theotēs (Colossians 2:9)

John Milton

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

cjab

Well-known member
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)

Some here need to study Greek, and not put their faith in second rate English translations.

However, "all things are of God." 1 Cor 11:12
 

Fred

Well-known member
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)

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).
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Yes, I think some who pretend to a knowledge of Greek have a problem with Greek prepositions.
Yes. You do.
Jn 1:3 Through him - δι’ αὐτοῦ
Col 1:16 In him - ἐν αὐτῷ (not "by" him)
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.
Some here need to study Greek, and not put their faith in second rate English translations.
You and TRJM certainly do.
However, "all things are of God." 1 Cor 11:12
That doesn’t mean God carried out all things personally. You truly lack the ability to reason.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
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).
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 choice of the construction depends upon the way the writer chooses to express the idea (does he wish to mention the role of the primary or secondary agent or both?). And stating it one way does not forbid the other understanding.

This is why the example you gave from Hebrews 1 should be enlightening for our two oneness trolls. It is impossible to understand it any other way than Jesus was actively involved in creation.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It clearly does.
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.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Yes. You do.
How so?

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.
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.

You and TRJM certainly do.
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.

That doesn’t mean God carried out all things personally. You truly lack the ability to reason.
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?

Carry on talking into the air.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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.
(1) If it cannot rightly be applied to humans, then it cannot be applied to Jesus.

(2) The pagan literature allows it to be applicable to many “gods” or demons. . Within the NT context however, this word is reserved for certain virtues which are from God only. So the NT uses it differently than the pagan literature.

(3) The translation you used is inaccurate since it renders the word as a plural, namely “gods.”

(4) The biblical text does not say Jesus was θεότης but that he had the fullness of it. So your example is irrelevant.

You did not address any of these points. I won’t ask again.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You are the one pretending to know Greek. Obviously.
Did I say there was a discrepancy?
Yes. You said that “by him” isn’t a valid translation.
I've said before, I'll say it again: your only reason for being here is to discredit others.
We’ll, you certainly have a penchant for making statements that aren’t true. This is hit another example.
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 you deny that it is a valid translation as you have done it makes you wrong. Ergo: you are wrong.
Did I say or even hint at whether or not "God carried out all things personally"?
If it doesn’t matter to you, why do you insist that there is only one proper translation?
Carry on talking into the air.
So you know you’re unteachable. Gotcha.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You said that “by him” isn’t a valid translation.

So you know you’re unteachable. Gotcha.
Why should I be taught by mediocrity, as mediocrity only breeds mediocrity (cf. your confused Sabellian thesis that confounds doctrine with persons)?

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.


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.


Consider 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, and is a different fact from the present one, though implied in it.

The idea of the schoolmen, that in Christ was the ‘idea omnium rerum,’ adopted in the main by Schl., Neandor, and Olsh. (“the Son of God is the intelligible world, the κόσμος νοητός, i.e. creation in its primitive idea, Himself; He bears in Himself their reality,” Olsh.), is, as Meyer rightly observes, entirely unsupported by any views or expressions of our Apostle elsewhere: and is besides abundantly refuted by ἐκτίσθη, the historic aorist, (indicating the physical act of Creation) was created (in the act of creation: cf. on ἔκτισται below) the universe (thus only can we give the force of the Greek singular with the collective neuter plural, which it is important here to preserve, as ‘all things’ may be thought of individually, not collectively)—(viz.) things in the heavens and things on the earth (Wetst. urges this as shewing that the physical creation is not meant: ‘non dicit ὁ οὐρανὸς κ. ἡ γῆ ἐκτίσθη, sed τὰ ἐν &c., quo habitatores significantur qui reconciliantur’ (cf. the Socinian view of ver. 15 above): the right answer to which is—not with De W. to say that the Apostle is speaking of living created things only, for manifestly the whole universe is here treated of, there being no reason why living things should be in such a declaration distinguished from other things,—but with Mey. to treat τὰ ἐν τ. οὐρρ. κ. τὰ ἐπ. τ. γῆς as an inexact designation of heaven and earth, and all that in them is, Revelation 10:6. In 1Chronicles 29:11, the meaning is obviously this, σὺ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρ. κ. ἐπὶ τ. γῆς δεσπόζεις), things visible and things invisible (which divide between them the universe: Mey. quotes from Plato, Phæd. p. 79 a, θῶμεν οὖν, εἰ βούλει ἔφη, δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων, τὸ μὲν ὁρατόν, τὸ δὲ ἀειδές. The ἀόρατα are the spirit-world (not, οἷον ψυχή, Chr.: this, being incorporated, would fall under the ὁρατά, for the present purpose), which he now breaks up by εἴτε … εἴτε … εἴτε), whether (these latter be) thrones, whether lordships, whether governments, whether authorities (on εἴτε, … often repeated, see reff.: and Plato, Rep. p. 493 d, 612 a, Soph. El. 595 f. (Mey.)

These distinctive classes of the heavenly powers occur in a more general sense in Ephesians 1:21, where see note. For δυνάμεις there, we have θρόνοι here. It would be vain to attempt to assign to each of these their places in the celestial world. Perhaps, as De W., the Apostle chose the expressions as terms common to the doctrine of the Colossian false teachers and his own: but the occurrence of so very similar a catalogue in Ephesians 1:21, where no such object could be in view, hardly looks as if such a design were before him. Mey. well remarks, “For Christian faith it remains fixed, and it is sufficient, that there is testimony borne to the existence of different degrees and categories in the world of spirits above; but all attempts more precisely to fix these degrees, beyond what is written in the N. T., belong to the fanciful domain of theosophy.” All sorts of such interpretations, by Teller and others, not worth recording, may be seen refuted in De W.): the whole universe (see above on τὰ πάντα, ver. 16) has been created (not now of the mere act, but of the resulting endurance of creation—leading on to the συνέστηκεν below) 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. See my Sermons on Divine Love, Serm. I. II. The fancies and caprices of those who interpret creation here ethically, are recounted and refuted by Meyer): and He Himself (emphatic, His own Person) is (as in John 8:58, of essential existence: ἦν might have been used, as in John 1:1: but as Mey. well observes, the Apostle keeps the past tenses for the explanatory clauses referring to past facts, vv. 16, 19) before all things (in time; bringing out one side of the πρωτότοκος above: not in rank, as the Socinians: of which latter James 5:12, 1Peter 4:8, are no justifications, for if πρὸ-πάντων be taken as there, we must render, and He, above all, exists,’ ‘He especially exists,’ προπάντων being adverbial, and not to be resolved. For the temporal sense, see reff.) all things (not ‘omnes,’ as Vulg.), 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:’ οὐ μόνον αὐτὸς αὐτὰ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρήγαγεν, ἀλλά καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτὰ συγκρατεῖ νῦν, Chr. On the word, see reff.: and add Philo, quis rer. div. hæres. 12, vol. i. p. 481, ὁ ἔναιμος ὄγκος, ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ διαλυτὸς ὢν κ. νεκρός, συνέστηκε κ. ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ θεοῦ).
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Why should I be taught by mediocrity, as mediocrity only breeds mediocrity (cf. your confused Sabellian thesis that confounds doctrine with persons)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.

In terms of grammar, there is no reason to forbid either rendering. 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.

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, 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.
 

cjab

Well-known member
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.
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.

In terms of grammar, there is no reason to forbid either rendering.
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....

Wikitionary on ἐν: (primarily) in on at.

The grammar is part of it. Alford is taking the grammar into account. 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."

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.
I never said he wasn't.

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,
"were created" in the passive aorist is not a verb of accompaniment.

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".
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.
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).
 

John Milton

Well-known member
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.
This verse attributes creation to Jesus. That’s the part you don’t like.
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....
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.
Wikitionary on ἐν: (primarily) in on at.

The grammar is part of it. Alford is taking the grammar into account.
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.
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."
You are misquoting and misusing your source. That’s not what the entry says.
"were created" in the passive aorist is not a verb of accompaniment.
This isn’t relevant. It’s a result of you misunderstanding (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) 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".
None of this is supported by your source.
My argument is made above.
No kidding! It certainly didn’t come from Strong’s.
"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).
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.
 

cjab

Well-known member
This verse attributes creation to Jesus. That’s the part you don’t like.
The bible makes it quite clear who does what in creation, cf. 1 Cor 8:6,

You can't distinguish God the Father from the Word because you are a persecuting Sabellian heretic with a grossly immature & puerile theology..

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.
I dont need you to interpret Alford.

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.
Of course he is.

You are misquoting and misusing your source. That’s not what the entry says.
You are deliberately perverting what Alford says. He says "in him."

This isn’t relevant. It’s a result of you misunderstanding (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) your source.
You are lying at this point.

None of this is supported by your source.
I wasn't quoting Alford but Striongs. So now you disagree with Striongs.

No kidding! It certainly didn’t come from Strong’s.
Liar

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.
You are just grossly incompentent when in comes to Koine Greek, and reject Strongs for your classical interpretation..

I believe you are so steeped in Greek pagan theology that you will NEVER understand the bible.
 
Top