Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[cjab]

Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father,"
Here's another inconvenient passage for you.

Incovenient for you because it doesn't declare Christ as God, which by your theology is a crime against Trinitarianism.

 

[Steven Avery]

That's funny. On this topic, I'm sure your own scholars would agree with me, and you are too uninformed to know it.

Have you ever given your English translation of Romans 9:5?

This would be very helpful.

=========================================

And I would agree that the exploratory theory of
"God blessed (is Christ) for ever"
is a bit of an outlier approach, compared to the seminarian approach.
We do not know what Georgios would say.

 

[John Milton]

Incovenient for you because it doesn't declare Christ as God, which by your theology is a crime against Trinitarianism.

It doesn't call him a man which was my point.

And again, I haven't spoken of my theology at any point. When you claim that I have or that I am defending Trinitarianism, you are lying. You should stop doing it.

 

[John Milton]

Have you ever given your translation of Romans 9:5?

I have been mostly pointing out cjab's grammatical errors. My translation isn't needed for that task; it has no bearing on it.

 

[Steven Avery]

I have been mostly pointing out cjab's grammatical errors. My translation isn't needed for that task; it has no bearing on it.

Yes, but it would be very helpful for understanding your position.

e.g. Would your English translation have an apposition between Christ and God, and, if so, how would it be best expressed.

And yes, this does have a fundamental bearing on the discussions.

 

[John Milton]

We are not talking of a common variation.

In fact, that is why false analogy verses are given.

==================

Christian Remembrancer (1822)
The Heavenly Witnesses
Frederick Nolan - written June 18, 1822
http://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA460

... the introduction of the Heavenly Witnesses removes every grammatical objection to the context of the Apostle. That the suppression of them creates an insuperable objection to it, may be referred to the decision of a judge whose sentence none will deny to be impartial, and few dispute to be competent. "But what," observes Bishop Marsh*, in reference to the epistle before us, "shall we say to readings, which when connected with the context make false grammar? What shall we say to a verb singular, &c.....to a masculine adjective referring to a neuter substantive? Now the question to be asked is, is it possible, that Velez found this, and the other readings of the same stamp, in a Greek manuscript?" "Even a man," he elsewhere reasons, "who learnt Greek by mere usage and conversation, without being taught its first principles, could not possibly have written" as St. John is proved to have written, by those who reject the disputed text from his epistle.

* Lett, to Travis, Append, iii. p. 276. sqq. comp. Pref. p. i. n. 1.
===================

Yes. This is a great example of faulty logic. The problem is that people can write things that are ungrammatical both on accident and on purpose. To say that someone "could not possibly have written" a particular construction without more knowledge than any of us have about its author is hyperbole, nothing more.

 

[John Milton]

Yes, but it would be very helpful for understanding your position.

e.g. Would your English translation have an apposition between Christ and God, and, if so, how would it be best expressed.

And yes, this does have a fundamental bearing on the discussions.

It doesn't. I don't know of an English translation of the passage done by a committee that offers a translation that the Greek won't bear. (However, there are some erroneous interpretations of those translations, such as yours, that cannot stand.)

 

[cjab]

It doesn't call him a man which was my point.

Rom 5:15

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

And again, I haven't spoken of my theology at any point. When you claim that I have or that I am defending Trinitarianism, you are lying. You should stop doing it.

What was your point in thinking to deny that Jesus was a man?

 

[John Milton]

Rom 5:15

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

Right. Paul said Jesus Christ was a man here and said that he wasn't in Gal. 1:1.

What was your point in thinking to deny that Jesus was a man?

I didn't deny that Jesus was a man. Why are you lying again?

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes. This is a great example of faulty logic. The problem is that people can write things that are ungrammatical both on accident and on purpose. To say that someone "could not possibly have written" a particular construction without more knowledge than any of us have about its author is hyperbole, nothing more.

We know you have a low view of the Bible text.
This discussion is geared towards Christians who believe the Bible is the word of God.

As I said earlier, you are guilty of a fallacy of projecting your own beliefs on others.

 

[John Milton]

We know you have a low view of the Bible text.
This discussion is geared towards Christians who believe the Bible is the word of God.

I don't have a low view of the Bible. You don't seem to know much at all.

As I said earlier, you are guilty of a fallacy of projecting your own beliefs on others.

You say many things that aren't true. This is no different.

 

[Steven Avery]

It doesn't. I don't know of an English translation of the passage done by a committee that offers a translation that the Greek won't bear. (However, there are some erroneous interpretations of those translations, such as yours, that cannot stand.)

Since you refuse to give your translation and/or interpretations, I would say you are playing games.

The English version differ radically as to whether they see an apposition connecting God and Christ.

Are you saying the Greek bears both an apposition and a non-apposition English text?

 

[cjab]

Right. Paul said Jesus Christ was a man here and said that he wasn't in Gal. 1:1.

That's the risen Christ in Gal 1:1. The context will usually determine whether the human Christ is being referred to, or the risen Christ. The risen Christ is not atypically deferred to as a man (Calvinists apart), because he is Spirit (the form of God).

Calvinists insist the human Christ is God, but the risen Christ is still man. I know not what to make of it.

I didn't deny that Jesus was a man. Why are you lying again?

You said "It doesn't call him a man which was my point."

Do you normally insert the word "man" before referring to someone? Why else would it be significant in your view?

 

[John Milton]

Are you saying the Greek bears both an apposition and a non-apposition English text?

Yes. I thought that was clear.

 

[cjab]

So then you don't think the grammar requires a period after σάρκα? I'm with JM, I think you've lost your place in the argument... or maybe you need to articulate it more clearly.

In Rom 9:5, I see a period after σάρκα, because I see σάρκα as naturally terminating the list of blessings on Israel.

What comes after σάρκα is a blessing on God. God isn't Israel. There should be a break somewhere, because there is a change of subject: a change in the one being blessed, and so after σάρκα is the right place.

Your argument is devolving into nonsense. I have no idea what "deity of Christ's flesh" is even supposed to mean, or how it has anything to do with the discussion here--these seem to be your words, exclusively.

All I know is that imputing the human Jesus as God (when he was undeniably a man per Rom 5:15) is imputing deity to the whole man of flesh, and not just his spirit. That doesn't mean the literal flesh is being deified: it means that the whole man is being deified because Jesus is one person. (As the Greeks now defer to him: Jesus the godman.)

With reference to Trinitarianism, your rendition cannot be made to say "Jesus's divine nature alone is God," unless you take the "one above all" as Jesus's divine nature to the exclusion of his human nature, which is eisegesis.

This is a serious problem with Rom 9:5 fitting in with Trinitarian theology that you may like to consider.

Who here is speaking about the "deity of Christ's flesh"? Or do you still think τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ὁ Χριστὸς? The body is like a tabernacle--or, in Christ's case, he refers to his body as a temple (John 2:19).

No I don't think τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ὁ Χριστὸς directly. I do think it provides a didactic context to the sentence, which already contains that context anyway. By ὁ Χριστὸς the whole man of flesh is necessarily included: not just, say, his spirit, or his antecedent or subsequent states of being.

The attributive participle acts as a predicator and sets off a participial phrase that gives us further information about Christ. There is nothing inherently illogical about this at all.

Nothing to dictate an attributive participle here. You've got to agree that an adverbial accusative such as τὸ κατὰ σάρκα doesn't ordinarily fall between a noun and an attributive participle. In fact one could strongly argue that just because Paul chose to put τὸ κατὰ σάρκα unnaturally after ὁ Χριστὸς and not before it (which could have been expected and was open to him had he seen an attributive participle), he was making a very strong grammatical statement about there being no attributive participle.

I am surprised that no-one has thought of this before me.

This makes no sense; τὸ κατὰ σάρκα simply restricts the scope of ἐξ ὧν.

See above.

Christ is only an Israelite by descent insofar as the flesh (i.e., physical descent) is concerned. He did not begin to exist when he became man.

OK

You're really failing to grasp the context here.


If I recall correctly, it wasn't long ago that this was the position taken up by you and the TRJM. However, I don't think JM has and I certainly have not taken that position at all. For my part, I have said that the antithesis is stated--ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.

I fully agree an antithesis is being stated, but it's the wrong thesis you've got, because the subject isn't Christ but the blessings on Israel. We must be weary of supposing that any reference to Christ means that he automatically becomes the subject. Clearly Christ isn't the subject of this Rom 9:5 sentence. The context and subject is other than him.

Moreover κατὰ σάρκα doesn't always demand an antithesis. That would be unreal. It obtained an antithesis in Rom 1:3,4 because Christ was the subject and the context.

In Rom 9:5, Paul is lastly going to allude to the blessed God, which entails a change of subject. This is the true antithesis.

You actually don't have a grammatical argument, but you are very clearly proving with all your dogmatic theological assertions the very thing I have been saying: emending the passage with a period after σάρκα is based upon the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God."

I think that is a reasonable supposition, but it is by no means the only matter I am relying on. In this post I have come up with other good reasons that do not rely on this undoubted truism.

The presence of the participle would not suggest such a sentence division.

The "He who....." can easily start a new sentence, or a new clause. To deny it is absurd.

John 19:11 ὁ παραδούς μέ σοι μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει
John 3:31 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν
Heb 10:37 ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει

 

[John Milton]

That's the risen Christ in Gal 1:1. The context will usually determine whether the human Christ is being referred to, or the risen Christ. The risen Christ is not atypically deferred to as a man (Calvinists apart), because he is Spirit (the form of God).

Your the distinction you are making here between "the human Christ" and "the risen Christ" implies that you don't think "the risen Christ" is human. But this contradicts what you said below, which is exactly what my initial remark was drawing attention to.

Certainly "the Christ" did begin to exist only when he became a man, because "the Christ" always denotes a human being.

Which is why I pointed out that Gal. 1:1 implies that Jesus is not human.

Calvinists insist the human Christ is God, but the risen Christ is still man. I know not what to make of it.

You said "It doesn't call him a man which was my point."

Do you normally insert the word "man" before referring to someone? Why else would it be significant in your view?

You should know what I meant from my remarks above.

 

[cjab]

Your the distinction you are making here between "the human Christ" and "the risen Christ" implies that you don't think "the risen Christ" is human. But this contradicts what you said below, which is exactly what my initial remark was drawing attention to.

Which is why I pointed out that Gal. 1:1 implies that Jesus is not human.

You should know what I meant from my remarks above.

OK, let's refine it a little, keeping it simple: any reference to the "Christ" refers to either (a) the man born, or (b) the man both born and now ascended.

A reference to ONLY the man born and now ascended will be contextual to direct references to Christ in the present or in the future without a historical context.

A reference to the historical Christ, as in Rom 9:5, will generally relate only to the man born prior to his ascension.

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes. I thought that was clear.

So you disagree with brianrw who claims the Greek must be an apposition, unless you throw in punctuation that does not really have manuscript support. (You do not allow such punctuation, since that would lead to a position like cjab, e.g. if there is a period after flesh/σάρκα.)

Why not publicly correct brianrw?
If you see the Greek as easily supporting a non-apposition text "Christ=God".

His error of insisting on an apposition would be as radically wrong as the cjab error of totally separating Christ from God.

And why not actually give your two allowable English texts?

 

[John Milton]

In Rom 9:5, I see a period after σάρκα, because I see σάρκα as naturally terminating the list of blessings on Israel.

Be careful about what he's asking you. He asked you if you thought the grammar required a comma. You aren't answering the question.

What comes after σάρκα is a blessing on God. God isn't Israel. There should be a break somewhere, because there is a change of subject: a change in the one being blessed, and so after σάρκα is the right place.

Changes of subjects don't require a break.

All I know is that imputing the human Jesus as God (when he was undeniably a man per Rom 5:15) is imputing deity to the whole man of flesh, and not just his spirit. That doesn't mean the literal flesh is being deified: it means that the whole man is being deified because Jesus is one person. (As the Greeks now defer to him: Jesus the godman.)

With reference to Trinitarianism, your rendition cannot be made to say "Jesus's divine nature alone is God." This is a serious problem with Rom 9:5 fitting in with Trinitarian theology that you may like to consider.

Jesus is identified in scripture as God. The attempts to compartmentalize "human" and "divine" natures are ridiculous. The correct statement is Jesus is God not "Jesus's _____ nature alone is God."

No I don't think τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ὁ Χριστὸς directly. I do think it provides a didactic context to the sentence, which already contains that context anyway. By ὁ Χριστὸς the whole man of flesh is necessarily included: not just, say, his spirit, or his antecedent or subsequent states of being.

The whole man of flesh isn't in view per Romans 8 and 9.

Nothing to dictate an attributive participle here. You've got to agree that an adverbial accusative such as τὸ κατὰ σάρκα doesn't ordinarily fall between a noun and an attributive participle. In fact one could strongly argue that just because Paul chose to put τὸ κατὰ σάρκα unnaturally after ὁ Χριστὸς and not before it (which could have been expected and was open to him had he seen an attributive participle), he was making a very strong grammatical statement about there being no attributive participle.

If it makes you feel better, call it an appositive. Either way you go, the fact is that "ὁ ὢν..." can refer back to the Christ.

I am surprised that no-one has thought of this before me.

They haven't thought of it because it is ridiculous. That much should have been apparent to you.

See above.

There's nothing to see. Your remarks were wishful musings.

I fully agree an antithesis is being stated, but it's the wrong thesis you've got, because the subject isn't Christ but the blessings on Israel. We must be weary of supposing that any reference to Christ means that he automatically becomes the subject. Clearly Christ isn't the subject of this Rom 9:5 sentence. The context and subject is other than him.

As has been explained to you, you cannot have blessings on Israel without the Christ.

Moreover κατὰ σάρκα doesn't always demand an antithesis. That would be unreal. It obtained an antithesus in Rom 1:3,4 because Christ was the subject and the context.

No. It doesn't demand an antithesis, but it specifies the specific idea that is meant thus implying that there are other ways of understanding the idea without the qualification κατὰ σάρκα.

In Rom 9:5, Paul is now going to allude to the blessed God, which entails a change of subject. This is the true antithesis.

Circular reasoning.

I think that is a reasonable supposition, but it is by no means the only matter I am relying on. In this post I have come up with other good reasons that do not rely on this undoubted truism.

You haven't given an "undoubted truism." Where did you think you had?

The "He who....." can easily start a new sentence, or a new clause. To deny it is absurd.
John 19:11 ὁ παραδούς μέ σοι μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει
John 3:31 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν
Heb 10:37 ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει

This is another untruth. He never said it couldn't start a new sentence.

 

[Steven Avery]

You actually don't have a grammatical argument, but you are very clearly proving with all your dogmatic theological assertions the very thing I have been saying: emending the passage with a period after σάρκα is based upon the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." The presence of the participle would not suggest such a sentence division.

Notice that John Milton is at best ambiguous on the question of whether Romans 9:5 has Christ=God. He does NOT support your idea that the text must be an apposition if you do not have special punctuation like a period after flesh.

As I have pointed out to you numerous times, the AV does NOT support that idea either.