More than one god in the Bible?

[DonJunbar]

I read with interest the comments from Jay Roessler in the latest newsletter (but for some reason I can't post comments over there with this username).

Anyway, just thought I'd add my two cents. I'm sure Psalms 82 is worth about that much.
http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82

A long time ago (meaning I couldn't find the source) I read that God/Yahweh was originally one god in a pantheon of Israelite gods, and that Yahweh staged kind of a coup in order to take control. The lines below are where God sentences the other gods to death.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

So today's God is based off Yahweh, the original Hebrew god of war. Assuming that all the pantheons back then were loosely based on the Greek pantheon, that means modern Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship Ares.

 

[TX50]

...Yahweh staged kind of a coup in order to take control. The lines below are where God sentences the other gods to death.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

So today's God is based off Yahweh, the original Hebrew god of war. Assuming that all the pantheons back then were loosely based on the Greek pantheon, that means modern Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship Ares.

Not sure the assumption is warranted but it sounds rather more like
Zeus (casting out the Titans) than Ares.

If Yahweh "is" Ares then he isn't the boss, his dad Zeus is!

 

[Damien Evans]

I read with interest the comments from Jay Roessler in the latest newsletter (but for some reason I can't post comments over there with this username).

Anyway, just thought I'd add my two cents. I'm sure Psalms 82 is worth about that much.
http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82

A long time ago (meaning I couldn't find the source) I read that God/Yahweh was originally one god in a pantheon of Israelite gods, and that Yahweh staged kind of a coup in order to take control. The lines below are where God sentences the other gods to death.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

So today's God is based off Yahweh, the original Hebrew god of war. Assuming that all the pantheons back then were loosely based on the Greek pantheon, that means modern Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship Ares.

that would be a horrible assumption to make

 

[El Greco]

Ares is not bad, but I'd rather worship Xena.

 

[Ririon]

I can recommend "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong if any of you would like to read up on this stuff. She is a Christian too, so the book has very little religion-bashing. Even if it does cover several world religions. It is interesting even (especially?) for a non-believer like myself to see how the concept of God has changed and evolved through history from the tribal God mentioned here who is obviously competing in a "polytheistic marketplace", through to the Gods of today.

 

[Nogbad]

Fairly certain Israeli archaelogists have determined that early Yahweh had a Queen and that both were worshiped. One can certainly get a sense of religious development even from the canon that is now considered the Bible. The earliest texts like Job have a far looser concept of dieties, Satan and all the rest. By the New Testament Jesus is calling Satan "The Father of Lies" which was the Zarathustrian name for the negative force in their dualistic religion. Following the captivity of the Jews in Babylon it would seem that there was considerable cross-fertilisation of religious ideas.

There is a tendancy for the current views to presented as immutable and unchanging forms that existed from day one - when the written and archaelogical evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Damien Evans]

Fairly certain Israeli archaelogists have determined that early Yahweh had a Queen and that both were worshiped. One can certainly get a sense of religious development even from the canon that is now considered the Bible. The earliest texts like Job have a far looser concept of dieties, Satan and all the rest. By the New Testament Jesus is calling Satan "The Father of Lies" which was the Zarathustrian name for the negative force in their dualistic religion. Following the captivity of the Jews in Babylon it would seem that there was considerable cross-fertilisation of religious ideas.

There is a tendancy for the current views to presented as immutable and unchanging forms that existed from day one - when the written and archaelogical evidence suggests otherwise.

AHA!!! Some people like to call Herodotus of Halicarnassus the father of lies, therefore Herodotus must be Satan!!!111!!!!!

 

[Radrook]

I read with interest the comments from Jay Roessler in the latest newsletter (but for some reason I can't post comments over there with this username).

Anyway, just thought I'd add my two cents. I'm sure Psalms 82 is worth about that much.
http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82

A long time ago (meaning I couldn't find the source) I read that God/Yahweh was originally one god in a pantheon of Israelite gods, and that Yahweh staged kind of a coup in order to take control. The lines below are where God sentences the other gods to death.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

So today's God is based off Yahweh, the original Hebrew god of war. Assuming that all the pantheons back then were loosely based on the Greek pantheon, that means modern Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship Ares.

He was speaking to the Jews.

Excerpt

Ye Are Gods

by
Jason Dulle
[email protected]


They are none other than judges, or magistrates of the land. They were rulers who were perverting judgment through their office and authority. Because of this it is declared, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes"
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/yegods.htm

The rest of the article continues on to provide a more detailed explanation.

 

[a_unique_person]

The word Israel apparently refers to a defender of El, one of the gods besides Jehova/Yaweh.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

He was speaking to the Jews.

Excerpt...........

But ye shall die like men .........

The rest of the article continues on to provide a more detailed explanation.

Why would God have to tell men, they would die like men ?

P.S.

Radrook,

Why do you suppose God would find it necessary to make a specific commandment to not hold any other gods above him ?

 

[ChuckHash]

Anybody interested in the discussion of more than one god presented in the first/old/Jewish testament should read Jack Miles' book "God: A biography" It's a really refreshing look at the Bible (viewing it neither as an historical document nor as a religious document, but as a work of literature). It shows how two gods are clearly presented... especially in Genesis. There's a lot of nonsense out there, but this book is a gem.

 

[tracer]

The letter quoted in the SWIFT article at http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/142/1/#i2 makes the following statement:

However, Genesis states that God created the heavens and the Earth, making no mention of creating other gods.

Wrongo! Genesis 1:1, in the original Hebrew, states that Elohim created the Heavens and the Earth. The Hebrew word Elohim CAN be translated in modern usage as "God" with a capital G. BUT. It can also mean, and very obviously originally meant, "gods" (plural). Note the "-im" at the end of the word, which is the standard Hebrew plural suffix.

Not only does Genesis mention of "other gods", it has the whole collective group of them creating the heavens and the earth!

 

[Radrook]

The word Israel apparently refers to a defender of El, one of the gods besides Jehova/Yaweh.

Excerpts
Israel (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Israel (Hebrew ישׂראל Yisra'el or Yiśrā’ēl, meaning "Upright (with) God") was the name given to the Biblical patriarch Jacob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_(disambiguation)

 

[Radrook]

Why would God have to tell men, they would die like men ?

For the reasons explained in the article found via the link I provided. Please read its explantion.

P.S.

Radrook,

Why do you suppose God would find it necessary to make a specific commandment to not hold any other gods above him ?

There are two reasons:

1. Because he knew that there were people worshipping what they considered to be living creatures called gods ans He foresaw the danger of Israel being contaminated by such ideas.

2. Because fallen angels [demons] indirectly receive worship via devotees to the other-gods idea.

They are identified as those receiving the worship in the following words:

1CO 10:20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to
God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

So although God didn't originally create other gods, there are creatures who rebelled and aspire to that position and there were and still are people who indirectly and unknowingly worship them.

 

[Nogbad]

So although God didn't originally create other gods, there are creatures who rebelled and aspire to that position and there were and still are people who indirectly and unknowingly worship them.

He didn't have a lot of luck with this creation lark did he?

 

[Dogmeat]

Why would God have to tell men, they would die like men ?

P.S.

Radrook,

Why do you suppose God would find it necessary to make a specific commandment to not hold any other gods above him ?

Poetic licence on both counts?

Telling judges that they are gods among men, yet will die like all other men doesn't strike me as particularly contradictory. And I'm pretty sure that the commandment is to not have other gods "before" him, and as far as I can tell it just means not to worship idols designed to represent him like the golden calf.

 

[Radrook]

Poetic licence on both counts?

Telling judges that they are gods among men, yet will die like all other men doesn't strike me as particularly contradictory. And I'm pretty sure that the commandment is to not have other gods "before" him, and as far as I can tell it just means not to worship idols designed to represent him like the golden calf.

I think that our different approach to Bible text understanding causes us to reach different conclusions. I consider the whole Bible, both NT and OT as shedding extra light and serving as a guide in biblical interpretation of scripture while your approach seems restricted to the immediate context while seeing all other scripture written in other biblical books before or after as irrelevant. Correct?

From my viewpoint any interpretation which doesn't take into account what has been previously said or said afterward in other biblical books in reference to the subject is very susceptible to
error. But such an approach necessitates the belief in a single author who used the human writers as mere secretaries and who's message is consistently harmonious and not self contradictory throughout.

So if indeed we don't hold this common ground then differing of opinions are of course understandable.

BTW

First century Christians were ofthe same opinion:

The apostol Peter in second Peter 1:21 tells us that "prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle Paul tells us this as well:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So since I subscribe to the same view any answer I provide in response to a question will always take a holistic approach and will likely differ from those who do not.

 

[Nogbad]

I think that our different approach to Bible text understanding causes us to reach different conclusions. I consider the whole Bible, both NT and OT as shedding extra light and serving as a guide in biblical interpretation of scripture while your approach seems restricted to the immediate context while seeing all other scripture written in other biblical books before or after as irrelevant. Correct?

From my viewpoint any interpretation which doesn't take into account what has been previously said or said afterward in other biblical books in reference to the subject is very susceptible to
error. But such an approach necessitates the belief in a single author who used the human writers as mere secretaries and who's message is consistently harmonious and not self contradictory throughout.

So if indeed we don't hold this common ground then differing of opinions are of course understandable.

BTW

First century Christians were ofthe same opinion:

The apostol Peter in second Peter 1:21 tells us that "prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle Paul tells us this as well:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So since I subscribe to the same view any answer I provide in response to a question will always take a holistic approach and will likely differ from those who do not.

I think any meeting of minds would be nigh impossible. I think it would also be quite hard to approach the contents critically if one's a priori position is that the canon is complete and of divine inspiration.

On a separate note I was not entirely kidding above. The Judaeo/Christian/Islamic tradition seems to be based on a notion of divinity whereby large sections of heaven and earth are in revolt against God. I recall that John says that Lucifer swept a third of the heavenly host with him. That is one heck of a rebellion and one wonders why a God would not foresee such a brittle creation. The observation "the only consistent factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you" springs to mind.

 

[Radrook]

I think any meeting of minds would be nigh impossible. I think it would also be quite hard to approach the contents critically if one's a priori position is that the canon is complete and of divine inspiration.

On a separate note I was not entirely kidding above. The Judaeo/Christian/Islamic tradition seems to be based on a notion of divinity whereby large sections of heaven and earth are in revolt against God. I recall that John says that Lucifer swept a third of the heavenly host with him. That is one heck of a rebellion and one wonders why a God would not foresee such a brittle creation. The observation "the only consistent factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you" springs to mind.

You are right about the meeting of minds due to different a priori.

About the separate note:

God had two choices--giving his intelligent creation freedom to choose or make them automatons.

God could not have it both ways. It's like the length of a circle. It just can't be used to make a square no matter how much power and wisdom you have because in order to make it square you would need to change its length and then that would not be a circular length. So sometimes one is faced with a situation in which one has to choose either one or another and God chose to give his intelligent creation freedom of choice.

Does that make his creation brittle? If so, then an automaton would be sturdy?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Poetic licence on both counts?

...

Why of course .. Poetic license takes care of anything that just doesn't look right, any other way ...

Particularly when the poet is no longer around, to confirm or deny ...

That said; there is still compelling evidence the early worship of YHWH had it's roots in polytheism ..