God is probably more than three?

[Wick Stick]

After the exile in Babylon, where Jews nurtured their religion from Zoroastrianism, Jews returned to Jerusalem with a firm monotheistic faith.
Have you wondered why the cult to other competing gods was not a problem anymore in the time of Jesus?
We find plenty of warnings and lamentations in the Old Testament due to the recurrent problem of idolatry, right?

Then, what had changed and why?

What changed was that the most of priests and Levites chose not to return to Israel. Turns out the ones leading them into the worship of various gods... were the priests.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

What changed was that the most of priests and Levites chose not to return to Israel. Turns out the ones leading them into the worship of various gods... were the priests.

Why the new priests, those who served at the time of Jesus, didn't lead the people to various gods, as the old ones?
Idolatry had a chance (around 400 years of a chance) for a robust comeback in Israel... but it just didn't reappear.

Additionally, the religious environment had been enriched with new elements: the imminent coming of a Messiah, the belief in a Final Judgement, resurrection. What had happened?

 

[Wick Stick]

Why the new priests, those who served at the time of Jesus, didn't lead the people to various gods, as the old ones?

They tried.

The Sadducees (Zadokites if you prefer) were apostate, disbelieving in angels and the resurrection notably, but also largely beholden to foreign powers.

But they had lost the people's trust.

The Essenes wrote a lot about "wicked priests" and even went so far as to disavow temple worship and distance themselves from the centers of worship in the literal sense.

The priests were not better, or notably different. Their god was always money, and that continued.

Idolatry had a chance (around 400 years of a chance) for a robust comeback in Israel... but it just didn't reappear.

Not just Israel. It fell out of fashion throughout the entire Middle East.

More than that, really. All the peoples largely ditched their systems of nature gods - of land, skies, storms, etc - and created new pantheons of gods that were more based in the abstract - of love, war, judgment and wisdom. Later those abstract gods would become attributes of a single God - emanations or manifestations. Gnosticism bridges the gap between polytheism and monotheism.

Additionally, the religious environment had been enriched with new elements: the imminent coming of a Messiah, the belief in a Final Judgement, resurrection. What had happened?

The idea of a Messiah is all across the Old Testament. Perhaps not in the terms that Christians think of, though - they weren't looking to be saved from anything so ethereal as sins. They were looking for a concrete, physical, political leader to throw off foreign rule and establish an earthly kingdom.

Likewise, the idea of God as Judge or Avenger isn't a new concept. I think a good case could be made that jurisprudence is the central idea of Judaism.

Resurrection I'll give you. I would say that's more a case of the Jews mis-understanding their own Scriptures. With the death of the Hebrew language, the people came to rely on it's translations. And where the Hebrew text had allowed for ambiguity and differing opinions, translation forced most passages into a single interpretation.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

They tried.
The Sadducees (Zadokites if you prefer) were apostate, disbelieving in angels and the resurrection notably, but also largely beholden to foreign powers.
But they had lost the people's trust.
The Essenes wrote a lot about "wicked priests" and even went so far as to disavow temple worship and distance themselves from the centers of worship in the literal sense.
The priests were not better, or notably different. Their god was always money, and that continued.

Sadducees had many sins and vices, but they were strict monotheists. They could be accused of many things, but not of leading Israel towards religious idols (Certainly, money is an idol, but this goes across religions and times, right? we're not taking about that form of idolatry in this moment).

So the question remains: why were the priests so strictly monotheist by the time of Jesus?

You mention that polytheism had fell out of fashion in the Middle East. I agree.... and interestingly, not in the West (Greece, Rome).
So, why was that?
You mention that people have turned to a more abstract idea of God or gods. Why was that?

Ahura Mazda was the first Universal (not national) God to be conceived in the abstract. He had no shape. Fire was used as a symbol of Ahura Mazda, precisely because "He" had no shape. We could feel its vivifying effects (light and heat), but not grasp it. Later on, Jesus and the apostles also used the metaphor of the fire to represent the Holy Spirit from God.

 

[Wick Stick]

Sadducees had many sins and vices, but they were strict monotheists. They could be accused of many things, but not of leading Israel towards religious idols (Certainly, money is an idol, but this goes across religions and times, right? we're not taking about that form of idolatry in this moment).

So the question remains: why were the priests so strictly monotheist by the time of Jesus?

I don't think the question remains. These priests, like their forebearers, didn't really believe in anything other than lining their pockets. Whatever they may have professed is largely irrelevant - it's just whatever they thought their marks wanted to hear.

You mention that polytheism had fell out of fashion in the Middle East. I agree.... and interestingly, not in the West (Greece, Rome).
So, why was that? You mention that people have turned to a more abstract idea of God or gods. Why was that?

The two groups of gods had different literary purposes.

The elder gods (titans, as it were) were nature-centric because their original purpose was to explain natural phenomena. Why does it rain in Spring, and where did the world come from?

The latter pantheon was abstract because its purpose was word-smithing. There was a crisis of language as the Middle East shifted from using runic language (cuneiform) to phonetic language. New words were needed for abstract ideas. Myths were created around gods who epitomized ideas, and then the names of those gods were added to the vernacular to represent those ideas in conversation. What is wisdom, or desire?

Ahura Mazda was the first Universal (not national) God to be conceived in the abstract. He had no shape. Fire was used as a symbol of Ahura Mazda, precisely because "He" had no shape. We could feel its vivifying effects (light and heat), but not grasp it. Later on, Jesus and the apostles also used the metaphor of the fire to represent the Holy Spirit from God.

So your contention here is that monotheism sprung from the seed of Zoroastrianism, which was then propagated across the Middle East, presumably with the spread of the Persian empire? That probably happened in some degree, but I find it hard to think that this is a single-source phenomena.

I also find an observable evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism. The transition seems to come through wisdom traditions. I called them gnostic earlier, but they're more like proto-gnostic. Essentially, the latter gods came to be thought of as emanations or aspects of a single higher God.

And there are instances of this thinking that pre-date the Persian Empire. For instance, we find that Ninevah (in Assyria) had a period of monotheism in the 8th century BC. That's 250 years before Cyrus would have theoretically brought that thinking to the region.

Even in the Bible, we have Solomon (c. 1000 BC) anthropomorphizing Wisdom mere verses removed from declaring a single Lord. For Solomon, Fear and Wisdom were emanations of the one God - a position in-between gross polytheism and strict monotheism.

Anyhow, this got long. If you read all this, thank you for your indulgence.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

These priests, like their forebearers, didn't really believe in anything other than lining their pockets. Whatever they may have professed is largely irrelevant

Irrelevant for what matters the most, salvation. You’re right.
I think, however, that this may be relevant for the topic of monotheism.

So your contention here is that monotheism sprung from the seed of Zoroastrianism, which was then propagated across the Middle East, presumably with the spread of the Persian empire? That probably happened in some degree, but I find it hard to think that this is a single-source phenomena.

I agree. I dont claim that Israelites got monotheism from Zoroastrians.
I do think, though, that it helped Israel’s monotheism to win the battle over competing polytheism.
It was instrumental in the evolution (not in the origin) of their faith.

Anyhow, this got long. If you read all this, thank you for your indulgence.

Yours was a very interesting post, well written and thought. I thank you for that, Wick.

 

[Karl Peters]

Are you saying that the body of Christ (composed of many persons) is (or may become?) God?

In other words, God is probably (or possibly?) more than three because of those who will be saved?

What I am saying is that we maybe one with God, even like Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is one with God. Which is why there is something written about us being 'gods'.

What we miss, because we don't actually listen to the Lord our God, is that the whole purpose of preaching 'One God' is to point to the unity that we are supposed to have with God!!

It is written the He teaches us with parables and dark sayings! Therefore even the command to preach the God is One God has a meaning, like that of a parable or saying. Yet Jesus explained to His disciples that it would be explained to them but to others all things were given in parables - and to Isaiah the Lord said speak to them so that they would not hear and understand - thus in parables, right?

So those who are disciples by Jesus Christ and thus hear what He personally tells them will understand but to those just leaning on their own understanding (and religion is our understanding of God) they will not now understand what it means to say the Lord is One God. To understand that you must first start seeking the Lord and listen to Him - of did we not read "Hear, O Israel?" So it is by the hearing that you understand the Lord is One God - otherwise you will keep on hearing but not understand!

We read these verses, right?

Mark 12:28,29 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;

So 'Hear, O ISREAL", is a command and the foremost of all, where as "THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD" is a statement and summarizes what is learned when and if a person practices hearing like commanded. Which explains why you are asking me, right?

Is 6:10,11 He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.’
“Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed.”

So even the entire book of Isaiah, though written plainly, was designed to tell those not willing to listen to Him, to "Keep on listening, but do not perceive", and that otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and return to Him and be healed,

Which also explains why you are asking me, right?

Mark 4:11-13 And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.”
And He *said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?

So He gives the mystery of the kingdom of God to those disciples of His which personally hear Him and thus are personally taught by God, but to those just leaning on their own understanding of the Bible, which was all written in parable and saying format, "How will they understand it? The simple answer to that question which Jesus asked, is to seek Him and what He has to say and teach you personally, of course, but the non-believer always says in his hear, "Let not God speak to us". So they will never understand how God is One, because they will never make it about the foremost command - "Hear, O Israel." They will never know the words of the wise.

Ps 78:1,2A Maskil of Asaph.
Listen, O my people, to my instruction;
Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings of old,

So it is all laid out in parable form, and the simplicity of it is how it is all missed. The simplicity is that the Lord our God, Jesus Christ, it always there to be heard from but a person has to just believe in Him, otherwise they won't seek Him and His words to explain the very obvious. So they will never ever get it, because they are always saying, "Let not God speak to us", in their hearts. So they don't keep the foremost command to "Hear, O Israel", and so don't even understand that the Lord our God is One Lord. Indeed, if a person was to understand that Jesus Christ is the Lord our God and He is the One Lord, per the desires of His Father who said:

Ps 2:6 “But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
and that from the beginning:

Ps 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

Because the Son was the first born of all creation, and all things through Him afterwards.

Col 1:15, 16 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

And because they don't listen they even miss the following verse and the meaning there in:

Col 1:7 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

So they miss that by the concept that "THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD", means that nothing is held together as one everything, except by Him. Thus they miss the fact that nothing is one in any sense, except that He holds it together. So they rebel against Him, instead of seeking Him. So they try and tear themselves from Him, who holds all things together, and don't realize that at some point He will let them have their wish and they will be put apart from God and not one with God. So they will be like chaff burned in a fire to get rid of it, and never fully understand the importance of needing to be held together as one with God by Him.

So a wise man seeks to hear and it will be explained, and they will understand a proverb and a figure, and indeed the fear of the Lord is the beginning of seeking Him for knowledge, just like it is written:

Prov 1:5-7 A wise man will hear and increase in learning,
And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel,
To understand a proverb and a figure,
The words of the wise and their riddles. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

So who is it that after being told the seek the Lord and listen to Him, comes back and asks me a question?

Should they not have listen to the advice to seek the Lord by faith and listen to Him?

Yes they should have, but they come back and ask me when I have been telling them to seek Him. So with their ears they don't hear and with their eyes they don't see, because in their hearts they are always saying, let not God speak to us! Therefore they will never know the statement, "The Lord our God is One Lord", because they will not keep the foremost command "Hear, O Israel".

They simply don't want to listen to Him!! So they don't want to hear anyone saying, "Listen to Him"! Not even His Father!

Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!”

But I write, like commanded, so there is no excuse. But even if another Bible was written, or even if Jesus came again, they will not believe.

So I can plainly quote a verse like:

Rev 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

but they won't repent!

So how are they to going to do with the next verse?

Rev 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Are they going to come back and ask me about what they need to learn from Him? It just shows where they are at with the Lord our God who is One Lord.

 

[Matthias]

What I am saying is that we maybe one with God, even like Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is one with God. Which is why there is something written about us being 'gods'.

What we miss, because we don't actually listen to the Lord our God, is that the whole purpose of preaching 'One God' is to point to the unity that we are supposed to have with God!!

It is written the He teaches us with parables and dark sayings! Therefore even the command to preach the God is One God has a meaning, like that of a parable or saying. Yet Jesus explained to His disciples that it would be explained to them but to others all things were given in parables - and to Isaiah the Lord said speak to them so that they would not hear and understand - thus in parables, right?

So those who are disciples by Jesus Christ and thus hear what He personally tells them will understand but to those just leaning on their own understanding (and religion is our understanding of God) they will not now understand what it means to say the Lord is One God. To understand that you must first start seeking the Lord and listen to Him - of did we not read "Hear, O Israel?" So it is by the hearing that you understand the Lord is One God - otherwise you will keep on hearing but not understand!

We read these verses, right?

Mark 12:28,29 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;

So 'Hear, O ISREAL", is a command and the foremost of all, where as "THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD" is a statement and summarizes what is learned when and if a person practices hearing like commanded. Which explains why you are asking me, right?

Is 6:10,11 He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.’
“Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed.”

So even the entire book of Isaiah, though written plainly, was designed to tell those not willing to listen to Him, to "Keep on listening, but do not perceive", and that otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and return to Him and be healed,

Which also explains why you are asking me, right?

Mark 4:11-13 And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.”
And He *said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?

So He gives the mystery of the kingdom of God to those disciples of His which personally hear Him and thus are personally taught by God, but to those just leaning on their own understanding of the Bible, which was all written in parable and saying format, "How will they understand it? The simple answer to that question which Jesus asked, is to seek Him and what He has to say and teach you personally, of course, but the non-believer always says in his hear, "Let not God speak to us". So they will never understand how God is One, because they will never make it about the foremost command - "Hear, O Israel." They will never know the words of the wise.

Ps 78:1,2A Maskil of Asaph.
Listen, O my people, to my instruction;
Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings of old,

So it is all laid out in parable form, and the simplicity of it is how it is all missed. The simplicity is that the Lord our God, Jesus Christ, it always there to be heard from but a person has to just believe in Him, otherwise they won't seek Him and His words to explain the very obvious. So they will never ever get it, because they are always saying, "Let not God speak to us", in their hearts. So they don't keep the foremost command to "Hear, O Israel", and so don't even understand that the Lord our God is One Lord. Indeed, if a person was to understand that Jesus Christ is the Lord our God and He is the One Lord, per the desires of His Father who said:

Ps 2:6 “But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
and that from the beginning:

Ps 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

Because the Son was the first born of all creation, and all things through Him afterwards.

Col 1:15, 16 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

And because they don't listen they even miss the following verse and the meaning there in:

Col 1:7 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

So they miss that by the concept that "THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD", means that nothing is held together as one everything, except by Him. Thus they miss the fact that nothing is one in any sense, except that He holds it together. So they rebel against Him, instead of seeking Him. So they try and tear themselves from Him, who holds all things together, and don't realize that at some point He will let them have their wish and they will be put apart from God and not one with God. So they will be like chaff burned in a fire to get rid of it, and never fully understand the importance of needing to be held together as one with God by Him.

So a wise man seeks to hear and it will be explained, and they will understand a proverb and a figure, and indeed the fear of the Lord is the beginning of seeking Him for knowledge, just like it is written:

Prov 1:5-7 A wise man will hear and increase in learning,
And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel,
To understand a proverb and a figure,
The words of the wise and their riddles. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

So who is it that after being told the seek the Lord and listen to Him, comes back and asks me a question?

Should they not have listen to the advice to seek the Lord by faith and listen to Him?

Yes they should have, but they come back and ask me when I have been telling them to seek Him. So with their ears they don't hear and with their eyes they don't see, because in their hearts they are always saying, let not God speak to us! Therefore they will never know the statement, "The Lord our God is One Lord", because they will not keep the foremost command "Hear, O Israel".

They simply don't want to listen to Him!! So they don't want to hear anyone saying, "Listen to Him"! Not even His Father!

Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!”

But I write, like commanded, so there is no excuse. But even if another Bible was written, or even if Jesus came again, they will not believe.

So I can plainly quote a verse like:

Rev 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

but they won't repent!

So how are they to going to do with the next verse?

Rev 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Are they going to come back and ask me about what they need to learn from Him? It just shows where they are at with the Lord our God who is One Lord.

Thank you. The difficulty I’m having is wrapping my mind around how anyone / everyone who is one with God makes anyone / everyone who is one with God, God himself.

The position you’re presenting seems to be, if I may rephrase it simply: God himself is (or may be) more than three because more than two are one with God.

 

[Nephesh]

My God is only one -> Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus Messiah. That will come as no surprise to anyone who has read my posts on the subject.

I came across a Christian yesterday who stated that God is probably more than three. No explanation for the belief was presented.

This is a highly unusual encounter for me but not unprecedented. I‘ve met and spoken extensively with another Christian who believes and teaches that God could be hundreds or thousands.

This thread isn’t about my God, nor is it about the Trinity (which by current policy cannot be discussed - pro or con - on Christianity Board). This thread is solely concerned with the proposition that “God is probably more than three”.

Are there any denominations within Christianity, past or present, which hold as part of their doctrine / teaching that God is probably more than three?

Is there any biblical support for the idea that God is probably more than three?

Finally, is there any support for the softened position that God is possibly more than three?

There's only Scriptural support for there being the One Triune God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19)

 

[Matthias]

There's only Scriptural support for there being the One Triune God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19)

Welcome to the forum.

This thread isn’t about that interpretation / understanding of Matthew 28:19. In fact, by policy, that interpretation / understanding of the verse cannot even be discussed on Christianity Board. Nor is the thread about what I believe. (There is no policy about or against discussing my belief, and I would be happy to do that with you if you’re interested in speaking with me about it, but this isn’t the right thread for that conversation.)

This thread is about the assertion made by a trinitarian member of Christianity Board that God is probably more than three persons.

I asked three questions in the OP. I’ll restate them if you would like for me to, or you can review them in the OP. I’m guessing that your answer to all of them would be no, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

 

[Nephesh]

Welcome to the forum.

This thread isn’t about that interpretation / understanding of Matthew 28:19. In fact, by policy, that interpretation / understanding of the verse cannot even be discussed on Christianity Board. Nor is the thread about what I believe. (There is no policy about or against discussing my belief, and I would be happy to do that with you if you’re interested in speaking with me about it, but this isn’t the right thread for that conversation.)

This thread is about the assertion made by a trinitarian member of Christianity Board that God is probably more than three persons.

I asked three questions in the OP. I’ll restate them if you would like for me to, or you can review them in the OP. I’m guessing that your answer to all of them would be no, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

I just provided Scripture that makes it impossble for their to be more than three. So, idk why people entertain the idea that there are/might be more than three.

 

[PanInVietnam]

one book yet so many different understanding why not just read as it is? one is one, three is three? not written = not supported. just my programmer mindset...

 

[Matthias]

one book yet so many different understanding

Yes. What is a non-Christian Vietnamese man to do?

why not just read as it is?

Everyone thinks they are.

one is one, three is three?

If we were simply speaking about mathematics it would be a very short conversation. But we aren’t simply speaking about mathematics in this thread; we’re speaking about theology.

not written = not supported. just my programmer mindset...

That’s fair but it doesn’t take into account interpretation.

 

[PanInVietnam]

sounds like i am into the rabbit hole personally, it's human that makes it complex to understand. religious teachings should be (personal opinion) as easy as possible to allow less room to be misunderstood (to make this bad world better if more people follow).

after reading so much threads in a short time seems that not everyone agrees totally on suppose teachings... not sure what to think next. none nevertheless, i will continue to take it slowly and plan as i go.

 

[Matthias]

sounds like i am into the rabbit hole personally, it's human that makes it complex to understand. religious teachings should be (personal opinion) as easy as possible to allow less room to be misunderstood (to make this bad world better if more people follow).

after reading so much threads in a short time seems that not everyone agrees totally on suppose teachings... not sure what to think next. none nevertheless, i will continue to take it slowly and plan as i go.

My advice: Tune out the conflicting and confusing voices in these threads, for now. Continue with your Bible reading. Steady as she goes.

 

[Pyreaux]

My God is only one -> Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus Messiah. That will come as no surprise to anyone who has read my posts on the subject.

I came across a Christian yesterday who stated that God is probably more than three. No explanation for the belief was presented.

This is a highly unusual encounter for me but not unprecedented. I‘ve met and spoken extensively with another Christian who believes and teaches that God could be hundreds or thousands.

This thread isn’t about my God, nor is it about the Trinity (which by current policy cannot be discussed - pro or con - on Christianity Board). This thread is solely concerned with the proposition that “God is probably more than three”.

Are there any denominations within Christianity, past or present, which hold as part of their doctrine / teaching that God is probably more than three?

Is there any biblical support for the idea that God is probably more than three?

Finally, is there any support for the softened position that God is possibly more than three?

It could be that "Elohim" which literally means "The Gods" (-im is a plural suffix) and is a unified lot of gods. Elyon, the Most High God had adopted 70 angels as his sons over the 70 nations, the gods of the council of God, the watchers make decrees, the "us" in Genesis who went down to confound Babel.

Christians are working under the assumption that all Jews in Jesus' time thought like the modern monotheistic Jews of today. Though a reasonable assumption, I disagree, Else, no Jew would worship Jesus as a son of God, unless a son of God is divine. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, in addition to Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:5, which indicates the Jews know there are beings that are called gods and lords that exist in heaven. I think the Jews in Christ's time were not a monolithic group, they did not all believe in strict monotheism in Jesus' time. My opinion is a mix of modern academia, Michael Heiser, and a distrust of Jewish opinion after the siege of Jerusalem of 70 AD when it became an anti-Christian group that obscured the very existence of the Sons of God in the Masoretic texts of the Old Testament, it was mainly because Jesus claimed to be a heavenly Son of God. Jesus can't have been a divine Son of God if Jews convince Christians divines sons of God don't exist.

I favor Evangelical PhD Dr. Michael S. Heiser, the following was heavily edited from what can be found in full at www.thedivinecouncil.com

Should the Plural אלהים of Psalm 82 Be Understood as Divine Beings?

Jesus’ Use of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34

1. Jesus’ prefaced his quotation by asserting that he and the Father were one (10:30).
2. This claim was regarded as blasphemy in that Jesus was making himself out to be God (10:33).
3. Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 to establish his claim to be God.
4. Rewords his oneness statement that the Father was in him, and he was in the Father.

The common consensus is the phrase "to whom the word of God came" refers to the Jews who received the law at Sinai (i.e., the Pharisees' forefathers). Unless "to whom the word of God came” are the other אלהים of the divine council in 82:1. Means the Jews are not אלהים, rather Jesus reminds his enemies that their Scriptures say there are other divine אלהים, the divine sons—and he is declaring himself a god on the same basis as one of these gods.

Why the אלהים of Psalm 82:1 are Divine Beings

The plural אלהים of Psalm 82:1 are called “sons of the Most High”, Elyon, in verse 6. Elsewhere the “sons of God” are very obviously divine beings (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7-8). One passage, Hosea 1:10, refers to humans (“sons of the living God”), and Israelites on occasion were referred to as Yahweh’s “son” (Exo 4:22-23) and the Davidic kings as a "son" (2 Sam 7). How can we be sure Psalm 82 aren't human?

Psalm 82 Should Not Be Isolated

Are there any other passages that feature the same language of divine plurality in a council? Psalm 89:5-7 eliminates any ambiguity with respect to the language in question.

5 Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly (קהל (of the holy ones!
6 For who in the clouds (בשחק (can be compared to the LORD? Who among the sons of God/the gods (אלים בני (is like the LORD,
7 a God greatly to be feared in the council (סוד (of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?

Psalm 89 rules out the notion that Yahweh’s council of אלהים sons of God refers to an assembly of humans because it explicitly places that council “in the clouds.” There is no text that suggests that there are a group of human judges in the heavens ruling with Yahweh over the nations. That position is only being offered because of a perceived threat to monotheism.

Deuteronomy 32 as a Backdrop to Psalm 82

Psalm 82 council אלהים are being judged for their corrupt administration over their inherited nations, which rules out them being human. The last verse implores for the God of Israel to rise up and “inherit” all the other nations. The lemma behind “inherit” (נחל ( is precisely the same lemma used to describe the punitive judgment of the nations at the tower of Babel, when Elyon allotted the nations to the sons of God as an inheritance. Yahweh was allotted Israel, those same divine beings were allotted the nations that he was not inheriting.

Deut 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance (Hiphil, נחל(, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [האלהים בני[.
9 But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage (נחלה(.

The Qumran reading (in brackets) is superior to the Masoretic text in Deut 32:8, which reads שראלׂי בני”) sons of Israel”). If we begin at Deut 4:19-20 and then work toward chapter 32, we find that the “host of heaven” is identified as “other gods” (ים ִ֔ ִר ח ֲא ים ִ֣ ִלהֹ א ( Israel was not allotted to but worshipped by Israelites in defiance of Deut 4:19-20.

Deut 4:19 Lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, whom the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole

Deut 29:23-25 (Eng., 29:24-26), which contains phrases found in Deut 32:8-9, where the nations were allotted by Elyon to the sons of God:

24 . . . all the nations will say, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this land? What caused the heat of this great anger?’ 25 Then people will say, ‘It is because they abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, 26 and went and served other gods ( ים ִ֣ ִלהֹ אים ִ֔ ִר ח ֲא (and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them.

Later in Deut 32:17, these same אלהים are identified as demons.

יִזְׁ בְׁ חִ֗ ּו לַּ ש דִ ים֙ ל ִ֣ א א ֹלִ֔ הַּ א ֹלהִ ֶ֖ ים ל ִ֣ א יְׁד ףֵ֑ ּום חֲ ד שִ ים֙ מִ ק ר ִ֣ ב ב ִ֔ אּו ל ָּ֥ א ׂשְׁ ף רֶ֖ ּום אֲ ב ת יכֶ ֱֽ ם׃
“They sacrificed to demons—not to God—to gods they had not known, new ones that had come recently which your fathers had not known about.”

Since these other אלהים, the host of heaven and sons of God in Deuteronomy, are described as demons, we cannot deny their reality, at least if we care about getting our beliefs about the spiritual world from the Bible. We also cannot say these other אלהים are mere idols, pieces of wood and stone, since demons are not wood and stone. The Old Testament‟s “denial phrases” (e.g., “there is none besides me”; “there is none like me”) can be addressed another time.

The Judges of Israel

The most familiar argument for the human view of אלהים is the one that insists certain Old Testament passages name the elders of Israel as אלהים judges.

Exodus 22:6-8 [Eng., 22:7-9] from the JPS Tanakh:

6 When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man’s house—if the thief is caught, he shall pay double; 7 if the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall come near (נקרב (to God (האלהים (that he has not laid hands on the other’s property. 8 In all charges of misappropriation—pertaining to an ox, an ***, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, “This is it”—the case of both parties shall come before God (האלהים(: he whom God (אלהים (declares guilty (ירשיען (shall pay double to the other.

To deny that the plural אלהים in Ps 82:1 are divine beings, they assume that אלהים and האלהים in Exod 22:6-8 are human beings (the elder-judges of Israel). Exodus, where Moses appointed judges in Exod 18:13-24. Note the occurrences of אלהים and :carefully הא להים

17 But Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing you are doing is not right; 18 you will surely wear yourself out, and these people as well. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you counsel, and God (אלהים (be with you! You represent the people before God (האלהים(: you bring the disputes before God (האלהים(, 20 and enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow. 21 You shall also seek out from among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and 22 let them judge the people at all times.

There is nothing in Exodus 18 that compels us to understand אלהים or האלהים as referring to the elders, this passage can quite readily refer to the God of Israel. The same is true of Exodus 22. There is nothing in either passage say the men appointed by Moses are actually called אלהים or האלהים in the text. Thus no support for seeing human אלהים in Psalm 82.

 

[Matthias]

It could be that "Elohim" which literally means "The Gods" (-im is a plural suffix) and is a unified lot of gods. Elyon, the Most High God had adopted 70 angels as his sons over the 70 nations, the gods of the council of God, the watchers make decrees, the "us" in Genesis who went down to confound Babel.

Christians are working under the assumption that all Jews in Jesus' time thought like the modern monotheistic Jews of today. Though a reasonable assumption, I disagree, Else, no Jew would worship Jesus as a son of God, unless a son of God is divine. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, in addition to Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:5, which indicates the Jews know there are beings that are called gods and lords that exist in heaven. I think the Jews in Christ's time were not a monolithic group, they did not all believe in strict monotheism in Jesus' time. My opinion is a mix of modern academia, Michael Heiser, and a distrust of Jewish opinion after the siege of Jerusalem of 70 AD when it became an anti-Christian group that obscured the very existence of the Sons of God in the Masoretic texts of the Old Testament, it was mainly because Jesus claimed to be a heavenly Son of God. Jesus can't have been a divine Son of God if Jews convince Christians divines sons of God don't exist.

I favor Evangelical PhD Dr. Michael S. Heiser, the following was heavily edited from what can be found in full at www.thedivinecouncil.com

Should the Plural אלהים of Psalm 82 Be Understood as Divine Beings?

Jesus’ Use of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34

1. Jesus’ prefaced his quotation by asserting that he and the Father were one (10:30).
2. This claim was regarded as blasphemy in that Jesus was making himself out to be God (10:33).
3. Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 to establish his claim to be God.
4. Rewords his oneness statement that the Father was in him, and he was in the Father.

The common consensus is the phrase "to whom the word of God came" refers to the Jews who received the law at Sinai (i.e., the Pharisees' forefathers). Unless "to whom the word of God came” are the other אלהים of the divine council in 82:1. Means the Jews are not אלהים, rather Jesus reminds his enemies that their Scriptures say there are other divine אלהים, the divine sons—and he is declaring himself a god on the same basis as one of these gods.

Why the אלהים of Psalm 82:1 are Divine Beings

The plural אלהים of Psalm 82:1 are called “sons of the Most High”, Elyon, in verse 6. Elsewhere the “sons of God” are very obviously divine beings (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7-8). One passage, Hosea 1:10, refers to humans (“sons of the living God”), and Israelites on occasion were referred to as Yahweh’s “son” (Exo 4:22-23) and the Davidic kings as a "son" (2 Sam 7). How can we be sure Psalm 82 aren't human?

Psalm 82 Should Not Be Isolated

Are there any other passages that feature the same language of divine plurality in a council? Psalm 89:5-7 eliminates any ambiguity with respect to the language in question.

5 Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly (קהל (of the holy ones!
6 For who in the clouds (בשחק (can be compared to the LORD? Who among the sons of God/the gods (אלים בני (is like the LORD,
7 a God greatly to be feared in the council (סוד (of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?

Psalm 89 rules out the notion that Yahweh’s council of אלהים sons of God refers to an assembly of humans because it explicitly places that council “in the clouds.” There is no text that suggests that there are a group of human judges in the heavens ruling with Yahweh over the nations. That position is only being offered because of a perceived threat to monotheism.

Deuteronomy 32 as a Backdrop to Psalm 82

Psalm 82 council אלהים are being judged for their corrupt administration over their inherited nations, which rules out them being human. The last verse implores for the God of Israel to rise up and “inherit” all the other nations. The lemma behind “inherit” (נחל ( is precisely the same lemma used to describe the punitive judgment of the nations at the tower of Babel, when Elyon allotted the nations to the sons of God as an inheritance. Yahweh was allotted Israel, those same divine beings were allotted the nations that he was not inheriting.

Deut 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance (Hiphil, נחל(, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [האלהים בני[.
9 But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage (נחלה(.

The Qumran reading (in brackets) is superior to the Masoretic text in Deut 32:8, which reads שראלׂי בני”) sons of Israel”). If we begin at Deut 4:19-20 and then work toward chapter 32, we find that the “host of heaven” is identified as “other gods” (ים ִ֔ ִר ח ֲא ים ִ֣ ִלהֹ א ( Israel was not allotted to but worshipped by Israelites in defiance of Deut 4:19-20.

Deut 4:19 Lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, whom the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole

Deut 29:23-25 (Eng., 29:24-26), which contains phrases found in Deut 32:8-9, where the nations were allotted by Elyon to the sons of God:

24 . . . all the nations will say, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this land? What caused the heat of this great anger?’ 25 Then people will say, ‘It is because they abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, 26 and went and served other gods ( ים ִ֣ ִלהֹ אים ִ֔ ִר ח ֲא (and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them.

Later in Deut 32:17, these same אלהים are identified as demons.

יִזְׁ בְׁ חִ֗ ּו לַּ ש דִ ים֙ ל ִ֣ א א ֹלִ֔ הַּ א ֹלהִ ֶ֖ ים ל ִ֣ א יְׁד ףֵ֑ ּום חֲ ד שִ ים֙ מִ ק ר ִ֣ ב ב ִ֔ אּו ל ָּ֥ א ׂשְׁ ף רֶ֖ ּום אֲ ב ת יכֶ ֱֽ ם׃
“They sacrificed to demons—not to God—to gods they had not known, new ones that had come recently which your fathers had not known about.”

Since these other אלהים, the host of heaven and sons of God in Deuteronomy, are described as demons, we cannot deny their reality, at least if we care about getting our beliefs about the spiritual world from the Bible. We also cannot say these other אלהים are mere idols, pieces of wood and stone, since demons are not wood and stone. The Old Testament‟s “denial phrases” (e.g., “there is none besides me”; “there is none like me”) can be addressed another time.

The Judges of Israel

The most familiar argument for the human view of אלהים is the one that insists certain Old Testament passages name the elders of Israel as אלהים judges.

Exodus 22:6-8 [Eng., 22:7-9] from the JPS Tanakh:

6 When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man’s house—if the thief is caught, he shall pay double; 7 if the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall come near (נקרב (to God (האלהים (that he has not laid hands on the other’s property. 8 In all charges of misappropriation—pertaining to an ox, an ***, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, “This is it”—the case of both parties shall come before God (האלהים(: he whom God (אלהים (declares guilty (ירשיען (shall pay double to the other.

To deny that the plural אלהים in Ps 82:1 are divine beings, they assume that אלהים and האלהים in Exod 22:6-8 are human beings (the elder-judges of Israel). Exodus, where Moses appointed judges in Exod 18:13-24. Note the occurrences of אלהים and :carefully הא להים

17 But Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing you are doing is not right; 18 you will surely wear yourself out, and these people as well. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you counsel, and God (אלהים (be with you! You represent the people before God (האלהים(: you bring the disputes before God (האלהים(, 20 and enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow. 21 You shall also seek out from among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and 22 let them judge the people at all times.

There is nothing in Exodus 18 that compels us to understand אלהים or האלהים as referring to the elders, this passage can quite readily refer to the God of Israel. The same is true of Exodus 22. There is nothing in either passage say the men appointed by Moses are actually called אלהים or האלהים in the text. Thus no support for seeing human אלהים in Psalm 82.

Elohim is always always plural in form and always singular in meaning when used in reference to the God (not gods, elohim, plural meaning) of Israel.

Do you think there is any basis for the belief of the Christian whom I was speaking with on Christianity Board that God (not “the Gods”) himself is probably more than three?

 

[Wick Stick]

It could be that "Elohim" which literally means "The Gods" (-im is a plural suffix) and is a unified lot of gods. Elyon, the Most High God had adopted 70 angels as his sons over the 70 nations, the gods of the council of God, the watchers make decrees, the "us" in Genesis who went down to confound Babel.

Christians are working under the assumption that all Jews in Jesus' time thought like the modern monotheistic Jews of today. Though a reasonable assumption, I disagree, Else, no Jew would worship Jesus as a son of God, unless a son of God is divine. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, in addition to Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:5, which indicates the Jews know there are beings that are called gods and lords that exist in heaven. I think the Jews in Christ's time were not a monolithic group, they did not all believe in strict monotheism in Jesus' time. My opinion is a mix of modern academia, Michael Heiser, and a distrust of Jewish opinion after the siege of Jerusalem of 70 AD when it became an anti-Christian group that obscured the very existence of the Sons of God in the Masoretic texts of the Old Testament, it was mainly because Jesus claimed to be a heavenly Son of God. Jesus can't have been a divine Son of God if Jews convince Christians divines sons of God don't exist.

I favor Evangelical PhD Dr. Michael S. Heiser, the following was heavily edited from what can be found in full at www.thedivinecouncil.com

Should the Plural אלהים of Psalm 82 Be Understood as Divine Beings?

Jesus’ Use of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34

1. Jesus’ prefaced his quotation by asserting that he and the Father were one (10:30).
2. This claim was regarded as blasphemy in that Jesus was making himself out to be God (10:33).
3. Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 to establish his claim to be God.
4. Rewords his oneness statement that the Father was in him, and he was in the Father.

The common consensus is the phrase "to whom the word of God came" refers to the Jews who received the law at Sinai (i.e., the Pharisees' forefathers). Unless "to whom the word of God came” are the other אלהים of the divine council in 82:1. Means the Jews are not אלהים, rather Jesus reminds his enemies that their Scriptures say there are other divine אלהים, the divine sons—and he is declaring himself a god on the same basis as one of these gods.

Why the אלהים of Psalm 82:1 are Divine Beings

The plural אלהים of Psalm 82:1 are called “sons of the Most High”, Elyon, in verse 6. Elsewhere the “sons of God” are very obviously divine beings (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7-8). One passage, Hosea 1:10, refers to humans (“sons of the living God”), and Israelites on occasion were referred to as Yahweh’s “son” (Exo 4:22-23) and the Davidic kings as a "son" (2 Sam 7). How can we be sure Psalm 82 aren't human?

Psalm 82 Should Not Be Isolated

Are there any other passages that feature the same language of divine plurality in a council? Psalm 89:5-7 eliminates any ambiguity with respect to the language in question.

5 Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly (קהל (of the holy ones!
6 For who in the clouds (בשחק (can be compared to the LORD? Who among the sons of God/the gods (אלים בני (is like the LORD,
7 a God greatly to be feared in the council (סוד (of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?

Psalm 89 rules out the notion that Yahweh’s council of אלהים sons of God refers to an assembly of humans because it explicitly places that council “in the clouds.” There is no text that suggests that there are a group of human judges in the heavens ruling with Yahweh over the nations. That position is only being offered because of a perceived threat to monotheism.

Deuteronomy 32 as a Backdrop to Psalm 82

Psalm 82 council אלהים are being judged for their corrupt administration over their inherited nations, which rules out them being human. The last verse implores for the God of Israel to rise up and “inherit” all the other nations. The lemma behind “inherit” (נחל ( is precisely the same lemma used to describe the punitive judgment of the nations at the tower of Babel, when Elyon allotted the nations to the sons of God as an inheritance. Yahweh was allotted Israel, those same divine beings were allotted the nations that he was not inheriting.

Deut 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance (Hiphil, נחל(, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [האלהים בני[.
9 But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage (נחלה(.

The Qumran reading (in brackets) is superior to the Masoretic text in Deut 32:8, which reads שראלׂי בני”) sons of Israel”). If we begin at Deut 4:19-20 and then work toward chapter 32, we find that the “host of heaven” is identified as “other gods” (ים ִ֔ ִר ח ֲא ים ִ֣ ִלהֹ א ( Israel was not allotted to but worshipped by Israelites in defiance of Deut 4:19-20.

Deut 4:19 Lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, whom the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole

Deut 29:23-25 (Eng., 29:24-26), which contains phrases found in Deut 32:8-9, where the nations were allotted by Elyon to the sons of God:

24 . . . all the nations will say, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this land? What caused the heat of this great anger?’ 25 Then people will say, ‘It is because they abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, 26 and went and served other gods ( ים ִ֣ ִלהֹ אים ִ֔ ִר ח ֲא (and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them.

Later in Deut 32:17, these same אלהים are identified as demons.

יִזְׁ בְׁ חִ֗ ּו לַּ ש דִ ים֙ ל ִ֣ א א ֹלִ֔ הַּ א ֹלהִ ֶ֖ ים ל ִ֣ א יְׁד ףֵ֑ ּום חֲ ד שִ ים֙ מִ ק ר ִ֣ ב ב ִ֔ אּו ל ָּ֥ א ׂשְׁ ף רֶ֖ ּום אֲ ב ת יכֶ ֱֽ ם׃
“They sacrificed to demons—not to God—to gods they had not known, new ones that had come recently which your fathers had not known about.”

Since these other אלהים, the host of heaven and sons of God in Deuteronomy, are described as demons, we cannot deny their reality, at least if we care about getting our beliefs about the spiritual world from the Bible. We also cannot say these other אלהים are mere idols, pieces of wood and stone, since demons are not wood and stone. The Old Testament‟s “denial phrases” (e.g., “there is none besides me”; “there is none like me”) can be addressed another time.

I don't necessarily agree with it all, but it's a very interesting and well-put-together post. Some thoughts in no particular order...

The idea of each nation having a patron deity with real power is not controversial. The ECF's certainly thought so... thought they called them devils rather than deities.

The idea that the rulers of each nation are sons of those patron deities, whether literally or metaphorically, is well-attested historically. E.g. Rameses means "born of Ra" and Abimelech translates "Molech is my father." Virtually every king over a city-state of the Ancient Near East has a regnal name that includes the name of the city's main god. That includes the kings of Judah - HezekIAH, JEHoahaz, etc. Frequently, ancient engravings put no difference between the king and the god... he is regarded as the god incarnate, the avatar of the god on earth.

Psalm 2 deserves a mention. There, David claims to be a son of God himself in verse 7: I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. This verse turns out to be important to the New Testament writers, who apply it to Jesus in multiple places. If the thesis is that Jesus claimed to be Son of God in this particular sense, it seems to me that Psalm 2 ought to be front-and-center.

Thinking of David, he is one of a comparatively few kings whose name doesn't contain the name of his God. But his sons' names include the names of multiple gods - Absolom and Solomon contain the names of a Syrian god, while Adonijah and Jedediah (who is also Solomon) contain the name of the proper LORD of the Bible. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that the king who united 2 countries would have allegiances to multiple deities.

If we're going to consider that every nation has a supernatural patron deity, perhaps the inverse should also be hypothesized. That is, perhaps none of these gods are supernatural at all, and the text is just calling-out the kings of the various cities and empires around them.

Ezekiel 28 deserves some consideration. There, the "prince of Tyrus" is equated to... what appears to be the Devil. Not only is Tyre marked out for destruction by the prophet, but Ezekiel seem to have retroactively inserted the Tyrian king into the Genesis narrative. He is "a cherub" in "the garden of God." In the context of what you've written, is this figure natural or supernatural? both? neither?

I'll leave off there, except to say that I could pose another 20 questions... this all plugs back into the Bible in such an interesting way that turns many passages on their heads.

 

[Pyreaux]

Elohim is always always plural in form and always singular in meaning when used in reference to the God (not gods, elohim, plural meaning) of Israel.

Do you think there is any basis for the belief of the Christian whom I was speaking with on Christianity Board that God (not “the Gods”) himself is probably more than three?

Psalm 82:1, Elohim can't be standing in the midst of one elohim.

Depends on how we define the distinction and unity of these other beings.

Lets say God had a wife, Asherah exists. Is she then one with God the same way as the three to make her God? Generally, Trinitarians require members of the Godhead to have a certain relation (e.g. familial relations, dependence relations, or compositional relations) creating an ‘indivisible unity’ such that it is impossible for anyone person to function as a God without the others (e.g. Jesus must mediate between us and God the Father). For the Creedal Trinity, God is undivided by "substance" or "essence", then there is the Social Trinity where God is undivided by "purpose" and "will", that it's justified to reference them with a lack of distinction.

Or like Kabalistic Judaism, the ten Sephiroth, angel-like attributes of God's personality. Each are just different "Aspects" of God. It's a very interesting idea, a little better explanation of the sort "tether" that binds the triunion of the Trinity when they each have independent wills. Not my favorite concept, but one possible interpretation of reality I can't disprove. What if all angels or all of us are just aspects of God's own mind? I can't put down monotheism absolutely in that case, even if the 70 extra gods of the nations exist.

"There was Eru, the One... the Ainur, the Holy Ones, were the offspring of his thought" (J. R. R. Tolkien – The Silmarillion)

 

[Wick Stick]

Do you think there is any basis for the belief of the Christian whom I was speaking with on Christianity Board that God (not “the Gods”) himself is probably more than three?

A basis in the Bible? I think there is, but that may not be a good thing.

A major idea of Gnosticm (and many other forms of mysticism) is emanationism. The idea of emanationism is that all the various gods are really just emanations of One Highest God above all. Hebrew Kabbalah embraces this idea. In this view, for instance... there is no god-of-wisdom, there are only emanations of one aspect of the Godhead - His wisdom. All gods of war are simply embodiments of the LORD's character as a man of war. Fertility goddeses are only reflections of His... magnanimity shall we say?

There is a Wisdom tradition in the Bible among the books of Poetry. It's mostly Solomon who writes about it, and it's mostly in the book of Proverbs, but Wisdom is there anthropomorphized as an emanation of God. That being said, it should be remembered that Proverbs was written by Solomon at a time when he was chasing foreign gods and women.

There are only a scant few other verses to be found in Moses and David that might suggest such a thing, and that only if we twist their arm hard enough. The rest of the Bible largely doesn't agree with the idea, and certainly doesn't articulate it as a clear doctrine.