re: Religious Leaders Told to 'Prepare Now' for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation

There is no intelligent life anywhere in the infinite universe except right here on Earth. That’s God’s design. No aliens, no ET, no Predator, no Yoda. Sorry. If they did exist, they would have wiped us out eons ago.

I don’t see from scripture where that was offered to them as an option. Jesus died to save mankind.

Professional gaslighters say give me some attention and trust me bro. More at 6.

quote:

---

So the architect of the Matrix and Yahweh are not mutually exclusive possibilities of being the same entity in your model of reality.

---

Right. Whether we are in a simulation or not does absolutely nothing towards advancing one way or the other the idea of there being/not being a God. If anything, reality being a simulation would seem to demand the idea of a creator even more than if reality were natural. And for all intents and purposes, it wouldn't matter if humans were no more than bits of information inside a computer program as to how we should conduct ourselves and where we may end up after this life is over.

Reality being a simulation changes nothing.

quote:

---

There is no intelligent life anywhere in the infinite universe except right here on Earth.

---

This is a mind numbingly stupid statement.

Well stated. Simulation theory is one of many things we can lean on to prove God. Even if it turns out to not be true, you can still prove the triune God’s existence by other means.

quote:

---

I don’t think Heiser’s approach is “let ANE myths decide what the Bible means.” On his big pillars like Psalm 82 and Deut 32, he’s basically saying: start with what the Hebrew text is actually doing, and then check it against the Bible’s own patterns.

---

He certainly did some of that, but Heiser's background was in ANE studies, so that has greatly influenced his approach to the Bible. It's more of a worldview that he adopted that he used to interpret the Bible, obviously attempting to adhere with the Bible's own writings primarily, but interpreting it in light of the surrounding cultures.

Most orthodox (as opposed to higher critics and non-Christian scholars) Christians have attempted to interpret the Bible in light of itself (called the "analogy of faith"), allowing for cultural dynamics to play a part in certain respects, but focusing primarily on interpreting more difficult passages in light of easier passages, or the less clear in light of the more clear.

Heiser's hermeneutic appears to be interpreting difficult supernatural (or potentially supernatural) passages in light of surrounding ANE perspectives and parallels, leading to a completely different way of interpreting the entire narrative of Scripture, and putting a much different emphasis on the Scriptures than most other Christians do.

quote:

---

With Deut 32, a lot of the debate is even about which wording is original in the manuscripts (“sons of God” vs. “sons of Israel”), not “what did pagans think.” And with Psalm 82, he’s reading it alongside other Bible passages that talk about God’s heavenly court/council (like Psalm 89), not just importing ideas from outside.

---

I agree that he was dealing with the text of the Bible and different translations of it, and not merely overlaying other non-Jewish beliefs over the Bible. However it's actually quite hard to see where he's merely drawing ANE parallels and where he's assuming the ANE parallels are drawn from a true shared narrative, since he assumes that the disputed passages must be interpreted in light of the regional beliefs where those beliefs have parallels and overlap.

In other words, when there is a dispute about a word, verse, or passage, he seems to side with the interpretation that most closely aligns with ANE parallelism.

quote:

---

That said, I do think some of the pushback I have seen is fair once you get into his more “connected universe” stuff like Bashan/Hermon references, lots of Genesis 6/Watchers connections. I’m grateful for what he brought back into view, but I’m also comfortable holding some of those bigger linkages a bit looser than he sometimes did.

---

That's fair, and I'm glad that you remain open to differing view points. I've seen a lot of Heiser's fans respond to anything that challenges his teachings in an almost cult-like way. His views have been seen as so eye-opening and bringing truth out of the Scriptures that hadn't been there before where it seems like many think that his worldview is synonymous with the Scriptures, and therefore an attack on it constitutes an attack on the Bible (and Christianity), itself.

quote:

---

Prove life elsewhere first then we will talk.

---

Prove deities exist and maybe I will take theism seriously.

I posted this in another thread a few days ago… where would you like to start?

TLDR… you don’t get to the Trinity by one single “proof.” It’s a step-by-step case. Each one of these topics can and should be discussed for hours, but for the sake of time…

First, God’s existence:
You can argue that philosophically. Things exist that don’t have to exist. They’re contingent. If everything were like that, you’d never get a final explanation. So there has to be a necessary being that doesn’t depend on anything else. That’s what people mean by God. Not a guess, but the grounding of why anything exists at all. Everything with a beginning needs a cause.

Second, that God has acted and revealed Himself:
This is where history comes in. The case for Christianity is tied to the life, death, and especially the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection actually happened, then God has spoken through Christ. That moves you from “a generic God exists” to “this God has revealed Himself in a specific way.”

Third, what Jesus and the earliest Christians actually taught:
You get three strands in the New Testament:

- The Father is God. Obvious and uncontested.
- Jesus is God. He forgives sins, accepts worship, is called “Lord” in a divine sense, and is identified with God’s identity (John 1, John 20, Philippians 2).
- The Holy Spirit is not just a force. The Spirit speaks, sends, can be lied to (Acts 5), and is placed alongside the Father and Son (Matthew 28:19).

At the same time, Scripture is very clear there is only one God. So you’re left with data that looks like this…

One God, but Father, Son, and Spirit are each divine and distinct. The Trinity isn’t something imposed on that. It’s the framework that holds all those pieces together without throwing any of them out.

Philosophy gets you to God… History points you to Christ… Scripture shows you Father, Son, and Spirit as God. The Trinity is the conclusion that makes sense of all three at once. If you want to push it further, the real question isn’t just “can I prove the Trinity,” but “what worldview actually explains the full set of data without contradiction?” Happy to dive into whatever vector you’d like but for the sake of brevity let’s stick to 1 or 2 at a time.

Been working on this post for a bit but needed to proofread it first since I’m dictating while driving. Still might be messed up a bit. Apologies.

Your post mixes together real scientific concepts, speculative philosophy, New Age spirituality, and biblical language as if they all prove each other. They do not. Yes, matter is mostly empty space at the atomic level. Yes, energy and matter are related. Yes, DNA stores massive amounts of information. None of that remotely proves reality is a “holographic matrix” or that humans possess divine powers.

The “holographic universe” idea in physics is a mathematical concept about information and spacetime boundaries, not evidence that consciousness creates reality or that humans are secretly gods. Maybe you weren’t implying that here but it seemed like that a bit… And “made in the image of God” in Christianity never meant “we are divine beings with latent god powers.” Historically it means humans uniquely reflect God rationally, morally, relationally, and spiritually. Christianity draws a hard distinction between Creator and creature.

That is also where this breaks from historic Christianity entirely. Jesus did not teach that all humans possess an inner divinity equal to His own nature. In Christianity, Christ’s miracles are tied to His divine identity and authority, not to discovering hidden cosmic abilities within ourselves. The “you will do greater works” passage is about the spread of the Gospel through the Church, not humans unlocking supernatural godhood through consciousness expansion.

This worldview basically repackages ancient Gnosticism with modern scientific sounding vocabulary. It takes selective scientific ideas, strips them from their actual context, then blends them with spirituality to create a system that sounds deep but is mostly category confusion… and importantly, if some advanced being showed up tomorrow with technology humans could not explain, that still would not logically prove Christianity false. Ancient people would also view modern technology as miraculous. Power alone is not proof of divinity.so obviously we violently agree here.

Cheers.