# Christianity Really A Monotheistic Religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-really-a-monotheistic-religion/232874 "2004-03-06T18:42:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-really-a-monotheistic-religion/232874/81 "2004-03-11T23:53:21Z")
> [@FriendRob](#): > > If you have a supreme deity and several lesser deities, it would be normal to have different levels of worship for the different levels of deity. I think it is hard to argue for a distinction based on whether or not you make an offering. In some religions, no offerings are made to God/gods. Even in Christianity, do you make offerings to Jesus? To the Holy Spirit? And lighting a candle in front of a picture of a saint is a kind of offering. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. We offer our lives, our time, our worship. We offer the bloodless sacrifice of our breath, so to speak. We offer adoration. We offer _latreia_. We offer many things. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that the distinction can’t be understood by someone who is not part of the religion? That seems to be an admission that there’s no real difference. Not in the least. I am saying that the distinction can be understood by someone willing to understand it, but somebody who has prejudicially decided that no such distinction exists will never understand it. I have outlined the differences already, Saints and Angels are not masters. Saints and Angels are merely created beings, thus not worthy of worship. No mere created being is worthy of worship. The fact that some refuse to see how some similarity of some trappings is not identical to worship is irrelevant. Are you aware of the difference between “necessary” and “neccesary and sufficient”? I realize that you have an agenda, to “prove” that Christianity is “really” polytheistic, and to “prove” that the saints are part of that “polytheism” for at least some Christians, but I will not buy into your agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-really-a-monotheistic-religion/232874/82 "2004-03-12T03:32:26Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > I realize that you have an agenda, to “prove” that Christianity is “really” polytheistic, and to “prove” that the saints are part of that “polytheism” for at least some Christians, but I will not buy into your agenda. Which, of course, has no bearing on whether it is any less believable than your agenda, which appears to be “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” That may play well with the children in Sunday school, but it cuts very little mustard around here. ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-really-a-monotheistic-religion/232874/83 "2004-03-14T19:28:09Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > I realize that you have an agenda, to “prove” that Christianity is “really” polytheistic, and to “prove” that the saints are part of that “polytheism” for at least some Christians, but I will not buy into your agenda. As far as we know, the history of religion outside of the Bible, early beliefs were always polytheistic and monotheism was a late development in the history of ideas. In the original Hebrew Bible, right from the beginning of Genesis, the Hebrew word translated as God is “Elohim” and that is a plural form “Gods”. This makes it possible that the creation of the universe as demonstrated in the Bible was indeed the work of a plurality of Gods. The firmly monotheistic Biblical writers would have done their best to eliminate such polytheism in their own book of religion but could not do anything with the firmly ingrained term “Elohim” as described in the beginning of Genesis. It was too familiar to change. There have been other references to polytheism throughout the bible, although I am in a bit of a rush and will have to cite them later, if asked. Euth ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-really-a-monotheistic-religion/232874/84 "2004-03-15T08:05:26Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Actually, to put a different skew on it… > > I always thought that the commandment ‘Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me’ clearly implied that _GOD_ at least, acknowledged that other Gods existed. That was rather the point–not that he was the only God, but that he was the only one worth worshipping, particularly for the tribe of Israel. The “other gods” referred to the gods of other nations, and most of all to the gods of the Canaanite pantheon, which is how we get writings like the 82nd Psalm, in which YHWH stands in the divine council (most translate it as “the council of God,” which doesn’t make much sense, and misses the point of the passage. The RSV adopts the more apt “divine council” while Webster’s adopts “council of the mighty.” Either better captures the meaning–it’s a reference to the Council of El, the chief Canaanite deity), and forecasts the demise of the other gods in the pantheon. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-really-a-monotheistic-religion/232874/85 "2004-03-15T08:20:38Z")
> [@dinoboy](#): > > there is a 9th century Hebrew [inscription](http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/godwife.htm) that suggests Yahweh had a consort named… (drum roll please) Asherah. > > As to how widespread this belief was then (or lasted to) is unknown, (by me, anyway). She was certainly worshipped among Jews much later than the ninth century BCE–the Elephantine Papyrii post-date that. The one God thing is the product of the Deuteronist–the last writer of the Torah (discounting the Redactor). Prior to his work (and seemingly after as well), the evidence strongly suggests Israel was polytheistic. The Bible itself makes it clear that Asherah poles were erected in Israel even after the exile. Probably the best popular handling of the issues involved are Finkelstein and Silberman’s _The Bible Unearthed_ and, at the other end of most current debates, Dever’s _What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel_. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-really-a-monotheistic-religion/232874/86 "2004-03-15T08:25:06Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > As far as we know, the history of religion outside of the Bible, early beliefs were always polytheistic and monotheism was a late development in the history of ideas. Tough call. There’s a strong case to be made for primitive monotheism, with the earliest God representing an ineffable reality that defied worship, later to be replaced with more accessible pantheons. Most primitive African cultures, for example, still have the “primitive monotheism” and show no evidence that they ever had anything else. > [@Euthanasiast](#): > > In the original Hebrew Bible, right from the beginning of Genesis, the Hebrew word translated as God is “Elohim” and that is a plural form “Gods”. This makes it possible that the creation of the universe as demonstrated in the Bible was indeed the work of a plurality of Gods. The Elohist calls him Elohim, or El Elohim. The Yahwist calls him YHWH, even before the divine name was revealed. It’s how the unknown authors got their names. > [@Euthanasiast](#): > > The firmly monotheistic Biblical writers would have done their best to eliminate such polytheism in their own book of religion but could not do anything with the firmly ingrained term “Elohim” as described in the beginning of Genesis. What would you suggest indicates that the authors of the Torah were all firmly monotheistic? Quite the contrary is generally held among scholarship. Regards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-really-a-monotheistic-religion/232874.md?page=4)