H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
This is my understanding as well. The topic came up in our homeschooling.
- Status
M
marydaze
Guest
I disagree…Other than Eric Clapton, no.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
My good friend Paul weighed in as well. I probably should have known he would!
meltzerboy
New member
I do not believe there are other gods. Hashem is the only G-d.
G
gazelam
Guest
Here’s something I posted in another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=826421&page=3 (see #45).
It was common in the earlier days of the church for Jesus to be referred to as the second God. By way of background, we Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate divine beings/Gods. We also believe that Christ still subjects himself to the Father’s will. This believe is distinct from the doctrine of the Trinity. Below are some quotes from Early Church Fathers showing that the belief that the Father and the Son are two distinct gods was common anciently. I hope this helps.
Until the fifth century it was common to refer to Jesus as either a “second god,” the chief angel, or both. (Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146)
During the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the “first-begotten,” the Logos, is the “first force after the Father:” he is “a second God, second numerically but not in will,” doing only the Father’s pleasure. (Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268)
Justin also maintained that the Son is “in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third . . . . (Justin Martyr, First Apology 13, ANF 1:167)
Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3, in ANF 2:527)
Peter in the Clementine Recognitions not only called Jesus both “God” and “angel,” but also identified Him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:7-8:
For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these He hath appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God . . . . Thus the princes of the several nations are called gods. But Christ is God of princes, who is Judge of all. (Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109)
Around the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus “the Angel of [God’s] counsel” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p. 7)
Origen said " “We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God.” (Origen, Dial Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 231.)
Origen also explained in what sense the Father and the Son are One. “And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will." (Origen, Against Celsus 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644)
Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a “second God”. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105)
In the fourth century, Methodius of Olympus could say that Christ was filled with the “pure and perfect Godhead,” but also designated Him as first among the Archangels:
And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the Aeons and the first of the Archangels, when about to hold communion with men, should dwell in the oldest and the first of men, even Adam. (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins 3:4, in ANF 6:318)
Eusebius compared the hierarchy of being to the sun, moon, and stars spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42:
For there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars,” says the divine Apostle; “for one star differeth from another star in glory.” In this way, therefore, we must think of the order in incorporeal and intelligent Beings also, the unutterable and infinite power of the God of the universe embracing all of them together; and the second place, next to the Father, being held by the power of the Divine Word . . . . And next after this second Being there is set, as in place of a moon, a third Being, the Holy Spirit, whom also they enroll in the first and royal dignity and honour of the primal cause of the universe . . . . But this Spirit, holding a third rank, supplies those beneath out of the superior powers in Himself, notwithstanding that He also receives from another, that is from the higher and stronger, who, as we said, is second to the most high and unbegotten nature of God the King of all . . . (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp. 351-352)
It was common in the earlier days of the church for Jesus to be referred to as the second God. By way of background, we Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate divine beings/Gods. We also believe that Christ still subjects himself to the Father’s will. This believe is distinct from the doctrine of the Trinity. Below are some quotes from Early Church Fathers showing that the belief that the Father and the Son are two distinct gods was common anciently. I hope this helps.
Until the fifth century it was common to refer to Jesus as either a “second god,” the chief angel, or both. (Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146)
During the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the “first-begotten,” the Logos, is the “first force after the Father:” he is “a second God, second numerically but not in will,” doing only the Father’s pleasure. (Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268)
Justin also maintained that the Son is “in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third . . . . (Justin Martyr, First Apology 13, ANF 1:167)
Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3, in ANF 2:527)
Peter in the Clementine Recognitions not only called Jesus both “God” and “angel,” but also identified Him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:7-8:
For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these He hath appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God . . . . Thus the princes of the several nations are called gods. But Christ is God of princes, who is Judge of all. (Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109)
Around the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus “the Angel of [God’s] counsel” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p. 7)
Origen said " “We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God.” (Origen, Dial Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 231.)
Origen also explained in what sense the Father and the Son are One. “And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will." (Origen, Against Celsus 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644)
Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a “second God”. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105)
In the fourth century, Methodius of Olympus could say that Christ was filled with the “pure and perfect Godhead,” but also designated Him as first among the Archangels:
And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the Aeons and the first of the Archangels, when about to hold communion with men, should dwell in the oldest and the first of men, even Adam. (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins 3:4, in ANF 6:318)
Eusebius compared the hierarchy of being to the sun, moon, and stars spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42:
For there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars,” says the divine Apostle; “for one star differeth from another star in glory.” In this way, therefore, we must think of the order in incorporeal and intelligent Beings also, the unutterable and infinite power of the God of the universe embracing all of them together; and the second place, next to the Father, being held by the power of the Divine Word . . . . And next after this second Being there is set, as in place of a moon, a third Being, the Holy Spirit, whom also they enroll in the first and royal dignity and honour of the primal cause of the universe . . . . But this Spirit, holding a third rank, supplies those beneath out of the superior powers in Himself, notwithstanding that He also receives from another, that is from the higher and stronger, who, as we said, is second to the most high and unbegotten nature of God the King of all . . . (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp. 351-352)
R
R_C
Guest
I meant polytheism - my bad.
Anyways, it is very obvious to me as a believer of orthodox, apostolic Christianity. In fact, it is the centerpiece (as far as I know) of the faith of our forefathers:
*Sh’ma Yisrael! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Eḥad.
Hear, O Israel! The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one.*
I invite you to learn more about Sacred Scripture and why our Creator is but one and there can be no other. Philosophers and theologians alike showed this through the ages - Aquinas being a prominent example. I’d go over his argument on the opening book of the Summa contra Gentiles - after all, he wrote in the 13 Century so he should be tolerable to non-Catholics as well.
For whoever mentioned that angels or any other creatures are God-like: no offense, but that is nonsense. There is an abysmal, abysmal difference between our Creator and the specks of dust that are called angels and men. It is written: “you created man a little lower than the angels”. Look at man: can it be compared with the Almighty? Then neither can angels. How small, how tiny is every creature compared to the Holy One.
As for money, the life of holy poverty of countless saints should have at least proven that money is not indispensable. Sure, this world has agreed to use money as a means to regulate the exchange of wealth, so it is a convention we must necessarily deal with while in the world. Even the good Lord said: “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar”, and the blessed apostles collected money for good works and to alleviate the sufferings of others. But money God-like? Only for those who make a false idol out of it - and there are indeed many false idols, besides money…though all false idols go down to our three concupiscences, vanity, pride, and lust. The question we should ask ourselves is: do men create false idols, or do false idols have real demons behind them?
In any case, no, I clearly do not believe that there are other “gods”, first because from reason alone the statement “more than one god” is unsound and illogical given the proper definition of the term “God”, second because it is divinely revealed and theologically infallible teaching that there is only one God, and third because as a Christian I am blessed to know the Blessed Trinity as my Lord and my God and to partake in this great mystery of sanctifying unity, so that I can echo the words of Church Father s. Augustine, “Deus homo factus est, ut homo Deus fieret”, without falling into Adam’s sin of pride and without having the least doubt that Adonai Eḥad.
R
R_C
Guest
We know.
The Church founded by Christ had always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God. They worshipped Him with divine honours; they would never consent to separate Him, in idea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode from eternity.
The heresy of Arius (called Arianism), however, which arose in the fourth century and created a major controversy, taught (erroneously) that the Son was a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures - that God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed.
Using Greek terms, Arius denied that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son “is no part of the Ingenerate.” Hence the Arian sectaries said that the Son was “unlike” the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate.
The Holy Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople condemned this error definitely, and the apostolic Church has professed explicitly to this day what before she believed in without written words:
that we believe in God the Father, creator of heaven and earth,
and in God the Son, born of the Father before all ages, true God from true God, generated not created, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made,
and in God the Holy Spirit, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son and who with the Father and the Son is equally adored and con-glorified.
That the Father with the Only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit,
He is one God, one Lord,
not in the singularity of one person,
but in the Trinity of one substance.
That in the confession of the true and sempiternal Deity,
propriety in persons,
unity in essence,
and equality in majesty be adored.
The Arian heresy, however, along with several others making similar claims, has survived into small sects through history, and reached a few modern-day protestant denominations, including yours, as well as the Watchtower Society.
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. You continue to misunderstand the question. Granted, the terminology is misleading. The “gods” of ancient polytheism were not claimed to be the same as what we mean by “God.” No one thought they were. It’s a non-issue. You’re flailing at the wind.
Of course Aquinas is right that there is only one God, in the sense he meant. Aristotle would have agreed. Yet Aristotle was a polytheist.
The debate between early Christians and pagans was not over whether there was one God. Everyone agreed that there was one supreme Being, and everyone agreed that there were lesser beings of superhuman power and intelligence. The question was whether these “gods” were worthy of worship. Christians said: angels point us to the One God as the only object of supreme worship, and any beings that try to get you to worship them (in particular, to sacrifice to them) are fallen angels who are trying to destroy you. Christians did not deny that these beings existed.
Edwin
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Oh, something else:I attended Saturday Vigil today, and the First Reading given was from 2 Kings
5:14–17, in which a King (I think) Naaman was cured of leprosy by the instruc-
tions given by Elisha, to which he said,
5:14–17, in which a King (I think) Naaman was cured of leprosy by the instruc-
tions given by Elisha, to which he said,
“Now I know that there is no other God anywhere in the world but in Israel.ˮ
G
gazelam
Guest
LDS belief in a nutshell is that God the Father has always existed, Jesus Christ has always existed, and that all others who have lived or will live on the Earth have always existed. LDS belief is that there is no creation ex-nihilo. The elements (atoms, etc.) are also eternal. So any similarity between LDS belief and Arianism may be in that the Son is subordinate to the Father (if that is a component of Arianism). Christ said as much in John 14:28 (…my Father is greater than I) and John 6:38 (For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.)
I hope this helps…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Isaiah 44
6 “This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
First, this is where Science and Religions are Best Buds, We KNOW that the Universe
began, it had a beginning, it isn’t eternal. Second, The Son is lesser than the Father ec-
conomically speaking, that he subordinates to the Father, yet to Bible believers, BOTH
the Father AND the Son, along with the Holy Spirit, IS ONE GOD!“You are my witnesses, says the LORD, my servants whom I
have chosen: To know and believe in me and understand that
it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall
be none.ˮ
- Isaiah 43:10
And Isaiah wrote that LONG BEFORE “Nephi” prophecied that the Bible would be
corrupted, it’s still in the Real Bible, was left unaltered by Joseph in his JST bible,
so…What’s up that?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
.
Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” (1 Cor. 8:4)
.
Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” (1 Cor. 8:4)
.
M
marydaze
Guest
Was trying to avoid this topic, but reading your “fallen angels” comment got me thinking about it. “Fallen angels” posing as Gods - the whole Enoch thing about the watchers, lying with women, creating a demonic race whose blood still flows in human blood today, the original fallen angels posing as gods and supernatural beings to throw humans off course, etc. I am sure you are familiar…Is this what you are referring to when you say “fallen angels”? just curious…
E
Elizium23
Guest
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
F
FaustinaJulia
Guest
As an ex pagan who came into the Roman Catholic Church this past Easter vigil, I will vouch for the fact that the entities which pagans worship are not gods in even the small g sense, but are agents of the enemy working to corrupt souls and bar them from going to heaven. Nowadays, save for those buying into the pagan/wiccan/new age mindset, they don’t actually come out and say I am a god, worship me. Mainly they are far more subtle causing people to focus on creatures and creations ahead of God as has already been stated on this thread.
For those who have been into pagan belief systems, who find the truth and repent in a conversion to Catholicism, sometimes you discover that the Enemy and his minions aren’t so happy about losing you. Kinda makes you feel all nice and wanted… NOT. Entertaining ideas that there may be other gods even with a lower cased g and not “the” ultimate Godhead, is precarious ground. I’ve heard that Satan likes to begin a conquest by first inspiring doubt and when you lend credence to anything being a god of any sort other than the Holy Trinity, then you’ve put sand under your feet instead of a rock and he sure loves digging shifting sands out from under you so that you will fall. But seriously, those gods that pagans worship are neither holy nor divine and their main purpose as it has been since the beginning is to tempt and trick people into going to hell. Bottom line. How they do it is up to the individual that they are working with and as the Screwtape Letters say, they have a plan, experience and flexibility and knowledge enough to go after each of us on that individual basis and trust me they are.
For those who have been into pagan belief systems, who find the truth and repent in a conversion to Catholicism, sometimes you discover that the Enemy and his minions aren’t so happy about losing you. Kinda makes you feel all nice and wanted… NOT. Entertaining ideas that there may be other gods even with a lower cased g and not “the” ultimate Godhead, is precarious ground. I’ve heard that Satan likes to begin a conquest by first inspiring doubt and when you lend credence to anything being a god of any sort other than the Holy Trinity, then you’ve put sand under your feet instead of a rock and he sure loves digging shifting sands out from under you so that you will fall. But seriously, those gods that pagans worship are neither holy nor divine and their main purpose as it has been since the beginning is to tempt and trick people into going to hell. Bottom line. How they do it is up to the individual that they are working with and as the Screwtape Letters say, they have a plan, experience and flexibility and knowledge enough to go after each of us on that individual basis and trust me they are.
M
Michael57
Guest
The Early Church Fathers called them demons and devils, and deceiving spirits. False gods.
I
Izdaari
Guest
There is only one God. There may also be powerful supernatural beings that fit somebody’s definition of a god. But only God is worthy of worship.
R
R_C
Guest
I am somewhat knowledgeable of the Mormon doctrine. I am also quite familiar with *hairesthai *, whereupon someone chooses parts of Scripture to support a viewpoint that is in striking contradiction with the deposit of faith taken as a whole.
The similarity between the two doctrines is not just in the “subordination of the Son to the Father” but in the error that makes the divine person of the Son inferior to the divine person of the Father.
It is a Mormonic tenet that “the difference between Jesus and other offspring of Elohim is one of degree, not of kind. Human beings generally were similarly existent in spirit state prior to their embodiment in the flesh.” This makes the Father greater than the Son in nature, and makes the Son equal in nature to men and to angels (I won’t even get into this one).
Instead, we know of the Son to be perfect God as well as perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh, equal to the Father in His divinity but inferior to the Father in His humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two but one Christ. And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed into God.
Jesus demonstrating that He possesses the divine nature when He said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (refuting the idea that “all others who have lived have always existed”).
John further makes this point by stating: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” And Genesis states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” First was God, **then **all creation. Creation was not coeternal with God - God is Uncreated Creator of all creation. And all creation came to be through Christ, light and life, who “was with God and was God”.
Yet Christ shows His human will when, in agony in the garden of Gethsemene, He cries, “Not my will but thine be done.” In this humanity He was submissive to the Father, as it is written:
In his humanity the “Son of Man” was indeed inferior to and submissive to the Father, admonishing others with statements such as “why do you call me good? Only God is good”…but as for the divinity, Christ clearly stated: “qui vidit me vidit et Patrem…ego et Pater unum sumus”, “whoever has seen me has seen the Father…I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). And to Thomas, as he exclaimed "Dominus meus et Deus meus, My Lord and my God, He replied: “Because you have seen, you have believed…blessed are those who will not have seen, yet will believe.” He did not refrain from accepting the title of God, He who better than anyone else knew that “the Lord our God, the Lord is one”.
I was not trying to offend you or to demean your community by comparing it with the Arian heresy. I do however consider it important in my journey to understand where does a teaching come from. I believe we must hold on to the tradition as we received it. I can trace back my teachings in the Depositum Fidei, and I exhort all Christians to do the same. This argument is not, as you said, something early Christians believed, but an early heresy that the early Church firmly and vehemently confronted and condemned. But if we reject the teaching authority, then my words and your words have equal value, and so those of those who call themselves Christian and yet teach that Christ was and is an angel, et cetera. Clearly it cannot be so: the Spirit of truth must abide someplace.
In any case, regardless of this argument, there is only one God. All semantical attempts to prove that there are other “gods” by defining “God” as “something stronger than man” fail tragically, because when we say God we mean the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscent Creator in whom is the perfection of all that is, who in fact alone “is”.
All else is creation, creatures, specks of dust who came to be by His will, are sustained by His love, and are totally and entirely unnecessary to Him. Angels come in many kinds, some incredibly mighty, others less powerful - but even the mightiest angel, yes, even the most terrible demon, is a mere nothing forced to bend his knee and cover his face when a man lifts up the Eucharist and proclaims: “Ecce Agnus Dei”. So don’t make such a big deal of the angelic powers, who in their greatness fall infinitely short of the title of “gods”, but not too short of the title of “dust” that rightfully belongs to man.
The idea of divinities held by the pagan world falls short of this definition of God, which was revealed to the chosen people of Israel and is now entrusted also to the children of the New Testament. Aristotle may have been a pagan, but he must have realized through reason alone that the understanding of God he had reached excluded the existence of such “divinities”.
R
R_C
Guest
Thank you for this testimony!
- Status