Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Chalcedon

Well-known member
You are not addressing the problem. You said he ceased being the non-human “ I” and became another “I” when he apparently became a human being. So he could not claim to be that other “I”.
Jesus Person ( I ) is Divine - trinitarians are not nestorians.

next fallacy....................................
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
“One” always denotes a singular. If a pagan denies polytheism when he worships Adam and Eve as the “one God” because he claims that they are “one flesh,” would you go along with the foolish pagan’s “logic” ? Yet you expect us to go along with your equally foolish Trinitarian nonsense.
What is impossible for God to be?
 

cjab

Well-known member
You are not addressing the problem. You said he ceased being the non-human “ I” and became another “I” when he apparently became a human being. So he could not claim to be that other “I”.
You said "another I". In fact it's the same "I". With Christ, the "I" transcends his humanity, but yet is limited by it in the human form. With other human beings, it isn't so. Jesus saw his body as the temple of the Logos (John 2:19), the one who came down from heaven, just as he said.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Just a reminder for Barry. Since you can easily see God and blessed connected ("natural association", grammatical elements) what forces God to be in apposition to Christ? If anything.

It seems that is only a speculative interpretation on your part, largely driven by doctrinal preferences.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Just a reminder for Barry. Since you can easily see God and blessed connected ("natural association", grammatical elements) what forces God to be in apposition to Christ? If anything.

It seems that is only a speculative interpretation on your part, largely driven by doctrinal preferences.
And I could accuse you of the same, but really don't want to fall back into bad habits. For me, a big part of it is the way the Greek actually reads. It flows. It's somewhat rhythmic. This implies to me a strong connection between all the nominatives to have the same referent, that of the origina first nominative. Euphony is something that often gets overlooked in these discussion, in part, I think, because many exegetes, despite their technical skills, really haven't internalized the language to the extent that they notice such things.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You said "another I". In fact it's the same "I". With Christ, the "I" transcends his humanity, but yet is limited by it in the human form. With other human beings, it isn't so. Jesus saw his body as the temple of the Logos (John 2:19), the one who came down from heaven, just as he said.
You said the pre-flesh “I” ceased to exist. So it cannot be the same “ I.”
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
a big part of it is the way the Greek actually reads. It flows. It's somewhat rhythmic. ... Euphony

However, it is an awkward listing, with God being in the middle. You would think it would be said dynamically, and primary.

And you simply break the connection with God and blessed.

However, I will note that you did try to come up with something for the apposition theory. Quite conjectural, no imperative involved.

If the text actually said that Christ and God are in apposition, then it should be accepted, it is not that way in my Authorized Version, which keeps the natural association of God and blessed

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

No apposition! :)
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Jesus Person ( I ) is Divine - trinitarians are not nestorians.

next fallacy....................................
More correctly, the Trinitarian Jesus is not a human person ( he has no human “ I”), but is only a Divine person ( he has only a Divine “I”). This is referred to as anhypostasis. But you have so far refused to confess this, at least publicly.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You said the pre-flesh “I” ceased to exist. So it cannot be the same “ I.”
I don't think so. What I likely said was that Jesus the human being didn't exist pre-flesh, but I have always allowed the incorporeal parts of Jesus to eternally exist, but not in the same form on earth as in heaven.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Just a reminder for Barry. Since you can easily see God and blessed connected ("natural association", grammatical elements) what forces God to be in apposition to Christ? If anything.

It seems that is only a speculative interpretation on your part, largely driven by doctrinal preferences.
Yes. Also be aware that virtually all Trinitarians take ὁ ὢν attributively at Romans 9:5. The problem with this however is that ὁ ὢν is never attributive in the GNT. So the Trinitarian reading is just not possible, biblically speaking, and certainly not possible in apostle Paul’s writings where ὁ ὢν at 2 Cor. 11:31 is not attributive, for instance. Gryllus knows all this, that is why he is taking ὁ ὢν here substantially . But that creates its own problem for Gryllus, a worse problem than taking it attributively , since the participle phrase ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων never occurs with reference to Jesus but only with reference to the Father in all other places — Rom. 1:25, 2 Cor. 1:3, 2 Cor. 11:31, Eph. 1:3, Eph. 4:6.

Cheers,
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I don't think so. What I likely said was that Jesus the human being didn't exist pre-flesh, but I have always allowed the incorporeal parts of Jesus to eternally exist, but not in the same form on earth as in heaven.
That’s not what you said earlier. Go check. Anyhow, let’s take your new argument — that the “ I” of Jesus existed before his birth ( infant you are arguing it is eternal1), then he was not a human being by the biblical definition . Not by a long shot.
 

cjab

Well-known member
That’s not what you said earlier. Go check. Anyhow, let’s take your new argument — that the “ I” of Jesus existed before his birth ( infant you are arguing it is eternal1), then he was not a human being by the biblical definition . Not by a long shot.
It seems you're not making a connection that I have already pointed out to you per Gen 2:7 "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being."

This must be taken spiritually as well as physically.

What is Jesus? Jhn 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

What is the Logos? Jhn 1:4 "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." ("him" refers back to the Logos in Jn 1:1)

What did Jesus says of the life in himself? John 5:26 "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself."

What is the connection? Jhn 6:41 "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven?"

So the author of life was himself "breathed" into a human being in place of what is ordinarily given to created humans. He came down from heaven.

Are you like the Jews, who couldn't accept Jesus' own words?
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It seems you're not making a connection that I have already pointed out to you per Gen 2:7 "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being."

This must be taken spiritually as well as physically.

What is Jesus? Jhn 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

What is the Logos? Jhn 1:4 "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." ("him" refers back to the Logos in Jn 1:1)

What did Jesus says of the life in himself? John 5:26 "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself."

What is the connection? Jhn 6:41 "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven?"

So the author of life was himself "breathed" into a human being in place of what is ordinarily given to created humans. He came down from heaven.

Are you like the Jews, who couldn't accept Jesus' own words?
Your Jesus is not a genuine human being because, for starters, he ( his “ I”), his person, is not human. You cannot play word games around this. Enough.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Hi cjab,

Do you have a spot where the Jews said that Jesus is not a human being?
Eh? The Jews rejected Jesus because he said he was the bread that came down from heaven: John 6:25-70. In heaven, he wasn't a human being, obviously.

This is the crucial part. TRJM rejects Christ being the bread that came down from heaven. Then many Jews decided to no longer follow Jesus.

"57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”


61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
 
Top