Against Monolatry

Monolatry is a term for a theology that is sort of a blurred line between Monotheism and Polytheism.  The idea is the Worship of only One God is allowed but others still exist.  There are a number of people in modern Apologetic circles like InspiringPhilosophy who are taking the position that The Bible's theology is Monolatry, but clarifies a form of it where the God you worship is the Supreme Creator, a "True God" in a way none of the lesser gods are.  Basically the "other Elohim" are Angels, Demons ect.

Now I am all for accepting that Christianity maybe doesn't qualify as true Monotheism because of The Trinity, the words Mono and Theos are never Biblicaly used together that way so if you can't be convinced Nicene Trinitarianism is Montheistic then so be it I'm not attached to the term.  But this post isn't about that, in the sense that The Trinity is a Single Deity, I believe that The Trinity is the only Deity that exists.

Christian Monolatry can easily become a Gateway drug to Arianism.  Once you deem it acceptable to refer to Angels as gods it becomes easy to argue The Word being called God is just a very special Angel.

This discussion often begins with The First Commandment.

I am Yahuah thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That wording strictly speaking doesn't say other Elohim don't exist, in fact it has been taken as implying they do.  Thing is if you want to be nit-picky then that wording doesn't even entirely rule out the worship of other Elohim, it just says Yahuah must always come first, but later in the Torah we see worshiping these other gods at all is forbidden.  This verse's wording is ultimately neutral to if they exist or not.

A lot of verses that seem like they are conceding other gods exist can be taken rhetorically, like when Elijah is speaking to the Priests of Baal.  Atheists sometimes talk to us about our God as if He exists, and I will refer to the "God of Calvinism" but I certainly don't think that @$$hole exists.

The verse in the Exodus narrative that seemingly refers to the "gods of Egypt" I believe is a result of corrupted Masoretic vowel indicators.  The context makes more sense referring to "trees of Egypt".

The real question is does the existence of Angels make the Bible Monolatry?  Depends what you think about Angels.  If you think the Angels already existed prior to the Creation of the Material world, that is a very Platonist Monolatry.  If you think Angels are included in the "let us make man in our image" that is also an error, that is The Trinity talking, or if you want to reject Trinitarianism then it's some sort of ancient Hebrew "royal we".  In my view whatever the Angels are they didn't predate Adam's Creation.

Let's use our old friend Tolkien as a comparison.  The Theology presented in the Ainulindale, Valaquenta and Quenta Silmarilion is Monolatry because of the Ainur, especially the Valar but even the Maiar are fairly divine in my opinion, particularly Melian.  However something like the Elves would be a different matter, people that are kind of like what Man would be if Man hadn't fallen.

My first theory for an origin story for entities like that would be Genesis 2:18-20, I think the normal Animals were created before Adam in Genesis 1 and this is the Creation of creatures that are Sapient enough to be potential mates for Adam, they include The Serpent in the next chapter, the Cheirbium/Seraphim and are perhaps the basis for the Lilith tradition as well.

A second could be the idea of there being more time between Genesis 2 and 3 then we usually assume.  Maybe Cain and Abel weren't Adam and Eve's firstborn and they had prior children unaffected by The Fall?  This is a bit less likely and more conjectural but Daniel does describe Gabriel using words for Human.  I admit the main thing that made me think of this idea was George MacDonald's Lilith which I haven't even properly read yet, but it seems like this must be the origin of Mara, but obviously a 19th Century fantasy novel is not something to build doctrine on.

I also reject the idea of a Divine Council, Heaven is an Absolute Monarchy not a Constitutional Monarchy.

Deuteronomy 32 reads "sons of Israel" in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts, those groups diverged from each other long before the Qumran Community formed, so what they agree on certainly takes priority over a single DSS fragment which could also just be a scribal error.  And even so, since I've argued BeniElohim means believers in Genesis 6 and everywhere else the two terms don't even mean different things.  Christians should see this as explained by Paul in Romans 11.  Also the Qumran community were Platonist heretics if they were indeed a group of Essenes so I fundamentally don't trust them.

Psalm 82 is the real heart of arguing the "Divine Council" idea is Biblical.  In John 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 clearly showing that "ye are gods" refers to the Israelites, and He expected that application of that verse to be one none of these Pharisees would object to.  But Michael Heiser is unimpressed by that, he believes secular scholarly theories about the "Ancient Near Eastern context" needs to trump The Lord Himself telling us what He meant.

Isaiah 41 also uses "ye are gods" in a context no one disputes is about mortal human beings.

Even leaving New Testament quotes out of it, Psalm 82 was a Psalm of Asaph, Asaph we are told was a Prophet (2 Chronicles 29:30, Seer is a synonym for Prophet according to 1 Samuel 9:9).  His mission was not to tell us what went on between Yahuah and other beings in Heaven, it was to tell Israel what messages Yahuah has for Israel.  

Psalm 82 starts with Yahuah standing in the midst of the Congregation, not a council, this is essentially the Hebrew word translated Ekklesia(Church).  In verse 6 Yahuah is speaking as if He's referring to something He said before, which explains why Jesus also seemed to claim He was quoting The Torah, this is referencing back to the BeniElohim doctrine of the Pentateuch, Exodus 4:22-23 and Deuteronomy 14:1.  Also in Exodus 7:1 Yahuah says He will make Moses a god to Pharoah.

The confusion comes from verse 7, people feel saying "like men" means these people aren't men.  The word for men here is Adam so it could be like how Genesis 6 distinguished sons of God from daughters of men. Or it's about how these people have gotten so arrogant they think they're no longer mere mortals like the Nagyim of Tyre in Ezekiel 28.

This is God rebuking Israel for their cultural sins like he does in Ezekiel 16, that is clear when you just read what it's actually saying in the verses that don't use controversial to translate nouns.  Making it some scene in a Fantasy novel distracts from that clear message.  Which matters because I feel this is a message God still has for many modern Christians.

I think the "gods" of Psalm 138 are probably the same as Psalm 82.

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul says that the idols are nothing.  He does seem to acknowledge there being others called gods and lords, but they are not actually gods.  He is NOT saying there are other gods but only One matters.

The only beings outside of The Trinity who The Bible ever considers worthy of being called Elohim or Theos in the right circumstances are Humans. We were made in the Image and Likeness of God and made a Living Soul by the Breath of God, and then the Word of God incarnated as one of us and gave us the ablity to become Sons of God, granting us His authority, and now the Holy Spirit of God indwells within those of us who believe making us The Temple of God and Body of Christ.  But we are currently still in our fallen state, at the Resurrection we will be perfected.

Here are some prior posts I made about Angels before fully forming the position I argued for in this post but are still posts I agree with (mostly).

The Torah and Angels.

The Nephilim and the Sons of God.

Is Universal Salvation Pagan?

Naturally, enemies of Universal Salvation want to make it sound like a Pagan belief system.  But this is a manipulation of the facts.  I can say firmly that few if any Ancient Pagans believed in what I mean by Universal Salvation.

In Egyptian mythology the souls of the sinful were devoured by Ammit.

Greek mythology taught the opposite of Unviersalism, it taught that there was no hope of escape from Hades for anyone.  That is the ultimate moral of the story of Orpheus.  And my refutation of those Christ-Mythers who say the Christian doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell is just copying Orpheus, is to say that Orpheus failed to free his Bride from Hades, Jesus succeeded.

Now you can call that "Universalist" by looking at it as everyone has the same fate basically.  But The Gospel as I view it was originally a deliberate rejection of the philosophy that death is a natural part of life we just need to accept, which was also the moral of the Epic of Gilgamesh, or Izanami's fate in Japanese mythology.  The Gospel is the promise that ALL will be freed from Sheol.  Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 15 that Death had no Sting and Hades has no Victory.

And this is part of why I view Tolkien and Lewis as very Paganized Christians, both have death existing even among races supposedly not effected by The Fall.  In Tolkien's Arda mythology Death is Man's Gift not a punishment, which the Eldar seem to envy even though they can die, they just aren't guaranteed to.  And with Lewis, Out of The Silent Planet is supposed to present his view of what an unfallen world would be like, and depicts Death as a natural part of creation.

And people also want to link Universalism to Plato, even though the most openly Platonic Church Father, Augustine, was also the harshest enemy of Universalism.  Plato taught a form of post death punishment in Gorgias, but I've heard conflicting things on if it was endless.  But the key philosophical error either way is it ties into Socrates teaching of the Soul being separated from the Body at death, there was no Resurrection.

Platonic philosophy is tied to Gnosticism and any other belief that there is no Physical Bodily Resurrection, that the Resurrection merely refers to the liberation of our Spirit/Soul from the material world.  In counterpart to that Webster Tarpley, a Catholic and Plato fanboy, accuses Gerrard Winstanley of believing in "Dead Souls", what he leaves out is Gerrard Winstanley was a Universalist, he believed all will be Resurrected to Eternal Life.  I don't think one's view on how conscious the Soul is between death and resurrection is that important, it's one's view on the Resurrection that is vitally important.  Platonic philosophy allows no bodily resurrection, and Augustine as the first Amillenial laid the groundwork for a Christian version of that.  Plato (like Origen) may have been nicer then Augustine in not condemning some Souls to eternal torment, but he didn't allow any a true Resurrection.

The understanding of the After Life held by casual Christianity, which forgets that our ultimate goal is the restoration of this world, that simply sees it as the good go to heaven and the bad to hell.  Is actually Zoroastrian in origin.

Islam is totally incompatible with true Unviersalism.  The closest they can come is believing that Jews and Christians, the People of the Book, can achieve Salvation without becoming Muslims.  But they allow no such hope for people outside of the Abrahamic tradition.

The ability of modern Pagans (and I define modern here as starting with the Renaissance), including the modern understanding of Shintoism that we often see reflected in Anime, to be willing to be Universalist is something I view as possible only because of Christianity's influence on the world.  But even then the idea that Death is a natural intended part of how the world works often remains.

Using The Cross as a symbol of our Faith

There are lots of Christians out there today who want to reject it.  Not all advocating for some other symbol in it's place, many arguing that using Symbols is itself inherently Occult and so not something Christians should do.

The thing about Occult Symbolism is, it involves a belief the symbol itself has Magical power.  I have said firmly that things like the mere sight of a Cross repelling Vampires is an inherently pagan philosophy, so I find it funny when I see Christians complain about the Cross losing it's power in much modern Vampire fiction.

And the thing with Secret Societies who may not always take the supernatural seriously.  Is that the symbols are meant to conceal not reveal, only those in the know should recognize it.  What The Cross means to a Christian is not hidden, we seek to make it common knowledge.

A Christian wearing a Cross is just a way to communicate that we're Christians as soon as we're seen.

Symbolism can be used in a purely text format.  And Paul does use The Cross as a symbol of the Gospel in passages like 1 Corinthians 1:17-18.

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

And Galatians 5:11 and 6:12-14.

"As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.  For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.  But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

And Ephesians 2:16.

And Philippians 2:8 and 3:18-19.

"For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."

And Colossians 1:20 and 2:14.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

Hebrews 12:2 is arguably being literal not Symbolic.

And all that is why I favor The Cross over the other two symbols that are sufficiently Ancient, The Chi-Rho Sign and the Ichys Fish.  Because Paul himself used it as a symbol of the Gospel he preached repeatedly.

But what about the question of if we depict The Cross accurately?  Regardless of if The Cross Jesus was on actually looked like the common symbol we use (The argument that it looked more like an X is compelling), that that shape resembles the original Paleo-Hebrew design of the Tav, the last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, I consider a valid Judeo-Christian basis for it.  In a Paleo-Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 three Tavs appear, the middle one being the untranslated Aleth-Tav in the exact middle of the verse.

Then there is the theory that the Israelites encampment in The Wilderness would have had a similar shape.

I sometimes hear from Torah Observant Christians, "Why would I use a symbol of suffering and death?"  That happens to resemble how Muslims and sometimes Mormons criticize The Gospel.  And frankly that attitude is exactly what 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 is directed against.  Now when we talk about The Cross we should never fail to stress that The Resurrection comes next.

Like many things certain groups don't like, there is a desire to blame it on Constantine.  Constantine didn't use it however, he used the Chi-Rho sign, that's what he saw in his supposed vision.   As far as state sponsored Christianity goes the first King to put Crosses on their coins was King Ezana of the Kingdom of Aksum in Africa, the same people who claim to have The Ark, makes you wonder doesn't it?

Carvings of Crosses go back before that however.

None of this is an argument you HAVE to go around using The Cross as a symbol, I am not a Legalist.  This is simply saying symbolism isn't bad, and refuting those who would go around shaming Christians for using a Cross.

Standing for the National Anthem is Idolatry.

This whole outrage over Kaepernick just further proves the point I was trying to make in my Patriotic Idolatry post.

Regardless of Kapernick's political motivation to protest it (which I am very sympathetic towards, I support Black Lives Matter).   The very fact that so many supposed Christians are so offended by the idea of someone not doing it is what proves the Flag is an Idol to them.

So NO, I will NEVER again stand for the National Anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance or do any other such acts of worship that makes the Nation State itself a god.

And when someone tries to guilt you about how it's disrespectful to Solders or 9/11 victims, you should ask them if they're Catholic and think we're supposed to pray for the dead?  Because that's literally the same superstitious thinking they're using.  None of these rituals can bring the dead back.

I feel guilty about all the election related posts I made this year.  I got suckered in again when the truth is for a while now I've felt that Christians should not even think of themselves as citizens of any Earthly Nation.  That the Anabaptists had it right, we should obey the law so long as it doesn't conflict with following our Faith, but should also always remember that all Nations are ruled by Satan till the Second Coming, without exception.

We're supposed to be Citizens of God's Kingdom which is currently not of this world.  So being Patriotic and being a good Bible Believing Christian are mutually exclusive.  We should never Pledge Allegiance to any piece of cloth.

And we love to cite Biblical commands against swearing oaths when we talk about Freemasonry, but forget that being an elected official, or a Solider, or testifying in Court also requires swearing an Oath.  I think maybe we should consider those things just as wrong for a Christian to do as Freemasonry.

Paganism is about what you Believe not what you do

I've spent much of my time as a believer listening to a lot of the Occult exposing Christians of the world.  I myself have in the past been guilty of some of the same thinking I'm going to criticize in this post.  I find listening to them a lot of fun, and I know most of them mean well.  But I've grown annoyed at how many oppose the occult in the context of believing what the occultists claim.

Paganism is in believing what the Pagans believe, not in doing things superficially similar to pagan customs.  Pagans are not bad people, God loves them just as much as anyone else, but those of us in a covenant relationship with God are instructed to believe and behave differently then Pagans.

So this is not me saying all the casual paganism in the secular and even much of the Christian world is fine.  Trying to talk to the dead is divination regardless of if you do it with an authentic Quigi board or one of the commercial knock offs sold in the board games section of Toys R Us.  Or something else entirely.

1 Corinthians 8:1-8

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.  For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)  But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.  Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.  But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

1 Corinthians 10:25-

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.  If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.  But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

In both chapters Paul explains the context of when we shouldn't eat food offered to Idols as public contexts.

He clearly does not believe food offered to Idols is in any way inherently physically or spiritually corrupt or he would not have instructed us to not ask.

This is not me claiming Paul didn't believe in Demons or the Supernatural, he cast out demons.  But some superstitions are indeed based on nothing.

Now certain people trying to say we're still under The Law will try to make this issue about dietary laws.  They will say "food offered to Idols" is code for Pork because they allege it's well known that the ancient Pagans used pigs in pagan sacrifices more then any other animal because they "knew" that pigs were the ideal animals to house demons.

That is clearly entirely nonsense.  But putting aside how factually wrong it is, they are believing categorically the opposite of what Paul said by arguing that whatever food is being discussed here has something spiritually different about it from other food.

And again with the whole anti-Christmas movement that is growing every year we see the same thing.

When someone points out that Jeremiah is actually talking about carving the wood of a Tree into an Idol, not decorating it with the green still intact.  The anti-Christmas people will just respond "It's still clearly an Idol".

Yes I agree Idols are not always literal statues/pictures.  But Idolatry still requires belief that the object of worship is either a god, a vassal of a god, or some special thing that allows them a connection to the divine they wouldn't have without it.

The Catholic Church is guilty of idolatry, but that has less to do with the literal statues (how seriously they're taken depends on the individual catholic).  And more to do with believing that the Priest is closer to God then the average believer is.  And because they believe the communion cracker and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Jesus.

I accuse them of worshiping Mary and the Saints regardless of their denial that that word is accurate because they believe that praying to them matters.  Only Praying to God matters.

That is not what goes on with Christmas trees, they're just a fun decoration.  Now I will see people giving a seminar on the subject go into this whole "you bow down to put the gifts under it, and bow down again to pick it up.  That's WORSHIP!!!".  And I become genuinely embarrassed as a Christian that every Christians in that room just accepts that laughable argument.  No, that is not worship, and if you think that's enough to qualify as worship then I have to question if the Real God is receiving any real worship from you.

I agree with the Anti-Christmas people on at least one thing, we should not deceive our children into believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or any other such modern folk deities.

But as long as no one believes anything incorrect all the customs are harmless.  Since I reject Augustinian sexual morality I'll say that even goes for kissing under the Mistletoe.  The Pagan custom that derives from is about a superstition that that plant can increase fertility.  So I would suggest that when two people of the same gender are kissing under the Mistletoe there is a 0% chance that that is a concern of theirs.

Now some people in this Anti-Christmas movement have made it clear even IF you removed all the superficially Pagan things, if all you did was sing the Jesus centric hymns and read The Bible, they still feel the assumption that the date is wrong makes it all wrong.

I've seen one even express unapologetically that hearing someone reading from The Nativity Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke under the pretense of it being Christmas makes them uncomfortable.  Not one single verse of God's word is meant to be read only on the accurate anniversary of when it first happened, if so you'd have to be real careful reading Ezekiel which dates each revelation to a specific day.  And not all of the Nativity story was on the Birthday anyway, (every plausible theory I've seen makes the Kislev/Tevet time frame when some part of it happens).  If some spirit is ever making you feel like it's wrong to read God's Word, that Spirit is not the Holy Spirit.

The Bible does not clearly state when Jesus was born, I feel it can be deduced and have indeed come to the conclusion against what I used to think that Jesus was born around December 25th of 2 BC.  But regardless the fact that it's not clearly stated means God doesn't care if we commemorate that at all, much less do it on the wrong date.

Whether it's Christmas or any other holiday, I reject the notion that any day is owned by any pagan god.  God created everything.  And I think days we know the Pagans are doing things are days we should be engaging in Spiritual Warfare.

I see these people when complaining about behavior in The Church they don't like saying "the Pagans know this stuff, the occultists know it, the Freemasons know it".  And I'm just thinking regardless of if I agree with their overall point "The Pagans and Ocultists are wrong according to The Bible, try reading it."  So what they think they know we should immediately suspect to be wrong.

And the Golden Calf is one of their favorite stories.  Somehow that is comparable to celebrating a birthday on the wrong day or whatever their focus is in the current rant.  The issue with the Golden Calf was that they declared that Calf to be Yahuah and worshiped it as Yahuah.  Nothing in the Golden Calf narrative suggests Yahuah's anger would be the same over decorating a pine tree.

Isaiah 60:13 says the Messianic Temple well be decorated with Pine Trees.  Now I've seen this objected to by saying this is about the wood of Pine trees being used in construction.  No it clearly says they will "beautify His Sanctuary".  I believe this is the New Heaven and New Earth where there will be no more destruction of plant life other then maybe for food, not the Millennium.  Verse 14 clearly alludes to New Jerusalem.  This is describing a recreation of the Garden of Eden.  It will be more like the original Tabernacle which may not have been shaped how we assume it was.  Isaiah 41:19 foretells that these Trees will one day grow in the now barren wilderness.  Ezekiel 41:18-26 makes clear there will be standing Palm Trees in Ezekiel's Temple.

Romans 14 is clear, you shouldn't do anything if you feel it'd be wrong to do it.  But don't go around judging others.

There is something I do consider an Idol that a lot of Evangelical Christians are guilty of worshiping.  The American Flag, and other symbols of Patriotism.  Why is it more legitimate to view The Flag as an Idol then a Christmas Tree?  Precisely because far more people are offended by that suggestion.  Because a significant portion of the population acts like you've offended the Divine when you disrespect the Flag or refuse to take part in it's worship ceremonies like the Pledge of Allegiance.  People who treat the Christmas Tree that way are very rare, my family stopped doing it simply out of economic necessity, but they'll never stop worshiping The Flag.

And among fellow Conspiracy Theorists it only gets worse.  I mean think about it, how many are selling their seminar or YouTube video or book on the premise that they're going to reveal the secret of freemasonry, (with the secret being different each time).  The idea that these mystery schools guard some deep esoteric secret that it would empower us to learn is the entire gist of what Gnosticism is.

And setting that aside, they have this tendency to just accept the Masonic version of History as true besides the required tweaks to make it fit a Literal interpretation of The Bible.  And that includes all the comparative mythology stuff Zeitgeist promotes, but just instead of saying Jesus ripped off all these gods, they say all these gods are based on Nimrod.  But new ager David Icke then puts those two narratives together saying all pagan mythologies were based on Nimrod and Semiramis and Tammuz and then Jesus was based on all of them.  Why Jesus alone gets to be both Nimrod and Tammuz at the same time isn't really explained.  And some Anti-Christian Jewish authors do the same.

Instead what I recommend you do is watch Chris White's videos on YouTube debunking all of this "all mythologies are the same" nonsense.  He has videos on Zeitgeist, David Icke and Jordan Maxwell to get started.  His one mistake is conceding December 25th as a birthday when he shouldn't have.

A lot of us seem to base our moral and political positions on what we perceive the "Illuminati" to be promoting or opposing, not on The Bible.