Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

Would someone like to explain to me how the “God-man squad” is reading the grammar at Romans 9:5 ? Are they taking the two phrases ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as being in apposition (ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων apparently being the appositive ) ?
 
This is a fair question.
There are really two "Christ is God" apposition positions on Romans 9:5.

One claims that apposition is a grammatical imperative. This is a rather wacky position often held very aggressively.

The second claims that apposition is an interpretative or hermeneutical conclusion. Barry seems to be more in that camp.

Since God and blessed are closely connected in a “natural association”. It does become awkward to try to explain how the supposed apposition functions.

Ironically, error begets error. Often the interpretative position relies on Granville Sharp errors, especially on Titus 2:13, to get around the fact that Paul and the NT writers avoid mixing Christ and God, (which can be too Sabellian) and dual addressing is the norm.
 
Last edited:
This is a fair question.
There are really two "Christ is God" apposition positions on Romans 9:5.

One claims that apposition is a grammatical imperative. This is a rather wacky position often held very aggressively.

The second claims that apposition is an interpretative or hermeneutical conclusion. Barry seems to be more in that camp.

Since God and blessed are closely connected in a “natural association”. It does become awkward to try to explain how the supposed apposition functions.

Ironically, error begets error. Often the interpretative position relies on Granville Sharp errors, especially on Titus 2:13, to get around the fact that Paul and the NT writers avoid mixing Christ and God, (which can be too Sabellian) and dual addressing is the norm.
Notice Gryllus is not willing to go on record or even to explain how he is taking the grammar here.
 
I've explained how I read the grammar several times. Go back, search the posts, and find them.
No you haven’t. Would you just answer the following question with a yes or a no ?

Are you taking the two phrases ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as being in apposition
 
see post 36 and 42
In post 36 he tells us that Christ & God are in apposition & in post 42 he basically repeats the same. In neither does he answer my question. Why the wild goose chase? I think it’s to confuse people, like yourself ( who don’t know enough biblical Greek) into thinking that he is a straight shooter who has answered the question. It is an old magician’s trick.
 
In post 36 he tells us that Christ & God are in apposition & in post 42 he basically repeats the same. In neither does he answer my question. Why the wild goose chase? I think it’s to confuse people, like yourself ( who don’t know enough biblical Greek) into thinking that he is a straight shooter who has answered the question. It is an old magician’s trick.
This is your question-Are you taking the two phrases ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as being in apposition
And you answered your own question in this post to me. So why don't you let it go.

As for what my education in Koine Greek. I had a wonderful teacher and I did well in the classes. But I let it slide and didn't go back to it once I was done those classes for reasons I don't want get into here. I regret not sticking with it. It's been over 10 years and I'm really rusty.
 
This is your question-Are you taking the two phrases ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as being in apposition
And you answered your own question in this post to me. So why don't you let it go.

As for what my education in Koine Greek. I had a wonderful teacher and I did well in the classes. But I let it slide and didn't go back to it once I was done those classes for reasons I don't want get into here. I regret not sticking with it. It's been over 10 years and I'm really rusty.
What exactly is that supposed to mean ? Are you asking me to guess his answer ? Or are you agreeing with me that he has not answered my question ?

Do you know if he would answer my question with a yes, or a no ? If so, please tell me , instead of sending me on a wild goose chase. Be honest, instead of perpetuating his confusion.
 
Anyhow, he seems to be ashamed of openly declaring what I suspect to be his grammatical take at Romans 9:5. I strongly suspect that he is taking ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as being in apposition. So he is doing the following:


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



He wants people to believe that all of the different coloured phrases are in apposition. He also knows that most of you don’t know Koine and won’t realize how impossibly without precedent that is in the Koine of the bible. Or in any kind of Koine, for that matter. Since when is a participle phrase an appositive to an articular noun phrase from a dependent clause, for starters ?
 
Anyhow, he seems to be ashamed of openly declaring what I suspect to be his grammatical take at Romans 9:5. I strongly suspect that he is taking ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as being in apposition. So he is doing the following:


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



He wants people to believe that all of the different coloured phrases are in apposition. He also knows that most of you don’t know Koine and won’t realize how impossibly without precedent that is in the Koine of the bible. Or in any kind of Koine, for that matter. Since when is a participle phrase an appositive to an articular noun phrase from a dependent clause, for starters ?
From following this forum for a couple of months or more, I don't believe that Gryllus is dishonorable.
 
Not sure if he is “dishonourable “ in his everyday life, I just don’t think he has clearly answered my question . That’s all. And I doubt you are 100% certain either that he has done so, judging by your inability to confidently answer on behalf on him. You sent me on a wild goose chase instead. And no one has been the wiser for it.
 
Not sure if he is “dishonourable “ in his everyday life, I just don’t think he has clearly answered my question . That’s all. And I doubt you are 100% certain either that he has done so, judging by your inability to confidently answer on behalf on him. You sent me on a wild goose chase instead. And no one has been the wiser for it.
Ha! You and your references to geese.
You're hard to please.
 
You finally came clean.

That's not how he explained it to you. This take is from your own imagination. You should be ashamed for implying that it came from Gryllus.

He does. You don't.
Notice Gryllus has even confused his own Trinitarian friend "John Milton." Red above was this poor and confused soul's response to my following comment: "How is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as an appositive to ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα "normal" ?"

Should I really be "ashamed" for "implying" that such a reading "came from Gryllus" ?

You folks have basically taken refuge in confusion & in lies.
 
"How is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as an appositive to ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα "normal" ?"
My point was and remains that Gryllus didn't say this. You made this ridiculous statement because you don't know Greek and don't know how ridiculous it is.
Should I really be "ashamed" for "implying" that such a reading "came from Gryllus" ?
Absolutely you should! And you should be ashamed for claiming to be a Greek expert when your claim here demonstrates that you don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about.
You folks have basically taken refuge in confusion & in lies.
More white flag waving from the forum 🤡
 
My point was and remains that Gryllus didn't say this. You made this ridiculous statement because you don't know Greek and don't know how ridiculous it is.

Absolutely you should! And you should be ashamed for claiming to be a Greek expert when your claim here demonstrates that you don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about.

More white flag waving from the forum 🤡

Are you trying to be too cute by half, again (seizing upon the words ἐξ ὧν) ? Obviously when I made that comment I meant that Gryllus is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as an appositive to ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα from the relative clause. Should I be "ashamed" of suggesting this ?
 
Are you trying to be too cute by half, again (seizing upon the words ἐξ ὧν) ? Obviously when I made that comment I meant that Gryllus is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as an appositive to ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα from the relative clause. Should I be "ashamed" of suggesting this ?
You are so ignorant of Greek that you don't even know where you've messed up. And this despite the fact you've already been told!
 
Back
Top