Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Yes, I meant "foreign language transcription" not transliteration.


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.
Transcription is simply a fancy word for "copying," and makes no sense in this context.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Transcription is simply a fancy word for "copying," and makes no sense in this context.

Right. He seems to be trying to avoid the word translation. Twice.

I disagree. Transcription has a much looser meaning than (phonetic) transliteration, and extends to different methods of transcription with respect to foreign languages, including translating foreign words into English on a word by word basis.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Romans 9:5 -- ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

What verb is implied in above every time ? I bet 99% (maybe 100%) of you don't have a clue.

It is a form of εἰμί each time.

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

The last sentence reminds me of Matt. 12:30, ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν
 

Anthony

Well-known member
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?
This comparison doesn't help you a bit in understanding what Paul in reality teaches in Rom 9:5. Even these so called language experts are totally bankrupt.

Yeshua Messiah = The Son of God (Monogenes - the only of His kind).

But who is the firstborn son of The Father? It's Israel!

Exod 4:22 “And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus said יהוה, “Yisra’ĕl is My son, My first-born,

That's the first inference of YHWH being The Father of Israel. There is no mention (inference) of a Father before before the above verse. Do some research.

The 'firstborn son' inherits all father's promises. Israel is the 'Heir' to all promises of God.
This Israel was kept under the training - the old covenant to show that it falls short and must look forward to the Deliverer.

Now, Paul in Rom 9:5 shows exactly who the Deliverer is and how He came by:

Rom 9:
4 who are the children of Yisra’ĕl, to whom is the adoption, and the esteem, and the covenants, and the giving of the Torah, and the worship, and the promises,

5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, Elohim-blessed forever. Amĕn.

The Son of God came through the genealogy of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob not only to represent but also to Mediate for Israel. He is the same YHWH Elohym coming in flesh through virgin birth (a very important doctrine to understand that The Deliverer is not contaminated with the sin). Nevertheless, according to Torah, He is the son of Joseph, s/o David, s/o Abraham).

He came by choice. Now listen carefully to what Heb 2:11 and 16 says:

Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

The One Who Sanctifies is the Messiah and those who are being sanctified are Israel. Both are sons of Abraham and therefore, He calls them His brethren.

16: For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Remember that it's He took on which is by His choice unlike other children of Abraham who were born without choice and it's them who needed sanctification. However, since Israel's Father is God, The Messiah also has God as His Father having come through the genealogy of Abraham.

Coming back to show how He represented Israel as the 'firstborn son', let's see some scriptures:

Hos 11: 1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

This is a double prophecy applicable to Israel in Exodus as well as The Messiah having called out of Egypt:

Mat 2: 15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Matthew's gospel reference is to show that The Son of God is representing Israel whom He had called out of Egypt.

Now, read Gal 4:1-5

1 And I say, for as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, though he is master of all,

2 but is under guardians and trustees till the time prearranged by the father.

3 So we also, when we were children, were under the elementary matters of the world, being enslaved.

4 But when the completion of the time came, Elohim sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under Torah,

5 to redeem those who were under Torah, in order to receive the adoption as sons.

The child being the 'heir' is Israel under the old covenant. The Deliverer has to come and represent them and Mediate for them. He had to be born of a woman and born under The Torah of fleshly ordinances. That's what it means Messiah coming in 'flesh' means - Israel after the flesh. Israel needed to transit from being in flesh to be spiritual by the Deliverer (YHWH becoming our Yeshua).

The promises of God on behalf of Israel are in Messiah. They now are joint heirs with Messiah.

Rom 8:29 Because those whom He knew beforehand, He also ordained beforehand to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, for Him to be the first-born among many brothers.

John 1:1 teaches that God and The WORD operate in two dimensions. God that John 1:1b mentions is transcendent, invisible, unapproachable, has no voice to be heard. His living Word (with His life) carries His will, character, power, wisdom, humility and salvation. He ain't another God and that's the very reason there is no definite article before God in John 1:1c. It's One God operating in two dimensions.

Whom OT knew by YHWH as He was heard is the same One as manifested as Israel, the firstborn Son in the NT. OT fathers never heard transcendent God The Father's voice nor seen His form. Yet they witnessed that they saw Him face to face. Whom did they see if Yeshua told them they never saw Him. That's the very reason YHWH revealed to them in duality of powers.

Who was this?

Gen 3: 8 And they heard the voice of יהוה Elohim walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, and Aḏam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of יהוה Elohim among the trees of the garden.

Walking needs legs and voice needs a mouth.

Now if anyone has ears to hear will understand Rom 9:5.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Hardly. For starters, since when is the expression ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων a noun phrase? Funky Greek.
So you are you disassociating ὁ from Θεὸς in a formal sense by maintaining no grammatical connection, and asserting that ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is not attributive on Θεὸς?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Now, Paul in Rom 9:5 shows exactly who the Deliverer is and how He came by:

Rom 9:
4 who are the children of Yisra’ĕl, to whom is the adoption, and the esteem, and the covenants, and the giving of the Torah, and the worship, and the promises,

5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, Elohim-blessed forever. Amĕn.

Well then, I guess we will need to conclude that the God mentioned at Romans 9:5 is not the Lord Jesus Christ's God, right?
 

Anthony

Well-known member
Well then, I guess we will need to conclude that the God mentioned at Romans 9:5 is not the Lord Jesus Christ's God, right?
Read my post property at least twice, you will understand.

All the time repeating Jesus Christ's God will not ensure you understand anything. Rom 9:5 seems to go over your head. The scriptures have to be rightly divided and not privately interpreted. Where God is The Father of Christ is true in their right contexts and how that came to be is in another context. The problem with you and others is getting stuck to some partial truth which is only part of the overall context of the whole of scriptures.

BTW, the gospel message is only for Israel/children of Abraham as it's obvious from Heb 2:11-16. The Sanctifier and those sanctified are all children of Abraham.

Gal 4:1-5 It's Israel which is the heir.

New covenant is made with the house of Judah (Jews) and the house of Israel (northern tribes) - Heb 8:8-11.

That's the very reason Christendom is divided over doctrine because scriptures are not their piece of bread.

All of NT is addressed to the same two houses - Jews and the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Greeks, Gentiles, foreigners, Barbarians, strangers, etc). All these tags are misapplied by Christendom to mean any Tom, Dick and Harry.

The Church/Assembly mentioned in the NT is the same Israel of OT but with many falling and rising again. The ruins are built again with the New Covenant.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Read my post property at least twice, you will understand.

All the time repeating Jesus Christ's God will not ensure you understand anything. Rom 9:5 seems to go over your head. The scriptures have to be rightly divided and not privately interpreted. Where God is The Father of Christ is true in their right contexts and how that came to be is in another context. The problem with you and others is getting stuck to some partial truth which is only part of the overall context of the whole of scriptures.

BTW, the gospel message is only for Israel/children of Abraham as it's obvious from Heb 2:11-16. The Sanctifier and those sanctified are all children of Abraham.

Gal 4:1-5 It's Israel which is the heir.

New covenant is made with the house of Judah (Jews) and the house of Israel (northern tribes) - Heb 8:8-11.

That's the very reason Christendom is divided over doctrine because scriptures are not their piece of bread.

All of NT is addressed to the same two houses - Jews and the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Greeks, Gentiles, foreigners, Barbarians, strangers, etc). All these tags are misapplied by Christendom to mean any Tom, Dick and Harry.

The Church/Assembly mentioned in the NT is the same Israel of OT but with many falling and rising again. The ruins are built again with the New Covenant.
The gospel is for "all men every where" τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πάσιν πανταχοῦ

Act 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.

Yet nothing in the actual grammar impels Christ = God?
Would you agree.

God can be connected with blessed independent of the proposed eupho
 

brianrw

Member
Yet nothing in the actual grammar impels Christ = God?
Would you agree.

God can be connected with blessed independent of the proposed eupho
To be clear, Mr. Avery believes that θεὸς and εὐλογητὸς in Romans 9:5 are both nouns and that together in Greek they form a compound adjective meaning "blessed by God." This is what he means when he speaks of the "natural association," "grammatical sameness," "connected," etc.

I'm not sure he's come out and actually said that here yet.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
To be clear, Mr. Avery believes that θεὸς and εὐλογητὸς in Romans 9:5 are both nouns and that together in Greek they form a compound adjective meaning "blessed by God." This is what he means when he speaks of the "natural association," "grammatical sameness," "connected," etc.

I'm not sure he's come out and actually said that here yet.
Oh, I thought he meant Paul was exclaiming a blessing on God.
 

Anthony

Well-known member
The gospel is for "all men every where" τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πάσιν πανταχοῦ

Act 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
The problem with you is that you are taking scriptures out of their context. First read historical account from OT scriptures what happened to the northern kingdom of Israel after their Assyrian captivity. How that once were called 'Not My People' by YHWH are being called 'My People' in latter times. Learn why Messiah said He came only to seek for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? The northern tribes led by Ephraim were dispersed in all nations. Only some remained in their land - like Samaritans (Samaria was the capital) and Galileans, etc. Jews did make some of them proselytes as they had synagogues there to meet on Sabbaths. We can read them in gospel accounts.

There were also many dispersed in Greek speaking countries - that's the reason for Greek NT. There are the same OT people who mixed up with heathens with their heathenism and were tagged as gentiles.

Mat 4:
15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. (kjv).

BTW, you presented scriptures from Acts out of their context. See to whom the Book of Acts is addressed:

Acts 1: 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? .......

Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem,.....

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words;

The feast of Shavout/Pentecost relates to Israel which was being fulfilled once for all. The promises of the feast was to them only as it's outlined in Acts 2.

The Centurion, Eunuch and all those who are saved are part of the lost sheep who were also proselytes (by Jews).

If you study Paul's missionary journeys in the Book of Acts, he mainly visited Synagogues where Jews and the proselytes met.

Acts 17:30 can't be pulled out from the overall context just to believe in a false doctrine. It's not in the spirit of rightly dividing the truth.

Let's see what James says in 1:1

1 Jacob, a servant of God and of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, to the twelve tribes which are in the Diaspora: Greetings.

Let's see Peter's epistle:

1: 1 Peter, an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, to the chosen ones who are living as foreigners in the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

They are in dispersion.

Also see what Luke says in:

Luke 1:55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

Luke 1:
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

These are only some scriptures but there are hundreds.

Just showing off expertise in Biblical languages is no guarantee of the knowledge of the Spirit behind the scriptures. That's the very reason there is so many divisions in Christianity.
 

Anthony

Well-known member
Oh, I thought he meant Paul was exclaiming a blessing on God.
No, Rom 9:5 shows God took on the seed of Abraha m - whether anyone likes it or not!

There was no one to save the children of Abraham and obviously He has to do it Himself as there is no other.. That's the reason for virgin birth. YHWH became our Yeshua.

Heb 2:16 For, doubtless, He does not take hold of messengers, but He does take hold of the seed of Aḇraham.

14 Therefore, since the children (of Abraham) share in flesh and blood, He Himself similarly shared in the same, so that by means of His death He might destroy him having the power of death, that is, the devil,
 

brianrw

Member
The theory of the Appositionists is that Romans 9:5 is the exception. Some of them like Titus 2:13 also.
By "appositionists" you mean Trinitarians? The Greek fathers understood the passage then the same way we do now--Hippolytus, Origen (Latin), Novatian, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Zechariah of Myteline, Cyril of Alexandria. The text is represented in this manner both before Nicea as well as after (I'm closing the list at the 5th century). The Latins as well--Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, etc. Irenaeus (130-202), in a long thought reasoning how Christ is both perfect God and perfect man, quotes Romans 9:5 from “whose are the fathers” down to “forever” and applies it to Christ alone.

Gregory of Nyssa (335-395) is very clear as to what scriptures were being utilized against the heterodox of is time:

"Nay, I do not even think it necessary to bring forward in detail the utterances of Paul, since they are, as one may say, in all men's mouths, who gives the Lord the appellation not only of “God,” but of “great God” and “God over all,” saying to the Romans, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever,” and writing to his disciple Titus, “According to the appearing of Jesus Christ the great God and our Saviour,” and to Timothy, proclaims in plain terms, “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit.'" (Against Eunomius, 11.2)

On the other hand, your assertion that Romans 9:5 means Jesus is "blessed by God" forever, has no manuscript or patristic support. In order to accommodate this reading, you would have to rewrite the Greek text.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
By "appositionists" you mean Trinitarians?

Nope.

It could be a Oneness or anyone else who makes that error. (Or the flying leap confusion conclusion).

The fact that at times there was a bandwagon fallacy to support the idea is really not relevant.

The only person here really supporting apposition is Barry, yet he is smart enough on this topic to basically put it only as a preference, throwing out euphony as a possible (weak) support. So he gives no real support to your aggressive position trying to say it is a grammatical imperative unless you throw in questionable punctuation.
 
Top