Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Enough of your mindless tricks.

Does Gryllus believe that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is an appositive to ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ? Why won't you answer this particular question with either a yes or a no ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
No. He definitely does not think that.
Finally. Why the drama queen behavior before finally answering this question ? Actually don't answer that, never mind; just discuss the issues.

Simple question. Does he put a period or a comma after σάρκα ?

ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Finally. Why the drama queen behavior before finally answering this question ? Actually don't answer that, never mind; just discuss the issues.
Why did I have to answer you 2 or 3 times before you realized that you had already been given the answer?
Simple question. Does he put a period or a comma after σάρκα ?
Since you don't have the capacity to comprehend answer more complex than "yes" or "no," I don't want to engage with you. I suspect that's why Gryllus doesn't respond to you. Well, that and the fact that you are completely ignorant of Greek and act like a jerk.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Why did I have to answer you 2 or 3 times before you realized that you had already been given the answer?

Since you don't have the capacity to comprehend answer more complex than "yes" or "no," I don't want to engage with you. I suspect that's why Gryllus doesn't respond to you. Well, that and the fact that you are completely ignorant of Greek and act like a jerk.
Well, if you had answered the first time with either a yes or a no, there would have been no need to “answer” multiple times , now would there?

The reason why you don’t want to be completely forthcoming is because you are afraid, knowing that his position will quickly crumble under inspection.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I suspect “John Milton” thinks that Gryllus puts a period after σάρκα . I’m not sure if Gryllus actually does so. I think Gryllus the magician is happy with the confusion, and he is probably enjoying all the attention his evasiveness is receiving . It’s a sickness of sorts to be sure.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
I suspect “John Milton” thinks that Gryllus puts a period after σάρκα . I’m not sure if Gryllus actually dies so. I think Gryllus likes the confusion, being a magician, of the Greek New Testament.
Do you think baiting them will prod them into giving you an answer? Your a strange fellow, TRJM
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
There is no “Deity of Christ” in Romans 9:5. The “God-man squad” can’t even give a grammatical reason for why it is so. Look at the Greek:

ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.

There is a period after σάρκα. The ensuing sentence is a doxology to God . Christ is not even mentioned.

No tricks, no wild goose chases, but the simple truth.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Well, if you had answered the first time with either a yes or a no, there would have been no need to “answer” multiple times , now would there?
If you had understood the clear answer you were given by three different people, there wouldn't have been a need for a "yes" or "no" answer.
The reason why you don’t want to be completely forthcoming is because you are afraid, knowing that his position will quickly crumble under inspection.
LOL. His position certainly won't crumble under your inspection.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
If you had understood the clear answer you were given by three different people, there wouldn't have been a need for a "yes" or "no" answer.

LOL. His position certainly won't crumble under your inspection.
Readers can check for themselves that Gryllus gave no answers to me, let alone “clear “ ones.

LOL. His position certainly won't crumble under your inspection.
Is that why you are not even willing to explain his position, let alone have it fall under inspection?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I was looking at a Trinitarian’s explanation of how he would take the grammar at Romans 9:5 —

  1. Gramatically, the words "ὁ ὢν" are naturally translated "the one who", which ought to refer to the nearest antecedent, that is, Christ. The grammar is against these modern translators and on the side of the AV. Cf. John 1:18, "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father"

Problems:

(1) Participles don’t have “antecedents,” only pronouns do.

(2) The participle with the article ὁ ὢν (ἐπὶ πάντων) cannot be functioning adjectivally here ( i.e., it cannot be modifying ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα) because of what follows, namely θεὸς and εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας . To argue otherwise would create an impossibly convoluted string of appositives modifying further ( via apposition at that) the apparently adjectivally modifying participle phrase. There is no precedent for such a construction in the GNT. The expression ὁ ὢν (ἐπὶ πάντων) is functioning substantially, it is functioning as a noun phrase. That is it’s only use here.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Notice ὁ ὢν always functions substantivally, and often starts a new sentence in the GNT —

μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

Matt. 12:30

μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

Luke 11:13

μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

John 1:18

Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν· ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ. ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν·

John 3:31

οὐχ ὅτι τὸν Πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις, εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν Πατέρα.

John 6:46

ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκούει· διὰ τοῦτο ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀκούετε, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστέ.

John 8:47

Ἐμαρτύρει οὖν ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ’ αὐτοῦ ὅτε τὸν Λάζαρον ἐφώνησεν ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου καὶ ἤγειρεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν.

John 12:17


πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς.

John 18:37

ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι.

2 Cor. 11:31

Ἰωάνης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ Πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ,

Rev. 1:4

ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος,

Rev. 1:8

καὶ τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα, ἓν καθ’ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν· καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος Κύριος ὁ Θεός ὁ Παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Rev. 4:8

ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐβασίλευσας·

Rev. 11:17

ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ Ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,

Rev. 16:5

——

2 Cor. 11:31 really seals the deal. …Now I understand why these charlatans were coy about openly declaring that they believe ὁ ὢν functions adjectivally at Romans 9:5.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Notice ὁ ὢν always functions substantivally, and often starts a new sentence in the GNT —

μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

Matt. 12:30

μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

Luke 11:13

μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

John 1:18

Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν· ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ. ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν·

John 3:31

οὐχ ὅτι τὸν Πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις, εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν Πατέρα.

John 6:46

ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκούει· διὰ τοῦτο ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀκούετε, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστέ.

John 8:47

Ἐμαρτύρει οὖν ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ’ αὐτοῦ ὅτε τὸν Λάζαρον ἐφώνησεν ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου καὶ ἤγειρεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν.

John 12:17


πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς.

John 18:37

ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι.

2 Cor. 11:31

Ἰωάνης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ Πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ,

Rev. 1:4

ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος,

Rev. 1:8

καὶ τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα, ἓν καθ’ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν· καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος Κύριος ὁ Θεός ὁ Παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Rev. 4:8

ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐβασίλευσας·

Rev. 11:17

ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ Ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,

Rev. 16:5

——

2 Cor. 11:31 really seals the deal. …Now I understand why these charlatans were coy about openly declaring that they believe ὁ ὢν functions adjectivally at Romans 9:5.
Actually, you are right, each one of the usages you cite above is substantive. My favorite of these would be John 1:18, which in the context also bring to mind Ex 3:14, something which really messes with your "theology." But 2 Cor 11:31 doesn't contradict or "modify" Rom 9:5, but uses nearly identical language to emphasizem that God the Father is blessed forever, even as the Son is God blessed forever in Rom 9:5.
 

cjab

Well-known member
..... but uses nearly identical language to emphasizem that God the Father is blessed forever, even as the Son is God blessed forever in Rom 9:5.
Theologically aberrant, as the Father and the Son are one. So if the one (i.e. God) is blessed for ever, then so is the other (i.e. the Son). Because the Father is the head of the Son, it is always the Father who is stated as blessed for ever. The mode of address doesn't ever change: God the Father always takes precedence. John 1:1c is not a mode of address: there the role of the Son is clarified contextual to his apposition to the Father. The New Testament is always consistent. So 2 Cor 11:31 is in fact another affirmation of the true sense of Rom 9:5.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Actually, you are right, each one of the usages you cite above is substantive.

The point is that ὁ ὢν is never used as an attributive participle, in the second attributive position.

My favorite of these would be John 1:18, which in the context also bring to mind Ex 3:14, something which really messes with your "theology."

Look at the Greek: μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς. Bold is an appositive.

But 2 Cor 11:31 doesn't contradict or "modify" Rom 9:5, but uses nearly identical language to emphasizem that God the Father is blessed forever, even as the Son is God blessed forever in Rom 9:5.

Same thing here, no attributive use of the participle. ὁ ὢν is being used as a substantive.

So do you want to now argue that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων in Romans 9:5 is an appositive, or continue insisting that ὁ ὢν here is functioning in the second attributive position, (as in ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων) ? Or did Fredo the weak brother put foot in mouth again to cause you another round of grief?
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
The point is that ὁ ὢν is never used as an attributive participle, in the second attributive position.



Look at the Greek: μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς. Bold is an appositive.



Same thing here, no attributive use of the participle. ὁ ὢν is being used as a substantive.

So do you want to now argue that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων in Romans 9:5 is an appositive, or continue insisting that ὁ ὢν here is functioning in the second attributive position, (as in ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων) ? Or did Fredo the weak brother put foot in mouth again to cause you another round of grief?
You keep using the terminology, but you don't really know what it means.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I like readers to understand that Gryllus is taking ὁ ὢν as an attributive participle modifying ὁ Χριστὸς at Romans 9:5 , but he refuses to openly declare this.
 
Top