Biblical Polytheism

[Bartholomew]

Gods in a non-negative context

Psalms 82:1

"God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods, He holds judgment."

This seems fairly obvious; the implication is that the Christian God is not completely in charge of everything, but that he decides the fate of the dead. Many other systems of gods had a specific figure assigned to this role, (Osiris and Morrigan) so it seems natural that a polytheistic Christian would have a god filling the same role.

The Hebrew word for God here is 'el. The hebrew word for Gods here is elohim.

Genesis 3:22

"The gods said, 'Behold, the human has become like one of us, knowing good and evil...'"

Genesis 35:7

"Jacob built an altar there ... because there the gods were revealed to him."

Genesis 20:13

"Abraham said 'The gods caused me to wander from my house.'"

Here's an issue of translation. Every English Bible I've looked at actually says God here, not Gods. But in Hebrew, the text does not say 'el. It says elohim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

In some cases (e.g. Exodus 3:4, "... Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush ..."), it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar ... and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_Israel). In other cases, Elohim acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (אלוה), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.").I'm inclined to the trust the Hebrew over the English.

In Genesis, the writer appears to be consistently, intentionally using the plural on purpose.

Genesis 1:26

"Then God [plural elohim] said, "Let Us [plural pronoun] make man in Our [plural pronoun] image, according to Our [plural pronoun] likeness"

Would it then be more accurate to say "Then the gods said..."?

Proverbs 9:1-5

"Wisdom has built her house;
she has hewn out its seven pillars. She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine;
she has also set her table.
She has sent out her maids, and she calls
from the highest point of the city.
"Let all who are simple come in here!"
she says to those who lack judgment.
"Come, eat my food
and drink the wine I have mixed"

This one isn't obvious. Wisdom is being referred to here as an entity, and the Greek word for wisdom is "Sophia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_%28wisdom%29#In_Gnosticism)." In Gnostic tradition of Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Christianity), Sophia was considered to be the wife of God -- a Goddess.

In fact, if one does not immediately discard the Gnostic tradition as heretical, there are a number of stories involving Sophia and Jesus in their religious texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis_Sophia), though these were never included in the Bible.

Commandments not to Worship

Exodus 20:3

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Deuteronomy 6:14

"You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you"

2 Kings 17:35
"...with whom the LORD made a covenant and commanded them, saying, "You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down yourselves to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them."

Jeremiah 25:6

"and do not go after other gods to serve them and to worship them, and do not provoke Me to anger with the work of your hands, and I will do you no harm.'"

Jeremiah 35:15

"Also I have sent to you all My servants the prophets, sending them again and again, saying: 'Turn now every man from his evil way and amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to worship them. Then you will dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your forefathers; but you have not inclined your ear or listened to Me."

Exodus 34:14

"For the Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God."

Psalm 97:7

"All who worship images are put to shame. Those who boast in idols -- worship him, all you Gods."

Psalms 97:9

"For you O Lord are the most high over all the Earth. You are exalted far above all gods."

Exodus 18:20

"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who treated Israel arrogantly."

##

There appears to have been a schism in heaven. In Genesis, God seems to be getting along with the other deities. By Exodus, God is a distinct entity apart from the other gods, and is jealous of them. What happened?

###

My Hebrew is awful. My crutch for discussing it may be found here:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

[Bartholomew]

Greek Gods
Just for fun.

Luke, 10:15

"And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be thrown down to Hades!"

While today we often take Hades to be interchangeable with Hell, to ancient Greeks Hades was the god of the underworld. One could argue that this figure is analogous to Satan, but this would ignore the centuries of mythology surrounding the figure, including is benevolent wife.

Psalms, 97:2

Clouds and thick darkness surround him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.

Psalms, 97:4

His lightning lights up the world; the earth sees and trembles.

While there is no specific reference to Zeus here, I find it interesting that these descriptions of the Christian god are so close to how the ancient Greeks saw their favorite sky god.

[Medievalist]

Many other systems of gods had a specific figure assigned to this role, (Osiris and Morrigan)

Dear me no, the Morrígan does not judge or otherwise rule over the dead.

Be careful of the fallacy of the interpretatio romani

Someone is grossly mislead.

I'm also not at all clear how the dead fit in the context of the psalm.

[Medievalist]

While today we often take Hades to be interchangeable with Hell, to ancient Greeks Hades was the god of the underworld.

In Greek, though, the king is associated with the place; there are instances in Homer in particular where Hades means both the Titan/God and his realm.

When we say in English, "go to Hades," we're doing much the same thing;we too are indulging in metonymy.

In public and everything!

[Bartholomew]

Dear me no, the Morrígan does not judge or otherwise rule over the dead.

Be careful of the fallacy of the interpretatio romani

Someone is grossly mislead.

I'm also not at all clear how the dead fit in the context of the psalm.

I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that judgment of humanity occurs at death.

Am I not thinking of Morrígan? She would come to a battlefield before the start of a fight and choose who would live and who would die, yes? To me, this is judgment.

Maybe I'm thinking of a different goddess. :) My mistake, in any case. I am possibly being a bit nebulous in my interpretation of "Gods who judge."

[Bartholomew]

In Greek, though, the king is associated with the place; there are instances in Homer in particular where Hades means both the Titan/God and his realm.

When we say in English, "go to Hades," we're doing much the same thing;we too are indulging in metonymy.

In public and everything!

True, but Hell is a significantly different place from Hades' underworld. Whether referring to the place (Hades' underworld) or to the god, it strikes me as an acknowledgment of Hades' existence in simultaneity with the Christian God.

[Medievalist]

I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that judgment of humanity occurs at death.

Am I not thinking of Morrígan? She would come to a battlefield before the start of a fight and choose who would live and who would die, yes? To me, this is judgment.

No, that's Neo Pagan.

The Morrígan incites battle, and frenzy, and feeds on the slain. She mostly just wants to feed on terror, and frenzy. She doesn't choose; she knows in advance.

[Medievalist]

True, but Hell is a significantly different place from Hades' underworld. Whether referring to the place (Hades' underworld) or to the god, it strikes me as an acknowledgment of Hades' existence in simultaneity with the Christian God.

Technically, Hel is a Norse chick, who is half-divine, and wholly blue.

Where English translations choose Hel (it's one abode of the dead in Germanic myth) the original text uses a number of names--some of which are real places that we're excavating.

There are several strings conventionally translated as "Hell"--Sheol and Genhenna are two of the most common, but they are not exclusive. There's also a collocation that's something like "the realm of the dead." That's not used much--I honestly don't remember how often, but not much.

[Roger J Carlson]

Well, I won't try to compete on a scholarly level. I'll leave that to semilargeintestine and Medi. However, I'll give my take on some of this:

Gods in a non-negative context

Psalms 82:1

"God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods, He holds judgment."

This seems fairly obvious; the implication is that the Christian God is not completely in charge of everything, but that he decides the fate of the dead. Many other systems of gods had a specific figure assigned to this role, (Osiris and Morrigan) so it seems natural that a polytheistic Christian would have a god filling the same role.

You have to be careful about interpreting the Psalms literally. Psalms are poems or songs. The language is often metaphorical. In this case, it means that of all the belief systems in the world, only the worship of the God of Abraham is true.

God is completely in charge of everything, not just the fate of the dead. The first verse of the bible says that God created the heavens and the earth.

The Hebrew word for God here is 'el. The hebrew word for Gods here is elohim.

Genesis 3:22

"The gods said, 'Behold, the human has become like one of us, knowing good and evil...'"

Genesis 35:7

"Jacob built an altar there ... because there the gods were revealed to him."

Genesis 20:13

"Abraham said 'The gods caused me to wander from my house.'"

Here's an issue of translation. Every English Bible I've looked at actually says God here, not Gods. But in Hebrew, the text does not say 'el. It says elohim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

I'm inclined to the trust the Hebrew over the English.
I'm not really inclined to distrust English translations. I know it popular to dismiss them as if they were translated by country bumpkins, but the truth is the bible has been studied for hundreds of years by scholars of all stripes and most of the translations are fairly consistent. The current trend is to think that modern scholars have it all right and those old guys had it wrong, but I think that's a conceit of youth.

In Genesis, the writer appears to be consistently, intentionally using the plural on purpose.

Genesis 1:26

"Then God [plural elohim] said, "Let Us [plural pronoun] make man in Our [plural pronoun] image, according to Our [plural pronoun] likeness"

Would it then be more accurate to say "Then the gods said..."?

Proverbs 9:1-5

"Wisdom has built her house;
she has hewn out its seven pillars. She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine;
she has also set her table.
She has sent out her maids, and she calls
from the highest point of the city.
"Let all who are simple come in here!"
she says to those who lack judgment.
"Come, eat my food
and drink the wine I have mixed"

So why have generations of scholars misinterpreted a simple case of singular versus plural in connection to the name of God? Surely you've asked yourself that.

There's plenty of evidence that there is only one God. In 1 Kings 18, Elijah defeats the prophets of Baal, proving that Baal doesn't even exist. The people say: "The Lord, He is God". The word Lord here means (from one source I found) "the God who exists", meaning, of course that the others don't.

So again, why the mix up of singular and plural. Semi would probably disagree, but from the Christian perspective, God is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are not three gods, but one God who is three. So when God says "We will make man in Our image", He's talking to himself. Think of it as using the "royal We".

I should say here, however, that I don't know if this is the reason it was translated to the singular "God". I'm not a scholar. That is, however, how I justify it to myself.

This one isn't obvious. Wisdom is being referred to here as an entity, and the Greek word for wisdom is "Sophia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_%28wisdom%29#In_Gnosticism)." In Gnostic tradition of Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Christianity), Sophia was considered to be the wife of God -- a Goddess.

In fact, if one does not immediately discard the Gnostic tradition as heretical, there are a number of stories involving Sophia and Jesus in their religious texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis_Sophia), though these were never included in the Bible. As Gnosticism is generally considered a heresy in Christianity, I don't see how this applies. It has as little to do with Christianity as what Norse myths say about Odin.

Commandments not to Worship

Exodus 20:3

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Deuteronomy 6:14

"You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you"

2 Kings 17:35
"...with whom the LORD made a covenant and commanded them, saying, "You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down yourselves to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them."

Jeremiah 25:6

"and do not go after other gods to serve them and to worship them, and do not provoke Me to anger with the work of your hands, and I will do you no harm.'"

Jeremiah 35:15

"Also I have sent to you all My servants the prophets, sending them again and again, saying: 'Turn now every man from his evil way and amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to worship them. Then you will dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your forefathers; but you have not inclined your ear or listened to Me."

Exodus 34:14

"For the Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God."

Psalm 97:7

"All who worship images are put to shame. Those who boast in idols -- worship him, all you Gods."

Psalms 97:9

"For you O Lord are the most high over all the Earth. You are exalted far above all gods."

Exodus 18:20

"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who treated Israel arrogantly." Again, these are talking about belief systems and how the worship of the Lord (that is Jehovah) is superior to all of them. It does not mean other gods exist. It's the one true God saying, "Hey, I'm the only God. Why are you worshiping them? They can't do anything for you. They're only wood and stone. I'm real."

##

There appears to have been a schism in heaven. In Genesis, God seems to be getting along with the other deities. By Exodus, God is a distinct entity apart from the other gods, and is jealous of them. What happened?

###

My Hebrew is awful. My crutch for discussing it may be found here:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm)There never were any other gods for God to be jealous of. However, God doesn't want His people (meaning all of us) to worship made up gods. So why would God be jealous of non-existing gods?

Here's a true story. When I was 3 years old, my parents took a trip to New York. They left me for two weeks with my aunt (dad's sister). When they got back, I hid behind my aunt, apparently afraid of this stranger who was my real mother -- after only two weeks. I even called my aunt Mommy.

My mother was crushed, at least enough that she has told tell me about it ever since. I see God's "jealousy" as the same thing. He created us and gave us life and every good thing, and then we ignore Him, or worse, give credit to some other god whom we've made up.

[Shilma]

Greek Gods
Just for fun.

Luke, 10:15

"And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be thrown down to Hades!"

While today we often take Hades to be interchangeable with Hell, to ancient Greeks Hades was the god of the underworld. One could argue that this figure is analogous to Satan, but this would ignore the centuries of mythology surrounding the figure, including is benevolent wife.

Psalms, 97:2

Clouds and thick darkness surround him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.

Psalms, 97:4

His lightning lights up the world; the earth sees and trembles.

While there is no specific reference to Zeus here, I find it interesting that these descriptions of the Christian god are so close to how the ancient Greeks saw their favorite sky god.
actually, when I read the passages, it reminds me of Yldabaoth/Demiurge instead of Zeus.

[ChristineR]

There's plenty of oblique Gnosticism in the New Testament, but Sophia was never God's wife, so far as I can tell. She was apparently an aeon and Jesus' syzygy, but good luck figuring out exactly what that means. Aeon's are probably closer to angels than any other modern concept, and since the whole idea of aeons is that they are emmanations of God, you're still more or less monotheistic. (If you're lost by all this, the basic idea is that God is everything, and that the universe spreads out from God in layers. Sophia is in the last layer before the material universe, which is flawed, often because Sophia goofed up somehow.)

I think that the general idea of aeon's having wives and sex would be pretty unlikely, as the whole point is that they are "energy beings" (to put a modern spin on it). Anyhow, Wisdom personified is quite a bit different from wisdom deified, and I'm not aware of any good evidence tying some sort of Hebrew goddess of wisdom to Sophia.

[Shilma]

The whole theogony of gnosticism itself is pretty confusing. Sophia is often described as aeon or as the original "triad" (Ein Sof Aur-Barbello-Kristos).

to be honest, when I read the story about Sophia/Chokmach/Hikmah tried to emulate Ein Sof Aur method of self-creation, I really couldn't help but to interpret this as self-masterbation. perhaps the hidden message is that man and woman are made so they could reproduce, have sex, and give birth to child, while in sophia's case, because she wasn't with her consort, the defective false god born instead.

it's also interesting to note Yldabaoth is called Nebruel in Judas Gospel, which perhaps have root in "Nibiru", the babylonian god.

[Rhys Cordelle]

There never were any other gods for God to be jealous of.

The bible disagrees with you.

[Ruv Draba]

There's a bit of evidence kicking around that the G-d of Judaism is actually one of a pantheon of Canaanite deities, whose worship was influenced by the monotheistic religion of Zoroaster.

El for instance, is a Canaanite deity, as is Baal.

[Roger J Carlson]

The bible disagrees with you.Really?

Deuteronomy 4:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4:28&version=NIV)
There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.

Deuteronomy 28:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+28:36&version=NIV)
The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone.

Deuteronomy 28:64 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+28:64&version=NIV)
Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.

2 Kings 19:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Kings+19:18&version=NIV)
They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by men's hands.

Isaiah 37:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+37:19&version=NIV)
They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands.

Daniel 5:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+5:4&version=NIV)
As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.

Daniel 5:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+5:23&version=NIV)
Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven. You had the goblets from his temple brought to you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines drank wine from them. You praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand. But you did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways.

Psalm 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+4:2&version=NIV)
How long, O men, will you turn my glory into shame ? How long will you love delusions and seek false gods ? Selah

Jeremiah 16:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+16:19&version=NIV)
O LORD, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in time of distress, to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, "Our fathers possessed nothing but false gods, worthless idols that did them no good.

There is no indication, except by stretching the imagination and ignoring the above explicit verses denying the very existence of other gods, that other gods are anything but delusions in men's minds.

[Roger J Carlson]

There's a bit of evidence kicking around that the G-d of Judaism is actually one of a pantheon of Canaanite deities, whose worship was influenced by the monotheistic religion of Zoroaster.

El for instance, is a Canaanite deity, as is Baal.Or perhaps the Canaanite deities were perversions of the God of Judaism.

[ChristineR]

The whole theogony of gnosticism itself is pretty confusing. Sophia is often described as aeon or as the original "triad" (Ein Sof Aur-Barbello-Kristos).

to be honest, when I read the story about Sophia/Chokmach/Hikmah tried to emulate Ein Sof Aur method of self-creation, I really couldn't help but to interpret this as self-masterbation. perhaps the hidden message is that man and woman are made so they could reproduce, have sex, and give birth to child, while in sophia's case, because she wasn't with her consort, the defective false god born instead.

it's also interesting to note Yldabaoth is called Nebruel in Judas Gospel, which perhaps have root in "Nibiru", the babylonian god.

After I read this I looked at the stories again, and you're right, there is a strong sexual component to it. You could also argue its sexist--Sophia tries to give birth without a man and she fails. But then you have the whole virgin Mary component.

But then I thought about it some more, and remembered that there's already a Father/Son/Holy Spirit trinity, which could be interpreted as polytheism, unless you accept the trinity theory, in which case you might as well have Sophia in the mix. And Sophia is sometimes identified as the Holy Spirit anyhow. So even if you interpret Sophia as a goddess, the whole thing is no more polytheistic than it was if you leave Sophia out.

Baal, by the way,. is not a god--it's a title, roughly translated as Lord. It's debatable which deities were Baal when they're mentioned in the Bible. But there's evidence that Y--H was part of a pantheon of Babylonian deities, and there's even a reference to Baal Y--H. The problem of course is that every time someone digs out a new temple inscription, it's a different pantheon. It was a dynamic, changing process, and the Israelites may have adapted a Babylonian deity, or the Babylonians may have made an existing deity part of their pantheons.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Adrammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Anammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Ashima II Kings 17:30 Samaritan Moon Goddess.
Ashtoreth I Kings 11:05 Canaanite Goddess.
Baal I Kings 18:19 Canaanite God ("Lord") of fertility, vegitation, and storms.
Baal-berith Judges 8:33 A regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-peor Numbers 25:03 Moabite regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-zebub Luke 11:19 Philistine/Ekronian regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baalim I Kings 18:18 Canaanite Gods ("Lords"), a collective of the different aspects of Baa.
Bel Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Sumerian God
Chemosh I Kings 11:07 Moabite war God.
Dagon I Samuel 05:02 Philistine/Ekronian/Babylonian God of agriculture.
Diana of the Ephesians Acts 19:35 Ephesian moon and nature Goddess, ("Divine/Brilliant").
Jehovah Exodus 6:03 Hebrew God
Jupiter Acts 14:12 Roman God (possibly derived from 'Zeus-pater', Father Zeus).
Lucifer Isiah 14:12 ("Light-Bearer")
Mercurius Acts 14:12 Otherwise known as the Roman God Mercury, God of communication and travel, and messenger of the Gods
Milcom I Kings 11:05 Ammonite God
Molech I Kings 11:07 Ammonite God, also called Moloch, most probably Baal-Hammon of Carthage.
Nebo Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Chaldean God of wisdom and writing, also called Nabu.
Nergal II Kings 17:30 Cuth/Assyrian/Babylonian war and underworld God, also called Meshlamthea.
Nibhaz II Kings 17:31 Avites God
Nisroch II Kings 19:37 Assyrian God
Rimmon II Kings 05:18 Babylonian/Syrian storm God involved (as Ramman) with the Deluge, according to Hebrew texts; also known as Ramman/Rammon
Succoth-benoth II Kings 17:30 Babylonian fertility Goddess ("She Who Produces Seed"), also known as Zarpanitu/Zerpanitum.
Tammuz Ezekial 8:14 Assyrian/Babylonian God
Tartak II Kings 17:31 Avites God

[Ruv Draba]

Or perhaps the Canaanite deities were perversions of the God of Judaism.Abraham spent time in Canaan I think, but Canaanite religion looks old. I get the impression they were worshipping their pantheon when he arrived. The Israelite YHWH was seen as a competitor to Baal and possibly identical to El (hence perhaps so many -El names in Judaism).

[ChristineR]

I believe the theory is that El (the Great God, father God, creator of all) was the leader of some sort of pantheon, and that YHWH was considered one of the members and children of El, specifically the one that had dominion over the Israelites. The original name of El varies, but I've heard Marduk. Somewhere along the line the transcendent properties of El get transferred to YHWH.

There are two problems I see with this theory. One is that I haven't seen what I would consider to be the actual evidence laid out objectively. Any information out there is fragmentary, and there may be other ways to connect the dots.

The other problem is chicken-egg. If the Israelites were worshiping YHWH as a transcendent deity, it wouldn't be surprising if their neighbors would stick him into their pantheon as one of the children of El the father, and it wouldn't be surprising that the Israelites would use the same word for their own father-deity. From what little I've been able to find out about the subject, it appears that both scenarios could fit.

[Roger J Carlson]

Abraham spent time in Canaan I think, but Canaanite religion looks old. I get the impression they were worshipping their pantheon when he arrived. The Israelite YHWH was seen as a competitor to Baal and possibly identical to El (hence perhaps so many -El names in Judaism).Again, it depends on your perspective. If you start with the belief that all the gods (including Jehovah) are just myths, then sure. If, on the other hand, you believe (as I do) that Jehovah created the universe, then there are no gods "older" than Jehovah.

[Roger J Carlson]

Adrammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Anammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Ashima II Kings 17:30 Samaritan Moon Goddess.
Ashtoreth I Kings 11:05 Canaanite Goddess.
Baal I Kings 18:19 Canaanite God ("Lord") of fertility, vegitation, and storms.
Baal-berith Judges 8:33 A regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-peor Numbers 25:03 Moabite regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-zebub Luke 11:19 Philistine/Ekronian regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baalim I Kings 18:18 Canaanite Gods ("Lords"), a collective of the different aspects of Baa.
Bel Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Sumerian God
Chemosh I Kings 11:07 Moabite war God.
Dagon I Samuel 05:02 Philistine/Ekronian/Babylonian God of agriculture.
Diana of the Ephesians Acts 19:35 Ephesian moon and nature Goddess, ("Divine/Brilliant").
Jehovah Exodus 6:03 Hebrew God
Jupiter Acts 14:12 Roman God (possibly derived from 'Zeus-pater', Father Zeus).
Lucifer Isiah 14:12 ("Light-Bearer")
Mercurius Acts 14:12 Otherwise known as the Roman God Mercury, God of communication and travel, and messenger of the Gods
Milcom I Kings 11:05 Ammonite God
Molech I Kings 11:07 Ammonite God, also called Moloch, most probably Baal-Hammon of Carthage.
Nebo Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Chaldean God of wisdom and writing, also called Nabu.
Nergal II Kings 17:30 Cuth/Assyrian/Babylonian war and underworld God, also called Meshlamthea.
Nibhaz II Kings 17:31 Avites God
Nisroch II Kings 19:37 Assyrian God
Rimmon II Kings 05:18 Babylonian/Syrian storm God involved (as Ramman) with the Deluge, according to Hebrew texts; also known as Ramman/Rammon
Succoth-benoth II Kings 17:30 Babylonian fertility Goddess ("She Who Produces Seed"), also known as Zarpanitu/Zerpanitum.
Tammuz Ezekial 8:14 Assyrian/Babylonian God
Tartak II Kings 17:31 Avites GodI'm not sure what your point is. I never said other gods weren't mentioned in the Bible. I said that there is no indication in scripture that other gods are REAL. In fact, all other gods are portrayed as man-made delusions.

[Ruv Draba]

Again, it depends on your perspective. If you start with the belief that all the gods (including Jehovah) are just myths, then sure. If, on the other hand, you believe (as I do) that Jehovah created the universe, then there are no gods "older" than Jehovah.Even if that were true, it needn't mean that Israelites were always monotheistic. But it might mean that their version of events was biassed and not always true. And if that were so, it shouldn't surprise us, because that's what we see in the histories of JHWH's followers and everyone else too.

[ChristineR]

I think it makes a difference because the historical and archeological evidence suggests that there was a polytheistic society who wrote the early books of the Bible, and that gradually a priestly hierarchy eliminated all but one of the deities, often using violence as a tool. There's very little doubt, for instance, that the person who wrote the first version Adam and Eve story was a polytheist or henotheist, and that when he talks about the "gods," he means just that.

Now you can certainly say that your belief system has only one God, and that the first authors of the Bible were mistaken, but then you have to work with the fact that the Bible has context. So I certainly think it can make a difference to your approach to the text, and it can make a difference if you believe that the evidence and the text supports your particular belief.

[Rhys Cordelle]

I think it makes a difference because the historical and archeological evidence suggests that there was a polytheistic society who wrote the early books of the Bible, and that gradually a priestly hierarchy eliminated all but one of the deities, often using violence as a tool. There's very little doubt, for instance, that the person who wrote the first version Adam and Eve story was a polytheist or henotheist, and that when he talks about the "gods," he means just that.

Now you can certainly say that your belief system has only one God, and that the first authors of the Bible were mistaken, but then you have to work with the fact that the Bible has context. So I certainly think it can make a difference to your approach to the text, and it can make a difference if you believe that the evidence and the text supports your particular belief.

QFT

If Jehovah created the universe then why isn't he the earliest god to be worshipped?

[Ruv Draba]

If Jehovah created the universe then why isn't he the earliest god to be worshipped?It's none of my concern of course, but the Abrahamic religions are faiths of revelation... so presumably a people can 'rediscover' a faith from before. And deities are largely intangible and unknowable anyway -- so who is to say who is who and under what name?

Certainly, that's how I view modern forms of these ancient faiths... Not actually the original faiths (which I think are far too barbaric to be relevant nowadays) but rediscoveries/reinterpretations of older faiths.

Although I'm fairly rational and love consistency, that doesn't bother me at all because all cultures seem to reinterpret themselves then retrofit their present vision to their roots. It's a very normal human thing to do. If it's true though, I think it would serve us better to recognise it than to try to ignore it -- it would certainly make us kinder to one another.

[Roger J Carlson]

There's very little doubt, for instance, that the person who wrote the first version Adam and Eve story was a polytheist or henotheist, and that when he talks about the "gods," he means just that.I would say there's a great deal of doubt about that. Once again, it depends on your perspective. A large number of scholars, both Christian and Jewish, believe the Genesis account was given to Moses as direct dictation from God around 1300 BC. Moses was certainly not polytheistic. Whether this is the "earliest" or not, is 1) up for debate and 2) the Moses account would certainly be correct as it was given directly from God.

[girlyswot]

The Hebrew word for God here is 'el. The hebrew word for Gods here is elohim.

...

Here's an issue of translation. Every English Bible I've looked at actually says God here, not Gods. But in Hebrew, the text does not say 'el. It says elohim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

I'm inclined to the trust the Hebrew over the English.



A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Yes, elohim is a plural form. And yet it regularly takes a singular verb in the Hebrew. The plural form can be used for a number of reasons in Hebrew, not only indicating a multiple subject. Here it is most likely to be a plural of majesty. Rather like the Queen referring to herself as 'we'.

[Ruv Draba]

Moses was certainly not polytheistic....except perhaps when he was growing up in Egypt, inculcated into that entirely polytheistic culture and perhaps unaware of his Israelite identity.

So when he turned to worshipping YHWH only, did he come to believe that any previous faith he had was false, or was he rather monolatrous (acknowledging many gods, but spurning them to worship only one), or henotheistic (believing that Israelites should only worship YHWH but acknowledging that other tribes could worship other deities)? And if he did become monotheistic, what persuaded him that other deities didn't exist?

All this is too speculative and mythically-cast for me to have a strong view, but it strikes me that if the Israelites in Moses' time were monotheistic or polytheistic, the Golden Calf story doesn't make a lot of sense. Monotheists would never bother worshipping another idol, and polytheists don't normally get up-tight about worshipping foreign deities.

[ChristineR]

I would say there's a great deal of doubt about that. Once again, it depends on your perspective. A large number of scholars, both Christian and Jewish, believe the Genesis account was given to Moses as direct dictation from God around 1300 BC. Moses was certainly not polytheistic. Whether this is the "earliest" or not, is 1) up for debate and 2) the Moses account would certainly be correct as it was given directly from God.

No secular scholar believes this, at least I've never heard of one that believes it. If your interpretation of the facts is predetermined, and you believe in advance that Genesis was dictated to Moses by God, sure, you'll come to a different conclusion. But if the evidence and history support your conclusion, then there can be a debate about it among scholars who aren't Biblical literalists. But the point of view you're talking about can obviously never find polytheism in the Bible, even if it's there. If you can give solid evidence that the passages in question were written long before they appear to have been, and that they were written by a monotheist, then by all means go for it.

[Roger J Carlson]

No secular scholar believes this, at least I've never heard of one that believes it. If your interpretation of the facts is predetermined, and you believe in advance that Genesis was dictated to Moses by God, sure, you'll come to a different conclusion. But if the evidence and history support your conclusion, then there can be a debate about it among scholars who aren't Biblical literalists. But the point of view you're talking about can obviously never find polytheism in the Bible, even if it's there. If you can give solid evidence that the passages in question were written long before they appear to have been, and that they were written by a monotheist, then by all means go for it.Which goes back to my original point. It all depends on your perspective.

You are making the presumption that secular scholars are right and biblical literalists are wrong. That's your perspective. But Biblical literalists believe that the Bible IS history and evidence. If you exclude the evidence of the Bible, then you will of course come to different conclusions as well.

The problem with studying history is that it always comes down to belief -- belief in the accuracy of some sources and inaccuracy of others. None of us has actually been to the past to see what was true, so we have to filter it through other people's writings. There is no objective evidence in history. At some point, you have to believe something and so it becomes subjective.

[Ruv Draba]

If you exclude the evidence of the Bible, then you will of course come to different conclusions as well.It seems to me that truth is truth. Unless we want to posit that the world is perfidiously inconsistent, truth without the Bible as evidence should be the same truth; just possibly a bit harder to get to. So I don't think that truth is simply a matter of perspective; theories are a matter of perspective -- and religious myth can offer theory (if it's treated literally), just as science offers theory. No matter our level of conviction, if we want to hold theory as rational truth, we need overwhelming objective evidence.

The problem with studying history is that it always comes down to belief -- belief in the accuracy of some sources and inaccuracy of others.Theory is just a kind of predictive belief... but not all theories are equal.

Some theories are sentimental; some aren't. Sentimental theories are often evaluated by who they please; but unsentimental theories can only be evaluated by what they predict.

Historical theories can predict findings just as natural science theories can. If we predict that culture A traded uranium, and then we find yellowcake glazing in a culture A site then that gives us confidence about our theory.

A sentimental theory could be right, but that hasn't been our experience in trying to fathom history. Generally we've found that the more sentiment we allow, the more that sample bias, confirmation bias and culture biases apply -- which results in us overlooking information and embarrassing ourselves later. That has given many of us the clear message that the world doesn't care what we believe, or how strongly we believe it. We need to set our sentiment aside if we're to understand things.

Biblical literalism could easily become a dominant unsentimental theory just by making unlikely predictions and having them born out in independent material investigation. For example, unearthing an old wooden ship in Turkey full of ancient kangaroo-dung would rock the archaeological world and send archaeologists scurrying back to their Old Testaments. :) That however, hasn't happened, and indeed the reverse has been occurring -- with archaeological findings challenging Biblical claims. In consequence, while some sentimental people are still looking for remnants of Noah's ark, unsentimental people stopped doing that in the early 20th century.

History is evolving. Two hundred years ago, the Bible was the only source of information most Europeans had about the ancient Middle East (and if they were literate in Hebrew they might consult the Tanakh too). That's no longer the case and in the eyes of unsentimental theorists, the Bible now has to share with other sources of evidence, like digs and linguistic studies and anthropological lore and so on. :) That has dropped the Bible's authority status, but the same has happened to every other so-called authority too -- from Aristotle to Einstein.

Science is kinda brutal in its lack of sentiment. :tongue

[AMCrenshaw]

From another perspective, I'm not sure what difference it would make if there were multiple gods in the Bible. What's at stake, really?


AMC

[ChristineR]

Which goes back to my original point. It all depends on your perspective.

You are making the presumption that secular scholars are right and biblical literalists are wrong. That's your perspective. But Biblical literalists believe that the Bible IS history and evidence. If you exclude the evidence of the Bible, then you will of course come to different conclusions as well.

The problem with studying history is that it always comes down to belief -- belief in the accuracy of some sources and inaccuracy of others. None of us has actually been to the past to see what was true, so we have to filter it through other people's writings. There is no objective evidence in history. At some point, you have to believe something and so it becomes subjective.

You said it was debatable. Can you debate it? Can you offer some evidence for it? I don't believe the Bible itself isn't evidence, I just don't accept that it's absolutely literally true on all points. When you look at the Bible, there are plenty of problems and contradictions, which to me, indicate that while it's valuable in many ways, it can't be taken as literal truth. I don't see this as subjective at all. The only way you can conclude that the Bible is literally true is by excluding a huge amount of other evidence, some of it historical, but much of it geological, biological, genetic, archeological, anthropological.

I am not making the assumption that secular scholars are correct and that literalists are wrong. I am making the assumption that literalists will never come to a conclusion that contradicts their literalism, but that competent secular scholars will do their best to weigh all the evidence and come up with a reasonably correct scenario. Furthermore, I believe that the best secular scholars will change their scenario if there's more evidence presented. In a case like this, I would say that literalists--of any sort--are not going to be the best source for your information because by definition they are working with foregone conclusions. My point of view is that truth exists, and that if you can't always find it, at least you can get closer each time you find some new evidence.

[Ruv Draba]

From another perspective, I'm not sure what difference it would make if there were multiple gods in the Bible. What's at stake, really?History, literature and politics, I think. Theology too, of course.

History: to better understand this part of the human story.
Literature: to better appreciate the inspiration of Christian, Judaic and Islamic mythology.
Politics: to better discuss Abrahamic intolerance of other beliefs.
Theology: to better understand one's faith, one needs to understand how it arose

For political reasons I'd like to find compelling evidence that the Israelites were not always monotheistic. Historically and literarily I think that such evidence is plentiful -- just not conclusive enough for me to have the conversation I'd dearly love to have with some of my Abrahamic colleagues. :)

In the meantime, for anyone who is interested in the idea of Israelite non-monotheism I refer the excellent Adath Shalom (http://www.adath-shalom.ca/israelite_religion.htm) web-site -- a conservative Jewish web-site that explores Tanakh- and external-based evidence for the origins of Israelite religion.

[AMCrenshaw]

No I'm not saying we shouldn't know the truth, but I'm wondering - if it turns out the origins of the Israelite religion have polytheistic elements (or doesn't) ...does it make much difference, really? I'm curious as to the answer, but I suppose my interest ends there, even if I think curiosity is enough.


AMC

[Ruv Draba]

if it turns out the origins of the Israelite religion have polytheistic elements (or doesn't)Monotheism is something of a theological curiosity. Monotheistic religions define themselves in opposition to polytheistic and pantheistic faiths, whereas the reverse isn't true.

Monotheistic religions also have a history of iconoclasty -- destroying the sacred artefacts of rival faiths (and often their worshippers too). This is seen not only in the mainstream Abrahamic religions but in the Aten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten) (sun disk) cult in the reign of Amenhotep IV (around 1400BCE). By general religious standards, monotheistic religions have been exceptionally aggressive in their intolerance of other faiths -- intolerance of 'idolatry' typically comes to be seen as an act of devotion, while tolerance is often seen as heretical. So monotheism tends to lock xenophobia and supremacism into its own ethos, and once locked in, it doesn't easily unlock.

What creates that intolerance? When did it begin? Why then? What, if anything might change it? These are the sorts of questions that drive me as a humanist to get interested in monotheistic religions.

The answers surely lie in the roots of the religion, and in its history of theological reform. In the case of Atenism, we have many surviving writings so we know much of what was going on.

History tells us that Aten was originally an aspect of the Sun-god Re (Ra), a deity worshipped by the polytheistic Egyptians. But the reforms of Amenhotep IV recast Aten as the sole god (and himself the sole mediary) by a series of steps beginning with enforced monolatry and ending with persecution. He changed the language, moved the capital, renamed himself to Akhenaten ('Pleasing to Aten'), created laws prohibiting other worship even in the home, defaced ancient temples and monuments, cut off temple funds and presumably applied draconian punishments against those whose faith had been stable for fifteen prior centuries.

Although it sounds megalomaniacal (and his later writings have been described as obsessive), Amenhotep IV's reforms may have originally been created in terror. A major volcanic eruption on the isle of Santorini at about that time might have blackened all of Egypt with ash, and made the Egyptians feel abandoned by their old gods. If Atenism had survived to today, what could well have begun as obsessive terror might instead look like inspired revelation.

But Atenism didn't survive much past Akhenaten's death. Still hanging in, the old priesthood were able to make a puppet of his successor Tutankhamen. Akhenaten's records were themselves erased, and Egypt went back to polytheism.

Moses too by legend was a great reformer -- and for him too, reform was a polite word for it by modern standards. According to common interpretations he expanded and toughened the Noahide laws to introduce the death penalty for numerous offences including working on the sabbath, witchcraft, hitting your parents, kidnapping, cursing your parents, leaving a vicious pet alive and unpenned, false prophecy and some kinds of rape, and for defeated foes. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women children, who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18 - 21st century King James Bible)

Tolerance, even celebration of this sort of behaviour in some quarters disturbs the heck out of me, but also provokes my curiosity. While some tales of Moses may be mythical, I'd be glad to have as detailed, objective and well-documented a history for him as we have for Akhenaten and modern theocratic dictators.

Alas, but we don't.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Now for a Latter-day Saint Perspective on this discussion: Latter-day Saint meaning Mormon.

First, Mormonism is neither Monotheistic, nor is it Polytheistic. It is simply a more Henotheistic belief system. Meaning, Mormonism teaches that there are many Gods/Goddesses, however there is only One Godhead that oversees all things pertaining to this world. Second, Mormonism denounces the traditionally held creedal confession that espouses a convoluted One Being in three essences and natures of personhood - The Trinity. Mormonism teaches that The Father and Son are separate and distinct from one another.

Now, as to pertaining to the Biblical Polytheism - it is interesting to note that there are some significant studies done on this. For instance, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is a Masoretic Text rendering of a much older passage. This rendering is far different than the original Hebrew. How So? The Original Hebrew specifically discusses that when God (Elohiem) separated the nations, he did so according to the number of the Sons of God. The Masoretic text (as it reads in our current English Translations) renders the passage to reflect that when God separated the nations, and set their boundaries, he did so according to the number of the children of Israel.

The problem with this is that when you look at Israel - he had 12 Children who became the fathers 12 Tribes. According to Genesis, there is what is referred to as the Table of Nations. According to this table of Nations - there were 70 different nations recorded. Now, how can 70 nations be divided evenly into 12? Furthermore, verse 9 states that the nation that fell to YHWH (Yahweh) was Jacob - Jacob being Israel.

Michael Heiser discusses this and refers to it as the Divine Council. In fact, Mormon Apologist actually embrace the idea that Psalm 82:6 refers to this as evidence to a Divine Council.

For interesting reading:

Reconsidering Psalm 82:6 Judges or Gods? A Proposal (http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Reconsidering_Psalms_82_6.html)

Fair Wiki: Nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah (http://en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Elohim_and_Jehovah)

Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon's Book (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html)

The King Follett Discourse in the Light of Ancient and Medieval Jewish and Christian Beliefs (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_King_Follett_Discourse_in_the_Light_of_Ancien t_Beliefs.html)

Do We Have the Potential to become Like God? (http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html)

[small axe]

Just to add some extra spin to the issue, the single and unique GOD later comes to be understood as being a "Trinity" ... so doesn't even God (and Scripture) allow interpretation as both a ONE and a PLURAL ("I" the uniqhe God and "we" the Trinity) ?

As for Old Testament scripture addressing "other gods" that "actually exist" ... as others have already suggested, a commandment not to worship "other gods" can mean false religions and non-existent gods.

Plus, any pagan god can easily be understood to be nothing but a fallen angel or demon (not assuming those are the same, either) POSTURING as an "other god" -- exercising whatever corrupt powers or magics it can to fool and seduce gullible humans.

Also ... Scripture ITSELF doesn't record or pretend that Israel or the Tribes were faithfully monotheistic; periodically they fell into shameful polytheism (at least from a monotheist's perspective)

Some suggest that the reason the ARK disappeared from the Temple was because the faithful priests were disgusted by the corruption of foreign idols in the Temple under wicked kings.

Polytheism in the Bible is presented as (imo) a sadly re-occurring episode of seduction to ignorance and faithlessness. Not saying polytheists ARE guilty of those ... but that's how Scripture usually presents them to us.

It's no scandal that "polytheism" rears its head in Scripture. :)
It's THERE.
But it's not there as often as some claim, and when it's there it's shown to be a symptom of human failure.

It's holding up a mirror to the cultures alive at the time, in a historically valid way, perhaps.

Again, that's just my perspective on how Scripture treats it. What do I know? I'm not even sure many polytheists TODAY (living in a Judeo-Christian context) can claim to follow the same kind of polytheism as existed in ancient times.

To do so, you'd have to accept Polytheism as having the same weight and validity as the secular world holds SCIENCE today.

Treating Polytheism as merely some sort of spiritually comforting symbolism (as some moderns do) ...
versus treating it as perhaps the ancients did, as being their "science" that literally explains the workings of the physical universe ... not the same thing, imo.

[semilargeintestine]

You've gotten some horrible translations, and they all seem to stem from a very simple mistake.

The word Elokim literally means "gods." When translated, every instance in the Torah that this appears would seem to indicate multiple deities. This is a mistake. The name Elokim is simply one of G-d's names. It is used to indicate His attribute of justice, and the reason it is in the plural is to indicate that all the aspects we may view as multiple gods are really One--yud-hay-vav-hay.


Psalms 82:1

"God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods, He holds judgment."

This seems fairly obvious; the implication is that the Christian God is not completely in charge of everything, but that he decides the fate of the dead. Many other systems of gods had a specific figure assigned to this role, (Osiris and Morrigan) so it seems natural that a polytheistic Christian would have a god filling the same role.

The Hebrew word for God here is 'el. The hebrew word for Gods here is elohim.

Psalms was written by a Jew and is part of the Jewish Bible. It has nothing to do with Xtianity. The name Elokim is translated as G-d, not gods.


Genesis 3:22

"The gods said, 'Behold, the human has become like one of us, knowing good and evil...'"

Again, Elokim means G-d. It says "like one of us," refering to G-d and the angels.

Genesis 35:7

"Jacob built an altar there ... because there the gods were revealed to him."

Again, Elokim means G-d.


Genesis 20:13

"Abraham said 'The gods caused me to wander from my house.'"

Here's an issue of translation. Every English Bible I've looked at actually says God here, not Gods. But in Hebrew, the text does not say 'el. It says elohim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

I'm inclined to the trust the Hebrew over the English.

In Genesis, the writer appears to be consistently, intentionally using the plural on purpose.

Again, Elokim means G-d--see the explanation above for your misunderstanding.

Genesis 1:26

"Then God [plural elohim] said, "Let Us [plural pronoun] make man in Our [plural pronoun] image, according to Our [plural pronoun] likeness"

Would it then be more accurate to say "Then the gods said..."?

No. Again, Elokim means G-d. He was speaking to the angels. Look at the next verse:

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹ-ים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ

"And [He] G-d created man in His image." Notice that the verb and modifier are singular. Every time the name Elokim is used, it is with a singular verb. This is the problem with trying to translate without knowing Hebrew--you make mistakes like you've made here.

Proverbs 9:1-5

"Wisdom has built her house;
she has hewn out its seven pillars. She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine;
she has also set her table.
She has sent out her maids, and she calls
from the highest point of the city.
"Let all who are simple come in here!"
she says to those who lack judgment.
"Come, eat my food
and drink the wine I have mixed"

This one isn't obvious. Wisdom is being referred to here as an entity, and the Greek word for wisdom is "Sophia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_%28wisdom%29#In_Gnosticism)." In Gnostic tradition of Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Christianity), Sophia was considered to be the wife of God -- a Goddess.

In fact, if one does not immediately discard the Gnostic tradition as heretical, there are a number of stories involving Sophia and Jesus in their religious texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis_Sophia), though these were never included in the Bible.

Again, nothing to do with Xtianity. It's Jewish. Not sure what the problem is here. It's clearly a metaphor. It's part of Writings and is not supposed to be taken as anything but a proverb.


Commandments not to Worship

Exodus 20:3

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

This seems pretty obvious. G-d spoke directly to the Jews to not worship false gods before Him.


Deuteronomy 6:14

"You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you"

Same as above.


2 Kings 17:35
"...with whom the LORD made a covenant and commanded them, saying, "You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down yourselves to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them."

Same as above.


Jeremiah 25:6

"and do not go after other gods to serve them and to worship them, and do not provoke Me to anger with the work of your hands, and I will do you no harm.'"

Same as above.

Jeremiah 35:15

"Also I have sent to you all My servants the prophets, sending them again and again, saying: 'Turn now every man from his evil way and amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to worship them. Then you will dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your forefathers; but you have not inclined your ear or listened to Me."

Same as above.

Exodus 34:14

"For the Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God."

This doesn't imply other gods are legitimate. It just implies He really, really does not want Jews worshipping other gods.


Psalm 97:7

"All who worship images are put to shame. Those who boast in idols -- worship him, all you Gods."

Like most things in psalms, it's a metaphor.

Psalms 97:9

"For you O Lord are the most high over all the Earth. You are exalted far above all gods."

Because the rest are illegitimate.

Exodus 18:20

"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who treated Israel arrogantly."

Once again, because the other gods are not real.


##

There appears to have been a schism in heaven. In Genesis, God seems to be getting along with the other deities. By Exodus, God is a distinct entity apart from the other gods, and is jealous of them. What happened?

There are no other deities. The reason G-d consults with angels in Genesis is to show that even G-d consults with others before making a decision, and even more so should we. However, He alone creates man. Nothing changed, you just misunderstood the Hebrew and took it completely out of context.

###

My Hebrew is awful. My crutch for discussing it may be found here:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm


My responses are in the bold.

[StephanieFox]

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Yes, elohim is a plural form. And yet it regularly takes a singular verb in the Hebrew. The plural form can be used for a number of reasons in Hebrew, not only indicating a multiple subject. Here it is most likely to be a plural of majesty. Rather like the Queen referring to herself as 'we'.

Do you mean like, y'all being singular? :tongue

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

No I'm not saying we shouldn't know the truth, but I'm wondering - if it turns out the origins of the Israelite religion have polytheistic elements (or doesn't) ...does it make much difference, really? I'm curious as to the answer, but I suppose my interest ends there, even if I think curiosity is enough.


AMC

Depends on who you ask. If you ask a Christian, they would be very adamant that there is only one God, that there has only ever been one God and only ever will be one God. If it were ever proven that Christianity could be polytheistic or even duotheistic in even the slightest way it could rock the religion severely. Me personally, it doesn't make much difference but I'm not a Christian.

There is a belief amongst Gnostic Christians that God was initially a duotheistic deity, male and female in one being.

[semilargeintestine]

Depends on who you ask. If you ask a Christian, they would be very adamant that there is only one God, that there has only ever been one God and only ever will be one God. If it were ever proven that Christianity could be polytheistic or even duotheistic in even the slightest way it could rock the religion severely. Me personally, it doesn't make much difference but I'm not a Christian.

There is a belief amongst Gnostic Christians that God was initially a duotheistic deity, male and female in one being.

Certain forms of Xtianity are polytheistic (though I would argue they all are, since they believe G-d had sex with a human woman and made her give birth to a separate diety that is technically half-god/half-human like many of the pagan gods).

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

Certain forms of Xtianity are polytheistic (though I would argue they all are, since they believe G-d had sex with a human woman and made her give birth to a separate diety that is technically half-god/half-human like many of the pagan gods).

They would argue against you on that point. Whether the arguement has any merit I'm not sure. The only Christian who ever tried to explain it to me just made it sound like it was some mystery humans weren't meant to know. Though I'd genuinely like to know which ones you're referring to, as I can assure you Gnostic Christianity is duotheistic.

[semilargeintestine]

They would argue against you on that point. Whether the arguement has any merit I'm not sure. The only Christian who ever tried to explain it to me just made it sound like it was some mystery humans weren't meant to know. Though I'd genuinely like to know which ones you're referring to, as I can assure you Gnostic Christianity is duotheistic.

They would certainly argue against it. They have argued against it, but their arguments are flawed and illogical. It usually boils down to, "it's a matter of faith" or some form of the deep mystery argument.

Interestingly, they usually point to a passage in the Torah from Deuteronomy:


שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל יה אֱלֹ-ינוּ, יה אֶחָד
Hear, O Israel! The LORD our G-d, the LORD is One.

They say that because it has three names of G-d, that proves that the trinity is all part of G-d. The hilarious part of this is that the quoted passage actually means completely the opposite of their religion.

First of all, just because G-d is mentioned three times, that does not mean three names are used: only two are used, one is just used twice.

Second, the last word (to the left, since Hebrew is read right to left) is echad, which means one. It does not mean one and only one. That word would be yuchad. The reason echad is used instead is remarkable. It is to show that while you would think that because bad and good happen, feast and famine, war and peace, etc., that there are multiple gods controlling all of these aspects; but, you would be wrong. In fact, each of these aspects are really part of the same thing--One G-d. If the word yuchad were used, it would exclude the concept of having multiple aspects to the same G-d, which is not reality. Chazal liken it to a prism. You see light passing through a prism as multiple different colours, but they are all from the same single source.

This is completely against the trinity, in which three separate entities are acting independently, yet they still point to that verse as proof. I think it's mostly because they just don't understand it.

As far as polytheistic Xtians go, I count Gnostics in there too. Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods, and two is multiple. A binomial is a polynomial even if it has a special name.

Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus as a created being, but still divine I think. Mormons believe G-d and Jesus are separate divine entities. Several branches also profess a "fully human, fully divine" Jesus, which makes absolutely no sense. Either he is only divine, only human, or a mixture.

ETA: In looking for the information on which branches are advertised duotheists (to use the more distinct terminology), I had to edit a wikipedia article in which the author wrote that the Kabbalah holds that Jesus is part of G-d (Heaven Forbid). Gotta love people spreading completely false information on wikipedia.

[small axe]

:)

It's odd to see how folks' cultural assumptions inform their worldview ... even when they are trying to re-define (or think they are trying to rebel against) those same cultural assumptions.

I'd suggest that in common use, the term "God" can be expected to refer to ONLY a single, supreme being ... no matter how many forms or manifestations that God can choose to take.

In that case, one could wonder whether (or where) there's even a problem, theologically, with the idea of "biblical polytheism" ?

In many forms of Hinduism, are there not many "separate" gods ... all of whom are merely seen ultimately as aspects of ONE ALL-CONTAINING GOD?

All that is demanded to be a "Monotheist" then might be that we are demanded to recognize the ultimate ONENESS of a variety of gods as all being aspects of the ONE GOD. :)

By that system, there's not a "god of fire" or a "god of rivers" ... there's only God AS fire or God AS rivers.

The ERROR in polytheism would then be simply that some humans fail to give GOD His due worship by thinking God is puny enough that He is only fire or only rivers, when God is EVERYTHING.

The ERROR of false religions and false gods then would be their ignorance in placing LIMITS on God, by reducing EVERYTHING to mere separate things.

A GOD that is both ONE and Trinity, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or both Transcendent Soul and Incarnated Flesh) wouldn't necessarily be a theological problem, in that worldview. We would only fall into the error of the polytheists if we worshipped those parts of divinity apart from the WHOLE of Divinity.

It would be like being fooled into worshipping each separate part of the jigsaw puzzle of GOD as if it were the whole picture ... when obviously all the pieces together as ONE are the only valid "whole picture"

That's not to suggest that all gods are true or equally valid (I'd argue they are not).
That would be like saying it didn't matter what shapes the puzzle pieces are ... when obviously the pieces won't fit or form an intelligent whole unless they properly fit together.

It is suggesting that there's no theological problem in seeing that there are numerous pieces to the puzzle which unite to reveal a single and correct WHOLE.

GOD may be the SUM that is greater than the sum of all parts. Monotheism may be the greater TRUTH that is the whole which need not fear its lesser polytheistic parts ... like no single brain cell can think its own thought or have its own consciousness ... but billions of brain cells performing their own idiotic role together can think the greatest thoughts and truths ever to exist in human consciousness.

*shrug*

Who cares what the superstitious primitives thought? :)

Especially once we finally realize they may have been neither 'superstitious' nor 'primitive' ???

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

As far as polytheistic Xtians go, I count Gnostics in there too. Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods, and two is multiple. A binomial is a polynomial even if it has a special name.

Duotheism




Duotheism is the belief in two deities, most commonly in a single god and a single goddess, although it can also be used to regard a mutual power between two deities. It is sometimes explained with the phrase, "All the gods are one god and all the goddesses are one goddess," purportedly from the Eleusinian Mysteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries).
A duotheistic understanding of the divine is often found in popular books about Wicca (http://pagantheologies.pbworks.com/Wicca) and neo-Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Paganism), which often refer to "The Goddess" and her consort, "The God". Nowadays more and more Wiccans are taking a polytheistic stance, as it becomes difficult to sustain syncretism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism) on such a massive scale.

Polytheism




Wikipedia article on Polytheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism)
Pagan Wiki article on Polytheism (http://www.paganwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Polytheism)
"Hard" and "soft" polytheism (http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=ukgb2&c=words&id=11318) by Crowshadower (Witchvox article)
Why polytheism? (http://executivepagan.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/why-polytheism/) by Erik Dutton (http://pagantheologies.pbworks.com/Erik+Dutton)

Polytheism is belief in, or worship of, multiple gods or divinities. The word comes from the Greek words poly+theoi, literally "many Gods." Ancient religion was polytheistic, holding to a pantheon of traditional deities. The belief in many Gods does not necessarily preclude, but it sometimes includes, the belief in an all-powerful all-knowing supreme being, as the ruler and parent (often king and father) of Gods and mankind.

In Polytheistic belief, Gods are conceived as complex personages of greater or lesser status, with individual skills, needs, desires and stories. The Gods are not always omnipotent or omniscient; rather, they are often portrayed as similar to humans in their personality traits, but with additional individual powers, abilities, knowledge or perceptions.

[Roger J Carlson]

...though I would argue they all are, since they believe G-d had sex with a human woman and made her give birth to a separate diety that is technically half-god/half-human like many of the pagan gods...And that would be a mis-characterization of the nature of Christ.

He was both fully God ("For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," - Col 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%202:9&version=NIV))

and fully human. Jesus had a human birth : “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,” (Gal. 4:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal%204:4&version=NIV)) and a human genealogy (Matthew 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%201&version=NIV), Luke 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%203&version=NIV)).

Jesus had a human body that experienced growth (Luke 2:40, 52 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:40,%2052&version=NIV)), hunger (Matt. 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%204:2&version=NIV)), thirst (John 19:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:28&version=NIV)), tiredness (John 4:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:6&version=NIV)), and death (Luke 23:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:46&version=NIV)).

And neither was he a separate entity: ("I and the Father are one" - John 10:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:30&version=NIV))

I realize as a Jew, you do not believe these things, but please don't ridicule those of us who do by mis-characterizing our beliefs -- or by talking about us as if we weren't here.

[johnnysannie]

Certain forms of Xtianity are polytheistic (though I would argue they all are, since they believe G-d had sex with a human woman and made her give birth to a separate diety that is technically half-god/half-human like many of the pagan gods).

I can't speak for what Protestant Christians believe but as a Catholic, we do not believe that God had sex with a human woman. Jesus was conceived through Immaculate Conception, a mystical, miraculous conception that did not include sex which why in our faith we refer to Mary as the "Virgin Mary" and talk about the Virgin birth. Jesus during his time on earth was fully human in body but he was not conceived through sex.

[small axe]

Besides the explanations already given above, your comment --


Originally Posted by semilargeintestine http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4513301#post4513301)
Certain forms of Xtianity are polytheistic (though I would argue they all are, since they believe G-d had sex with a human woman and made her give birth to a separate diety that is technically half-god/half-human like many of the pagan gods).


-- is a fiction of your own construction, nothing even vaguely supported by Scripture.

Even in pagan myth, supernatural beings have to take some material (and sexual) form to "have sex" with a human being.

So what you're suggesting would be ANOTHER (previous) "Incarnation" of the Judeo-Christian GOD into a human, previous to Jesus' Incarnation AS a human.

It's just you making things up that Scripture doesn't support.

So ... Either you're unfamiliar with and don't know Judeo-Christian SCRIPTURE ...

... or you're unfamiliar with and don't know human SEX. :D

Ah well, there's always the Kama Sutra!

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

There are some pagan gods who did have sex with mortals, mostly though in the Greek mythos. Roman possibly also, but outside that I don't think there are many myths of a god 'having sex' with a mortal. Usually it's by really unusual means, or it's between a god and a goddess. Oh, and a small percentage (if any) of pagan gods are NOT half immortal. Don't confuse gods with demi-gods.

But back on topic yeah, the bible doesn't support the 'God had sex with a mortal woman' arguement. That is pretty clearly explained.

[liythae]

I've read through this thread (which is fascinating, by the way), and I noticed nobody mentioned anything about the Nephilim.

Gen. 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Num. 13:33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

From what I understand of this, the Nephilim were the offspring of god-like beings and mortal women. They were big and scary. This sounds to me like Greek mythology.

[ChristineR]

Nephilim are a kind of angel, possibly a fallen angel. There's also Cherubim (cherubs) and probably some others I forgot. Now there's a subtle distinction between an angel and a god, and I don't quite know what it is, but probably the idea here is that no one actually worshiped the Nephilim and they are either subservient or servants in revolt.

[liythae]

Angels in the Bible are described as terrifyingly awesome creatures. Just about anyone who encountered an angel fell on their face trembling. And they were just the messengers. Who's to say they weren't mistaken for gods?
These 'Sons of God' were walking around on earth and fathering children. Big, strong, herculean children. "Men of renown", they were called. I just thought the parallels to Greek (and other) mythology are interesting. It would imply that Zeus could have been a fallen angel (according to legend, I think he rebelled against his father or something).

Just throwing it out there for discussion. :)