Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Fred

Well-known member
In Rev. 22:3 αὐτῷ refers to the Father, not to Jesus.

With zero evidence to back up your assertion.

In Rev. 20:6 the word λατρεύω does not even occur.

I never said λατρεύω occurs in Revelation 20:6. Go read post 725 as to why I referred to this passage.

I will add that this passage further demonstrates the role of priests (Christians) worshiping Christ which corresponds to what is taking place in Revelation 22:3.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/invocation-worship-and-prayer.6643/page-5#post-552242
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
With zero evidence to back up your assertion.



I never said λατρεύω occurs in Revelation 20:6. Go read post 725 as to why I referred to this passage.

I will add that this passage further demonstrates the role of priests (Christians) worshiping Christ which corresponds to what is taking place in Revelation 22:3.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/invocation-worship-and-prayer.6643/page-5#post-552242
αὐτῷ is singular, so λατρεύω in Rev. 22:3 could only refer to the Father, not to both the Father and Jesus.
 

Fred

Well-known member
αὐτῷ is singular, so λατρεύω in Rev. 22:3 could only refer to the Father, not to both the Father and Jesus.

 

brianrw

Member
You misrepresent again. TSKTS constructions when neither is a proper name denotes two individuals.
I didn't misrepresent you. I meant that ignoring the participle is typically advocated by those who want to see here a doxology to the Father. By that, I mean those who want to place a period after σάρκα against the testimony of the manuscripts.

I don't know why you argue that the participle needs to be absent in order for the expression to fall in the second attributive position. It's just flat out nonsense, as though ὁ ὢν cannot operate in the 2nd attributive position. The 2nd attributive position is the most common position in which the attributive participle falls. You say:
But the biggest problem with the following being in the second attributive position is ὢν itself. If this was the second attributive we would have had the following --
ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς
without ὢν.
But previously you said it was τὸ κατὰ σάρκα that prevented a second attributive construction, saying,
it ends the explicit grammatical connection to what follows. It is not called a “limiter” for nothing.
Of course, this was a made up definition of "limiter," since by "limiter" I meant the prepositional phrase in the accusative with the neuter article means it is functioning adverbially to "limit" the scope of ἐξ ὧν.

It's abundantly clear that you are crafting all these fake grammatical conventions to conform to your premise.

You're next response, I suppose, will be to say you can't have an attributive participle and an adverbial preposition in the same sentence.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
Nonsense. Show us an example where any follower of Christ offers λατρεύω to Antone other than to the Father.
Your claim was that the word wasn't used for anyone other than the Father, and I proved that claim was false. However, even that wasn't necessary. The types of statistical claims that you are making are founded upon logical errors and will only be convincing to those who, like yourself, are entirely unwilling or unable to accept the truth.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Your claim was that the word wasn't used for anyone other than the Father, and I proved that claim was false. However, even that wasn't necessary. The types of statistical claims that you are making are founded upon logical errors and will only be convincing to those who, like yourself, are entirely unwilling or unable to accept the truth.
No. Here is my actual claim, again:
For instance λατρεύω is another such word, it is a special "worship" offered by the saints only to the Father, never to anyone else.

λατρεύω is offered by the saints ( i.e. the elect, like the apostles and redeemed) only to the Father in the GNT. Don’t know how you concluded red above which is a complete distortion of my actual assertion.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
No. Here is my actual claim, again:


λατρεύω is offered by the saints ( i.e. the elect, like the apostles and redeemed) only to the Father in the GNT. Don’t know how you concluded red above which is a complete distortion of my actual assertion.
No, you little liar. Here was your actual claim in full:
It's not a "theological rule" but rather a biblical fact. Certain words are used only in conjunction and in reference to the Father. For instance λατρεύω is another such word, it is a special "worship" offered by the saints only to the Father, never to anyone else.
If you don't know how I concluded what I concluded, you are an idiot as well as a liar.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I didn't misrepresent you. I meant that ignoring the participle is typically advocated by those who want to see here a doxology to the Father. By that, I mean those who want to place a period after σάρκα against the testimony of the manuscripts.

I don't know why you argue that the participle needs to be absent in order for the expression to fall in the second attributive position. It's just flat out nonsense, as though ὁ ὢν cannot operate in the 2nd attributive position. The 2nd attributive position is the most common position in which the attributive participle falls. You say:

But previously you said it was τὸ κατὰ σάρκα that prevented a second attributive construction, saying,

Of course, this was a made up definition of "limiter," since by "limiter" I meant the prepositional phrase in the accusative with the neuter article means it is functioning adverbially to "limit" the scope of ἐξ ὧν.

It's abundantly clear that you are crafting all these fake grammatical conventions to conform to your premise.

You're next response, I suppose, will be to say you can't have an attributive participle and an adverbial preposition in the same sentence.
Multiple factors prevent the second attributive position in Romans 9:5, not just the limiter. Can you show us a clear example of the participle form of εἰμί being used in the second attributive position in the GNT ? Your “grammar” here is so contrived it is arguably worse than those of your peers who argue that αὐτῷ in Revelation 22:3 denotes two individuals. It seems to me that if Trinitarians had a real verse for the “ Deity of Christ,” they would not need to abuse the grammar and context of certain NT verses .
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
No, you little liar. Here was your actual claim in full:

If you don't know how I concluded what I concluded, you are an idiot as well as a liar.
You took that one sentence in isolation from the rest of what I wrote to misrepresent my actual position. You tend to do the same with scripture. It is a bad habit.

If you read the entirety of what I wrote , I am saying that λατρεύω is a word used by the Saints only in conjunction with the Father to denote the special worship which they offer only to him:

It's not a "theological rule" but rather a biblical fact. Certain words are used only in conjunction and in reference to the Father. For instance λατρεύω is another such word, it is a special "worship" offered by the saints only to the Father, never to anyone else.

In the same way, εὐλογητὸς is a word of praise reserved by the Saints only for the Father in Heaven. Obviously pagans do not follow this rule. So quoting a verse to me which has pagans giving λατρεύω to their gods is foolish.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You took that one sentence in isolation from the rest of what I wrote to misrepresent my actual position.
What you wrote disagreed with itself that is your fault.
You tend to do the same with scripture. It is a bad habit.
This is nothing more than another lie from you.
If you read the entirety of what I wrote , I am saying that λατρεύω is a word used by the Saints only in conjunction with the Father to denote the special worship which they offer only to him:
That disagreed with what you had just written. Are you too dense to understand this? You were the problem and remain so.
Certain words are used only in conjunction and in reference to the Father. For instance λατρεύω is another such word, it is a special "worship" offered by the saints only to the Father, never to anyone else.

In the same way, εὐλογητὸς is a word of praise reserved by the Saints only for the Father in Heaven. Obviously pagans do not follow this rule.
Repeating your error again and again after it has been explained to you so many times only makes you look like a bigger idiot.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
What you wrote disagreed with itself that is your fault.

This is nothing more than another lie from you.

That disagreed with what you had just written. Are you too dense to understand this? You were the problem and remain so.

Repeating your error again and again after it has been explained to you so many times only makes you look like a bigger idiot.
I’ve explained to you my actual argument. You obviously would like to continue with a strawman caricature of it probably because you understand that my actual argument is solid.

On this score, you will find that εὐλογητὸς is a word of praise reserved by the Saints only for the Father in Heaven. Just as λατρεύω is a form of worship reserved by the elect only for the Father.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I’ve explained to you my actual argument.
Your "argument" isn't an argument. Your entire premise is flawed. Your attempt to try to claim that you didn't contradict yourself is humorous because it is the least of your problems.
You obviously would like to continue with a strawman caricature of it probably because you understand that my actual argument is solid.
Right. Solid like a person taking a hapax legomenon and claiming that the word could only be used in a certain manner because that the only context in which it is found in the New Testament. :rolleyes: Do you hear how dumb you sound yet? No, you are you. Of course you don't!
On this score, you will find that εὐλογητὸς is a word of praise reserved by the Saints only for the Father in Heaven. Just as λατρεύω is a form of worship reserved by the elect only for the Father.
I sure wish someone would've told the saint who wrote that passage in Acts that he could not use λατρεύω with the heavenly host as he did. :rolleyes:
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
John Milton , could you show us a verse from Scripture where any apostle of Christ or any saint in heaven offers λατρεύω to anyone other than the Father ? Just verse and chapter next post. Nothing else.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I sure wish someone would've told the saint who wrote that passage in Acts that he could not use λατρεύω with the heavenly host as he did. :rolleyes:
Acts 7:42 was written specifically of idolators. Therefore you objection is non-contextual and invalid. Contextual to true worshippers of God, what TRJM must hold, because of the way Jesus defined it in Luk 4:8. Γέγραπται γὰρ προσκυνήσεις Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.

If anyone is offering (substantivized) "λατρεύω" to anyone else but God, then they are the liar. :rolleyes:
 

cjab

Well-known member
A comma naturally exists here, both in Greek and in English, but there is no reason why τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ends the sentence, which is what you have been arguing and have not adequately supported. A sentence can be composed of more than one "clause."
But if the clause is the last clause in a sentence, then it will end the sentence.

The rest of your argument here is a dodge, and effectively you refute yourself:


We have a prepositional phrase: κατὰ σάρκα. When the neuter article substantivizes the accusative case with a prepositional phrase, it signals the function is adverbial. Thus, in Romans 9:5, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα it modifies the action implicit in ἐξ ὧν. This is not "far too complex an argument," it's actually a statement of how the grammatical structure works.
That wasn't the point I was getting at.

The point is that the whole clause from ἐξ ὧν onward is affected.

It is your argument that is far too subtle and relies on an ambiguous usage of the English comma, even a synthesis of English comma usage and Greek grammar.

By inserting an English comma, you can appear to continue the ἐξ ὧν clause in English. But as to the Greek grammar, your thesis is a contradiction in terms.

For if τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies the action implicit in ἐξ ὧν, then the action is modified irrevocably. You want to carry on the ἐξ ὧν clause, as if the action implicit in ἐξ ὧν hadn't been modified: as if you were talking about Christ according to the Spirit. That's impossibe, because ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by the modifier.

So you have to put a full stop, not a comma, after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, because it ends the last clause in the sentence.


In English we would add commas before and after, but there is a continuation of the same thought that is unhindered by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα in Acts 2:30: ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν: "that of the fruit of his loins [τὸ κατὰ σάρκα] he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." How is it that it doesn't end the sentence in 2:30, when it falls in the middle of a thought, but it can't be so in Romans 9:5? There is nothing artificial about any of this.

Do you and TRJM have anything better to do than make up rules on the fly? First learn the language. Then use it rightly.
What applies in Acts 2:30 doesn't apply in Rom 9:5.

As I said before the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause in Acts 2:30 is parenthetical. And if you look at an interlinear, you will see it clearly (e.g. ABP at biblehub). It can be removed and the sentence remains intact, before and after the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause.

But Rom 9:5 is completely different. If you remove καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, then you must end the sentence after ὧν οἱ πατέρες, There is no parenthesis. Therefore the sentence doesn't continue.
 

brianrw

Member
But if the clause is the last clause in a sentence, then it will end the sentence.

. . .
You've lost the point and everything you are saying now is contrived. It's time to move on. If you haven't been familiar now with how long these sentences can run in Greek, you really haven't been reading much at all.

But Rom 9:5 is completely different. If you remove καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, then you must end the sentence after ὧν οἱ πατέρες, There is no parenthesis. Therefore the sentence doesn't continue.
:rolleyes: You should be learning, instead of making things up.

Multiple factors prevent the second attributive position in Romans 9:5, not just the limiter.
According to TRJM's fake rules of grammar, but not according to actual Greek grammar. This has been noted again, and substantiated, almost ad nauseam.

Can you show us a clear example of the participle form of εἰμί being used in the second attributive position in the GNT ?
You've been shown. Repeatedly. But you still fall back on invincible ignorance. You can't even get past the openings of a few epistles without noting "clear example of the" (you mean "a"?) "participle form of εἰμί being used in the second attributive position."

But to you, idiosyncratically, there are no "clear example(s)" because you say they are all substantival appositions--which is, in fact, invincible ignorance. For example, ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 12:17), which is clearly a second attributive construction involving the attributive participle, but you say it is an independent substantival apposition. Why? Because you fail to note that an attributive participle is a modifier, not a simple adjective, and the participial phrase modifies the head noun. So because ὁ ὢν doesn't stand by itself like a simple adjective you make the (novice) mistake of saying it is an independent substantival apposition, which misses the whole point of the attributive participle construction.

Your "argument" isn't an argument. Your entire premise is flawed. Your attempt to try to claim that you didn't contradict yourself is humorous because it is the least of your problems.
That about sums up TRJMs whole approach.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
. For example, ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 12:17), which is clearly a second attributive construction involving the attributive participle, but you say it is an independent substantival apposition. Why? Because you fail to note that an attributive participle is a modifier, not a simple adjective, and the participial phrase modifies the head noun. So because ὁ ὢν doesn't stand by itself like a simple adjective you make the (novice) mistake of saying it is an independent substantival apposition, which misses the whole point of the attributive participle construction.


That about sums up TRJMs whole approach.
See , your case is very weak & suspicious indeed. It’s always this one example , which can easily be appositional and therefore not an attributive use at all. The onus is on you to provide sufficient & strong evidence that ὁ ὢν is used in the second attributive position. Indeed, doesn’t it strike you as odd that in the entire GNT you cannot find a single example of any participle form of εἰμί other than ὁ ὢν apparently functioning in the second attributive position ? On the other hand, we have many clear and unambiguous examples of the participle forms of εἰμί functioning substantivally . Bottom line is that you have not provided a convincing enough case from the GNT that the participle form of εἰμί functions like you wish it to in Romans 9:5.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
But if the clause is the last clause in a sentence, then it will end the sentence.


That wasn't the point I was getting at.

The point is that the whole clause from ἐξ ὧν onward is affected.

It is your argument that is far too subtle and relies on an ambiguous usage of the English comma, even a synthesis of English comma usage and Greek grammar.

By inserting an English comma, you can appear to continue the ἐξ ὧν clause in English. But as to the Greek grammar, your thesis is a contradiction in terms.

For if τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies the action implicit in ἐξ ὧν, then the action is modified irrevocably. You want to carry on the ἐξ ὧν clause, as if the action implicit in ἐξ ὧν hadn't been modified: as if you were talking about Christ according to the Spirit. That's impossibe, because ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by the modifier.

So you have to put a full stop, not a comma, after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, because it ends the last clause in the sentence.



What applies in Acts 2:30 doesn't apply in Rom 9:5.

As I said before the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause in Acts 2:30 is parenthetical. And if you look at an interlinear, you will see it clearly (e.g. ABP at biblehub). It can be removed and the sentence remains intact, before and after the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause.

But Rom 9:5 is completely different. If you remove καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, then you must end the sentence after ὧν οἱ πατέρες, There is no parenthesis. Therefore the sentence doesn't continue.
Indeed.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
That about sums up TRJMs whole approach.
And cjab's. The two missed the point I made using hapax legomenon as an illustration, (which should've been enough to help them understand their problem) and continue confusing pragmatics and chance for grammar. Neither of them know Greek. We might as well be trying to explain the color blue to a blind man.
 
Top