Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[Steven Avery]

I didn't give it up. I pointed out the fact that you were making a false comparison. The fact is we do know what the men of the AV were translating and that does allow us to clarify what their translations means. If you read any Greek commentators, you will see that they do this quite frequently. They often aren't even saying the translation is wrong only that it might be misunderstood by its readers.

Conveying intended meaning is a constant difficulty with any translation effort.

We were discussing the AV English text, and the Israel analogy demolished any pretense that it is a mandatory apposition grammatically.

You said we should go to the Greek to mind-read the AV translators.
(You did not even give specifics of how the Greek supports the apposition, and your own position allows the Greek to not be an apposition.)

By saying we need unknown Greek text analysis, to mind-read the learned men, you are acknowledging that the Israel analogy destroyed your claim on the AV. (That it is a Christ=God apposition text.)

Logic 101.

 

[John Milton]

Earlier I demonstrated to that the AV text with the comma does not have a grammatical apposition.
The "as" text obviously does.

Thus to say they are "the same" is a total fail of English and/or logic.

You didn't demonstrate it. You asserted it and tried to use a faulty analogy by way of proof. And I didn't say they were the same I said the meaning is the same.

 

[cjab]

Christ's identity is the same whether he is the word or human or whatever. You've been corrected on this already.

"God" isn't an identity, except for the Father (see John 1:1b). You have been corrected on this so many times, it is unbelievable. And you claim you know Greek? I see no evidence of it.

None of this is correct.

Your comprehension skills must be very basic.

I can't be because your statements above aren't true.

You can't be wrong? I guess that confirms the above.

"And as I have found myself tirelessly repeating," you don't know that "Paul would never have used such words as 'God above all'". You just assume that it is true.

Of course he wouldn't.

Then the text, taken literally, tells us in I Cor. 15:28 that God isn't above all since Christ isn't currently in submission to him

Christ rules by the Father's power and authority, given to him. He has the Father's glory. He must therefore abide by the will of the Father. He still sits on his Father's throne, although he has his own throne. All this is saying is that he own throne of dominion over all things is temporary, and will last until all things are wrapped up. Rev 3:21.

yet. "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." Emphasis added. It appears much more likely, however, to assume that God felt the text was clear enough that not everything had to be exhaustively qualified for the meaning to be understood.

It doesn't have to be. Psalm 8:6 already qualifies what the Christ had dominion over. There is no need for further qualification.

Ps 8:6 contains its own qualification whereas Rom 9:5 contains none.

Classy.

 

[Steven Avery]

You didn't demonstrate it. You asserted it and tried to use a faulty analogy by way of proof.

This is new. Now you claim the analogy is "faulty".
Is that based on your invisible Greek parsing and mind-reading of the translators?
Irrelevant.

What counts is the ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

Then say specifically what is supposedly wrong with the analogy, sticking to English grammar.

 

[Steven Avery]

And I didn't say they were the same I said the meaning is the same.

The word "as" creates a grammatically awkward phrase

Murray Harris
"who is supreme over all as God blessed forever."

Is the forever the length of Christ being God blessed?
Then Christ is still not in apposition.
Or do you somehow extract Christ as God, and throw blessed up in the air?

Interestingly, this even negates the idea of God blessed being distinct (e.g. God is blessed).

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

The comma simply places the second phrase with attributes of Christ as distinct from the first one. (Alternatively, it could separate a doxology to God, although a comma is weak punctuation for that purpose.) It does NOT create an equivalence of God and Christ.

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

You even acknowledge that the Greek does not mandate any such equivalence.

 

[John Milton]

We were discussing the AV English text, and the Israel analogy demolished any pretense that it is a mandatory apposition grammatically.

I didn't say that the AV demanded apposition grammatically. What I said was that the English is ambiguous, but the way you understand the English isn't possible in the Greek. That means the translators didn't understand it that way. If they had, they would've added the words necessary to give the passage that sense.

You said we should go to the Greek to mind-read the AV translators.

No. That's a false statement and misdirection.

(You did not even give specifics of how the Greek supports the apposition, and your own position allows the Greek to not be an apposition.)

Why would I give you details you won't understand and can't evaluate? You seem to forget you don't know Greek.

By saying we need unknown Greek text analysis,

You said we needed a Greek analysis, not me. I've been telling you plainly that the Greek won't support the idea that Christ is blessed by God and that you can see this is the case by looking at the passages where the AV translators rendered similar phrases in this manner. Every time the text says who gives the blessing, the translators give it. When it doesn't they don't. Here are the instances where the person doing the blessing is mentioned.
Mt. 25:34 Τότε ἐρεῖ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῖς ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ· δεῦτε οἱ εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός μου, κληρονομήσατε τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου.
“Then shall the King say vnto them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”
Heb. 7:7 χωρὶς δὲ πάσης ἀντιλογίας τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται.
“And without all contradiction, the lesse is blessed of the better.”

But none of the facts matter to you. You simply search for things that confirm what you want to believe.

to mind-read the learned men, you are acknowledging that the Israel analogy destroyed your claim on the AV. (That it is a Christ=God apposition text.)

Logic 101.

You can't comprehend that your logic is flawed. You should've called it Flawed Logic 101 and award yourself the nobel prize for jestering.

 

[John Milton]

This is new. Now you claim the analogy is "faulty".

That's been my position the entire time.

Is that based on your invisible Greek parsing and mind-reading of the translators?
Irrelevant.

You never do have anything to offer except personal attacks and false statements. You wouldn't recognize relevancy if it beat you to death.

What counts is the ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

LOL. What counts in a Bible translation is what the translators intended. What the translators intended is clear from what they wrote. What they left out, they left out for a reason. And you can prove this for yourself by searching the word "blessed" in the AV and compare it to the TR and see that if the one doing the blessing is mentioned in the text, they put it into the text and when it's not, they don't.

Then say specifically what is supposedly wrong with the analogy, sticking to English grammar.

It isn't an accurate comparison to the AV text because the AV text has a Greek text that aids us in recognizing and ruling out false understandings of the text. We cannot do this with what you wrote because there is no Greek text to compare it with.

Concerning the nations Israel rules,
who is the apple of his eye,
God blessed for ever.
Grammatically speaking the phrase you wrote above, which you erroneously called a sentence, is gibberish. The only verb is found in a relative clause which compels the reader to take then entirety as a doxology with poetry-like weirdness in it's construction. The best guess I have at the sense of it would be: God is blessed for ever, concerning the nations Israel rules, who is the apple of his eye. "[W]ho is the apple of his eye" would be in apposition to Israel and "[c]oncerning the nations Israel rules" would be an adverbial phrase modifying the implied verb "is" defining the manner in which God is blessed.
It is Gobbledygook just like nearly everything else you say.

 

[John Milton]

"God" isn't an identity, except for the Father (see John 1:1b). You have been corrected on this so many times, it is unbelievable. And you claim you know Greek? I see no evidence of it.

I say Christ is an identity, and you start talking about "God" did you have an aneurysm? Surely you know that doesn't track.

Your comprehension skills must be very basic.

Said the guy who confused "Christ" with "God"! ? ? ?

You can't be wrong? I guess that confirms the above.

No. I can't be. When you make conditional statements as you did and your conditions aren't true as they weren't, your conclusions won't be true either. And they aren't.

Of course he wouldn't.

See. Another assertion that you can't possibly prove.

Christ rules by the Father's power and authority, given to him. He has the Father's glory. He must therefore abide by the will of the Father. He still sits on his Father's throne, although he has his own throne. All this is saying is that he own throne of dominion over all things is temporary, and will last until all things are wrapped up. Rev 3:21.

Yeah. You can't assail what the text you are confronted with says so you run off to another passage to try to make your point. It's your one move. It still doesn't work.

Ps 8:6 contains its own qualification whereas Rom 9:5 contains none.

It doesn't matter. John didn't have to state that Jesus made all things but God either. Context fixes these types of problems for most people, but not you apparently.

 

[John Milton]

The word "as" creates a grammatically awkward phrase

Murray Harris
"who is supreme over all as God blessed forever."

I agree. I'm not a fan. But the meaning is clear.

Is the forever the length of Christ being God blessed?
Then Christ is still not in apposition.

Why? Adverbs modify adjectives and blessed is an adjective.

Or do you somehow extract Christ as God, and throw blessed up in the air?

No. Blessed is an adjective and modifies God which refers back to "Christ" or per Murray "who is supreme over all"

Interestingly, this even negates the idea of God blessed being distinct (e.g. God is blessed).

Duh.

The comma simply places the second phrase with attributes of Christ as distinct from the first one.

Correct. But they both refer to the same individual who possesses both attributes so the distinction doesn't amount to much.

(Alternatively, it could separate a doxology to God, although a comma is weak punctuation for that purpose.)

Not according to the convention of the AV translators.

It does NOT create an equivalence of God and Christ.

It depends on what you mean by this if by "God" you mean "the Father" then no, it wouldn't. If by God you simply mean God, then you would be mistaken.

You even acknowledge that the Greek does not mandate any such equivalence.

Along the lines I just stated above, yes. Though I can never be sure that you've correctly understood me. And I'm not sure that I have understood what you mean here.

 

[cjab]

I say Christ is an identity, and you start talking about "God" did you have an aneurysm? Surely you know that doesn't track.

Oh, so you seem to have woken up to the fact that Christ as an identity is not the same as God as an identity?

The reason I referred to God was because of your insistence on linking God to Christ. But as you now say that God and Christ are different identities, I'm fine with that. End of Rom 9:5 issue, because Paul would never had re-identified Christ with the identity of another. You've also answered your own question about why Paul would never have deferred to Christ as God.

 

[John Milton]

Do you know of any examples where ὁ ὢν sits in what would otherwise appear to be a second attributive position, yet refers to a head nominal that follows it? Maybe you have encountered a cataphora involving ὁ ὢν where ὁ ὢν would otherwise appear to be in a second attributive position? However, off the top of my head I don't recall seeing any examples, and I think the Greek offers enough options where such an ambiguity could be easily avoided. I've clearly seen substantival and anaphoric. I'll keep my eyes open as well.

I missed this earlier. Sorry.

I don't know of any example that meets all those requirements, but Jeremiah 5:7 might be worth a look.

ποίᾳ τούτων ἵλεως γένωμαί σοι; οἱ υἱοί σου ἐγκατέλιπόν με καὶ ὤμνυον ἐν τοῖς οὐκ οὖσιν θεοῖς· καὶ ἐχόρτασα αὐτούς, καὶ ἐμοιχῶντο καὶ ἐν οἴκοις πορνῶν κατέλυον.

 

[John Milton]

Oh, so you seem to have woken up to the fact that Christ as an identity is not the same as God as an identity?

No. I've been aware of it the whole time. This is that cheesy thing that you and Steven do to try to make it look like I've made an error since you can rarely find one.

The reason I referred to God was because of your insistence on linking God to Christ.

Christ is God. I've said that all along. Christ is the not the Father. I've also said that all along. The Father is God. I've said that all along. The Holy Spirit is God. I've said that all along. I don't know how you could've been unclear on these things.

But as you now say that God and Christ are different identities, I'm fine with that.

That has always been my position.

End of Rom 9:5 issue, because Paul would never had re-identified Christ with the identity of another. You've also answered your own question about why Paul would never have deferred to Christ as God.

He didn't re-identify Christ. He called Christ God because he is. He didn't call Christ the Father. All of this goes back to your erroneous assumption that God must equal "the Father."

This may be the weakest attempt at declaring victory I've ever seen, and that's saying something since I've interacted with you, Avery, and TRJM!

 

[brianrw]

Two subjects is my position, not one.

Let us keep it simple.
Do you see one subject in the authoritative AV?

Titus 2:13 (AV)
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Sorry, somehow I had our positions flipped. I apologize. Yes, I do see the AV text as having one subject--Christ is called "great God."

​

1. Because that same construction is used also of the Father--"God and the Father," "of God, and of the Father," "God and our Father," and all are "Sharp" constructions. It's an early modern English translation, and not all the constructions precisely match how we would you them. You tried appealing to the Geneva Bible also, which turns out to have a footnote at Titus 2:13 that, "Christ is here most plainly called that mightie God, and his appearance and comming is called by the figure Metonymie, our hope." So as with Romans 9:5, your knowledge of that period English is not good and you tend to try and read it through a completely modern lens.​

​

2. As we've been through, Beza, Glassius, a number of English commentators before Sharp note the usage of the article as indicating one subject, so it was not introduced by Sharp but did highlight the neglect. The remarks on the usage of the article are even found in the annotations of the Greek text used by the KJV translators.​

​

3. All the Greek fathers see one subject here, rather than two.​

​

4. Finally, I've searched through about 90 English authors from the 1600s to the end of the 18th century, and those who read the KJV text had no trouble distinguishing one subject in view.​

​

I'm not interested in rehashing this here, since you are more interested in confirming your views than you are in examining them.

I missed this earlier. Sorry.

I don't know of any example that meets all those requirements, but Jeremiah 5:7 might be worth a look.

No problem! There's a lot of dialogue in here and I can't keep up with it all. Thank you for the example; it's a good example of a generic usage but what I would expect to see. I'm actually hoping for a particular usage of the article (i.e., of a specific individual), especially one that could also be interpreted as being in the second attributive position for a preceding noun.

 

[brianrw]

What counts is the ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

Then say specifically what is supposedly wrong with the analogy, sticking to English grammar.

Steven, it's time to reevaluate your position. You're hitting a wall everywhere that I see. It's one thing to be mistaken. It's another to be shown the truth and then proceed to call it a lie.

 

[cjab]

No. I've been aware of it the whole time. This is that cheesy thing that you and Steven do to try to make it look like I've made an error since you can rarely find one.

Your position is incoherent.

Christ is God. I've said that all along. Christ is the not the Father. I've also said that all along. The Father is God. I've said that all along. The Holy Spirit is God. I've said that all along. I don't know how you could've been unclear on these things.

You're using Θεὸς adjectivally, which is impermissible. It is especially impermissible in your case because, unlike so many who do not know Greek and can be fooled by hardcore Trinitarianism, you know that Θεὸς is (a) a noun, (b) takes the article for one (The Father), and not the other (the Logos). (It seems you deny this to be the case even though Jn 1:1 declares it, per your antics on my previous thread respecting o Θεὸς.)

That is Θεὸς can be an identity, and when it is an identity, o Λόγος != o Θεὸς.

So your articulated logic of
A = B
C = B
A != C
is unspiritual and unscriptural if B is an identity. If you say, B is not an identity, then you have just contradicted yourself, as you maintained above that Θεὸς is an identity. Either way, you are in error: you are either illogical or incoherent; and the worst of it is that you make out that the apostle Paul invokes the same degree of illogic or incoherence as you. I beg to construe the apostle Paul as worthy of greater things.

QED.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Christ is God. I've said that all along. Christ is the not the Father. I've also said that all along. The Father is God. I've said that all along. The Holy Spirit is God. I've said that all along. I don't know how you could've been unclear on these things.

That's like saying the spirit of apostle Paul is apostle Paul. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God , not God. In other words, the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person from God anymore than the spirit of apostle Paul is a distinct person from the apostle Paul. Not sur how you could be unclear on these things.

 

[John Milton]

Your position is incoherent.

Okay, fella.

You're using Θεὸς adjectivally, which is impermissible.'

There's no recovery for you here. In the Hebrew Bible, what are Baal, Amon, and Dagon? Did they have the same identity? I don't know what has confused you so.

It is especially impermissible in your case because, unlike so many who do not know Greek and can be fooled by hardcore Trinitarianism,

Awww. How sweet of you to say.

you know that Θεὸς is (a) a noun,

Absolutely.

(b) takes the article for one (The Father), and not the other (the Logos).

No. You see the Father sometimes referred to by anarthrous θεός and you see the Christ (I'm assuming that your choice to use "Logos" here isn't significant, but if you think it is you are mistaken.) sometimes referred to as articular θεός. The article does not distinguish between the identities of the person being referred to nor does referring to them as "θεός".

(It seems you deny this to be the case even though Jn 1:1 declares it, per your antics on my previous thread respecting o Θεὸς.)

John 1 doesn't have any comment on your mistaken grammatical claims nor does it support any of your claims in any way.

That is Θεὸς can be an identity,

When it is an identity it is a function of context.

and when it is an identity, o Λόγος != o Θεὸς.

This is just another way of repeating your error that articular θεός is always a reference to the Father. θεός is not always a reference to the Father--and your capitalization of theta is an anachronism unless you forgot to capitalize all the remaining letters or write the rest of the nomina sacra as it often appears in the manuscripts.

So your articulated logic of
A = B
C = B
A != C
is unspiritual and unscriptural if B is an identity. If you say, B is not an identity, then you have just contradicted yourself,

No. My position is completely logical. θεός is generic and can refer to the Father, the Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Any of these three can be referred to as θεός with or without the article. To call the Christ of the Spirit God is not equivalent to calling them the Father.

as you maintained above that Θεὸς is an identity.

That's not what I said. If you got that impression, and I'm not sure where you would have, please show me what confused you.

Either way, you are in error: you are either illogical or incoherent; and the worst of it is that you make out that the apostle Paul invokes the same degree of illogic or incoherence as you. I beg to construe the apostle Paul as worthy of greater things.

As I've demonstrated here, you are the one who is confused.

This has been quite amusing. I didn't think you'd take my last post as a challenge to say something even more foolish.

 

[cjab]

No. You see the Father sometimes referred to by anarthrous θεός and you see the Christ (I'm assuming that your choice to use "Logos" here isn't significant, but if you think it is you are mistaken.) sometimes referred to as articular θεός. The article does not distinguish between the identities of the person being referred to nor does referring to them as "θεός".

This shows you are not paying attention.

Anarthrous θεός denotes God in action: the Father himself working, usually working through Christ or through another.

But, where a human being is denoted by either anarthrous (generally) or articular θεός (very seldom if ever), then the criteria in John 10:34-36 apply to limit θεός as "not above all." Heb 1:8 is exceptional due to it deriving from the LXX, and using the article as a vocative, where the article wasn't used in the original Hebrew.

This doesn't prevent the article with θεός identifying the Father. This is a perfectly valid use of the article and many scholars concur with the Father as o θεός.

What you're really doing here is diversifying the title of God away from the Father, just to formulate Trinitarianism, alleging o θεός identifies three persons. It isn't scriptural.

John 1 doesn't have any comment on your mistaken grammatical claims nor does it support any of your claims in any way.

Of course it does, because it clearly distinguishes o Λόγος from o Θεὸς.

If you don't recognize that, then you are hardly qualified to engage in this discussion.

When it is an identity it is a function of context.

This is just another way of repeating your error that articular θεός is always a reference to the Father. θεός is not always a reference to the Father--and your capitalization of theta is an anachronism unless you forgot to capitalize all the remaining letters or write the rest of the nomina sacra as it often appears in the manuscripts.

No. My position is completely logical. θεός is generic and can refer to the Father, the Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Any of these three can be referred to as θεός with or without the article. To call the Christ of the Spirit God is not equivalent to calling them the Father.

That's not what I said. If you got that impression, and I'm not sure where you would have, please show me what confused you.

As I've demonstrated here, you are the one who is confused.

This has been quite amusing. I didn't think you'd take my last post as a challenge to say something even more foolish.

You are incapable of contradicting me. Your alleged exceptions are all accounted for.

anarthrous Θεὸς is used of anyone at all, through whom God works and in particular of the Logos.
o Θεὸς is the Father's title in heaven, and denotes the very power of God.

You're not yet on the same planet as scripture. You're light years away.

 

[brianrw]

[To John Milton:] You're using Θεὸς adjectivally, which is impermissible. It is especially impermissible in your case because, unlike so many who do not know Greek and can be fooled by hardcore Trinitarianism, you know that Θεὸς is (a) a noun, (b) takes the article for one (The Father), and not the other (the Logos). (It seems you deny this to be the case even though Jn 1:1 declares it, per your antics on my previous thread respecting o Θεὸς.)

That is Θεὸς can be an identity, and when it is an identity, o Λόγος != o Θεὸς.

[To John Milton:] anarthrous Θεὸς is used of anyone at all, through whom God works and in particular of the Logos.
o Θεὸς is the Father's title in heaven, and denotes the very power of God.

θεὸς in John 1:1 is a typical predicate nominative. The article has nothing to do with whether the Father is being referred to or the Son--that is determined by the context and construction. Since word order in Greek is flexible, the article in an equative construction denotes the subject, and the noun which lacks the article is a predicate.

θεὸς (in its various cases) is also anarthrous in John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, 1:18, and many other places where the Father is being spoken of. It is clear that you don't have a meaningful grasp on the language--so why are you commenting on it? You're only going to lead those astray on the Greek who haven't learned it themselves. And you're doing yourself a disservice by allowing theology to drive your study of the language.

It is especially impermissible in your case because, unlike so many who do not know Greek and can be fooled by hardcore Trinitarianism

I think you need to get this idea of the Trinitarian boogieman out of your head. It's keeping you from forming rational arguments, you're just butchering the Greek more and more as you are confuted. Integrity and honesty are important. It's becoming meaningless to converse with you because you are only interested in dogmatism.

 

[John Milton]

This shows you are not paying attention.

Anarthrous θεός denotes God in action: the Father himself working, usually working through Christ or through another.

That's right keep raising the stakes. How dumb can your assertions get?

But, where a human being is denoted by either anarthrous (generally) or articular θεός (very seldom if ever), then the criteria in John 10:34-36 apply to limit θεός as "not above all."

Really now? Do tell.

Heb 1:8 is exceptional due to it deriving from the LXX, and using the article as a vocative, where the article wasn't used in the original Hebrew.

This makes perfect sense, because why would they use the vocative form when they can violate your supposed rule instead.

This doesn't prevent the article with θεός identifying the Father. This is a perfectly valid use of the article and many scholars concur with the Father as o θεός.

Really now? Name these other scholars who think that o θεός is used exclusively for God.

What you're really doing here is diversifying the title of God away from the Father, just to formulate Trinitarianism, alleging o θεός identifies three persons. It isn't scriptural.

What was Paul doing when he violated this rule in II Cor. 4:4 and Php. 3:19? Shame on him.

Of course it does, because it clealry distinguishes o Λόγος from o Θεὸς.

Yes. The word and the Father are both θεός, and sometimes θεός is used to refer to the Father. It's not a hard thing to grasp.

If you don't recognize that, then you are hardly qualified to engage in this discussion.

If you are calling me unqualified, I think I've got nothing to worry about.

You are incapable of contradicting me. Your alleged exceptions are all accounted for.

Let's be cleaar: I'm not the one contradicting you. Scripture is.

anarthrous Θεὸς is used of anyone at all, through whom God works and in particular of the Logos.
o Θεὸς is the Father's title in heaven, and denotes the very power of God.

The verses I cited show this isn't true. Scripture is a witness against you.