Isaiah’s "Denial" Verses, Incomparability and the Divine Council

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, theplains said:

That would make you a god right now if you believe you have a divine nature.

Indeed. If I am worthy, I could always Transfigure right now if God should appear to me. My face will shine with divine glory just as Moses after encountering God on Sinai and Stephen before the Jewish council. Just like the High Priestly sons of God and all others who saw God, were not mortals when they saw him, as "no man can see God and live". I'd be divine in life, and not human.

Alternatively, if he does not appear to me, I'm a god now as much as you might claim you are "saved" and "born again" now. Our transformation into what we will become hasn't happened yet.

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2)

12 hours ago, theplains said:

I am not aware of God assigning one god-not-a-deity to rule over England and other respective
gods-not-deities to rule over other countries.

Because you completely ignored Deuteronomy 32:8 and Daniel 10, which explicitly describe that exact geographical assignment.

12 hours ago, theplains said:

The Bible teaches there are gods are there who are not really deities.

A few especially clear passages:

1 Corinthians 8:4–6 - "we know that an idol has no real existence,” and that although there may be 
"so-called gods” in heaven or on earth, "for us there is one God, the Father".

Notice Paul's wording: "so-called gods".

You are misreading your clear passages. Paul uses the Greek phrase legomenoi theoi ("called gods"). In 1 Corinthians 8:5, Paul literally says: Even if there are beings called gods, "in heaven", for Christians there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus. Paul explicitly assigns the title Theos ("God") to the Father and Kyrios ("Lord") to Jesus. If you insist that all beings "called gods", if they are not the Father, are not divine, means the Lord Jesus is not divine.

What we could both agree on, is even if they are real and "in heaven" and divine, Paul is telling us to have no regard for them.

12 hours ago, theplains said:

Galatians 4:8 - before knowing God, people were enslaved to those who "by nature are not gods".

In Galatians 4:8, Paul writes, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods", isn't target-locked on the heavenly Bene Elohim at all.

In 1st-century Roman Galatia, the imperial cult was everywhere. Emperors were routinely declared divine and worshiped in local temples alongside city-state rulers and benefactors. Human rulers and local magistrates that claimed a divine status they did not possess.

When Paul tells the Galatian Gentiles that they were enslaved to beings that "by nature are not gods" (me physei ousin theois), he is pointing out that mortal emperors, client kings, and political rulers possess zero intrinsic divine essence (physis). They are unworthy men playing god. 

In Galatians 4:3 and 4:9, Paul identifies them as having power, the stoicheia tou kosmou (the elementary principles or powers of the world). In the Old Testament framework (Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and Psalm 82), the real beings in heaven were meant to serve under God's authority, but many rebelled in war, became unworthy and fell, or perhaps accepted worship when not supposed to.

12 hours ago, theplains said:

Jeremiah 2:11 - God asks, "Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods?”

Jeremiah is addressing manufactured idols and covenant loyalty, not spiritual entities. Jeremiah’s primary focus is the physical practice of idolatry. Jeremiah 10:3-5, "a tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe... they cannot speak; they have to be carried").

A piece of carved wood is "no god" (lo elohim). It has no intrinsic life and cannot act. But does not negate the ancient Near Eastern reality that real spiritual entities (shedim / bene elohim) operated behind pagan worship systems. Jeremiah is mocking the absurdity of bowing down to a block of wood.

12 hours ago, theplains said:

1 Corinthians 10:19–20 - idols themselves are nothing, but pagan sacrifices are offered to demons, not 
to God.

There is also Deuteronomy 32:17, which says Israel's rebellious sacrifices were made to "demons, not 
God, to gods they had never known". So Scripture can use the language of "gods”  while simultaneously 
denying that these beings are gods in the same sense that Yahweh is God.

You just conceded the point without realizing it. "They sacrificed unto demons [shedim], not to God; to gods [elohim] whom they knew not..." Deuteronomy 32:17 explicitly uses word elohim to describe shedim (demons).

Shedim in modern Bible translations is usually rendered as "demons" or "idols," is an ancient loanword derived from Akkadian "sedu", means a high-ranking, protective spiritual guardian assigned to a specific city, palace, temple, or royal personage. To the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, a sedu was not evil, but a legitimate territorial patron or spirit power that provided military protection and administrative authority over a geographic domain.

Thus Deuteronomy 32:17 "They sacrificed to demons [shedim], not to God; to gods [elohim] whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up..." is a parallel structure the biblical author set up. By calling them shedim and elohim, the text acknowledges that these are patron guardians over Gentile nations (assigned at the Babel judgment in Deut 32:8–9). To Yahweh, Israel was His personal "allotted heritage" (Deut 32:9), so for an Israelite (or an adopted Christian Gentile) to offer sacrifices to a foreign nation's territorial guardian was treason.

But when pagan nations sacrificed to shedim seeking their favor and they got it, and on occasion successfully opposed Yahweh. The Old Testament said they were subordinate but rebellious elohim whom Yahweh would ultimately have to judge.

King Mesha of Moab was trapped in his city by the combined armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, he performed a desperate act of sacrifice to his national god, Chemosh, and defied Elisha' prophecy from the Lord, "Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath [qetsep gadol] against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land." (2 Kings 3:27)

The glorious guardian of Israel in Daniel 10:5–6 is the Lord Himself. Being delayed in Daniel 10 implies that the spiritual powers of the nations (the prince of Persia) possessed such entrenched, real authority over their geographical domains that even a supreme manifestation of the Lord’s messenger, or the Lord Himself encountered a period of cosmic resistance before Michael stepped in to shift the balance.

12 hours ago, theplains said:

So, biblically speaking, you can have:

• "gods” as a title/reference to other beings? Yes.
• other gods who are equal to or independent rivals of the true God? No.
• "gods” who are "by nature” not God? Yes.

Strawman, I never said they were equal or independent of Yahweh, I said they are real, non-human, territorial spiritual entities that the Bible calls elohim.

By insisting these real spiritual entities "are not real gods," you are rejecting the Bible's own vocabulary (elohim) and substituting a modern philosophical definition.

Edited Tuesday at 02:11 AM by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, theplains said:

So, biblically speaking, you can have:

• "gods” as a title/reference to other beings? Yes.
• other gods who are equal to or independent rivals of the true God? No.
• "gods” who are "by nature” not God? Yes.

Strawman indeed (same as what Pyreaux said).

The other thing that will never make sense under your dichotomy are how the Hebrew superlatives work.

The Bible speaks of the Holy of holies, Heaven of heavens, Sabbath of sabbaths, servant of servants, vanity of vanities, song of songs, King of kings, Lord of lords.  This Hebrew grammatic construction requires that the two words connected in the expression are in the same category, but one is the "most" or "supreme" over the others.

We never suppose that "holies" of the "Holy of holies" are not truly holy, rather the one is the holiest of all others. 

The same thing with "King of kings".  There is one "King" that is supreme, one that rules over all other "kings".

The same thing with "Lord of lords".  There is one "Lord" that is supreme', the highest Lord over all other "lords".

But when we get to the "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17), the modern Christian view can't handle that.  So we start hearing excuses and exceptions that these other "gods" must be idols, false gods, corrupt human judges, demons, or some other category of being that totally breaks the Hebrew superlative.

It's either that God is the "God of gods", or he is:

• The False God of false gods
• The Idol of idols
• The Corrupt Human Judge of corrupt human judges
• The Devil of devils

The Hebrew superlatives don't work any other way.  

Edited Monday at 10:56 PM by InCognitus

[theplains]

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

By insisting these real spiritual entities "are not real gods," you are rejecting the Bible's own vocabulary (elohim) and substituting a modern philosophical definition.

Do you believe Baal, Asherah, Molech, Chemosh, Dagon, and Satan are real gods? If yes, how?

[Pyreaux]

19 hours ago, theplains said:

Do you believe Baal, Asherah, Molech, Chemosh, Dagon, and Satan are real gods? If yes, how?

Don't you believe Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain and you are real adams? But not the one true Adam? A 'god' (elohim) describes kinship with El and executive authority from El. Satan or the Prince of Persia, or even a human executive commissioned with divine authority like Moses to Pharaoh can function in an elohim capacity. Thus even archangels, lesser foreign nation gods or even Satan, could be called a "god", as he has dominion and "his angels" under him.

Yes, if you define "god" using the Bible’s own vocabulary (elohim), rather than your modern post-Enlightenment definition, there are "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor 8:5). If by "real god" you mean an omnipotent being equal to Yahweh, then NO. None of them are "gods" in that sense. But if by "real god" you mean real, non-human, supernatural spiritual entities operating in the heavenly hierarchy, then the Bible's answer is an emphatic YES.

Baal (whose name means Lord, a lord is a noble governing a territory) is called an elohim of a nation (1 Kings 18:27), a shed / territorial spirit (Deut 32:17), and Beelzebul, the prince of demons, which in ancient Greek, meant a "divine power," or "lesser deity" rather than an evil entity (Matt 12:24–27). By elohim, it is acknowledging their real spiritual existence and authority over pagan nations. 

The clearest explanation I ever read is a first century, Jewish-Christian, document by Pseudo-Clement (not Clement the Bishop of Rome). In which, Peter debates with Simon Magus. Simon makes a claim that in Jewish scriptures that there are many gods,

"There are also many other testimonies which might be adduced by the law, not only obscure but plain, by which it is taught that there are many gods. One of these was chosen by lot, that he might be God of the Jews [Deuteronomy 32:9]. But it is not him that I speak, but the God who is also his God, whom even the Jews themselves do not know. For he is not their God, but of those who know him." (Clementine Recognitions 2:39).

Peter explains that Elyon, the Most High God is the God of the Jews, but there are also several divine intermediaries that are called "gods",

"For every nation has an angel to whom God committed the government of that nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and called God by those over whom he presides, yet being asked he does not give such testimony of himself. For the Most High God, who alone holds power of all things had divided the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts and over these he hath appointed angels as princes [Deuteronomy 32:8]. But to one among the archangels who is greatest, has committed the government of those who before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High." (Clementine Recognitions 2:42).

Whether or not Peter said this, it proves 1st and 2nd-century Jewish-Christians explicitly held the exact Divine Council framework I am arguing for. Jewish-Christians who spoke the language and lived in the ancient Near Eastern culture understood Deuteronomy 32 as literal territorial administration by non-human spiritual beings. Peter says they are real, non-human heavenly beings (archangels/princes) assigned over geographical nations.

And "real" gods denotes their real power and heavenly presence. Acknowledging the real existence of these lower territorial elohim did not diminish the ultimate supremacy of the Most High God (El Elyon).

Then there is you. Your insistence that foreign "gods" were non-existent or mere human magistrates is completely alien to early Jewish-Christian theology. You are trying to force a 21st-century philosophical assumption onto ancient texts that clearly taught a populated, hierarchically ordered spiritual realm.

Edited Wednesday at 09:07 AM by Pyreaux

[GoCeltics]

On 9/14/2026 at 3:49 PM, InCognitus said:

But when we get to the "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

I would say the literal offspring of a God is a literal God, albeit less developed.

Congrats. You are a God right now.

[InCognitus]

54 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

I would say the literal offspring of a God is a literal God, albeit less developed.

Congrats. You are a God right now.

Not according to you (posting as theplains):

On 8/31/2026 at 8:19 AM, theplains said:

To be divine is to possess the nature or attributes of God—such as perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or 
holiness.

We currently don't have all those attributes, even though we all are (as the Bible says) the same kind of being as God (Acts 17:28-29).  Those are attributes that can be obtained through the cleansing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ and by our willingness to follow and emulate him.

[InCognitus]

I wanted to add one more thing:

7 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

I would say the literal offspring of a God is a literal God, albeit less developed.

The apostle Paul taught that we are all literal offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29 (the Greek word translated as offspring in those verses refers to the "kind" of being, in a literal way), and given the context of his remarks that word cannot be misconstrued to mean that we are merely created by God (as that would totally destroy Paul's main point about not worshipping gods of gold or silver or stone, which are also created things).

Given what Paul was teaching in those verses are you saying you believe he meant that we are all literal Gods right now?  And remember, this is a Bible teaching, so if you are mocking and ridiculing Paul's teaching that we are all the offspring of God then you are just mocking and ridiculing this Bible teaching.

[GoCeltics]

On 9/16/2026 at 5:24 PM, InCognitus said:

I wanted to add one more thing:

The apostle Paul taught that we are all literal offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29 (the Greek word translated as offspring in those verses refers to the "kind" of being, in a literal way), and given the context of his remarks that word cannot be misconstrued to mean that we are merely created by God (as that would totally destroy Paul's main point about not worshipping gods of gold or silver or stone, which are also created things).

Given what Paul was teaching in those verses are you saying you believe he meant that we are all literal Gods right now?  And remember, this is a Bible teaching, so if you are mocking and ridiculing Paul's teaching that we are all the offspring of God then you are just mocking and ridiculing this Bible teaching.

In the Bible, “offspring” (or “seed,” “descendants,” “children”) is sometimes used non-literally—to describe people who belong to, resemble, follow, or arise from someone or something, rather than literal biological children of a heavenly parent.

A few clear examples:

Genesis 3:15 — “offspring/seed” of the woman and “offspring/seed” of the serpent. The serpent's offspring are not presented as literal children biologically fathered by the serpent. The language is commonly understood as referring to those aligned with the serpent and those opposed to him.

Matthew 3:7 / Luke 3:7 — John the Baptist calls the Pharisees and Sadducees a “brood of vipers.” This is figurative lineage language: they are characterized as belonging to or resembling vipers, not literally descended from snakes.

John 8:39–44 — Jesus distinguishes physical descent from figurative “fatherhood.” The people say, “Abraham is our father,” but Jesus says that if they were truly Abraham's children, they would do Abraham's works. He then says, “You are of your father the devil.”

The point is spiritual/moral affiliation, not biological descent.

Romans 4:11–12, 16–18 — Paul describes Abraham as the “father” of those who have faith, including Gentiles who are not his biological descendants. “Father” and “offspring” language is therefore used relationally/representatively.

Galatians 3:7, 29 — “Those of faith are the sons of Abraham” and “if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring.” Most of these people are not Abraham's literal biological descendants; the designation is based on faith and covenant relationship.

Revelation 12:17 — the dragon goes to make war against “the rest of her offspring,” identified as those “who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” Again, “offspring” functions as an identity/relationship metaphor rather than ordinary biological parentage.

[theplains]

On 9/15/2026 at 4:03 PM, Pyreaux said:

Don't you believe Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain and you are real adams? But not the one true Adam?

You lost me.
 

On 9/15/2026 at 4:03 PM, Pyreaux said:

A 'god' (elohim) describes kinship with El and executive authority from El. Satan or the Prince of Persia, or even a human executive commissioned with divine authority like Moses to Pharaoh can function in an elohim capacity. Thus even archangels, lesser foreign nation gods or even Satan, could be called a "god", as he has dominion and "his angels" under him.

Other than Satan, can you name a few heavenly gods who you believe Elohim gave authority over the nations?

What’s the difference between those who are called “gods” but are not deity by nature as God is?

How do you understand this passage in Galatians - “when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by 
nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God”?  

Weren’t they worshipping the false gods (Baals, Chemosh, and Dagon)? How were they not gods by nature?
 

On 9/15/2026 at 4:03 PM, Pyreaux said:

Yes, if you define "god" using the Bible’s own vocabulary (elohim), rather than your modern post-Enlightenment definition, there are "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor 8:5). If by "real god" you mean an omnipotent being equal to Yahweh, then NO. None of them are "gods" in that sense. But if by "real god" you mean real, non-human, supernatural spiritual entities operating in the heavenly hierarchy, then the Bible's answer is an emphatic YES.

No being is equal to Yahweh, but I understand that the LDS Church teaches future exalted beings will be 
made “equal in power, and in might, and in dominion" as the Father (Doctrine and Covenants 76:95).

For me, there is only one true God (Deity). There are not an endless backward and forward chain of deities.
 

On 9/15/2026 at 4:03 PM, Pyreaux said:

Baal (whose name means Lord, a lord is a noble governing a territory) is called an elohim of a nation (1 Kings 18:27), a shed / territorial spirit (Deut 32:17), and Beelzebul, the prince of demons, which in ancient Greek, meant a "divine power," or "lesser deity" rather than an evil entity (Matt 12:24–27). By elohim, it is acknowledging their real spiritual existence and authority over pagan nations.

Is Baal a real deity but not exactly equal to God, another heavenly deity?

What purpose do you believe Heavenly Father ordained this being to do?
 

On 9/15/2026 at 4:03 PM, Pyreaux said:

Then there is you. Your insistence that foreign "gods" were non-existent or mere human magistrates is completely alien to early Jewish-Christian theology. You are trying to force a 21st-century philosophical assumption onto ancient texts that clearly taught a populated, hierarchically ordered spiritual realm.

LDS theology presents hierarchically ordered spiritual realms, where there are many Gods and Heavenly 
Fathers before Heavenly Father of Earth became a Father himself, each presiding over his own respective 
realm.