Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

brianrw

Member
I'm not the one who needs to learn.
And when they ought to be learning, they are just digging in deeper and becoming worse.

You originally didn't recognize that the accusative was adverbial, or what "limiter' meant and now you behave as though you know it so well. Since it's the one thing I said that you were actually corrected by, "τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is the adverbial accusative" is just about the only part of this whole statement that you get right.
Sorry TRJM, I gave you less credit than you deserved: "ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject" was also correct.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
And when they ought to be learning, they are just digging in deeper and becoming worse.


Sorry TRJM, I gave you less credit than you deserved: "ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject" was also correct.
Apology accepted.

First things first: Do you have an example of an apparent participle in the second attributive position which has a head noun with an adverbial accusative ?
 

brianrw

Member
First things first: Do you have an example of an apparent participle in the second attributive position which has a head noun with an adverbial accusative ?
I shouldn't need to, and as with everything else you're arguing in bad faith. Your stated conditions effectively nullifies the usage of the attributive participle and effectively creates a scenario where all attributive participles are substantive. And you've disputed the grammars, the grammarians, their rules and examples, etc. or simply ignored them altogether. In logic, we call this general pattern "invincible ignorance."

Suffice to say, Greek grammar does not forbid this type of construction. If I wanted to be dishonest like you, I can just make up a bunch of rules and then demand you search through the GNT to prove me wrong. It's not like you'd be able to run a patterned search. You'd actually have to either enter, one by one, all the possible articular prepositions and sift through the results to find a second attributive construction, or manually sift through the entire GNT. And I wouldn't even have to have read the GNT, or lifted a figure to prove what I said was true or not.

In short, the burden is on you to substantiate your assertions. But you never do.

Now, I have borne with you on several such demands, and so far you've failed spectacularly on your assertions (on the modified head noun, on the modified participle, on a verb coming between the head noun phrase and its participle, on second attributive position examples, etc.). But you have managed to waste a considerable amount of my time in the process, which is probably your intent: argue ad nauseam until all objections dry up, and then claim victory.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Suffice to say, Greek grammar does not forbid this type of construction.
Even if Greek grammar doesn't forbid it (and there is no proof of it), you can't show such a construction is likely or probable where:

"[one subject] is antithetical to another subject" (Winer).

It is inarguable that ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is antithetical to ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς.

For what can be said with certainty is that nowhere in the New or Old Testament is ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς identified as a human being of flesh, except by pagans: "Οἱ θεοὶ ὁμοιωθέντες ἀνθρώποις κατέβησαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς" Acts 14:11.

The closest is John 10:34,35 and analogous OT quotations, but here no transcendent θεοὶ / Θεὸς is being alluded to.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I shouldn't need to, and as with everything else you're arguing in bad faith. Your stated conditions effectively nullifies the usage of the attributive participle and effectively creates a scenario where all attributive participles are substantive. And you've disputed the grammars, the grammarians, their rules and examples, etc. or simply ignored them altogether. In logic, we call this general pattern "invincible ignorance."

Suffice to say, Greek grammar does not forbid this type of construction. If I wanted to be dishonest like you, I can just make up a bunch of rules and then demand you search through the GNT to prove me wrong. It's not like you'd be able to run a patterned search. You'd actually have to either enter, one by one, all the possible articular prepositions and sift through the results to find a second attributive construction, or manually sift through the entire GNT. And I wouldn't even have to have read the GNT, or lifted a figure to prove what I said was true or not.

In short, the burden is on you to substantiate your assertions. But you never do.

Now, I have borne with you on several such demands, and so far you've failed spectacularly on your assertions (on the modified head noun, on the modified participle, on a verb coming between the head noun phrase and its participle, on second attributive position examples, etc.). But you have managed to waste a considerable amount of my time in the process, which is probably your intent: argue ad nauseam until all objections dry up, and then claim victory.
You can’t. Next problem: the antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα ( implied or explicitly stated) is only & always κατὰ πνεῦμα and not Θεὸς.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Not particularly.

Take a step back and look at the sentence and the clause (bold below) with the implied verb explicitly stated:
Then shouldn't the correct course of action be to ask for clarification rather than to change the subject? Pay attention to the part where I told you that my remarks were about your statement that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα always ends a sentence. That is the part you should address first because that is the specific premise I was addressing. Let's get that out of the way first. After that we'll get to Romans 9.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Then shouldn't the correct course of action be to ask for clarification rather than to change the subject? Pay attention to the part where I told you that my remarks were about your statement that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα always ends a sentence. That is the part you should address first because that is the specific premise I was addressing. Let's get that out of the way first. After that we'll get to Romans 9.
With due respect, "always ends a sentence" is a complete irrelevance as any κατὰ clause may be parenthetical, even one which contains τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

The issue here can only be "does τὸ κατὰ <prepositional object> always end a clause."

You show us where it doesn't end a clause.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
With due respect, "always ends a sentence" is a complete irrelevance
"With all due respect," that appears to be TRJM's position so it is very relevant to the remarks I made to him.
as any κατὰ clause may be parenthetical, even one which contains τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
"With all due respect," you are incorrectly cribbing my remarks and this is the second time you "forget" this information:
The omission of the phrase would not change the sense of the sentence in any way shape or form. The the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause is a parenthetical clause, which could be bracketed or omitted.

What you explained to me I forget. I was referring to other instances of parenthetical κατὰ clauses I have come across in the bible.
(Check the remarks that you were responding to for the context.)
The issue here can only be "does τὸ κατὰ <prepositional object> always end a clause."

You show us where it doesn't end a clause.
"With all due respect," you will need to first define how you are using the word "clause," because you have been using it imprecisely (I'll be kind) throughout this exchange.
 

cjab

Well-known member
"With all due respect," that appears to be TRJM's position so it is very relevant to the remarks I made to him.
There has certainly been confusion as to this.
"With all due respect," you are incorrectly cribbing my remarks and this is the second time you "forget" this information:
I am not aware of cribbing your remarks. I can honestly say I had at the time of writing my comment no awareness of what remarks you may or not have made. Your colleague brian had made similar remarks to you about another verse (Acts 2:30), which I had appraised as parenthetical, and so irrelevant, before you ever said anything.

(Check the remarks that you were responding to for the context.)

"With all due respect," you will need to first define how you are using the word "clause," because you have been using it imprecisely (I'll be kind) throughout this exchange.
By clause I mean more than just κατὰ σάρκα itself: I refer to all nouns, verbs and other prepositions which are "directly" modified by the prepositional phrase κατὰ <prepositional complement>.

So in Rom 1:3 (περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα), the prepositional clause is τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα.

In Rom 1:4 it is τοῦ ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης

In Rom 9:5 it is καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

Now show me such a prepositional clause with τὸ κατὰ <prepositional complement> which isn't ended by it.
 

brianrw

Member
You can’t.
More like won't, because I don't have to. You haven't substantiated why Greek forbids this type of construction, because it doesn't. To the contrary:

The article added has greater power of hearing the other nature, namely the divine, which he later describes . . . And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware that the article placed before the participle is often constructed in place of a pronoun together with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι. (Theodore Beza, Annotation on Rom. 9:5, in 1582)​

Greek author Zechariah of Myteline (4th century) also makes all the proper grammatical connections clear (which, to no surprise, conform directly with the actual rules of Greek governing the construction):

This Paul has truly taught you who Jesus Christ is when he cries and says, 'Of whom is Christ in the flesh, Who is God over all, blessed for ever.' What occasion of calumny does not the word of Peter and Paul drive away from those who love calumny! for he called Him 'Christ' to show that He truly became man ; he said of Him, 'Who is of the Jews in the flesh,' to show that His existence does not date only from the time when He became incarnate; he said of Him, 'He is,' to tell us by his mode of expression that He is without beginning; he said of Him, 'Who is over all,' to proclaim Him Lord of created things; he said of Him, 'Who is God,' that we should not be drawn aside by the outward appearance and sufferings so as to deny his incorruptible Nature; he said of Him, 'blessed,' that we should worship Him as the Ruler of all, and not regard Him as a fellow-slave; he said of Him, 'Who is for ever,' to show that it is He Who by His word created all things, visible and invisible, whereby His Godhead is glorified.​

Unitarians have been trying to dig up validation for roughly 400 years to justify changing this passage. They have yet to turn up a single unambiguous reference, and no author who can actually be shown to quote the verse at all and comment on it as though a doxology to the Father were present. I could go down a very extensive list of writers, but cjab already provided one for us:
GREEKS

Irenæus,608—

Hippolytus in 3 places,609—

Origen,610—

Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D. 269,611—

ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,612—

the Const .App.,613—

Athanasius in 6 places,614—

Basil in 2 places,615—

Didymus in 5 places,616—

Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,617—

Epiphanius in 5 places,618—

Theodoras Mops.,619—

Methodius,620—

Eustathius,621—

Eulogius, twice,622—

Cæsarius, 3 times,623—

Theophilus Alex., twice,624—

Nestorius,625—

Theodotus of Ancyra,626—

Proclus, twice,627—

Severianus Bp. of Gabala,628—

Chrysostom, 8 times,629—Cyril Alex., 15 times,630—

Paulus Bp. of Emesa,631—Theodoret, 12 times,632—

Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,633—

Severus, Abp. of Antioch,634—

Amphilochius,635—

Gelasius Cyz.,636—

Anastasius Ant.,637—

Leontius Byz., 3 times,638—

Maximus,639—

J. Damascene, 3 times.640

LATINS

Tertullian, twice,641—

Cyprian,642—

Novatian twice,643—

Ambrose, 5 times,644—

Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,645—

Hilary, 7 times,646—

Jerome, twice,647—

Augustine, about 30 times,—

Victorinus,648—

the Breviarium, twice,649—

Marius Mercator,650—

Cassian, twice,651—

Alcimus Avit.,652—

Fulgentius, twice,653—

Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,654—

Ferrandus, twice,655—

Facundus:656—

to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3 (657) have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3 (658) for Chrysostom.
That all of these read the passage as speaking of Christ alone, entertaining no difficulty whatsoever regarding τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, precisely affirms that your problem here is artificial. No rule of Greek forbids this.

Ezra Abbot, the best among your sect, tried as hard as he could but could to controvert this list but only turned up three examples of writers who never actually quote the verse, but refer to the Father as "God over all" as he is famously called in Ephesians 4:6 (a passage frequently cited by them). One is an Arian interpolator of the spurious epistles of Ignatius, who is actually disputing the patripassions and nevertheless does identify Christ as "God." The other is Eusebius, who never quotes the passage, and who also refers to Christ in other places as God the Word who reigns supreme over all (a very clear allusion to Romans 9:5). And lastly, an epistle of Clement quoted elliptically, which has: ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ...(skip several sentences and a subject change)... δι’ ἧς πάντας τοὺς ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν· ᾧ ἔστω ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.

So I'm not going to waste my time on wild goose chases from someone who is clearly winging it as far as the Greek is concerned, and who is constantly creating, restricting, misstating, ignoring, abusing, and even disputing/contradicting rules of Greek grammar.

Next problem: the antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα ( implied or explicitly stated) is only & always κατὰ πνεῦμα and not Θεὸς.
The second is that the passage, in reference to Christ's descent according to the flesh, when followed by "who is over all, God," most certainly does serve as a stated antithesis. Again, you are arguing in a circle.

Your colleague brian has made similar remarks as you about an entirely different verse (Acts 2:30), which I appraised as parenthetical before you ever said anything.
Meaning you missed the point altogether.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I am not aware of cribbing your remarks. I can honestly say I had at the time of writing my comment no awareness of what remarks you may or not have made.
Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? How is it that you cannot remember what someone has said when so little time has passed?
Your colleague brian had made similar remarks to you about another verse (Acts 2:30), which I had appraised as parenthetical, and so irrelevant, before you ever said anything.
We aren't colleagues, but we both know what we are talking about. If we were talking about the same thing, I would expect us to agree far more often than not.
By clause I mean more than just κατὰ σάρκα itself: I refer to all nouns, verbs and other prepositions which are "directly" modified by the prepositional phrase κατὰ <prepositional complement>.

So in Rom 1:3 (περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα), the prepositional clause is τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα.

In Rom 1:4 it is τοῦ ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης

In Rom 9:5 it is καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

Now show me such a prepositional clause with τὸ κατὰ <prepositional complement> which isn't ended by it.
By "prepositional clause" do you mean a clause with a preposition in it? I've not heard of a "prepositional clause."

Also, why do you think the τό is necessary?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM Catechetical Lectures XI said:
"Υἱὸν δὲ πάλιν ἀκούων, μὴ καταχρηστικῶς ἄκουε μόνον· ἀλλὰ Υἱὸν ἀληθῶς, Υἱὸν φυσικὸν, ἄναρχον. —Υἱὸν ἀεὶ γεννηθέντα—ἀκαταλήπτῳ τῇ γεννήσει. —ἐὰν τοίνυν ἀκούσῃς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου λέγοντος, βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ· τὸ κατὰ σάρκα νόησον.
Now what is the next completely false assertion you will make, cjab?
 

brianrw

Member
Now show me such a prepositional clause with κατὰ <prepositional complement> which isn't ended by it.
This is what you are not understanding: ὁ Χριστὸς is still the subject of the participial phrase that follows. Feel free to look at the English translations, and see how many of them translate to the extent of, "from whom, according to the flesh, came (the) Christ, who is . . ." or "from who whom as concerning the flesh Christ came/came Christ, who is . . ." There's nothing grammatically that demands an end of the sentence. Furthermore, IMHO, switching from "sentence" and "period" to "clause" is misleading, since a sentence can be made up of multiple clauses, and an end of a clause is not always the end of a sentence. It shows very clearly that you've been forced to backtrack. Here, ὁ ὢν is dependent on ὁ Χριστὸς, and acts as a predicator for ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.

Weasel wording around things doesn't lend truth to them.

We aren't colleagues, but we both know what we are talking about. If we were talking about the same thing, I would expect us to agree far more often than not.
And if we did disagree, I'm sure we would also be able to talk about it constructively. Unlike the other three Steven, cjab, and TRJM, all of whom interpret the passage a different way trying to avoid the most plain reading of the Greek text itself, but never address each others inaccuracies on this point. What's even more ironic is that TRJM contradicts himself. So does cjab. At least Steven is consistent, "blessed by God," even though it's just plain wrong.
_________________
A faithful witness does not lie,
But a false witness will utter lies.

- Proverbs 14:5
 

cjab

Well-known member
That all of these read the passage as speaking of Christ alone, entertaining no difficulty whatsoever regarding τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, precisely affirms that your problem here is artificial. No rule of Greek forbids this.
May be they relaxed the rules for the sake of expediency.

Ezra Abbot, the best among your sect,
What sect is that? I own neither Arians nor Socinians.

tried as hard as he could but could to controvert this list but only turned up three examples of writers who never actually quote the verse, but refer to the Father as "God over all" as he is famously called in Ephesians 4:6 (a passage frequently cited by them). One is an Arian interpolator of the spurious epistles of Ignatius, who is actually disputing the patripassions and nevertheless does identify Christ as "God." The other is Eusebius, who never quotes the passage, and who also refers to Christ in other places as God the Word who reigns supreme over all (a very clear allusion to Romans 9:5). And lastly, an epistle of Clement quoted elliptically, which has: ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ...(skip several sentences and a subject change)... δι’ ἧς πάντας τοὺς ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν· ᾧ ἔστω ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.
As a protestant, I know which category of theology the 2 Thess 2:4 antichrist is associated with.

So I'm not going to waste my time on wild goose chases from someone who is clearly winging it as far as the Greek is concerned, and who is constantly creating, restricting, misstating, ignoring, abusing, and even disputing/contradicting rules of Greek grammar.
May be you don't know that every individual preposition has its own idiosyncrasies, and that general rules of grammar are sometimes subordinate to particular rules of grammar respecting particular prepositions.

The preposition κατά (by apocope κάδ, etc.) means down, and is parallel in most uses to ἀνά. It is never purely adverbial (κάτω being used instead, cp. ἄνω), ...


PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE
κατά ...... In its figurative use, κατά is the preposition-of relation and
reference to something....to define a general expression more exactly e.g. Rom 9:5.
Winer
 

cjab

Well-known member
Now what is the next completely false assertion you will make, cjab?
I don't know what you're talking about: Cyril: the usual Trinitarian philosophical bloviator.

5. If then thou hear the Gospel saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham Matthew 1:1, understand "according to the flesh." For He is the Son of David at the end of the ages Hebrews 9:26, but the Son of God [i.e. God the Son] Before All Ages, without beginning.

 

cjab

Well-known member
This is what you are not understanding: ὁ Χριστὸς is still the subject of the participial phrase that follows. Feel free to look at the English translations, and see how many of them translate to the extent of, "from whom, according to the flesh, came (the) Christ, who is . . ." or "from who whom as concerning the flesh Christ came/came Christ, who is . . ." There's nothing grammatically that demands an end of the sentence.
Putting Christ at the end of the prepositional clause is I suppose one way to get around your difficulty, but again this entails a too obvious synthesis of Greek and English.

Don't forget Gryllus prefers to see an apositive here, not an attributive. Who am I to disagree with him?

But as to an appositive, I rule it out. The prepositional clause ending τὸ κατὰ σάρκα doesn't identify with what follows it as to its subject matter, unless you are a particular brand of Trinitarian, as to which the Greek fathers post Nicea were mostly of that "God the Word" kind.

And as I've already said, it seems Eusebius did grow out of his immature "God the Word" phase in his later writings when he realized the unacceptable Sabellian implications of it, in his dispute with Marcellus.

And what I'm also saying is that the result of the construction that Trinitarians put on this clause is a sentiment that is nowhere else replicated in Pauline theology, where Christ = Lord, and Father = God.

Furthermore, IMHO, switching from "sentence" and "period" to "clause" is misleading, since a sentence can be made up of multiple clauses, and an end of a clause is not always the end of a sentence. It shows very clearly that you've been forced to backtrack. Here, ὁ ὢν is dependent on ὁ Χριστὸς, and acts as a predicator for ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.

Weasel wording around things doesn't lend truth to them.
We must agree to disagree.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't know what you're talking about: Cyril: the usual Trinitarian philosophical bloviator.

5. If then thou hear the Gospel saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham Matthew 1:1, understand "according to the flesh." For He is the Son of David at the end of the ages Hebrews 9:26, but the Son of God [i.e. God the Son] Before All Ages, without beginning.

I was saying that the use of τὸ κατὰ σάρκα did not mark the end of the clause. You were wrong once again. Here's another that I know you'll just love: "Ἡ σφαγὴ προεφανέρωνε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα πάθος τοῦ Θεανθρώπου". I know you'll have to find the English so you can find out what it says, so I won't bother giving you the citation from my Greek only source.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't know what you're talking about: Cyril: the usual Trinitarian philosophical bloviator.

5. If then thou hear the Gospel saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham Matthew 1:1, understand "according to the flesh." For He is the Son of David at the end of the ages Hebrews 9:26, but the Son of God [i.e. God the Son] Before All Ages, without beginning.

Does this mean your new position is that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα won't come anywhere but the end of the clause when it is translated into English? :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 

John Milton

Well-known member
But as to an appositive, I rule it out. The prepositional clause ending τὸ κατὰ σάρκα doesn't identify with what follows it as to its subject matter, unless you are a particular brand of Trinitarian, as to which the Greek fathers post Nicea were mostly of that "God the Word" kind.
Or in constructions like the one I just gave you ( Ἡ σφαγὴ προεφανέρωνε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα πάθος τοῦ Θεανθρώπου) or a myriad of other possibilities.
We must agree to disagree.
With all due respect, whether you accept his assessment or not is irrelevant. He is right, and the facts don't change as a result of your opinion.
 
Top