Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
The words of the Bible are properly defined one way, but your heresy teaches the exact opposite.

We can see quite clearly that the words of the Bible are defined as you want to define them.

If you would like to pretend otherwise, please carry on.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It is axiomatic that "Christ" is not "God" in Pauline theology, but the "son of God" Rom 1:3,4, 2Co 1:19, Gal 2:20, Eph 4:13

The theory of the Appositionists is that Romans 9:5 is the exception. Some of them like Titus 2:13 also.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The theory of the Appositionists is that Romans 9:5 is the exception. Some of them like Titus 2:13 also.
Why would there be exceptions? Is God a God of confusion? Surely exceptions are created by those who desire there to be exceptions in order to "draw disciples away after them" (Acts 20:30). I see no exception in Rom 9:5 or Titus 2:13, but only allusions to the close relation between Christ and God. In any event, your "who is" re Rom 9:5 simply doesn't exist in the Greek: it's an anglicization, not a transliteration.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Why would there be exceptions? Is God a God of confusion? Surely exceptions are created by those who desire there to be exceptions in order to "draw disciples away after them" (Acts 20:30). I see no exception in Rom 9:5 or Titus 2:13, but only allusions to the close relation between Christ and God. In any event, your "who is" re Rom 9:5 simply doesn't exist in the Greek: it's an anglicization, not a transliteration.
just for the record, a transliteration is when you put original language words into the English alphabet, i.e. ἀγάπη = agapē. That's quite different from translation! :)

Secondly the "who is" is a valid translation of the participle. We can argue about its correctness, but it's certainly in the ballpark.
 

cjab

Well-known member
just for the record, a transliteration is when you put original language words into the English alphabet, i.e. ἀγάπη = agapē. That's quite different from translation! :)
Yes, I meant "foreign language transcription" not transliteration.

Secondly the "who is" is a valid translation of the participle. We can argue about its correctness, but it's certainly in the ballpark.
I agree it sometimes is a valid anglicization / translation of the participle, where context and semantics allow. But this is by no means a rule; and so to pre-empt the translation of the participle by insisting on "who is" is to disregard context and semantics: it may lead to a serious error in the translation.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The theory of the Appositionists is that Romans 9:5 is the exception. Some of them like Titus 2:13 also.
There is no way that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is in apposition to Θεὸς ; rather the adjective πάντων modifies the noun that immediately comes after it, namely Θεὸς. This is normal grammar. Gryllus has lost all sense of reason & of grammar at Romans 9:5 on account of his lust to find the "Deity of Christ" in this verse. Just terrible.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
There is no way that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is in apposition to Θεὸς ; rather the adjective πάντων modifies the noun that immediately comes after it, namely Θεὸς. This is normal grammar. Gryllus has lost all sense of reason & of grammar at Romans 9:5 on account of his lust to find the "Deity of Christ" in this verse. Just terrible.

Among those who want to see apposition, Barry Hofstetter is relatively mild, essentially claiming it as a preference and even using a very tenuous euphony argument for support. There are others who are very strident and confused and try to insist that apposition is impelled grammatically. See posts 186 and 189 for the Hofstetter attempt..
 

cjab

Well-known member
The proper grammatical term here is "attributive" not "adjective." An attributive may consist of genitives, prepositional clauses or adjectives, which modify or act on a noun. Attributives are used with articles, and can come before or after the noun.

Here the attributive is "ἐπὶ πάντων" and is before Θεὸς. In Eph 2:4, the attributive "ἐπὶ πάντων" is after the noun. In each case, the article is used.

The "who is" in Rom 9:5 in most translations is wrong from a consideration of Paul's use of ὅς ἐστιν and ὁ ὢν to dispel ambiguities in whom is being referred to, e.g. ὅς ἐστιν in Rom 1:25 when refering back to the creator, and ὁ ὢν in Rom 9:5 when referring forward to God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Interestingly, the usage of ὁ ὢν in the Pauline epistles is extremely rare. The only other place it occurs is 2 Cor 11:31 in a similar doxology but without the ἐπὶ πάντων attributive and without Θεὸς:

ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι

Using the transcription translation method, ὁ ὢν can only mean "He who is" or "The one being" or "He being", as it follows a verb οἶδεν.

2 Cor 11:31 ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
Rom 9:5 ὁ ὢν (ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

If 2 Cor 11:31 uncontroversially refers to the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", how can Rom 9:5 refer to someone else?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Interestingly, the usage of ὁ ὢν in the Pauline epistles is extremely rare. The only other place it occurs is 2 Cor 11:31 in a similar doxology but without the ἐπὶ πάντων attributive and without Θεὸς:

ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι

Using the transcription translation method, ὁ ὢν can only mean "He who is" or "The one being" or "He being", as it follows a verb οἶδεν.

2 Cor 11:31 ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
Rom 9:5 ὁ ὢν (ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

If 2 Cor 11:31 uncontroversially refers to the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", how can Rom 9:5 refer to someone else?

And:

"I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying.... and from whom Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen." (Romans 9:5).

"The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed to the ages, knows that I do not lie." (2 Cor 11:31).


Also:

"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One." (Mark 14:61).

"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel." (Luke 1:68).

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 1:3).

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 1:3).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 1:3).

"They changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is Blessed to the ages. Amen." (Romans 1:25).

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows that I am not lying, he being Blessed to the ages."
(2 Corinthians 11:31).

"from whom the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be Blessed to the ages. Amen."
(Romans 9:5).

And:

"from whom the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be belssed to the ages. Amen."
(Romans 9:5).

"one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
(Ephesians 4:6).

And:

out of whom the Christ according to the flesh ὁ ὢν (ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
(Romans 9:5)

Christ according to the flesh. Are we really expected to believe the God of Israel originated in Israel?
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
There is no way that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is in apposition to Θεὸς ; rather the adjective πάντων modifies the noun that immediately comes after it, namely Θεὸς. This is normal grammar. Gryllus has lost all sense of reason & of grammar at Romans 9:5 on account of his lust to find the "Deity of Christ" in this verse. Just terrible.
What a lovely ad hominem.
 
Top