What's this got to do with the Father being human?
What's this got to do with the Father being human?
It was the denial by RJM that Jesus created the world in post 37, genius.What's this got to do with the Father being human?
He clearly does.No he doesn’t.
It clearly does.No it doesn’t.
I can only assume that you don’t understand what we are saying since you incessantly claim things that don’t match what we’ve actually said.Showing that you don't believe in the Son of God but only in your feeble gnostic god invented by human beings. It also shows you're a Sabellian modalist, as Fred also is.
Yes, I think some who pretend to a knowledge of Greek have a problem with Greek prepositions.It was the denial by RJM that Jesus created the world in post 37, genius.
Get a clue.
Yes, I think some who pretend to a knowledge of Greek have a problem with Greek prepositions.
Jn 1:3 Through him - δι’ αὐτοῦ
Col 1:16 In him - ἐν αὐτῷ (not "by" him)
Yes. You do.Yes, I think some who pretend to a knowledge of Greek have a problem with Greek prepositions.
There is no discrepancy here. They both refer to agency, and the latter example is simply saying that Jesus was the means by which creation was accomplished. If you weren’t ignorant of Greek you would know this.Jn 1:3 Through him - δι’ αὐτοῦ
Col 1:16 In him - ἐν αὐτῷ (not "by" him)
You and TRJM certainly do.Some here need to study Greek, and not put their faith in second rate English translations.
That doesn’t mean God carried out all things personally. You truly lack the ability to reason.However, "all things are of God." 1 Cor 11:12
Yes. It’s a matter of how the author expresses agency. If a couple were to say, “We built a house last year.” We don’t necessarily understand them to mean they built it themselves. They are saying that they are the primary agents in building the house, even if the construction itself was done by others.The same thing is taught in Hebrews 1:10.
In fact, the Lord Jesus pours out the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33) even though it is done (διὰ ) "through" Him (Titus 3:6).
It clearly does not because most Trinitarians insist that the “Son” ( and not the Father) became “man” in Genesis 18. Infact I have not come across a single Trinitarian who thinks like you that the Father became a man. Indeed, some Trinitarian academics even have a Unitarian understanding of Genesis 18, invoking the Shaliach principle here.It clearly does.
How so?Yes. You do.
Did I say there was a discrepancy? I've said before, I'll say it again: your only reason for being here is to discredit others by maliciously contriving allegations against others.There is no discrepancy here. They both refer to agency, and the latter example is simply saying that Jesus was the means by which creation was accomplished. If you weren’t ignorant of Greek you would know this.
Putting "Fred" right that the correct translation of ἐν αὐτῷ is "in him" not "by him" doesn't denote having a problem with Greek prepositions.You and TRJM certainly do.
Did I say or even hint at whether or not "God carried out all things personally"? How is my reasoning ability impaired if, in fact, I made no attempt to reason along the lines you falsely imputed me as doing?That doesn’t mean God carried out all things personally. You truly lack the ability to reason.
You need to lodge your complaint with the author of Genesis 18. I can’t help it that your assertions put you at odds with what the scriptures say.It clearly does not because most Trinitarians insist that the “Son” ( and not the Father) became “man” in Genesis 18. Infact I have not come across a single Trinitarian who thinks like you that the Father became a man. Indeed, some Trinitarian academics even have a Unitarian understanding of Genesis 18, invoking the Shaliach principle here.
The fact is that your claim in bold above is untrue & dishonest. But this is a pattern with you, unfortunately.
(1) If it cannot rightly be applied to humans, then it cannot be applied to Jesus.Well, at least you made an effort.
No. I said the word does not rightly apply to people; that is what this passage implies. This is not the same as saying it cannot be applied to humans. You’ve misrepresented what I’ve consistently said. The passage makes it clear that humans aren’t “theotes”.
I didn’t apply this passage to Jesus. I have an example of how the word is used in other Greek literature because it is not a hapax legomenon as you stated even if it is used only once in scripture.
I didn’t use my translation of the passage so that I couldn’t be accused of bias as you have tried to do here. The translation is accurate as what it says is what the passage means. People taking the title of divinity means that there were people claiming to be gods. Your knowledge of Greek and translation is zero as I’ve already demonstrated innumerable times.
Again, I didn’t say anything about Jesus. Do try to stay on topic.
You are the one pretending to know Greek. Obviously.How so?
Yes. You said that “by him” isn’t a valid translation.Did I say there was a discrepancy?
We’ll, you certainly have a penchant for making statements that aren’t true. This is hit another example.I've said before, I'll say it again: your only reason for being here is to discredit others.
If you deny that it is a valid translation as you have done it makes you wrong. Ergo: you are wrong.Putting "Fred" right that the correct translation of ἐν αὐτῷ is "in him" not "by him" doesn't denote having a problem with Greek prepositions.
If it doesn’t matter to you, why do you insist that there is only one proper translation?Did I say or even hint at whether or not "God carried out all things personally"?
So you know you’re unteachable. Gotcha.Carry on talking into the air.
Why should I be taught by mediocrity, as mediocrity only breeds mediocrity (cf. your confused Sabellian thesis that confounds doctrine with persons)?You said that “by him” isn’t a valid translation.
So you know you’re unteachable. Gotcha.
The lexicons aren’t mediocre. They give the range of a word’s meaning and usage and provide textual examples. It is true that some of these classifications are a matter of personal conviction, but that is the natural consequence of dividing a meaning or usage into increasingly small parts. It is a problem directly related to the nature of the task.Why should I be taught by mediocrity, as mediocrity only breeds mediocrity (cf. your confused Sabellian thesis that confounds doctrine with persons)?
As has already been stated, Hebrews 1 is quite clear about the active involvement of the Son in creation. This is equally true of Col. 1 and John 1. Given that all of these passages are found in chapter 1 of all these books, do you suppose it’s because it was an important point? That’s rhetorical, of course. It certainly is important, but you won’t be persuaded by such clear evidence.The creation is of God (Rev 3:14) but the Word's role role is far more subtle. The use of "by him" inserts an ambiguity as between the role of the Father and that of the Word.
Better is a subjective judgement that also implies that the other option is good. This actually agrees with me that the translation that the author does not prefer is still valid.Consider Cambridge on this verse:
Col 1:16.] by him] Lit. and far better, in Him. “The act of creation is supposed to rest in Him, and to depend on Him for its completion and realization” (Ellicott). In other words, the mighty fact that all things were created was bound up with Him, as its Secret. The creation of things was in Him, as the effect is in its cause.
Alford is not commenting on the grammar he is commenting on the meaning. The initial portion of verse 16 gives the overview of the point that the author is making and the remainder of the verse (but perhaps not only the rest of the verse) fleshes out the idea. What Alford is saying is that “by him” isn’t all encompassing enough to capture the thought, which is actually worse for your position since Alford ultimately acknowledges Jesus as the agent in the verse.Consider Alford on this verse:
….
not ‘by Him,’ as E. V. after Chr. (τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ, διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν)—this is expressed afterwards, and is a different fact from the present one, though implied in it.
…..by Him (instrumental: He is the agent in creation—the act was His, and the upholding is His: see John 1:3, note) and for Him (with a view to Him: He is the end of creation, containing the reason in Himself why creation is at all, and why it is as it is.
… and in Him (as its conditional element of existence, see above on ἐν αὐτῷ ver. 16) the universe subsists (‘keeps together,’ ‘is held together in its present state:
Note: Edited at ellipses for space.
I'm not clear on what position you assume I have. I don't recall taking "a position," except to point out that all things are "of God," and that it is important to maintain the apostolic distinction between the role of the Father and that of Christ.The lexicons aren’t mediocre. They give the range of a word’s meaning and usage and provide textual examples. It is true that some of these classifications are a matter of personal conviction, but that is the natural consequence of dividing a meaning or usage into increasingly small parts. It is a problem directly related to the nature of the task.
As has already been stated, Hebrews 1 is quite clear about the active involvement of the Son in creation. This is equally true of Col. 1 and John 1. Given that all of these passages are found in chapter 1 of all these books, do you suppose it’s because it was an important point? That’s rhetorical, of course. It certainly is important, but you won’t be persuaded by such clear evidence.
Better is a subjective judgement that also implies that the other option is good. This actually agrees with me that the translation that the author does not prefer is still valid.
Alford is not commenting on the grammar he is commenting on the meaning. The initial portion of verse 16 gives the overview of the point that the author is making and the remainder of the verse (but perhaps not only the rest of the verse) fleshes out the idea. What Alford is saying is that “by him” isn’t all encompassing enough to capture the thought, which is actually worse for your position since Alford ultimately acknowledges Jesus as the agent in the verse.
You haven't read Alford on this verse:In terms of grammar, there is no reason to forbid either rendering.
I never said he wasn't.Even though this dative of agency wasn’t used in Classical Greek, things are different in the New Testament. The passive verb ἐκτίσθη was a conscious choice by the author to give a summary of the point he was about to make. It is a stand-in for the perfect which he used later in the verse. Because ἐκτίσθη is passive and the author has in mind the ongoing truth of the thought as is evident by the remainder of the verse, it can take a dative of agent. Whether you choose to classify this usage as a dative of means or a dative of agency or even a dative of location, Jesus was still actively involved in creation as the agent in the verse.
"were created" in the passive aorist is not a verb of accompaniment.The primary qualm that I would have with the rendering “in him” is that it’s just not a way that English speakers would naturally conceptualize the thought, but I recognize it is a valid translation. You have a much steeper hill to climb to prove “by him” isn’t possible,
My argument is made above. "IF YOU CAN'T USE WITH, YOU CAN'T USE BY" (and you would be the first to discount the use of "with" in Col 1:16).and you haven’t made a convincing argument so far either on the grounds of theology, grammar, or translation. I have provided a defense for all three.
This verse attributes creation to Jesus. That’s the part you don’t like.I'm not clear on what position you assume I have. I don't recall taking "a position," except to point out that all things are "of God," and that it is important to maintain the apostolic distinction between the role of the Father and that of Christ.
So whatever you imagine is "worse for my position" is almost certainly delusion on your part, and your very idea of "my position" equally so.
I have read him, and I told you what’s going on. Grammar is not the basis of his argument. He is giving his opinion on the proper meaning of the text, and such doesn’t render the other available options grammatical impossible.You haven't read Alford on this verse:
Col 1:16.] because (explanatory of the πρωτ. πάσ. κτίσ.—it must be so, seeing that nothing can so completely refute the idea that Christ himself is included in creation, as this verse) in Him (as the conditional element, præ-existent and all-including: not ‘by Him,’ as E. V. after Chr. (τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ, διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν)—this is expressed afterwards....
Of course he is taking grammar into account, but he isn’t denying the validity of other grammatical options as you are claiming that he is.Wikitionary on ἐν: (primarily) in on at.
The grammar is part of it. Alford is taking the grammar into account.
You are misquoting and misusing your source. That’s not what the entry says.When ἐν = "the instrument or means by or with which (or through which) anything is accomplished," it is contextually limited to verbs of accompaniment, as distinguished from "that in which other things are contained and upheld, as their cause and origin." (Strongs)
So this is the wrong context for "by/with."
This isn’t relevant. It’s a result of you misunderstanding (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) your source."were created" in the passive aorist is not a verb of accompaniment.
None of this is supported by your source.Strongs gives examples of verbs of accompaniment, where "by" is always interchangable with "with".
Conclusion: if "with" would make no sense, then you can't use "by".
No kidding! It certainly didn’t come from Strong’s.My argument is made above.
This is silly. I could say beat the rug with a stick or beat the rug by means of a stick. The preposition allows for both rendering and the difference is moot."IF YOU CAN'T USE WITH, YOU CAN'T USE BY" (and you would be the first to discount the use of "with" in Col 1:16).
The bible makes it quite clear who does what in creation, cf. 1 Cor 8:6,This verse attributes creation to Jesus. That’s the part you don’t like.
I dont need you to interpret Alford.I have read him, and I told you what’s going on. Grammar is not the basis of his argument. He is giving his opinion on the proper meaning of the text, and such doesn’t render the other available options grammatical impossible.
Of course he is.Of course he is taking grammar into account, but he isn’t denying the validity of other grammatical options as you are claiming that he is.
You are deliberately perverting what Alford says. He says "in him."You are misquoting and misusing your source. That’s not what the entry says.
You are lying at this point.This isn’t relevant. It’s a result of you misunderstanding (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) your source.
I wasn't quoting Alford but Striongs. So now you disagree with Striongs.None of this is supported by your source.
LiarNo kidding! It certainly didn’t come from Strong’s.
You are just grossly incompentent when in comes to Koine Greek, and reject Strongs for your classical interpretation..This is silly. I could say beat the rug with a stick or beat the rug by means of a stick. The preposition allows for both rendering and the difference is moot.