And that's EXACTLY what I've done.
Can you be more constructive? Or are you going to be just contrarian?
Your saying "gods" don't exist, because they're not real, or they don't exist, and if anyone believes they do, their polytheist.
It's really quite simple.
I'm saying the term "gods", a term used in the Bible refers to people with a authority. Ps 82, Exo 7:1
Ive used multiple sources to prove this. I've even used your own words.
So-called "gods" can be people with authority in government, other people that set themselves up. You, yourself, also referred to the lord's of Roman government. Clearly, they exist.
"gods" can be engraved images, or anything that people serve, like money or possession. These exist in a spiritual sense.
You've defined monotheist in the belief in one God, regardless of the status of worship or not. I'm saying one can be monotheistic is the see other "gods", such as Moses was to Pharaoh, or angels, etc. are essentially extensions of the Most High God. You pick an extreme very limited version, I use a more liberal definition. Your definition is what makes the Godhead into three seperate Gods, my definition makes them into a singular entity.
And I"ve never done that.
Yes. You have and you are. Your saying "monotheism" is a basic tenet of Christian theology, when it's actually a standard Greeks, which is why Romans considered Jews atheist, which is what I pointed out, and you will later acknowledge yourself in posts after this one I'm replying to.
That's YOUR fallacious red herring.
Eh, yes, technically, it's a change of topic, but very important to acknowledge of why your pushing this argument of monotheism in thr first place. It shows you're ignoring the original concepts that Hebrews believed.
You haven't.
Isn't it interersting... Mormons keep claiming they've "answered [our questions", but an exhaustive reading thorugh the threads proves that false, and Mormons NEVER repeat an answer that was "already answered", nor do they ever link to where the question was first allegedly "answered".
Multiple points have raised, and you want me to do the work to do all the summarizing the entire discussion, when you could simply do it yourself. Well, maybe if I have time, I will. But usually when I make such efforts, you blow it off and never acknowledge it, so it's generally not my time.
And they won't even answer a simple yes/no question, they'll simply claim they've alreaady answered it (which, ironically, takes more time to type than either "yes" or "no").
That' because you're attempting to created yet another tangent when all you've done is walk away or special plead. Mormons don't believe your asking the question in good faith, your just trying to attack from a different angle, but my perfectionism will probably cause me to give in to your stupid request anyway so I can stand blameless of not acknowledging your questions.
Yes, money can be a "god". But it is not deity, a true God, it exists as money (or in Christ's day, as coins).
Doh! You just acknowledged it exists. By your own strict definition that your holding against us, your a polytheist!
A golden calf can be a "god". But it is not deity, a true God, it exsts as an animal-shaped statue made out of gold, not a true "god".
Doh! You did it again! By you own strict definition that your holding against us, your a polytheist!
So no, I didn't "realize" you were allegedly right, because you're not.
You're simply playing stupid word games.
I'm not playing stupid word games. Go back and read the discussion, Gordon acknowledged "gods" exist, and he's being called a polytheist.
Now, once again, are you going to address my question?:
Fine!
1Cor. 8:4 Therefore, 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.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1) Where is your evidence that Paul allegedly "changed topics" between v.4 and v.5?
It wasn't a change of topic, per se, it's a clarification.
The primary theme of 1st Corinthians is addressing the difference divisions and strife among church members.
In chapter 8, he's starting to take about food sacrifices, those eating food sacrificed to idols are being accused of idol worship, but the accused are saying "it's just meat", but Paul's overall message is "to avoid the appearance of evil".
So, in verse one, he's introducing the food topic, stated explicitly in verse 1. In verse 1 he also makes a comment of how when we think we know something, we get prideful, and charity diminishes.
In verse 2, he expound on that side comment saying essentially "Your not as smart as you think you are".
In verse 3, he's wrapping up that line of thought by saying "God knows hearts of men"
In verse 4, he's siding with those that are eating the meat, acknowledging that an idol is nothing, and there's only one God. (He'll correct them in later verses talking about how they're causing stumbling blocks for others)
In verse 5, he's acknowledging the nuance that though idols are nothing they still technically exist, just as people and things may be labeled as "gods" or "lords", both physically and spiritually - since some people recognize them as such.
In verse 6, he's clarifying what Christians believe. That there is one God, from whom all things came, and who we exist for. AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through we exist. (Acknowledging we are born again through Christ, and we live for God).
So, between 4 and 5. Verse 4's focus is the nothingness of idols, and verse 5's focus is a clarifying statement, that although they as nothing, they also technically exist because they recognize them as such.
2) What does the word, "for" mean at the beginning of v.5?
Look at the Greek on Biblehub, the Greek word for "for" is the particle to assign a reason. Which supports my interpretation that he's going to make a clarifying statement.
3) Does the "for" at the beginning of v.5 indicate a relation between v.4 and v.5?
Yes. Verse 5 is going to introduce the nuance of verse 4.
4) If so, what is the relationship?
One clarifying the other.
"What is the 'therefore' there for?
In verse 4? After making a point about how Christians are supposed to live, he's getting specific on eating food sacrificed to idols.
He wasn't.
And the conjunction, "for" proves it.
What is your evidencd that he WAS switching topics
Yes, we probably agree on this. That's what I was saying. That's why this is a useless tangent. I never postulated that it was a change in topic, you're the one that brought it up, not me. it's just another position you painted on me, because you want to be right on .... SOMETHING. And I said we've already covered this when you acknowledged "Kaiser Kurios" - so called "gods" people serve. They're not the God we serve, but in the minds of others, they do exist perceptually in the form of engraven images or actual people.
You're saying because I actually acknowledge that fact, I'm a "polytheist", and I'm saying that's rediculous, but given your extremist definition of monotheism, we could compromise and say "Henotheism", which you'd need to prove as sinful in the Bible. So, I gave evidence that that was the original disposition of Israelites - that "other gods" existed in the 1st commandment sense, and monotheism is standard that was introduced but Greco-Roman culture. To know avail, you're still going disagree with me.
Maybe you should focus more on 1Cor 8:1-3 rather than verses 4 and 5.
