Other Gods

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
I think the Bible starts out from henotheistic position but later moves to a more fully monotheistic one.
And then lapses into semi-dualism with the introduction of a cosmic Adversary - which, all things considered, in incompatible with bona fide monotheism.

Personally, I think this is owed to Zoroastrian influences - as is the demotion of the sons of El to mere angels and demons using the earth as a cosmic battleground between Light and Darkness, and the conception of a dual afterlife.

The BIG difference between Christianity and Zoroastrianism is that the latter depicts Man as not being on the side of Evil by default, but by and large considers them agents of the Good Creator rather than His evil son.
 
Upvote 0

Tobias

Relationship over Religion
Jan 8, 2004
3,734
482
California
✟21,764.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Private
I'm not sure they were even demons to Paul:

"4-13 In this matter, then, of eating meat which has been offered to idols, knowledge tells us that no idol has any real existence, and that there is no God but one. For though there are so-called gods both in heaven and earth, gods and lords galore in fact, to us there is only one God, the Father, from whom everything comes, and for who we live. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom everything exists, and by whom we ourselves are alive. But this knowledge of ours is not shared by all men. For some, who until now have been used to idols, eat the meat as meat really sacrificed to a god, and their delicate conscience is thereby injured." 1 Corinthians 8



Yes, but isn't that how progressive revelation works? That earlier, more primitive conceptions are replaced by more sophisticated ones?


Everyone reads the Bible with various filters on, which make them believe certain passages while disbelieving others.

I'm not certain how much we can attribute in this case to progressive revelation. Consider this verse, way back in Deuteronomy 32:

17 “They sacrificed to demons who were not God,
To gods whom they have not known,
New gods who came lately,
Whom your fathers did not dread.



Paul explains his position a little more clearly in 1 Cor 10:

19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.


So IOW no, I don't think this is a case of progressive revelation.
 
Upvote 0

Tobias

Relationship over Religion
Jan 8, 2004
3,734
482
California
✟21,764.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Private
My summary on the thread:

henotheism. I'm surprised no one else has brought up this word yet, but it is the Biblical position, IMHO.

I think the Bible starts out from henotheistic position but later moves to a more fully monotheistic one.


Yes, I suppose my views fall under henotheism, but that is a very broad category that is not very well defined.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think the Bible starts out from henotheistic position but later moves to a more fully monotheistic one.

This presents an interesting case study on perspective! I can fully see how your conclusion stated here can be arrived at, and yet I see the Bible as G-d's POV given for us. So I can't see Truth as mutable; instead, the focus changes.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And then lapses into semi-dualism with the introduction of a cosmic Adversary - which, all things considered, in incompatible with bona fide monotheism.

Not in the least! There is no introduction of worship of the dark side, which is what we'd be talking about. And if you want to talk about "introducing," may I present Job 1? (Held by many to be the oldest book of the Bible)

the conception of a dual afterlife.

I find the statement to be a mis-representation. G-d is the same in both conditions; the only difference is one's state of mind. This is surprisingly similar to Buddhism. Disturbingly so for some Christians.

The BIG difference between Christianity and Zoroastrianism is that the latter depicts Man as not being on the side of Evil by default, but by and large considers them agents of the Good Creator rather than His evil son.

More odd distortions. I know where you get them from, but the Bible doesn't paint us as having a "default position." (Nor G-d as having an evil Son)
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
This presents an interesting case study on perspective! I can fully see how your conclusion stated here can be arrived at, and yet I see the Bible as G-d's POV given for us. So I can't see Truth as mutable; instead, the focus changes.

God reveals to us in accordance with our capacity to understand. If you are in the first grade and try to subtract 7 from 5 your teacher is likely to tell you you can't do this. Further on in your education you will learn about negative numbers and then you will be able to subtract 7 from 5. That doesn't mean your first grade teacher lied.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
God reveals to us in accordance with our capacity to understand. If you are in the first grade and try to subtract 7 from 5 your teacher is likely to tell you you can't do this. Further on in your education you will learn about negative numbers and then you will be able to subtract 7 from 5. That doesn't mean your first grade teacher lied.

Interesting analogy ^_^ I always ran into this particular problem in school, and teachers either loved me or hated me. Math teachers in particular normally hated me; fortunately G-d Himself is not limited by the learning curve of the class :)
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
Not in the least! There is no introduction of worship of the dark side, which is what we'd be talking about. And if you want to talk about "introducing," may I present Job 1? (Held by many to be the oldest book of the Bible)

Whoah, and you think the Jesus Seminar is going off the deep end? Who in the world holds this? There are suggestions in the Talmud that Job might have been a contemporary of Abraham or Jacob, but that doesn't mean the Book of Job goes back that far.

(Nor G-d as having an evil Son)

Well, Job does depict Satan as one of the sons of god. But then Satan in the Book of Job is not considered evil.
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
Math teachers in particular normally hated me; fortunately G-d Himself is not limited by the learning curve of the class :)

Well, He may be able to meet the needs of those of different capacities better than your teacher could, but for God to relate to us, He has to do so in accordance with our own limitations.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BruceDLimber

Baha'i
Nov 14, 2005
2,820
63
Rockville, Maryland, USA
✟10,839.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think of them more along the lines of created angels, who have free will just like we do.

The Baha'i scriptures in fact dovetail with this!

I quote:

"[c]oncerning His words: 'And He shall send His angels...' By 'angels' is meant those who, reinforced by the power of the spirit, have consumed, with the fire of the love of God, all human traits and limitations, and have clothed themselves with the attributes of the most exalted Beings...."
­The Book of Certitude, pp. 78-79

Thus angels are in fact people who have become completely spiritual!

Peace, :)

Bruce
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
Not in the least! There is no introduction of worship of the dark side, which is what we'd be talking about. And if you want to talk about "introducing," may I present Job 1? (Held by many to be the oldest book of the Bible)
Didn't you already claim that the Bible was heno- rather than monotheistic?
And the issue WRT "the dark side" isn't worship, but the sheer incompatibility with monotheism. In a strictly monotheistic setting, the notion of a cosmic adversary is simply impossible - for no matter which way you turn it, it always relies upon a genuine conflict. In a monotheistic universe, however, there can be no competition, no challenge whatsoever. Any enemy of the One God could only act within the limits set by the One True Deity, and can at no point pose a genuine threat unless the Deity wills/allows it.

I find the statement to be a mis-representation. G-d is the same in both conditions; the only difference is one's state of mind. This is surprisingly similar to Buddhism. Disturbingly so for some Christians.
Raze, I know that your personal flavor of Christianity differs from many, if not most versions of it. (Even though it's mirroring the Orthodox position in this particular case.) Let's not pretend that your version of "TRUE Christianity" was the default definition, the majority position or even a major factor in the history of the last 2,000 years.

More odd distortions. I know where you get them from, but the Bible doesn't paint us as having a "default position." (Nor G-d as having an evil Son)
Aren't we ALL in desperate need of a saviour? Aren't we ALL unable to save ourselves? Aren't we ALL headed towards "wailing and gnashing of teeth"? I don't exactly remember you being a universalist, nor did I see you conceive of hell as a temporary place of painful cleansing, as in Zoroastrianism.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Didn't you already claim that the Bible was heno- rather than monotheistic?
And the issue WRT "the dark side" isn't worship, but the sheer incompatibility with monotheism. In a strictly monotheistic setting, the notion of a cosmic adversary is simply impossible - for no matter which way you turn it, it always relies upon a genuine conflict. In a monotheistic universe, however, there can be no competition, no challenge whatsoever. Any enemy of the One God could only act within the limits set by the One True Deity, and can at no point pose a genuine threat unless the Deity wills/allows it.

This is still distorted. Perhaps over-simplified? The issue certainly is worship! Much of the Bible states very matter-of-factly that there are indeed other entities, which are real, and which can be worshiped. (I might even point out a weakness in the text is that it's not good at connecting those "entities" to things we moderns can recognize)

Your definition of a "monotheistic universe" is upheld by the Bible. There is no competition, no challenge whatsoever - in the Divine realm. The genuine conflict, is here in this life, on this Earth.

Raze, I know that your personal flavor of Christianity differs from many, if not most versions of it. (Even though it's mirroring the Orthodox position in this particular case.) Let's not pretend that your version of "TRUE Christianity" was the default definition, the majority position or even a major factor in the history of the last 2,000 years.

This is quite an odd thing to say, don't you think?! The Orthodox position is irrelevant now? It would seem you don't know what "Orthodox" means, but I know better. As far as your penchant for history, I do indeed marginalize it's relevance to Truth, for obvious reasons:

1) history is written by the victors
2) whoever is least Christ-like gets to make up the rules. That may be workable (or unavoidable) for human Gov't., but has no bearing on the things of G-d.
3) considering the Gospel of Peace, it does indeed make sense that those following it would not be a "major factor in history."

Aren't we ALL in desperate need of a saviour? Aren't we ALL unable to save ourselves?

Yes yes, of course; but the Gospel is that the Savior has come to ALL ;)

Aren't we ALL headed towards "wailing and gnashing of teeth"? I don't exactly remember you being a universalist, nor did I see you conceive of hell as a temporary place of painful cleansing, as in Zoroastrianism.

What do you remember of Skavau? Surely you couldn't escape the incessant conflict between he and I on this very point? I honestly haven't a clue about Zoroaster, but I think it more relevant to know what Jesus referred to by "hell." And that was surely the same thing that Judaism of His day referred to, since he didn't give us any details to correct their understanding. And as it so happens, that boils down to being almost exactly what you just described as Zoroastrianism! A few details: the longest conceivable sentence would be a year, with "all Judgment" given to the Son - including a sentence of eternity, if He deemed it appropriate.

Which brings us right back to your pet peeve - Christianity is not (supposed to be) a religion, but is really all about a personal relationship with Jesus Himself. Perhaps this adds a little clarity?
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
I honestly haven't a clue about Zoroaster, but I think it more relevant to know what Jesus referred to by "hell." And that was surely the same thing that Judaism of His day referred to,

Gehenna. A garbage pit outside of Jerusalem which was considered accursed because it was where the Canaanites used to perform baby sacrifices.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JackofSpades

Väinämöinen
May 10, 2014
1,210
73
✟1,792.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Most Christians don't believe other gods exist, but I do.
... ...
So anyway, when I say I believe that pagan gods exist, I simply mean that I am aware that some of them are actual entities, and that people in the past (and a few in the present) have worshiped them. I can even imagine that these entities have interacted with humans, and maybe even tried to do some benevolent, altruistic things for them.


Very interesting and refreshing post!

This might be not excactly same thing, but I feel its related enough to mention.

After I myself expanded my study of divine outside of christian sources I was buffled by one thing: In christianity there is position that searching for spiritual beings (other than christian god) will eventually lead into problems, such as demonic contacts or posession by harmful spirits.

Now, studying what witches, pagans etc. have to say on topic of contacting spiritual beings, story goes like this: There are good and harmful spirits, you learn to shield yourself from harmful ones and you can go on with good ones.

So, actually they agree with christian version on that harmful things can happen, but thats not only thing out there to find, its just a risk, not necessity. And as sidenote, I have to mention that I don't consider devout christian practise riskfree either, some people have lost their mental health doing it.

So, what I'm trying to say that I have became to realize that very likely there are far more neutral, or not clearly bad or good beings in spiritual world than just good and evil. I think "devil in disguise" - theory doesn't make justice to the experiences generally, cause some of them seem to bring "good fruit".

I have also personally experienced things for which I'm unable to find any meaningful cathegory in good-bad axis, it has been more of "oh, that kind of stuff exists" than had any great good or bad meaning.

* Sorry for resurrecting old thread, but this is rather rare position for orthodox (?) christian to hold, so I felt I badly wanted to comment it.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Most Christians don't believe other gods exist, but I do. So let me try to explain:


To the ants, I could be known as the fearsome god of death and destruction. I may not be omnipresent, but with one hand I can strike down an ant on my bookshelf, while at the same time kill another one with my other hand 5 ft away on the other side of my desk! At other times though, I am the god of provision, dropping wonderful tasty treats on the floor and on my keyboard ( :doh: ) as I snack on junk food while sitting at my computer.


To most Christians, other gods are either imaginary or are simply demons pretending to be something they are not.


But back to my analogy with the ants, a Christian ant could recognize that I exist without feeling the need to worship me. Pagan ants might think they could appease me through worship or by making sacrifices to me. A Christian ant might feel superior, knowing that these efforts are useless. Also in being aware that there is a God who created everything including even me, and that if He takes an interest in the situation then I have to obey Him too. But still, I have the power of life or death over any ant that comes near my space.

Does this make me a god? That depends I suppose on how we define the word "god". If pagan ants have been worshiping me for generations, and have named me, built temples, and written all sorts of mythology about me... then yes, I guess I would be the being they know as a god. I am most certainly not just a figment of their imagination! But if the One True God has chosen to reveal Himself to them, then there really is no comparison between me and Him.


So anyway, when I say I believe that pagan gods exist, I simply mean that I am aware that some of them are actual entities, and that people in the past (and a few in the present) have worshiped them. I can even imagine that these entities have interacted with humans, and maybe even tried to do some benevolent, altruistic things for them. I do not see where the Bible backs up popular Christian doctrine, which states that all "other" gods are demons in league with Satan, and all part of a worldwide scheme to deceive people and deprive us of our right to Salvation through Jesus Christ.

Other gods are simply the powers that be, and God has asked that we do not worship them, or place their desires for us over what He has to say.

On what it is that you're noting, thank you for taking the time to note what you did. It is actually something I've noted to others for some time when it comes to the complexities of the spiritual realm - as it concerns the existence of other gods. On the subject, I am reminded of how
Christ seemed to make clear distinction between how "gods" are used as a term in reference to higher beings and reference to men when using Psalm 82 to speak of himself being Divine based on what the Law said. And as it concerns what Jesus noted in John 10 on "gods", indeed it was not beyond Jewish thought to think that other gods/beings existed. It was actually the minority who worshiped only YHWH. In earliest Judaism, I don't doubt that the people believed in all of the claimed gods of the nations, but they were told to restrict their worship to YHWH. Not that the other gods didn't exist, but that it was improper for them to worship these other deities, since it was YHWH who delivered them from Egypt. If it had been Kemosh who extended his hand and redeemed the people from Egypt, they would have worshiped him instead.

It was not until a later stage in the religious development of the people of Israel that the gods of the other nations turned from "weaker gods" into "no gods at all - only images". The whole point of the Exodus was that YHWH was strong enough to defeat the gods of the Egyptians and to take his people out of their land. If there were no gods in Egypt, what was the point of YHWH showing off? It wouldn't have required much at all, since no one could have offered resistance to him...and in the beginnng, the beings backing Egypt could duplicate some of what God did such as turning staffs into snakes or making blood--though they were still inferior since Moses's staff/snake ate theirs and they could not reverse the plague of blood at all. They could only keep adding more blood. At one point, they realized that God was superior in all ways to the "false gods."

In the mind of the ancient Hebrew people, the "gods" of other nations were real deities. YHWH received Israel as his inheritance, but other gods received other peoples. This is mentioned in Deut 32:8-99, where the nations are apportioned to the sons of the Gods (see the LXX and DSS on these verses, which read ἀγγέλων θεοῦ and בני אל [or בני אלים], respectively, instead of the MT בני ישראל).
בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם
יצב גבלת עמים למספר בני אלים\ישראל
כי חלק יהו-ה עמו יעקב חבל נחלתו
When Elyon apportioned the nations, when he separated the sons of man, he established the borders of the peoples by the number of the sons of the gods/Israel, and YHWH's portion was his people,* Yaakov the region of his inheritance.
We see here Elyon apportioning the peoples according to the number of the children of the gods, and each God received a portion among the sons of man. YHWH received Israel as his own inheritance. [The dividing of the nations according to the MT was "by the number of the sons of Israel", which is assumed to be the 70 who went down into Egypt along with Jacob and his household. This is what led to the mistaken belief that there are only 70 nations in the world.]



As it concerns the issue that GOD's in control ultimately/the only one to be worshipped, one can go online/look up for more on what was mentioned earlier on the concept of Monolatry...and for some extra info, here are some excellent resources you can investigate for yourself if choosing to go online/look them up under the following titles:
As one kat said best on the issue:
The belief that only YHVH is an independently effective divine power is de facto monotheistic. It reduces all other supernatural beings to the level of angels, spirits, and the like. Since biblical Hebrew generally continued to use words for "gods" (elim and elohim) to refer to those supernatural beings, whose existence was not denied, we cannot speak of monotheism in the etymological sense of the word but only in the practical, de facto sense just described.
As Albright put it, "Mosaic monotheism, like that of the following centuries (at least down to the seventh century [B.C.E.]) was…practical and implicit rather than intellectual and explicit…The Israelites felt, thought, and acted like monotheists."
Monolatry dealt with those in positions of rulership and Paul even noted that. There was a dualistic thought of the ways in which "god" was seen. For as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 demonstrates, Paul explicitly grants that there are "so-called gods" in heaven and earth such as the pagans recognized in Greek and Roman mythology. In addition, he mentions the many "gods" (again, a desigination of something) and "Lords" (rulers) who are called such in scripture (Deuteronomy 10:16-18/Deuteronomy 10 ,Psalm 136:1-3/Psalm 136 ), and who in the widest sense represent rulers in the universe who're SUBORDINATE to God ( Colossians 1:15-17 , Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 2:13-15, etc ).
Galatians 4:7-9 also comes to mind, as it concerns the pursuit of devoting oneself to legalism as something that's essentially paganism/worship of "gods...

In pagan culture, those "gods"===especially within Greek culture==were seen as independent/all-powerful as if they were SUPREME Gods to be worshipped. What Paul is teaching is that the "so-called gods" of the pagans are unreal in the sense that they're deified/held as those to be worshipped...and that the real "gods" and "lords", whatever they may be, are all subordinate to the only one supreme God whom alone we recognize.

This is why understanding Hebraic language is so key, as whenever people hear the phrase "there is no god but me", there'll be error if failing to recognize that saying such does not mean that there're no other "rulers/mighty ones" or those in positions of authority in existence----but solely in the sense of others who're worthy of worship or independent in/of themselves.

As seen in verse 6 of I Corinthians 8, the Father is the source (ex hou) of all creation, and Jesus Christ is the dynamic One through whom (di' hou ) creation came into existence. As for the Christian, he lives for God who is the source of alll and has power for so living through Jesus Christ. Consequently, as Paul implies, there should be no concern with idols or meat sacrificed to idols---which is Pauls' larger theme if going throughout the book fully...

For in verse 4, the main thing to remember is that what was occuring was that people were afraid of eating meat offered to idols and Paul had to make clear that the idols before which the meat was sacrificed and the god it represented were actually nothing--that is, nothing as to personal reality and power. Deuteronomy 6:4 , 1 Kings 18:38-, Isaiah 45:4-6 ).

If considering the concept of Psalm 82/The Divine Council, it'd make sense if it was referencing those fallen heavenly beings that fell from their places of authority----beings in which the scriptures say men are foolish for even trying to slander them/speak flippantly on them-----for if they did not do their job and sought to do their own thing, Psalm 82 would be a good description of how the Lord cursed them....
II Peter 2:11
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
(
Jude 1:7-10
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.


Another option, of course, is Henotheism. What Henotheism focuses on is saying that there are other gods...and that while one may choose to worship one, there's nothing wrong with worshipping another if one wants to. That is not the same as saying other gods exist but ONLY One is worthy of Worship/Supreme (which is what's known as Monolatry....the system that early Hebrew culture/believers advocated). Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god (denying that other gods are worthy of worship), while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances, although they usually will worship only one throughout their life (barring some sort of conversion). Some things labeled "henotheism" are not within the same realm as other systems...although the labels may not be the most accurate. For more, one can go online/consider the following (if searching under this specific label):



  • "HEBREW HENOTHEISM" ( //www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm )
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Actually no. I think of them more along the lines of created angels, who have free will just like we do. And instead of an absolute cosmic polarity like some imagine there is between good and evil, God and Satan, these beings are doing mostly whatever they want according to whatever seems right to them at the time.

Christians have oversimplified the spirit realm, taking away free will and imagining every single spirit is either completely obedient to God, or they are puppets of a super powered Satan that is in control of their every action. Going even further, they imagine that there are only two types of spirits on Earth, namely angels and demons. Any encounters we reportedly have with other spirits are just demons playing tricks on us again!

However, the Bible indicates that there are other gods. God Himself is quoted in the Ten Commandments talking about them, and doesn't deny their existence. But there is also the case of people inventing their own gods too. I could build a statue of a god I thought would be nice if he existed and start to worship it, but it would not be a god. Which IMO is a huge problem with Christianity, where we often make God out to be a creature from our own imaginations, and worship a Great Big Nobody instead of the True God who has revealed Himself to us!

So I see a bit of a separation between idolatry and the worship of other gods. An idol may represent another god, or it might just represent our preference of what we wish for in a god.
To me, it makes sense to discuss things from the perspective of where all things that exist do so within the theological framework of Monolatry--that is, that there are other beings/gods that are sources of power for others and divine means of accessing abilities/powers (be it called magic, the occult or even means of revealed/discovered knowledge in science and technology, etc) and yet there's one God above all who is worthy of Worship and that all other beings/levels seek to avoid service to....and decieving others into giving worship freely over to them rather to Him. Within that framework, there are differing sub-plots of differing beings battling against each other/having civil wars and yet having central characters above it all who are trying to find their way to the Lord. With that also comes the reality of understanding what evil is - for it's not as if one has to be a "demon" with 100% venomous intent against mankind when you seek to benefit others. It's like having a council board and a CEO over a company that influences all the workings of a large city - others not wishing to serve the president of the CEO may not do so because they didn't feel the president really had the best goals for the city, so they go out into the community trying to establish themselves/set up their own companies and do their thing to help. It's still REBELLION what they are doing - yet they are still doing so with good intent.....and while that is going on, there are others who go out and do stewardship of key areas in the community in the name of the CEO and with his approval. They are constantly having to deal with those who were in rebellion to the CEO and, for that matter, having to deal with the smaller powers spreading from the rebellious ones (i.e. having a rouge company end up with other individuals within its ranks trying to take over and ursurp that company or harm the community, etc.).

In the same way, there is the dynamic that many of the "gods" of other nations are indeed demonic in action because they are simply decieving others into believing that the One True God whom they sprang from either doesn't exist or isn't worth worshiping - and there are others who are even more severe in their intent to harm mankind due to where they literally demanded humans worship them and abused them in the process (i.e. sexual abuse, child sacrifices, human massacres in the name of their gods, teaching men to war, etc.) - things which scripture notes repeatedly when it comes to showing what others offered themselves up to (demons) rather than God. But in all of that, it doesn't mean that others were given the position "god" because of God not approving.

There's much to be said on the issue of not all spiritual beings being in clear categories - for when the scriptures speak of other gods, there's something to be said on the ways that being in a position of rulership was NOT the same as being worshipped. Some beings were given stewardship by the Lord and charged to do their duty in watching mankind/giving guidance or assistance - whereas others did indeed go too far and demand that they be worshiped instead of the creator of all, God.

And this all takes place primarily within the Angelic real. To me, it has always been amazing to see how “sci-fi” the angelic realm can seem at times----especially when seeing the many descriptions of angels. Some to consider, starting with Daniel 10:5-6
•Isaiah 6:2
•Ezekiel 1:4-14

•Ezekiel 10:20-21
•Revelation 10:1
•2 Kings 2:11
•Revelation 4:8a
•2 Kings 6:17
When reading the Word, it has many of the descriptions of many angels is reminiscent of some of the critters that the science-fiction genre comes up with….as it relates to how they were described in the Word of God & how often their prescence alone was enough to inspire awe in men/to the point of worshipping them—from having wheels (As in Ezekiel, Ezekiel 1:19-21, Ezekiel 3:12-14 , Ezekiel 10:18-20 , Ezekiel 11:21-23, etc) to having jewels all over their bodies (as in Daniel 9-10, Daniel 10:1 )…..from the seraphs with SIX wings in Isaiah 6:2/Isaiah 6:1-3to the creature in Revelation with MULTIPLE EYES ( Revelation 4:7-9 & 4 Revelation 5:5-7 ) .......Or the Angel of Death that punished David/Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 21:15-17/ 1 Chronicles 21 ) and MANY others too numerous to place here in this thread.

It's a diverse world - and one where I see a lot of things occurring. Genesis 6 seems to speak on this in a large way when it comes to "the sons of God" and what occurred with them interfering with the affairs of mankind - in the same way beings deemed to be "gods" placed themselves into the affairs of humans, some to dominante them and others claiming to want to "help" them and others who simply interacted with mankind for their own purposes. Whereas prior to reading the Torah the Sci-Fi/scientific community seemed contradictory, studying it seemed to make many things renconciled. …..and making it be MORE than possible for them (fallen angels) to have been the ones that we base legends/folklore and many other things in all religions. It'd be more than than logical when thinking of how ancient civilizations (i.e. the Myans, The Aztecs, The Egyptians, etc) learned technologies to create things scientists are still baffled by today since there’s no logical way they could’ve done so when the technology was only made possible in recent times..whether with Stone Henge, The Pyramids, Crop Circles in the form of Giant Men and many other things.


IMHO, all accounts of possible “extra-terresterial life” /theories of involvement by higher beings in differing civilizations are nothing more than the fallen ones taking what they knew in the Spirit realm and seeking to replicate that down in the Earth….with it being the case that Fallen Angels people deified throughout Human History.

Whereas prior to reading Torah the descriptions of other civilizations worshipping other alien "gods" seemed odd, it made more than enough sense when realizing that many of those beings were nothing more than reasonable--if considering how the Word describes the Fallen Ones as wanting Worship for themselves/often refered to as "gods" in the scriptures...as it concerns what the Word often discussed when it comes to the Bible making clear that people believed in things such as "gods" that came down/wanted to be worshipped.For when reading the Word, of course we realize that the language of "gods" is used to refer to those who were in authority/rank in the heavenlies (angels, spirits, etc), Job 1:5-7, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Peter 2:10-12, Jude 1:8, 1 John 5:19, Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 6:11-13, Daniel 9:1, John 12:30-32, John 16:10-12, Colossians 1:15-17, Colossians 2:14-16 ...


And all of them deal with acknowledging rank/authority of various kinds (though all under the ultimate control of the Lord).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Most Christians don't believe other gods exist, but I do. So let me try to explain:


To the ants, I could be known as the fearsome god of death and destruction. I may not be omnipresent, but with one hand I can strike down an ant on my bookshelf, while at the same time kill another one with my other hand 5 ft away on the other side of my desk! At other times though, I am the god of provision, dropping wonderful tasty treats on the floor and on my keyboard ( :doh: ) as I snack on junk food while sitting at my computer.


To most Christians, other gods are either imaginary or are simply demons pretending to be something they are not.


But back to my analogy with the ants, a Christian ant could recognize that I exist without feeling the need to worship me. Pagan ants might think they could appease me through worship or by making sacrifices to me. A Christian ant might feel superior, knowing that these efforts are useless. Also in being aware that there is a God who created everything including even me, and that if He takes an interest in the situation then I have to obey Him too. But still, I have the power of life or death over any ant that comes near my space.

Does this make me a god? That depends I suppose on how we define the word "god". If pagan ants have been worshiping me for generations, and have named me, built temples, and written all sorts of mythology about me... then yes, I guess I would be the being they know as a god. I am most certainly not just a figment of their imagination! But if the One True God has chosen to reveal Himself to them, then there really is no comparison between me and Him.


So anyway, when I say I believe that pagan gods exist, I simply mean that I am aware that some of them are actual entities, and that people in the past (and a few in the present) have worshiped them. I can even imagine that these entities have interacted with humans, and maybe even tried to do some benevolent, altruistic things for them. I do not see where the Bible backs up popular Christian doctrine, which states that all "other" gods are demons in league with Satan, and all part of a worldwide scheme to deceive people and deprive us of our right to Salvation through Jesus Christ.

Other gods are simply the powers that be, and God has asked that we do not worship them, or place their desires for us over what He has to say.
Some of this is interesting with regards to early Jewish believers in Yeshua when it came to the concept known as the "Two Powers in Heaven" - with the early Jews coming to accept belief in Christ because of their acceptance of the idea that there was always a Co-Regent in Heaven and Christ fulfilled the secondary-role.....thus making Him pre-existent and yet also subordinate to God. It was never a matter of polytheism for them, but on the same token there was understanding that Christ was always seen as being connected/equal and yet submissive to the one Higher than Him (more shared in #240 and #238).

For more reference, I'd highly recommend the following:


The series is by Dr. Michael Heisner ...with Dr. Michael Heiser arguing in agreement with rabbinical scholar Alan Segal's claim (from nearly 30 years ago) that up until the 2nd century C.E., it was permissible in Judaism to believe in the concept of there being "two powers" in heaven without being heretical or pagan or polytheistic.

Some of his work on the issue was brought up elsewhere, as seen here:


Gxg (G²);59421489 said:
Indeed, as the scriptures are clear that worship will be given by people to angelic beings who want to claim they are the gods who created the world. Of course, the scriptures are plain when it comes to discussion on "gods" thankfully. For Yeshua is the one who is central above all. For some excellent material on such, one can go here , here or here to the following:

There was actually another thread elsewhere seeking to discuss the subject in-depth, seen in the thread entitled Ye are gods..

Ancient Israel was for Monolatry rather than Monotheism as most assume...and that there was no problem with believing that other beings could either exist or be created similar to God in many aspects as long as it was recognized that the Lord was "Species Unique" when it came to his being above all things.


For more on the issue of where Heiser is coming from--especially on the subject of the Divine Council, As seen in what he said in his paper on "Monotheism" at his website on "The Divine Council" (for a brief excerpt):


How is one to reconcile Israel’s divine council with statements in the Hebrew Bible that “there is none beside” Yahweh? Such statements are taken by critical scholars as evidence that Israel had shed its polytheism, and by others as necessitating the strained interpretations noted above. Neither view can be sustained in light of the references to plural ) in Second Temple period Jewish texts (roughly 185 in the Qumran material alone; Heiser, “Divine Council,” 189-210) and the Jewish belief in “Two Powers” in heaven during that same period (Segal). Analysis of the Hebrew text demonstrates that several of the most common phrases in the Hebrew Bible allegedly used for denying the existence of other gods (e.g., Deut 4:35, 39; 32:12, 39) appear in passages that affirm the existence of other gods (Deut 4, 32). The result is that these phrases express the incomparability of Yahweh among the other ) not that the biblical writer contradicts himself, or that he is in the process of discovering monotheism. The situation is the same in Isaiah 40-66. Isaiah 40:1-8 is familiar to scholars (via the plural imperatives in 40:1-2) as a divine council text (Cross, Seitz). Isaiah 40:22-26 affirms the ancient Israelite worldview that described heavenly beings with heavenly host terminology (Heiser, “Divine Council,” 114-118). That Isaiah’s “denial statements” should be understood as statements of incomparability, not as rejections of the existence of other gods, is made clear in Isaiah 47:8, 10, where Babylon boldly claims, “I am, and there is none else beside me.” The claim is not that Babylon is the only city in the world, but that she has no rival.
Some would argue that the descriptions of a divine council are merely metaphoric. Metaphoric language, however, is not based on what a writer’s view of reality excludes. Rather, the metaphor is a means of framing and categorizing something that is part of a writer’s worldview. When the biblical writer asserts, “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods (Deut 10:17; Ex 15:11)?” these statements reflect a sincere belief and are neither dishonest nor hollow. Comparing Yahweh to the ancient equivalent of an imaginary or fictional character cheapens the praise. The Psalms contain many exclamations of the incomparability of Yahweh to the other gods (Ps 86:8, 95:3; 96:4; 135:5; 136:2). David (Ps 138:1) proclaims that he will sing the praise of the God of Israel “before the gods” (neged )e5lo4h|<m), a declaration that makes little sense if lesser )e4lo4h|<m did not exist.
3.


.....So what should we make of the Hebrew Bible’s affirmation of the existence of other gods? Does this mean that we have to surrender the view that Israel’s religion was monotheistic? The short answer is “No, but we ought to avoid using a 17th century term to describe an ancient Semitic worldview.” When scholars have addressed this tension, terms like “inclusive monotheism” or “tolerant monolatry” have been coined in an attempt to accurately classify Israelite religion in both pre- and post-exilic stages. These terms have not found acceptance among many scholars. The frustration over nomenclature is due to the fact that “monotheism” is a modern term, appropriated and popularized by deists during the Enlightenment, applied to the ancient Israelite belief system. Other scholars have argued for an “incipient monotheism” that could perhaps include the affirmation of other gods who were inferior.


There is precedent for this idea in the scholarly exchanges over henotheism, monolatry, and Israelite religion. Historically, henotheism assumes all gods are species equals and the elevation of one god is due to socio-political factors—not theological nuancing. Quoting Max Müller’s seminal work on the subject, M. Yusa writes that henotheism was a technical term coined “to designate a peculiar form of polytheism . . . [where] each god is, ‘at the time a real divinity, supreme and absolute’ not limited by the powers of any other gods.” Müller called this idea “belief in single gods . . . a worship of one god after another.”T. J. Meek referred to pre-exilic Israelite religion as both henotheistic and monolatrous, thereby equating the two, based on the prohibition of worshipping other gods.


Gxg (G²);65093513 said:
God, when delivering the people from Egypt, had to establish His dominance by demolishing ALL of the Egyptian gods (polytheism) in their powers and abilities.....it was essentially a showdown on who the REAL God of the world was - and the God of the Hebrews avenging himself on the Egyptians who suppressed them.

The plagues reveal many things, but their most impressive theme is "God’s Glory."

  • The First Plague: Water turned to blood (Exodus 7:14-24) - and Major gods insulted were Osiris and Hapi, spirit of the Nile....as well as Khnum, guardian of the Nile.
  • The Second Plague: Frog infestation (Exodus 8:1-15) and the god insulted was Heqet (who had a frog head)
  • The Third Plague: Lice (Exodus 8:16-32)...and the god insulted was Geb, who was "god" of the earth or vegetation, father of Osiris and husband of Nut...and the other god was Aker, god of the earth.
  • The Fourth Plague: Large Insects (Exodus 8:20-32).
  • The Fifth Plague: Death to Animals Outdoors (Exodus 9:1-7) - The Apis bull was considered the sacred animal of the God Ptah. Only one sacred Apis bull; twenty-eight distinctive marks that identified him...and Hathor, goddess of love & beauty represented by a cow.
  • The Sixth Plague: Boils on Man and Beast (Exodus 9:8-12) - This insulted Sekmet, a healing goddess (also goddess of war).
  • The Seventh Plague: Hail (9:13-35) - The plague devastates except in Goshen (Genesis 9: 22-26) and it insults Seth, Patron of: winds, storms, chaos, evil, darkness, strength, war, conflict, Upper Egypt...and it also insulted Nut, the sky goddess.
There were many other gods besides those listed who were harmed in the plagues - more here, for a basic review:




g.jpg






plagues1.jpg

"A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling 'darkness' on the wall of his cell." - C. S. Lewis.

When considering all of those factors as have been mentioned, it is an issue for me to consider how the entire text of Exodus was truly a military text that showed the God of the Hebrews (trained in war) rising up to demolish the Egyptian gods/goddesses in order to prove who the real God is - going as far back as what occurred with Joseph in Egypt and continuing into the era of the Exodus when Moses was made into a military commander to deliver His people from a system that was opposed to Theism/Monotheism itself...

And with why there was a fight that occurred with the rise of monotheism in Egypt and the Hebrews leaving, the concept of ethnical momotheism has to be considered when it comes the reality that many cultures believed in monotheism - except they felt that the being they worshipped was the sole one whom all should worship - and if not doing things on their terms, there'd be issue. For them, it was never about having many deities (even though things could easily be placed within the realm of monolatry and henotheism - #36 #86 /#89 - when seeing how one being was Supreme even as other beings existed)....and each camp holding to ethnical monotheism would inevitably have battles centered around showing whose monotheism was truly the "right" way - by defaulting making all other forms of monotheism "wrong" - leading to many battles for dominance so as to ensure others were interacting on the right basis even if others differed while having the same principle (i.e. believing in monotheism/all needing to interact by the same rules and yet not thinking that monotheism practiced by one group would lead to playing the same as other monotheists in whom they worshipped).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There does seem to be a bit of a progression of knowledge through the Bible. They start off being recognized as "other gods" in the Ten Commandments, and end up being exposed as nothing more than demons by the time Paul is writing the Epistles.

I'm not certain if Paul's conclusion includes every single god worldwide though. I've already explained how some idols could be nothing more than the craftsmanship of Man, but it would be foolish to suppose that every god known to man across the globe fits neatly into one category that somebody in the Middle East encountered and wrote about in the Bible.
In light of what the scriptures note in Genesis 4-6 when it comes to others in the entire world calling out to God - prior to more wilder developments before the Flood - there's the other reality of the world having a unified religious understanding of one supreme God and then that changed in time. The Proto-Religion altered into where others originally seen as servants/stewards of God were altered to be seen as "gods" not serving the Lord after others made them into doing their own thing....and then from there, things went back into monotheism.

But it all began with others being highly corrupt in skewing the view of who God was. I'm reminded of Nimrod from Genesis 9, whom the Scriptures call "a mighty hunter before the Lord" and the first world conqueror.
With the phrase "a mighty hunter before the Lord", some commentators assert that God taking notice of a hunter is beneath His dignity, but if the phrase refers to the first conqueror and developer of a human world system ( Mic. 5:6), then God taking notice of him is understandable. Anyone aware of the full history of Nimrod (from the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 to him being the root/source of most of the great world religions) would never assume he was a good guy.....even though there is the aspect of him not always being as such and evolving into the person he was - just like others with gifts who allow themselves to go counter to God. To many, "before the Lord" has a dual aspect to it - both in the sense of him defying the Lord openly BEFORE Him and also invoking the sense of him having a gift which was acceptable BEFORE the Lord...as others as others see the "before the Lord" as a superlative, declaring his excellence - Genesis 13:10; Genesis 30:8; Genesis 35:5; 1 Samuel 11:7; John 3:3; Acts 7:20
.

If a person is standing before another, it is usually the case that he can stand before him as a friend, as neutral, or as an enemy. And there is the potential for duality in Nimrod both being one who at one point stood BEFORE the Lord as either friend/neutral and yet later stood BEFORE the Lord in defiance when seeing later actions. The full etymology of the word is still debated - and on the concept of Nimrod beginning as one who served the Lord before rebelling later in his actions (as Nimrod, in Hebrew, is derived from "Marad," meaning "he rebelled" ), one can investigate in Nimrod, Mighty Hunter Before God .

Nimrod in his later actions did A LOT of dirt. I was shocked to learn of his history years ago back in 2007 in a book I read called "Intoxicated with Babylon"

Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD. Therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.” The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. (Genesis 10:8-12)
As Arthur W. Pink noted best on the "before the Lord" part, "If we compare this expression with a similar one in Genesis 6:11—"The earth also (in the days of Noah) was corrupt before God," the impression conveyed is that this "Rebel" pursued his own impious and ambitious designs in brazen and open defiance of the Almighty. ...As we shall see, the contents of Genesis eleven confirm this interpretation."

Hunting was definitely a CLEAR skill he possessed - an act which can be neutral as a way of life in/of itself in the same way as being a musician or a farmer since those things were basic to life. And with Nimrod, the kinds of beasts that he slayed were enough for him to be deemed "mighty" (as there are creatures we don't know about today that were fearsome in antiquity). The hunting/slaying aspect are present - but it is also true that the word “before” in verse 9 of Genesis 10 actually should be translated “in defiance of.” As it concerns his lifestyle overall, it was not dedicated to the Lord. The phrase "Nimrod a mighty hunter before God" is a phrase that means to show defiance AND implies that Nimrod was brave enough to defying God openly and to his face.

To be a hunter is one thing - but to do so in defiance of the Lord is another, even if the hunting skill in/of itself is neutral.

Nimrod , which means "to rebel" or "be rebellious" is believed by some to not be his true name, but that it was given to him in part because of his rebelliousness as well as getting others to rise up in rebellion. Nimrod was a hunter, “a mighty one in the earth,” a hero of the people. With his skills of hunting and war, he protected the people against wild animals, thus causing people to turn to him for protection instead of God......and he subsequently became the first person in the post-flood world to subdue people, forming nations and governments by FORCE/War.

Nimrod founded two of the greatest cities in all of history: Babel and Nineveh (and both had a history of wickedness that the Lord had to address - while also bringing people into belief in Him out of those lands). In the book "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop - in light of the view that the name "Nimrod" was not the man's original name and was given to him, he suggest that the legends of the Assyrian king Ninus is in fact none other than Nimrod. For excerpt - as seen in The Two Babylons: The Child in Assyria:

"Ninus, king of the Assyrians," * says Trogus Pompeius, epitomised by Justin, "first of all changed the contented moderation of the ancient manners, incited by a new passion, the desire of conquest. He was the first who carried on war against his neighbours, and he conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia, as they were yet unacquainted with the arts of war."

The account of Diodorus Siculus entirely agrees with it, and adds another trait that goes still further to determine the identity. That account is as follows: "Ninus, the most ancient of the Assyrian kings mentioned in history, performed great actions. Being naturally of a warlike disposition, and ambitious of glory that results from valour, he armed a considerable number of young men that were brave and vigorous like himself, trained them up a long time in laborious exercises and hardships, and by that means accustomed them to bear the fatigues of war, and to face dangers with intrepidity." As Diodorus makes Ninus "the most ancient of the Assyrian kings,"


Alexander also states that Nimrod (at death ) was deified and worshiped by the ancients - as Nimrod's "godhood" can also be traced through other cultures gods, from Assyria, to Egypt to Greece all the way down till today. For excerpt - as seen in The Two Babylons: The Child In Egypt

"Nimr-rod"; from Nimr, a "leopard," and rada or rad "to subdue." According to invariable custom in Hebrew, when two consonants come together as the two rs in Nimr-rod, one of them is sunk. Thus Nin-neveh, "The habitation of Ninus," becomes Nineveh. The name Nimrod is commonly derived from Mered, "to rebel"; but a difficulty has always been found in regard to this derivation, as that would make the name Nimrod properly passive not "the rebel," but "he who was rebelled against." There is no doubt that Nimrod was a rebel, and that his rebellion was celebrated in ancient myths; but his name in that character was not Nimrod, but Merodach, or, as among the Romans, Mars, "the rebel"; or among the Oscans of Italy, Mamers (SMITH), "The causer of rebellion." That the Roman Mars was really, in his original, the Babylonian god, is evident from the name given to the goddess, who was recognised sometimes as his "sister," and sometimes as his "wife"


Nimrod's character was highly corrupt - and from him may come the concepts of "gods of war" who enslaved others for their benefit...
 
Upvote 0