theotēs (Colossians 2:9)

Fred

Well-known member
Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. (NASB)

1. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains: the nature or state of being God (12.13, theotēs, page 140, J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida).
2. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: the state of being God (theotēs, page 288).
3. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT): the rank of God (2:143, theotēs, G. Schneider).
4. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: Jesus represents in himself all that the temple was supposed to symbolize, especially since in him all the fullness of Deity lives (cf. Col. 2:9) (Temple, page 714).
5. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendour not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God. (Divinity, pages 320-321).
 

cjab

Well-known member
Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. (NASB)

1. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains: the nature or state of being God (12.13, theotēs, page 140, J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida).
2. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: the state of being God (theotēs, page 288).
3. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT): the rank of God (2:143, theotēs, G. Schneider).
4. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: Jesus represents in himself all that the temple was supposed to symbolize, especially since in him all the fullness of Deity lives (cf. Col. 2:9) (Temple, page 714).
5. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendour not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God. (Divinity, pages 320-321).
More homage to the lexicons. The Valentinians knew the bible also, but they still built a false teaching upon it.

Note that this passage doesn't say "Christ alone is theotes." Rather it is making it clear that the "theotes" of Christ is by reason of his Father dwelling in him bodily, where the Father of himself comprises the fullness of the "theotes."
 

Fred

Well-known member
More homage...Rather it is making it clear that the "theotes" of Christ is by reason of his Father dwelling in him bodily, where the Father of himself comprises the fullness of the "theotes."
More homage to your worthless opinion.
 

Fred

Well-known member
So you admit that for you, the devotee of Christo-centric oneness, the Father is worthless and unworthy of remark?

 

cjab

Well-known member
Just so: the Father is a nonentity in the oneness world of our resident Sabellian heretic.

(The identity of the one speaking in Rev 22:13, is "I Jesus" per Rev 22:16.)
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Another dubious example. The word is a hapax legomenon and it’s meaning is disputed.,
It's not a hapax legomenon. It is used in Plutarch (Isis and Osiris) in reference to people who were considered themselves divine but proved otherwise by their demises. The usage implies that people shouldn't claim θεότης. The entire work is a very interesting read.

πολλῶν δὲ τοιούτων λεγομένων καὶ δεικνυμένων, οἱ μὲν οἰόμενοι βασιλέων ταῦτα καὶ τυράννων, δι᾽ ἀρετὴν ὑπερφέρουσαν ἢ δύναμιν ἀξίωμα τῇ δόξῃ θεότητος ἐπιγραψαμένων εἶτα χρησαμένων τύχαις, ἔργα καὶ πάθη δεινὰ καὶ μεγάλα διαμνημονεύεσθαι,
"Many things like these are narrated and pointed out, and if there be some who think that in these are commemorated the dire and momentous acts and experiences of kings and despots who, by reason of their pre-eminent virtue or might, laid claim to the glory of being styled gods, and later had to submit to the vagaries of fortune"
 

cjab

Well-known member
Which means your previous assertion is trash.
I now see why you make such copious use of lexicons: you are otherwise incapable of intelligible utterance, as the reality is you don't know or trust to the words of Christ: "And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee" John 17:5.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It's not a hapax legomenon.

In the biblical corpus it is.

It is used in Plutarch (Isis and Osiris) in reference to people who were considered themselves divine but proved otherwise by their demises. The usage implies that people shouldn't claim θεότης. The entire work is a very interesting read.

πολλῶν δὲ τοιούτων λεγομένων καὶ δεικνυμένων, οἱ μὲν οἰόμενοι βασιλέων ταῦτα καὶ τυράννων, δι᾽ ἀρετὴν ὑπερφέρουσαν ἢ δύναμιν ἀξίωμα τῇ δόξῃ θεότητος ἐπιγραψαμένων εἶτα χρησαμένων τύχαις, ἔργα καὶ πάθη δεινὰ καὶ μεγάλα διαμνημονεύεσθαι,
"Many things like these are narrated and pointed out, and if there be some who think that in these are commemorated the dire and momentous acts and experiences of kings and despots who, by reason of their pre-eminent virtue or might, laid claim to the glory of being styled gods, and later had to submit to the vagaries of fortune"

This seems to diminish your case if anything. It says that they considered themselves to be super-human in light of their apparently exulted virtue and might, and not that they considered themselves to be the God of Israel himself.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Your denial doesn’t change the facts.
Neither you nor he “showed me” how “the word is used.” In fact I showed to “John Milton” how that word is used in that sentence, he just disagreed with my explanation without reason. All he has done so far is print out in this thread that pagan sentence. He hasn’t “ shown” anything.

best wishes to all,
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Neither you nor he “showed me” how “the word is used.” In fact I showed to “John Milton” how that word is used in that sentence, he just disagreed with my explanation without reason. All he has done so far is print out in this thread that pagan sentence. He hasn’t “ shown” anything.

best wishes to all,
You are terribly confused. The passage is saying that they called themselves gods but were proven not to be by the things that happened to them. (This latter statement is an indirect reference to their deaths.) The use of the term “theotes” in this passage suggests that it is not rightly applied to people.
 
Top