Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

No, it's not an appositive; it can come into English appositively but the usage itself is attributive, unless you regard ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας and ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ as having an equal syntactic connection to οἶδεν, which the placement of the verb certainly does not suggest. In this case the antecedent is ὁ Θεὸς.
Nonsense. The fact that οἶδεν intervenes between the two expressions proves that this is not an example of the second attributive position .
 
That's a circular argument because the proposition is supported by the premises and the premises is supported by the proposition. And you make a definite assertion answering to an indefinite conclusion.

Why can't it, grammatically? Because I'm asserting that Christ here is called "God," and praised as such, being one with and equal to the Father, as the scriptures state elsewhere.

Or what theological rule exists among us, that only God can receive the adjective form of εὐλογητὸς, whereas everyone else can receive the verbal/participle (verbal adjective) form? It seems at its core, you both are falling back to purely theological arguments.
It's not a "theological rule" but rather a biblical fact. Certain words are used only in conjunction and in reference to the Father. For instance λατρεύω is another such word, it is a special "worship" offered by the saints only to the Father, never to anyone else.
 
οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ (John 2:9):

οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ (“ who had drawn the water”) – οἱ ἠντληκότες (per act ptc masc nom pl ἀντλέω) is an attributive participle that modifies οἱ διάκονοι (cf. vv. 7– 8) and is equivalent in function to a relative clause.
Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition (p. 189)

But I can also add:

Εὐλογητὸς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦκατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)
Matthewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, pp. 266-267; A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 778; Matthew Hayes, An Analysis of the Attributive Participle and the Relative Clause in the Greek New Testament, p. 318

This is just another example of Brian quote mining selected sources which support his position. Both of the above verses need not be examples of the second attributive position but easily of appositives. But beyond that neither is an example of the participle form of the to be verb εἰμί, namely ὢν; both are participle forms of action verbs , namely of ἀντλέω and of ἀναγεννάω. We have clear examples of ὢν with the article functioning as a substantive in the GNT, but no clear example of the articular ὢν functioning in the second attributive position. That is the problem here.

But the biggest problem with the following being in the second attributive position is ὢν itself. If this was the second attributive we would have had the following --

ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς

without ὢν.
 
This is just another example of Brian quote mining selected sources which support his position.
I think you're just jealous because you don't know what that feels like. Not everyone says whatever they want and pretends it's the truth as you do.
For instance λατρεύω is another such word, it is a special "worship" offered by the saints only to the Father, never to anyone else.
Acts 7:42 "ἔστρεψεν δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς λατρεύειν τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ..."
 
For instance λατρεύω is another such word, it is a special "worship" offered by the saints only to the Father, never to anyone else.

Your assertion is incorrect, because the Lord Jesus ("the Lamb") is the proper recipient of λατρεύω offered by the saints in Revelation 22:3.

Revelation 22:3
the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve serve Him.
Revelation 20:6
they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
When John uses a similar construction in Revelation 20:6 the nearest antecedent of the pronoun also refers to the Lord Jesus, because "they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:4).

When defining doulos ("bond-servants") the BDAG (3rd Edition) affirms it refers to: one's relation to Christ...Revelation 22:3 (page 260).
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. The fact that οἶδεν intervenes between the two expressions proves that this is not an example of the second attributive position .
You'll run into the same problem in John 2:9, where a verb also comes between the head noun and the attributive participle (οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ), and the participle and in that case the grammarians are clearly not on your side. Apparently you missed this:

οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ (“ who had drawn the water”) – οἱ ἠντληκότες (per act ptc masc nom pl ἀντλέω) is an attributive participle that modifies οἱ διάκονοι (cf. vv. 7– 8) and is equivalent in function to a relative clause.
Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition, p. 189​

Also, Whitacre:

οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ (John 2:9) though the servants who had drawn the water knew ἠντληκότες – pf.-ptc.-act.-masc.-nom.-pl. < ἀντλέω. ἠντληκότες is in the same gender, case, and number as the noun οἱ διάκονοι (the servants), and so this participle is used as an adjective to modify this noun. Note that this participle has a direct object, τὸ ὕδωρ (the water). The participle by itself has the resultative aspect so it refers to servants “who are in a state of having drawn” the water. Since the context points to past time the participle should be translated with an appropriate form of past tense.​
(Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), §5.184a)​

This is just another example of Brian quote mining selected sources which support his position. Both of the above verses need not be examples of the second attributive position but easily of appositives.
Quote mining implies that I'm taking these examples out of context. I am not, and you have not demonstrated that I have, and this is just another example of you asserting something without substantiating it.

Unfortunately, you've placed yourself in a position of invincible ignorance, by which I refer to the fallacy aptly described as follows by Wikipedia:
The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. (underline mine, emphasis theirs).​
And by that I mean you are circumventing the normal rules of the attributive participle by treating all the examples against you as independent, substantival appositions. That puts me in the position of having to quote from the grammars and grammarians.

But beyond that neither is an example of the participle form of the to be verb εἰμί, namely ὢν; both are participle forms of action verbs , namely of ἀντλέω and of ἀναγεννάω.
This is just more special pleading--i.e., that you say the rule is ok for action verbs, but not for ὢν. One would wonder why εἰμί has a participle form at all; under your restrictions, it would have nothing but a substantival usage. The participle ὢν, when it functions adjectivally, still retains the verbal function of its finite form, εἰμί, which means it can act as a predicator. Again, for the umpteenth time:

Even when a participle functions as an adjective or a noun it is still a verbal form, which means it has verbal aspect and it can take a direct object and various modifiers like any other verb.
Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), §5.181b.​

Also relevant is Mounce ( ἄνθρωπος ὁ λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ ἐστὶν ὁ διδάσκαλός μου):

This is the normal article-noun-article-modifier construction. In this illustration, the modifier is the participial phrase, λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ.
Mounce, William D.. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (Zondervan Language Basics Series), p. 629.​
 
I think you're just jealous because you don't know what that feels like. Not everyone says whatever they want and pretends it's the truth as you do.

Acts 7:42 "ἔστρεψεν δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς λατρεύειν τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ..."
I said in the GNT the saints offer λατρεύω only to God. Obvious depraved humanity does not, these folks offer λατρεύω to all kinds of creeping things & to god-men and so forth.
 
(continued from my previous post #726 above)
We have clear examples of ὢν with the article functioning as a substantive in the GNT, but no clear example of the articular ὢν functioning in the second attributive position.
There are. But you call them all "substantival" appositions, which is circular.

I said in the GNT the saints offer λατρεύω only to God. Obvious depraved humanity does not, these folks offer λατρεύω to all kinds of creeping things & to god-men and so forth.
This is the fallacy of accent.
 
I said in the GNT the saints offer λατρεύω only to God. Obvious depraved humanity does not, these folks offer λατρεύω to all kinds of creeping things & to god-men and so forth.
You must've forgotten what you wrote just before that
Certain words are used only in conjunction and in reference to the Father. For instance λατρεύω is another such word, it is a special "worship" offered by the saints only to the Father, never to anyone else.
Either you were imprecise or your example served no purpose. There aren't too many other options.
 
But the biggest problem with the following being in the second attributive position is ὢν itself. If this was the second attributive we would have had the following --

ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς

without ὢν
An attributive participle in an attributive position requires the presence of . . . a participle! Of course, a participle is a verbal adjective, so participial phrases quite normally operate to modify the head noun.

Omitting the participle or treating it as absent (otiose) is usually proposed by those who hold your position that two subjects, not one, are in view.

But it finally seems you've caught on that the adverbial usage of τὸ κατὰ σάρκα doesn't break a second attributive construction. Good for you!
 
Last edited:
The articularpreposition in the accusative in Romans 9:5 is adverbial; there is no reason to take an adverbial usage of the preposition as an end to the sentence. For example:

προφήτης οὖν ὑπάρχων καὶ εἰδὼς ὅτι ὅρκῳ ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν, καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ (Acts 2:30)​
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.​
In Romans 9:5 I said the sentence doesn't end. Both in Greek and English, a comma is natural here: the attributive participle, ὁ ὢν, is a predicator and the participial phrase is attributive of ὁ Χριστὸς. This is a normal usage of the attributive participle.

You really have a ways to go in learning the language, and you're still in a position where you should be asking and learning, not dictating and teaching. It's harmful to those who hear you speak wrongly about the Greek and don't know better, and those who know it won't be fooled.

The whole work is called "Against Noetus." It is all intended as a refutation of Noetus' theology.
You aren't contradicting me here. My point was that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ends the clause in which it is naturally situate. In your example above, this is indeed the case. ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is the clause to which τὸ κατὰ σάρκα relates, and it is also the clause which is terminated by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

In Acts 2:30, there is a series of antecedents to the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause, which is a self contained paranthetic clause, so could be omitted. The prior antecedents are then followed by ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ.

This is my point with Rom 9:5. The τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause is καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. It is this clause which is ended - the whole clause.

You are seeking to break up this clause artificially, whereas even by your example above, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα would terminate the whole clause. As for the adverbial accusative: I can't apprehend what you're really inferring by it. It seems far too complex an argument.

If what I suggest is true, and it is true for many / most / all cases of κατὰ σάρκα, then ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς must stand on its own, as it doesn't relate to the antecedents prior to καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

Hence no ambiguity at all.
 
You aren't contradicting me here. My point was that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ends the clause in which it is naturally situate. In your example above, this is indeed the case. ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is the clause to which τὸ κατὰ σάρκα relates, and it is also the clause which is terminated by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
. . .
As for the adverbial accusative: I can't apprehend what you're really inferring by it. It seems far too complex an argument.
A comma naturally exists here, both in Greek and in English, but there is no reason why τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ends the sentence, which is what you have been arguing and have not adequately supported. A sentence can be composed of more than one "clause."

The rest of your argument here is a dodge, and effectively you refute yourself:
...τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause, which is a self contained paranthetic clause....

We have a prepositional phrase: κατὰ σάρκα. When the neuter article substantivizes the accusative case with a prepositional phrase, it signals the function is adverbial. Thus, in Romans 9:5, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα it modifies the action implicit in ἐξ ὧν. This is not "far too complex an argument," it's actually a statement of how the grammatical structure works.

You are seeking to break up this clause artificially, whereas even by your example above, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα would terminate the whole clause.
In English we would add commas before and after, but there is a continuation of the same thought that is unhindered by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα in Acts 2:30: ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν: "that of the fruit of his loins [τὸ κατὰ σάρκα] he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." How is it that it doesn't end the sentence in 2:30, when it falls in the middle of a thought, but it can't be so in Romans 9:5? There is nothing artificial about any of this.

If what I suggest is true, and it is true for many / most / all cases of κατὰ σάρκα, then ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς must stand on its own, as it doesn't relate to the antecedents prior to καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
Do you and TRJM have anything better to do than make up rules on the fly? First learn the language. Then use it rightly.
 
Last edited:
It's not as though we haven't talked about this already. By "the doxological construction" I'm talking about a translation involving an asyndetic doxology--"...over all. Adonai be praised..."--not one involving a relative. I thought that would be obvious from the context, but I suppose there will always be captious individuals such as yourself who are more interested in word catching than catching the point. My point was that the predicate construction is always clearly defined: κύριος θεὸς εὐλογητὸς; εὐλογητὸς θεὸς; εὐλογητὸς κύριος θεὸς; εὐλογητὸς εἶ κύριε θεὸς Ισραηλ πατὴρ ἡμῶν; εὐλογητὸς κύριος . . . θεὸς τῶν σωτηρίων ἡμῶν.

Your statement above weakens your position, since you and cjab have been insisting (wrongly) that ὁ ὢν was not functionally equivalent (I do not say identical) to ὅς ἐστιν and that the relative construction was inexplicable. Now you draw a parallel. The participial clause is an agnate of the attributive participle, and in both places the constructions depend upon a prior antecedent (so also ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, 2 Cor. 11:31). Both would come into English as a relative clause.

Romans1:25 (ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) and 2 Corinthians 11:31 (ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) are both functionally equivalent constructions. Both places demonstrate a relative usage and the same grammar would normally apply to Romans 9:5, if not for special pleading. No one debates this in Rom. 1:25 and 2 Cor. 11:31 because they don't refer to Christ, specifically. But when the same construction as the latter is used of Christ, the special pleading that "Paul would not refer to Christ as God" results in a theological exception to the rule.
yes and who is " Christ " except a RCC concoction !! It maybe you who declares that only Professors can be saved by using their so called " skills and education " for this... but what does Gods Word tell us, have they worked out the exact time and day on which they will die ? lol
Has God Himself and His only flesh and blood Son been thwarted by mere mortals ?
 
An attributive participle in an attributive position requires the presence of . . . a participle! Of course, a participle is a verbal adjective, so participial phrases quite normally operate to modify the head noun.

Omitting the participle or treating it as absent (otiose) is usually proposed by those who hold your position that two subjects, not one, are in view.

But it finally seems you've caught on that the adverbial usage of τὸ κατὰ σάρκα doesn't break a second attributive construction. Good for you!
You misrepresent again. TSKTS constructions when neither is a proper name denotes two individuals.

Back on track — The fact of the matter is that you do not find a clear instance of the participle form of εἰμί in the second attributive position in the GNT.
 
Your assertion is incorrect, because the Lord Jesus ("the Lamb") is the proper recipient of λατρεύω offered by the saints in Revelation 22:3.

Revelation 22:3
the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve serve Him.
Revelation 20:6
they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
When John uses a similar construction in Revelation 20:6 the nearest antecedent of the pronoun also refers to the Lord Jesus, because "they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:4).

When defining doulos ("bond-servants") the BDAG (3rd Edition) affirms it refers to: one's relation to Christ...Revelation 22:3 (page 260).
At least you tried to address my question, unlike “John Milton” who evaded it.

However your examples do not work. In Rev. 22:3 αὐτῷ refers to the Father, not to Jesus.

καὶ πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται, καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ,

In Rev. 20:6 the word λατρεύω does not even occur.
 
Back
Top