theotēs (Colossians 2:9)

It's not my fault you want to play make believe with how the words of the Bible are properly defined.

Christians are not referred to as theotēs in Ephesians 3:19, genius.

Are you actually suggesting the fullness of theotēs is not present in God Himself, genius?

Or is this just your madman way of throwing up the checkerboard again?

And you don't need to be a genius to know that Colossians 2:10 has the verb form for the noun fullness in verse 9. Believers have this same fullness because they are in Christ who has this fullness. That just might be why Ephesians 3:19 says believers have the fullness of GOD, right genius?
 
Are you actually suggesting the fullness of theotēs is not present in God Himself, genius?

Or is this just your madman way of throwing up the checkerboard again?

And you don't need to be a genius to know that Colossians 2:10 has the verb form for the noun fullness in verse 9. Believers have this same fullness because they are in Christ who has this fullness. That just might be why Ephesians 3:19 says believers have the fullness of GOD, right genius?
I think your comments here are good comments, and emphasize the comparability of Christ with believers, as his brothers and sisters.

However vis-a-vis believers there a distinction in Col 2:9 that seems to concern the very "state of being God" (i.e. the glory of God) being in Christ σωματικῶς (bodily), which perhaps is not quite the same as the ordinary believer, cf 1 John 3:2, "when he shall appear, we shall be like him;" (but perhaps not the same as him).
 
I think your comments here are good comments, and emphasize the comparability of Christ with believers, as his brothers and sisters.

However vis-a-vis believers there a distinction in Col 2:9 that seems to concern the very "state of being God" (i.e. the glory of God)

There isn't even a hint of that in the text but must be imagined into the text.

being in Christ σωματικῶς (bodily),

That's because the risen Christ is the only one in whom it is true bodily.

But we are also told that in him, in the risen Christ, believers have this same fullness. We have this fullness dwelling in us because we are in him who has this fulness. That's the point.

No, we aren't God either.

Believers have the fullness of God dwelling within them. They have God Himself dwelling within them so how could they not have His fullness.

Having the fullness of God dwelling in you is one thing. Actually being God Himself is another.

But churchianity has taught people to conflate things routinely for the sake of their creedal idols.

which perhaps is not quite the same as the ordinary believer, cf 1 John 3:2, "when he shall appear, we shall be like him;" (but perhaps not the same as him).
 
There isn't even a hint of that in the text but must be imagined into the text.
I think that the glory of God is denoted by theotes. From Strongs the primary definition of theotes is deity i. e. the state of being God, which must denote the glory of God. The state of being God carries with it possession of the glory of God, which we know Christ will have when he returns: Titus 2:13. I think this is an uncontroversial distinction that can be made as between Christ and the ordinary believer.

That's because the risen Christ is the only one in whom it is true bodily.

But we are also told that in him, in the risen Christ, believers have this same fullness. We have this fullness dwelling in us because we are in him who has this fulness. That's the point.

No, we aren't God either
I wasn't raising any Trinitarian point here. My only point was to assess whether the fullness of God as applied to believers equated to the fullness of the deity bodily as applied to Christ. I think that there is a distinction, that's all. I didn't say Christ was "o theos".

.

Believers have the fullness of God dwelling within them. They have God Himself dwelling within them so how could they not have His fullness.

Having the fullness of God dwelling in you is one thing. Actually being God Himself is another.

But churchianity has taught people to conflate things routinely for the sake of their creedal idols.
"God" is used in various senses in the Greek. It is a title of the Father, but anarthrously it can be and is applied to the Logos clothed with God's glory (Jn 1:1c).
 
I think that the glory of God is denoted by theotes.

Believers themselves share in the glory of God. It's in your Bible there. So then what is your point?

From Strongs the primary definition of theotes is deity i. e. the state of being God,

So Paul actually said, "all the fullness of the state of being God bodily.............. and you have been made full in him"

That would mean believers have been made "the state of being God."

I don't think so.


which must denote the glory of God. The state of being God carries with it possession of the glory of God, which we know Christ will have when he returns: Titus 2:13.

Since he is in the Father and the Father is in him, please do explain how it would be possible for him NOT to return in the glory of the Father in him and he in the Father.

I think this is an uncontroversial distinction that can be made as between Christ and the ordinary believer.
I think this is an uncontroversial distinction that can be made as between Christ and the ordinary believer.

You are quite mistaken.

I wasn't raising any Trinitarian point here. My only point was to assess whether the fullness of God as applied to believers equated to the fullness of the deity bodily as applied to Christ. I think that there is a distinction, that's all. I didn't say Christ was "o theos".

The only distinction is that he has this fullness bodily and believers do not.......... YET. He is bodily resurrected into glory and they are still waiting to be.


"God" is used in various senses in the Greek. It is a title of the Father, but anarthrously it can be and is applied to the Logos clothed with God's glory (Jn 1:1c).

NO. John 1:1c is telling you that the word proclaimed during the ministry of Jesus was the revelation of the Father Himself, the word was God. John summarizes by saying the same thing at John 1:18. He begins and ends his prologue with the same point.
 
Believers themselves share in the glory of God. It's in your Bible there. So then what is your point?
There are different kinds of glory, just as there are different bodies. Surely not everything has the same glory. But in Col 2:9, the glory of deity itself is being alluded to cf. Rev 1:12-16. No mortal can receive such glory.

So Paul actually said, "all the fullness of the state of being God bodily.............. and you have been made full in him"
A man can only receive glory according to what he intrinsically is, and as God has enabled hm. As Christ came from above, his capacity to receive glory is inherently greater than that of created men.

That would mean believers have been made "the state of being God."
No, for the reasons I have explained above. A man can still receive the fullness of God, but only as he has been enabled.

I don't think so.

Since he is in the Father and the Father is in him, please do explain how it would be possible for him NOT to return in the glory of the Father in him and he in the Father.
When he said those words "the Fatheis in me and I in the Father" he was man, and was (in part) alluding to the Holy Spirit as the unifying agent. Jesus never received the glory of God until after his ascension (John 17:5).

I think this is an uncontroversial distinction that can be made as between Christ and the ordinary believer.


You are quite mistaken.


The only distinction is that he has this fullness bodily and believers do not.......... YET. He is bodily resurrected into glory and they are still waiting to be.
You are adding words to the bible. The words is Col 2:9 are not applied to anyone except Christ. Now note the use of the definitive article in Col 2:9 "πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος σωματικῶς". OTOH In Col 2:10, all we have is a participle "ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι" which means made full as far as we are able to be filled.

This is invoking Jesus's words in Matt 13:12 etc, which is a radically different concept to what we find in Col 2:9. A vessel can only receive what it is enabled to receive.

NO. John 1:1c is telling you that the word proclaimed during the ministry of Jesus was the revelation of the Father Himself, the word was God. John summarizes by saying the same thing at John 1:18. He begins and ends his prologue with the same point.
The words "in the beginning" in John 1:1 do not allude to the beginning of Jesus's ministry but refer back to Gen 1:1 "In the beginning."

By the consent of all reputable scholars, "In the beginning" refers to the begining of the creation of God, (cf. Rev 3:14). There is only one beginning. The devil himself is throwing you into confusion over this.
 
Last edited:
The words "in the beginning" in John 1:1 do not allude to the beginning of Jesus's ministry

I didn't say they did.

but refer back to Gen 1:1 "In the beginning."

You will need to get that from your imagination since there is absolutely zilch in the text which suggests such a thing.

By the consent of all reputable scholars, "In the beginning" refers to the begining of the creation of God, (cf. Rev 3:14).

What you really mean is "By the consent of all Trinitarian scholars who want to promote their Trinitarian creed.........."

There is only one beginning. The devil himself is throwing you into confusion over this.

The Bible provides numerous proofs that this is an obvious error.
 
I didn't say they did.



You will need to get that from your imagination since there is absolutely zilch in the text which suggests such a thing.



What you really mean is "By the consent of all Trinitarian scholars who want to promote their Trinitarian creed.........."



The Bible provides numerous proofs that this is an obvious error.
Gen 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς "In the beginning [the] God made...."
Jn 1:1 "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was πρὸς [the] God and God was the Word"
John 1:2 "Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" "This was in the beginning πρὸς [the God]"
Prov 8:23 "πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέν με ἐν ἀρχῇ" "Before the eon he founded me in the beginning"
Rev 3:14 ".....ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ" "[The faithful and true witness] ... The beginning of the creation of God."


Contrast with
Phil 4:15 "ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου" "In the beginning of the gospel"

I think your interpretation is not made out. Rev 3:14 correlates well with Jn 1:1,2 and with Gen 1:1 and with Prov 8:23.
 
Gen 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς "In the beginning [the] God made...."
Jn 1:1 "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was πρὸς [the] God and God was the Word"
John 1:2 "Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" "This was in the beginning πρὸς [the God]"
Prov 8:23 "πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέν με ἐν ἀρχῇ" "Before the eon he founded me in the beginning"
Rev 3:14 ".....ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ" "[The faithful and true witness] ... The beginning of the creation of God."


And?

Contrast with
Phil 4:15 "ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου" "In the beginning of the gospel"

Why?

I think your interpretation is not made out.

You don't even know what it is.

.... which tells me quite a lot about what you are doing here.

It is appears to me that for you the Bible is a depository of verses like a box of legos you can stick together however you like.

Rev 3:14 correlates well with Jn 1:1,2 and with Gen 1:1 and with Prov 8:23.

Whatever made you think you were supposed to do such a thing?

1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of Life........ 2:7 Beloved, I am not writing a new command to you, but an old command which you have had from the beginning, the old command is the word which you have heard..... 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
- Apostle John
 
There are different kinds of glory, just as there are different bodies. Surely not everything has the same glory. But in Col 2:9, the glory of deity itself is being alluded to cf. Rev 1:12-16. No mortal can receive such glory.


A man can only receive glory according to what he intrinsically is, and as God has enabled hm. As Christ came from above, his capacity to receive glory is inherently greater than that of created men.
His souls intrinsically are God’s sons and daughters
robbed of their nature…
because of adam

at the Change all of His will be given their Original, the type of body eden had
which many call glorified or resurrected or imperishable but is the original
which is the temple of Him…
(so this fleshbody is no temple except of sin)
 
Whatever made you think you were supposed to do such a thing?

1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of Life........ 2:7 Beloved, I am not writing a new command to you, but an old command which you have had from the beginning, the old command is the word which you have heard..... 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
- Apostle John
1Jo 3:8 "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work."

This discloses that "the beginning" is prior to the appearance of the Son of God.

1Jo 1:1 "This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning...."

"What was from the beginning" here bears the same meaning as in Gen 1:1, or at least since the advent of mankind (far removed from the beginning of the gospel). If satan is a fallen angel, it is possible he fell at the beginning of the world.

1Jo 2:7 "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning...."

Here the "beginning" is contextually delimited by "which you have had."

1 Jo 2:7, 2:24 "which you heard from the beginning. "

Here the "beginning" is contextually delimited by "which you have heard."
 
Last edited:
1Jo 3:8 "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work."

This discloses that "the beginning" is prior to the appearance of the Son of God.

1Jo 1:1 "This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning...."

"What was from the beginning" here bears the same meaning as in Gen 1:1, or at least since the advent of mankind (far removed from the beginning of the gospel). If satan is a fallen angel, it is possible he fell at the beginning of the world.

1Jo 2:7 "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning...."

Here the "beginning" is contextually delimited by "which you have had."

1 Jo 2:7, 2:24 "which you heard from the beginning. "

Here the "beginning" is contextually delimited by "which you have heard."
Sorry: got my lines muddled.

"....or at least since the advent of mankind (far removed from the beginning of the gospel). If satan is a fallen angel, it is possible he fell at the beginning of the world"

should have been placed as a comment on 1Jo 3:8 (i.e. not 1Jo 1:1) and so after

"This discloses that "the beginning" [of Satan's works] is prior to the appearance of the Son of God" (supra).

1Jo 1:1 relates to Jn 1:1 and Gen 1:1.
 
1Jo 3:8 "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work."

This discloses that "the beginning" is prior to the appearance of the Son of God.

1Jo 1:1 "This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning...."

"What was from the beginning" here bears the same meaning as in Gen 1:1, or at least since the advent of mankind (far removed from the beginning of the gospel). If satan is a fallen angel, it is possible he fell at the beginning of the world.

Really? And you got that out of the text HOW? By an act of your own will?

1Jo 2:7 "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning...."

Here the "beginning" is contextually delimited by "which you have had."

1 Jo 2:7, 2:24 "which you heard from the beginning. "

Here the "beginning" is contextually delimited by "which you have heard."

1 John 2:7,24 certainly does not refer to the Genesis beginning of creation does it?

So now that you know John, who wrote John 1:1, uses the word "beginning" in such a manner, HOW are YOU going to determine which "beginning" is in view at John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1?
 
Really? And you got that out of the text HOW? By an act of your own will?
Je ne comprend pas.
1 John 2:7,24 certainly does not refer to the Genesis beginning of creation does it?
No, because the referent here is the beginning of the faith of believers.

So now that you know John, who wrote John 1:1, uses the word "beginning" in such a manner, HOW are YOU going to determine which "beginning" is in view at John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1?
Depends on the qualification. You can't say that there is a qualification in Jn 1:1 itself. There isn't one. It is also clear your interpretation relies on verses 9,10 for context, whereas the more proximate context to Jn 1:1 is to creation "Through Him all things were made (came into being), and without Him nothing was made that has been made" in Jn 1:3.

The words of Jn 1:3 are "πάντα ἐγένετο" (all things were made). In Gen 1:1 "ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν" (God made the heavens and the earth)

The distinction between ποιέω and ἐγένετο is intentional, and reflects 1 Cor 8:6: All things of God, all things by Christ.
 
Je ne comprend pas.

You don't understand when someone asks you how you substantiate your claims?

No, because the referent here is the beginning of the faith of believers.


Depends on the qualification. You can't say that there is a qualification in Jn 1:1 itself. There isn't one.

Well there certainly isn't the one you are claiming is there?

It is also clear your interpretation relies on verses 9,10 for context,

Incorrect.

whereas the more proximate context to Jn 1:1 is to creation "Through Him all things were made (came into being), and without Him nothing was made that has been made" in Jn 1:3.

Eisegesis. "Everything through the same came to be" doesn't amount to a Genesis creation. You imagined that into the text.

Not only so, what in verse 4 leads you to believe the Genesis creation is in view. What in verse 5 leads you to believe that?

Even further, do you not see anything at John 1:1-5 that would tell you the Genesis creation is NOT in view?

The words of Jn 1:3 are "πάντα ἐγένετο" (all things were made).

All things came to be.

In Gen 1:1 "ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν" (God made the heavens and the earth)

The distinction between ποιέω and ἐγένετο is intentional, and reflects 1 Cor 8:6: All things of God, all things by Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6 isn't talking about the Genesis act of creation. You just build error upon error upon error.
 
You don't understand when someone asks you how you substantiate your claims?



Well there certainly isn't the one you are claiming is there?



Incorrect.



Eisegesis. "Everything through the same came to be" doesn't amount to a Genesis creation. You imagined that into the text.

Not only so, what in verse 4 leads you to believe the Genesis creation is in view. What in verse 5 leads you to believe that?

Even further, do you not see anything at John 1:1-5 that would tell you the Genesis creation is NOT in view?



All things came to be.



1 Corinthians 8:6 isn't talking about the Genesis act of creation. You just build error upon error upon error.
It is up to you to substantiate your contention that "all things" refers to the gospel alone. Of course in some passages the gospel is in view, but in so far as Christ is concerned, he is the beginning/originator of the creation (κτίσις - creation ex nihilo) of God (Rev 3:14), which as I have said previously, correlates with John 1:1.

1 Cor 8:6, "all things" in turn correlates with Col 1:15-16 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him."

It is a misreading of these texts to assign them to the gospel alone. It entails a denial of the Logos as prior to the gospel, which is absurd given the number of references to the word of God in the OT, and to the method by which the creation occurred in Gen 1.
 
It is up to you to substantiate your contention that "all things" refers to the gospel alone.

This is certainly getting to be a gross waste of time. I never said "all things" refers to "the gospel alone."

Of course in some passages the gospel is in view, but in so far as Christ is concerned, he is the beginning/originator of the creation (κτίσις - creation ex nihilo) of God (Rev 3:14), which as I have said previously, correlates with John 1:1.

The creation in view at Revelation 3:14 is this one --> Revelation 21

1 Cor 8:6, "all things" in turn correlates with Col 1:15-16 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him."

These verses are referring to two different things.

And neither of them are referring to the Genesis act of creation either.

You have a real mess on your hands.

It is a misreading of these texts to assign them to the gospel alone.

You must be having a debate with somebody in your imagination.

It entails a denial of the Logos as prior to the gospel, which is absurd given the number of references to the word of God in the OT, and to the method by which the creation occurred in Gen 1.
 
This is certainly getting to be a gross waste of time. I never said "all things" refers to "the gospel alone."



The creation in view at Revelation 3:14 is this one --> Revelation 21
Nothing to suggest it. The word beginning of the creation of God in Rev 3:14 is directly comparable with Mark 13:19 "ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ Θεὸς" "from [the] beginning of creation that [the] God created" which obviously denotes the present creation.

The "creation of God" must include the present world. The new earth and heavens are "new". Rev 3:14 would have to include the word "new" for your sense to be made out.

These verses are referring to two different things.
Nothing to suggest it.

And neither of them are referring to the Genesis act of creation either.
Genesis creation entailed everything in Col 1:15-16

You have a real mess on your hands.
No scholar of any repute agrees with you. I don't know where you get your ideas from (probably from some extreme Arian handbook - there are arians and arians, but your version is extremist to the point of repudiating every ancient authority on the subject).

Per Alford on Rev 3:14

"In Him the whole creation of God is begun and conditioned: He is its source and primary fountain-head. The mere word ἀρχή would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being: see Genesis 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17; and Proverbs 8:22. And so the Arians here take it, and some who have followed them: e. g. Castalio,” chef d’œuvre:” “omnium Dei operum excellentissimum atque primum:” and so Ewald and Züllig. But every consideration of the requirements of the context, and of the Person of Christ as set forth to us in this book, is against any such view. Others, as Calov., Bengel, Whitby, al., make ἀρχή = ἄρχων, which is impossible: as it is also to interpret κτίσεως of the new spiritual creation, the church, as Ribera, Corn.-a-lap., Grot., Wetst., al. There can be little doubt that ἀρχή is to be taken in that pregnant sense in which we have it, e. g., in Wisd. 12:16, ἡ γὰρ ἰσχύς σου δικαιοσύνης ἀρχή,—ib. 14:27, ἡ γὰρ τῶν … εἰδώλων θρησκεία παντὸς ἀρχὴ κακοῦ καὶ αἰτία καὶ πέρας ἐστίν: and in the Gospel of Nicodemus, p. ii. cap. vii. Tischdf. Ev. Apoc. p. 307, where Satan is said to be ἀρχὴ τοῦ θανάτου καὶ ῥίζα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, viz. the incipient cause. So Andr., Areth. in Catena (ἡ προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία τῆς κτίσεως), Lyra, Vitr., Wolf, Stern, Hengst., De Wette, Ebrard, Düsterd., al. The latter asks the questions, “How could Christ write if it were only this present Epistle, if he were himself a creature? How could every creature in heaven and earth adore him, if he were one of themselves (cf. ch. 19:10)? We need only think of the appellation of our Lord as the Α and Ω (ch. 22:13: cf. 1:8) in its necessary fulness of import, and we shall see that in the Α lies the necessity of his being the ἀρχή of the Creation, as in the Ω that of his coming to bring the visible creation to an end”):"

Your version of Arianism is so extreme that it qualifies as Adoptionism, which has been a heresy from the beginning of the gospel - in fact one of the first heresies - antedating the Nicene creed by centuries. Adoptionism is a direct repudiation of Christ's own teachings: it belongs to history, when people did not have bibles and were easily swayed by such false teachers.

You must be having a debate with somebody in your imagination.
It's difficult for me to relate to you, to be sure.
 
Back
Top