws.â?

In my opinion your arguments contain fatal flaws. In my opinion, Heiser's article nicely demonostrates that is is abundantly clear that Yahweh is not a subordinate. He is Elyon.

Heiser states:

- "It is abundantly clear that Yahweh is not a subordinate in this passage. He is Elyon."

- "The idea that El and Yahweh were once separate deities also lacks coherence."

- "separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32:8:9 is internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy at large".

[johnny]

MormonMason,

Angels are nowhere listed in any New Testament scripture as being created by Jesus.

By the Son all the angels were created, angels are in heaven (Col 1:16).

Col.1

[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Since the heaven of God, the place of angels and God, existed before the creation of the universe, it is obvious that the heavens where God dwelt before the creation and the contents thereof are not part of the all things that Jesus created.

The LORD made heaven with all their hosts (Neh 9:6).

Neh.9

[6] Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Are you saying that all things means literally that? If so, you must agree that even satan and his angels will be reconciled to God through Christ, as well as every single evil person who has ever lived.

Why would I "agree that even satan and his angels will be reconciled to God through Christ"?

Colossians is speaking of creation not reconcilation. All angels were created by the LORD (Psalm 148:2,5), this includes Satan and his angels. Satan and his angels were created good in the beginning.

Pss.148

[2] Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

[5] Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

[David Bokovoy]

Johnny,

I honestly can't imagine how anyone reading these essays with an open mind could ever accept the claim that the biblical authors present their God as a separate speicies for the other gods of the divine council. This view is certainly not consistent with mainstream biblical scholarship.

Heiser is consistent with Catholic theology, angels are messenger gods, angels are part of a heavenly council. Angels are separate unique heavenly species.

Clearly you havenâ??t read the articles in question. I recognize that you maintain via Catholic theology that angels are a separate unique heavenly species, but this is not a biblical view, nor is your opinion the perspective that Heiser actually maintains.

As Hesier explains in his essay, throughout the Old Testament, â??malaâ??ak [i.e. angel] is a purely functional term and not a species termâ?¦ some elohim [i.e. gods] function as messengers" (241).

In my opinion your arguments contain fatal flaws. In my opinion, Heiser's article nicely demonstrates that is abundantly clear that Yahweh is not a subordinate. He is Elyon.

Well, thanks for sharing your opinions.

[johnny]

David Bokovoy,

I honestly can't imagine how anyone reading these essays with an open mind could ever accept the claim that the biblical authors present their God as a separate speicies for the other gods of the divine council. This view is certainly not consistent with mainstream biblical scholarship.

The Bible is clear that our God is the "God of gods" (Deut 10:17). The footnotes in the Catholic Bible footnotes say:

Psalm 89 - the NAB Bible footnotes

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm89.htm#foot3

[7] The gods: literally, "the sons of gods," "the holy ones" and "courtiers" of Psalm 89:6, 8. These heavenly spirits are members of God's court.

[28] Most High: a divine title, which is here extended to David as God's own king. Cf Psalm 2:7-9; Isaiah 9:5. As God rules over the members of the heavenly council (Psalm 89:6-9), so David, God's surrogate, rules over earthly kings.

Clearly you havenâ??t read the articles in question. I recognize that you maintain via Catholic theology that angels are a separate unique heavenly species, but this is not a biblical view,

The Bible view and that Catholic view is that the Lord created angesl (Psalm 148:2,5) and that angels are a unique heavenly species (Heb 12:22,23).

As Hesier explains in his essay, throughout the Old Testament, â??malaâ??ak [i.e. angel] is a purely functional term and not a species termâ?¦ some elohim [i.e. gods] function as messengers" (241).

I agree angel is a functional term. The term is also associated with their nature (see Catholic teaching below).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p5.htm#I

329 - St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel'"

[MormonMason]

You keep quoting Colossians 1:16 but I do not see the word angel there. We know that principalities and powers are separate from angels because of other passages in the New Testament where the two terms are used together with angels as a separate class. Nope, no angels there in Colossians 1:16. It is interpretation which places them there, not the words themselves.

Nehemiah 9:6 is exactly the scripture to which I referred. However, there is nothing there to tie hosts of heaven to angels in that text. Host of heaven means the stars and constellations here. If I saw the word angel there I could see your point. Trouble is, the word is not there and the Old Testament has been changed for theological/political reasons by the contemporaries and lineal successors of the Pharisees. The evidence is clear for that.

Read the structure of the other Psalms text you keep citing. The actual structure of the text kills your argument from that text. Even if it did not, you still are quoting from a modified Old Testament that has been modified for political and theological reasons. The evidence shows that one of the modifications to the old Bible was to unite El and Yahweh into a single God during the period of the Deuteronomist Reform.

You also state:

Why would I "agree that even satan and his angels will be reconciled to God through Christ"?

Colossians is speaking of creation not reconcilation....

Ahem...The New American Bible, the Official Catholic Bible in English, says:

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son, and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven.

(Colossians 1:19-20, NAB, bold emphasis mine)

So, yes, Colossians 1 does include the subject of reconciliation.

Now, do you really believe that the phrase all things in the same unit of thought really means what you think it to mean? If so, why do you not believe that satan and his angels, and evil people, will all be reconciled to God through Christ? Remember, the second you admit that all things does not mean literally everything and can even omit some things, the second your argument gets undercut. This is so because the same phrase is used close together in the same unit of thought. You should be able to see that unit of thought if you have a printed copy of the NAB.

God is not Humpty Dumpty, sir! You cannot expect me to believe that God would cause Paul to have a phrase mean one thing in one part of the same unit of thought and change the meaning at the end of the same sentence in the same unit of thought. (In Greek it is one rather long sentence and the NAB and other translations often break that single sentence down into multiple, shorter English sentences, although they at least do try to preserve the single unit of thought by the formatting in printed editions).

[johnny]

MormonMason,

You keep quoting Colossians 1:16 but I do not see the word angel there.

What is your interpretation of Col 1:17?

Col.1

[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Nehemiah 9:6 is exactly the scripture to which I referred. However, there is nothing there to tie hosts of heaven to angels in that text.

In Neh 9:6 do you believe that Lord made heaven?

Read the structure of the other Psalms text you keep citing. The actual structure of the text kills your argument from that text.

Please explain how "The actual structure of the text kills your argument from that text" in Psalm 148.

Now, do you really believe that the phrase all things in the same unit of thought really means what you think it to mean? If so, why do you not believe that satan and his angels, and evil people, will all be reconciled to God through Christ?

The verses that follow verse 20 tells us the subset of all things who are reconciled to God through Christ.

[Lachoneus]

. . . and that angels are a unique heavenly species (Heb 12:22,23).

There is nothing in these verses that says anything at all about angels being "a unique heavenly species."

[johnny]

Lachoneus,

There is nothing in these verses that says anything at all about angels being "a unique heavenly species."

It reveals that in the heavenly city angels are unique from the "the spirit of just men".