Colossians 1:15

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Even if one uses 'substantial" as an adjective, that still makes no sense.

One's nature is "essential" in itself, so there's no need to modify it with "substantial".

1) It is an emphatic use of substantial.
2) There are things about my individual nature that are different from yours. We are essentially the same, but there are things that are "natural" for me, my posture, my hairline, my likes and dislikes in food, that are "me", but are not necessary to my general humanity. These things are not "essential" to my being human, even though I would not be "me", per se. So there is a reason to talk about and differentiate the things that make me human, and things that make this human being me. Substantial differentiates the necessary things which make me human from the unnecessary things.

Doug
 
1) He says "On almost every occasion" which means that there are others that there are no issues with calling him God. If there are clear instances, even just one, then Jesus is God according to scripture.
Actually, he said "almost every occasion" then presented all the texts the Orthodox say the Bible calls Jesus "God"(, eg, Matthew 1:23; John 1:1; John 8:58; John 20:28; Acts 28:20; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1).
2) The fact that there may be a discussion does not mean that there is equal footing for all arguments. The ambiguity card is too often played by those who decidedly don't like the other option and try to diffuse the evidence to being inconclusive. It usually is not.
When it comes to translation, it is.
3) Barclay was a Unitarian, and so why should I, a) think him valuable,
1) Barclay has a degree in Greek,
2) Barclay stated he was a "liberal Evangelical"(, but if he was a Unitarian, I don't see how that discredits his credentials/scholarship),
3) what he stated can be shown by comparing the translations of and commentaries regarding these texts, and
4) because you stated the ambiguity was only in my mind.

and b) why would you break your own rule about quoting "authorities"?
This quote wasn't regarding the grammar of any text but was a general statement.

But I have no "rule" against quoting authorities. I simply don't need to (as I am degreed in the Biblical Languages).

Your link is actually to the RNWT (which is a less literal translation than the NWT).

Here is the link to the NWT: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/bi12/books/genesis/1/#v1001024
 
Last edited:
1) It is an emphatic use of substantial.
It's redundant (and therefore meaningless).
2) There are things about my individual nature that are different from yours. We are essentially the same, but there are things that are "natural" for me, my posture, my hairline, my likes and dislikes in food, that are "me", but are not necessary to my general humanity.
These things are not "essential" to my being human, even though I would not be "me", per se. So there is a reason to talk about and differentiate the things that make me human, and things that make this human being me. Substantial differentiates the necessary things which make me human from the unnecessary things.

Doug
The things you are speaking about have nothing to do with "nature".
 
I realize that it could mean that, but I also realize that it is not the only meaning. I mean "Deity", as a descriptive quality of the Son's nature, it is not a thing possessed by the Son!

Doug
If you mean "deity" as a descriptive quality, you shouldn't capitalize the word (deity) because capitalizing it makes it synonymous with "God" (when it is capitalized):

Definition of deity



b. capitalized : GOD sense 1, SUPREME BEING
Thus, the phrase "the Deity of Jesus" means "the God of Jesus".
 
Last edited:

TibiasDad

Well-known member
If you mean "deity" as a descriptive quality, you shouldn't capitalize the word (deity) because capitalizing it makes it synonymous with "God" (when it is capitalized):

Thus, the phrase "the Deity of Jesus" means "the God of Jesus".

It means the Godness of Jesus!

Col 2:9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Doug
 
It means the Godness of Jesus!

Col 2:9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Doug
θεότης means "godliness". (OTOH, it's antonym--ἀθεότης--means 'godlessness'.)

So you can't be using "deity" according to how Colossians uses θεότης.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
θεότης means "godliness". (OTOH, it's antonym--ἀθεότης--means 'godlessness'.)

So you can't be using "deity" according to how Colossians uses θεότης.

θεότης comes from θεός and the suffix της, which corresponds to the English "ness". So it literally means God-ness, or the state of being God. (Thayer)

This is an interesting exchange that verifies my own conclusions, for whatever it's worth. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15746/what-does-the-greek-word-θεότητος-in-colossians-29-mean


Doug
 
θεότης comes from θεός and the suffix της, which corresponds to the English "ness".
The suffix -THS does not necessarily "correspond to the English -ness". It can, but not always as it depends on the noun. For instance, QEIOTHS is rendered as "divinity" rather than "divineness(--which is why QEOTHS is rendered "deity" by some. It is also why the term is rendered as "godhead".)
So it literally means God-ness, or the state of being God. (Thayer)

This is an interesting exchange that verifies my own conclusions, for whatever it's worth. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15746/what-does-the-greek-word-θεότητος-in-colossians-29-mean


Doug
Unfortunately, those whom have been quoted in the link are repeating each other and thus misrepresenting the meaning of the term(, which is why I've provided the antonym for QEOTHS--AQEOTHS).

Nevertheless, this abstract noun refers to a "godly quality".
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
The suffix -THS does not necessarily "correspond to the English -ness". It can, but not always as it depends on the noun. For instance, QEIOTHS is rendered as "divinity" rather than "divineness(--which is why QEOTHS is rendered "deity" by some. It is also why the term is rendered as "godhead".)

Unfortunately, those whom have been quoted in the link are repeating each other and thus misrepresenting the meaning of the term(, which is why I've provided the antonym for QEOTHS--AQEOTHS).

Nevertheless, this abstract noun refers to a "godly quality".

The "ity" is the Latin ending and carries the same understanding as the "ness" ending. But, as one of the posts in the link I sent you said, the material that ellicits the description of "wetness" means that it has all the qualities of being "wet"! And that which, in the Greek, is θεότης, has all the qualities of being God, especially given the emphatic description of πλήρωμα! As Thayer has said, is is "the state of being God", and he denied the Trinity. I've always appreciated his honesty to render a correct meaning in spite of his denial of its implications! Jesus was not "sort of like" God, he was, and is, completely God! The quality of God in its fullness, equals being God, just like being wet in its fullest sense equals objectively being wet completely.


Doug
 
. /t/
The "ity" is the Latin ending and carries the same understanding as the "ness" ending. But, as one of the posts in the link I sent you said, the material that ellicits the description of "wetness" means that it has all the qualities of being "wet"! And that which, in the Greek, is θεότης, has all the qualities of being God, especially given the emphatic description of πλήρωμα!
Two things:
1) in your example, "wet" is an adjective, whereas in QEOTHS, "god"/QEOS is a noun, so
2) if your example is to be valid, you have to think as others did in the past and view QEOTHS as synonymous with QEIOTHS; thus QEOS would mean--not "G/god"--but "divine".
As Thayer has said, is is "the state of being God", and he denied the Trinity.
QEOTHS does not mean "the state of being God" unless, again, you view "God" as an adjective as does Daniel Wallace in John 1:1 NET (since he modifies "God" with the adverb "fully": "the word is fully God").

I've always appreciated his honesty to render a correct meaning in spite of his denial of its implications! Jesus was not "sort of like" God, he was, and is, completely God! The quality of God in its fullness, equals being God, just like being wet in its fullest sense equals objectively being wet completely.


Doug
And, as I stated, QEOTHS refers to "godly qualities"(, ie, 'the qualities of a god', or "godliness"). It does not mean "the state of being God" (as Thayers and others have suggested).

One could view this monotheistically(, ie, "the qualities of God", ie, 'Godly qualities'), but having these qualities--even in its πλήρωμα/fulness would not make you "God"--especially if you have this fulness because of the will of Another (Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:10).
 

Nathan P

Member
The irony is..... they missed so much when they rewrote the bible.
John 1:3 states that the Logos of God created everything, and without him--- nothing that exists, could exist.
They missed Hebrews 1:2-4,
Jesus created everything, and holds it all together by the word of his power.
Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16-19,

they missed Titus statements regarding how God, and Jesus BOTH are Savior (one instance of each, in each chapter), and they missed Isaiah 43:10-11, and Hosea 13:4 how that YHVH and YHVH alone is Savior.
It goes on, and on, and on.....
There you go again and try to say the Logos created everything at John 1:3. How many times do you have to be told the him is the creator and that the him can not be Jesus because Jesus was the life in the him? Since the life and the him can not both be Jesus that leaves only the Father who could be the him who is the creator at John 1:3.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
There you go again and try to say the Logos created everything at John 1:3. How many times do you have to be told the him is the creator and that the him can not be Jesus because Jesus was the life in the him? Since the life and the him can not both be Jesus that leaves only the Father who could be the him who is the creator at John 1:3.
Perhaps you should read the rest of the bible.
You've ignored John 1:14.

The Logos became flesh, and dwelt among us.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

So..... if the Logos is Not Jesus, then who is it? Because whoever the Logos is..... he became a human being, and dwelt among the humans who lived in Israel at the time.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I believe bara means to create a new thing.
Barah means to create from nothing.

Which is pretty much what we read in Colossians 1:16-19

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Psalm 33

For the word of the LORD is right, And all His work is done in truth.

5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.

6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.

9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.


And John 1:1-3

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
 

Nathan P

Member
Perhaps you should read the rest of the bible.
You've ignored John 1:14.

The Logos became flesh, and dwelt among us.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

So..... if the Logos is Not Jesus, then who is it? Because whoever the Logos is..... he became a human being, and dwelt among the humans who lived in Israel at the time.
Just deal with the question and that is since the life in the him is Jesus, then how can the him be Jesus too? No you should read the rest and what you just quoted at John 1:14 says the Word became flesh and only then is there a documented Son of God. Or there was no Jesus until after the Word became flesh
 

Nathan P

Member
Perhaps you should read the rest of the bible.
You've ignored John 1:14.

The Logos became flesh, and dwelt among us.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

So..... if the Logos is Not Jesus, then who is it? Because whoever the Logos is..... he became a human being, and dwelt among the humans who lived in Israel at the time.
Type in Logos on Google and you will see under wiki that Jesus only becomes the Logos at his incarnation or when he became flesh.
 

Nathan P

Member
Perhaps you should read the rest of the bible.
You've ignored John 1:14.

The Logos became flesh, and dwelt among us.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

So..... if the Logos is Not Jesus, then who is it? Because whoever the Logos is..... he became a human being, and dwelt among the humans who lived in Israel at the time.
When you type in Logos on Google and then go to Wiki it says the Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos through which all things are made, as divine (theos) and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. Again Jesus is the incarnate Logos and not the one Logos) through which all things are made. Also click on Theos to identify the first one.
 

Nathan P

Member
Barah means to create from nothing.

Which is pretty much what we read in Colossians 1:16-19

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Psalm 33

For the word of the LORD is right, And all His work is done in truth.

5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.

6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.

9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.


And John 1:1-3

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Remember Jesus only became the Logos when he became incarnate and that means only when he was human was he identified as the Logos according to wiki when you type in on Google Logos and click encrpyted search and go down and read about Logos on wiki.
 
Top