Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
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.
It doesn't appear to be Koine Greek in any event. I'm not wasting time on this rubbish. Just because τὸ κατὰ σάρκα isn't the last word in a clause doesn't mean the clause continues into another clause. as you are proposing.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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.


Meaning you missed the point altogether.

I'm afraid not. The antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα is clearly and unambiguously stated by apostle Paul in the first chapter of Romans (1:4) as being κατὰ πνεῦμα. You have to understand that in the bible the antithesis follows the grammatical construct of the thesis, in other words if the thesis is made up of a preposition + a noun (eg. κατὰ σάρκα) then the antithesis has the same sort of grammar (eg. κατὰ πνεῦμα). Take for instance another example, ἐκ τῶν κάτω vs ἐκ τῶν ἄνω in John 8:23. Or another very simple one from John 1:5 τὸ φῶς vs ἡ σκοτία, etc.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It doesn't appear to be Koine Greek in any event. I'm not wasting time on this rubbish. Just because τὸ κατὰ σάρκα isn't the last word in a clause doesn't mean the clause continues into another clause. as you are proposing.
Yeah, they both like to argue against a strawman caricature of their opponent's position, which is not profitable for learning, and "a waste of time."
 

John Milton

Well-known member
It doesn't appear to be Koine Greek in any event. I'm not wasting time on this rubbish. Just because τὸ κατὰ σάρκα isn't the last word in a clause doesn't mean the clause continues into another clause. as you are proposing.
It is definitely Koine, and no one, especially not me, has claimed "that one clause continues into another clause." Your problem seems linked to the "example" you gave earlier:
The husband of this woman is this man.
The husband of this woman is temporarily this man.
==> "This man" is permanently modified by "temporarily." He cannot escape the qualification "temporarily" even if the sentence continues.
And here was my reply
"Temporarily" is an adverb. It can't modify a noun, so your example below is bust.
Which you called
Non-sequitur and completely fallacious reasoning.
And you dodged my counterexample
The husband of this woman is temporarily this man, the son of that woman.
The same reasoning is true if the appositive is a clause instead of a prepositional phrase. "The husband of this woman is temporarily this man who graduated ten years ago." None of your reasoning holds water. Your goose is still cooked.
 

cjab

Well-known member
It is definitely Koine,
Θεανθρώπου isn't Koine for a start. (theánthropos = godman = modern Greek).

Ἡ σφαγὴ προεφανέρωνε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα πάθος τοῦ Θεανθρώπου
Translates to
"The slaughter showed the "according to the flesh" passion of the Godman"

i.e. "The slaughter showed the passion of the Godman according to the flesh.

So what? Just rearranging Greek words is an irrelevance.

and no one, especially not me, has claimed "that one clause continues into another clause."]
That's what you are proposing, by positing the 2nd attributive for ὁ ὢν

Your problem seems linked to the "example" you gave earlier:

And here was my reply

Which you called
True an adverb doesn't modify a noun directly, but it can indirectly through e.g. an equative verb, which is what we have with τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

Then you want to make this "Christ according to the flesh" above all. Well we know he isn't a godman, but a human being.

That's the whole problem: you guys embrace the "godman" conception of Christ, which is inevitable from your Rom 9:5. That's the theology you have subscribed to, in your Trinitarian Rom 9:5; but Θεανθρώπος isn't in the bible and never will be.

And you dodged my counterexample
The point is this: "the son of that woman" cannot be anything other than the temporary husband of "this woman." (He cannot morph into something else.)

You are proposing the human Christ, the man of flesh, morph into "transcendant God" even as he came "according to the flesh."

He may have come from God, but that's the most he said, apart from that he was one with God, the Father. So in action, God works through Christ, but that doesn't mean to say he is God himself, which is what your Rom 9:5 says.

The same reasoning is true if the appositive is a clause instead of a prepositional phrase. "The husband of this woman is temporarily this man who graduated ten years ago." None of your reasoning holds water. Your goose is still cooked.
On the contrary, my Jesus could die and be resurrected but your Jesus, being a godman, can't die at all. In fact your godman never existed. Θεανθρώπος
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Θεανθρώπου isn't Koine for a start. (theánthropos = godman = modern Greek).
Well, for once you are correct. That is not the source I intended to quote. I copied and pasted the wrong search result. This is the link for the text I intended to quote, but it doesn't matter if I misunderstood you as you seem to indicate below. https://books.google.com/books?id=B...EAM#v=onepage&q="τὸ κατὰ σάρκα πάθος"&f=false


Ἡ σφαγὴ προεφανέρωνε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα πάθος τοῦ Θεανθρώπου
Translates to
"The slaughter showed the "according to the flesh" passion of the Godman"

i.e. "The slaughter showed the passion of the Godman according to the flesh.

So what? Just rearranging Greek words is an irrelevance.
If you aren't claiming that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα will always mark the end of a clause it is irrelevant.
That's what you are proposing, by positing the 2nd attributive for ὁ ὢν
A second attributive does not mean that one clause continues into another. That is an error in your thinking that you are attributing to me.
True an adverb doesn't modify a noun directly,
Well, at least you've got this part right.
but it can indirectly through e.g. an equative verb, which is what we have with τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
I'll deal with this below.
Then you want to make this "Christ according to the flesh" above all. Well we know he isn't a godman, but a human being.

That's the whole problem: you guys embrace the "godman" conception of Christ, which is inevitable from your Rom 9:5. That's the theology you have subscribed to, in your Trinitarian Rom 9:5; but Θεανθρώπος isn't in the bible and never will be.
I'm not supporting any view. I am just setting the record straight on your false assertions.
The point is this: "the son of that woman" cannot be anything other than the temporary husband of "this woman." (He cannot morph into something else.)
No, the point was that even though "this man" is temporarily "the husband of this woman" it does not mean that he is also temporarily the "son of that woman." That adverbial sense doesn't carry over to the additional modifier of "this man."

How this applies to Romans 9 is that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα it isn't modifying Χριστὸς. If ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς is modifying Χριστὸς, and there is no reason why it cannot, it would mean that whatever the Christ is God over all regardless of how τὸ κατὰ σάρκα relates to the verb.

Look at them side by side and see if it clicks.
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
The husband of this woman is temporarily this man, the son of that woman.

And don't claim you haven't made this argument, because it is exactly what you did here:
The Trinitarian appraisal is that unqualified, unmodified, ὁ Χριστὸς can carry on being referenced outside of the clause, because τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is "adverbial."

This argument is too subtle. Consider the following:


So ὁ Χριστὸς modified by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα cannot become unqualified.
 

brianrw

Member
May be they relaxed the rules for the sake of expediency.
But as I said, there's no rule that forbids this. And if they did so for the "sake of expediency," then where were their adversaries to say they were breaking the grammar? And why is it that no less than six emendations were proposed by those who held a presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." This is not just a slight problem for your argument. It is in fact quite damning. Even Ehrman, an agnostic who previously held that position, has since reversed it admitting that the reasoning was "circular."

What sect is that? I own neither Arians nor Socinians.
Unitarian, which is TRJM. You should watch the person quoting, because I usually quote multiple people you should check who I am addressing in the quote. I sometimes remember to address on the shift, but more often than not I forget. But you think I'm speaking to you often when I'm not. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As a protestant, I know which category of theology the 2 Thess 2:4 antichrist is associated with.
What a foolish thing, to set scripture against scripture as though to say we do not worship Christ, but Antichrist.

You haven't effectively made your case. If the scriptures did not plainly call Christ, "God," and "equal" with God, and Christ had not said he had been granted all power in heaven and earth, then we certainly would not adore him as such. But since the scriptures do call Christ "God," and Christ Himself says, "All power [πᾶσα ἐξουσία] is given to me in heaven and earth," we are certainly not so foolish as to believe the Father who gave this authority has now made Himself subject to it, or that the Father himself should be counted among all things created by him.

Translating the passages the way they should be should precedes exegetical interpretation. Otherwise, you are allowing eisegesis under the pretext of exegesis.

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.
There's no difficulty to "get around" whatsoever, nor is it an "obvious synthesis of Greek and English." It's actually taking proper Greek into proper English: in ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ἐξ ὧν adverbially; ὁ ὢν modifies ὁ Χριστὸς and serves as a predicator of ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. This is a perfectly good translation from the Greek.

No. Emending the text by adding a period after σάρκα and translating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as "God who is over all" or "God over all" (treating ὢν as otiose) is getting around the difficulty, since θεὸς is not a subject but a predicate of ὁ ὢν. When ὁ ὢν is taken substantively it is usually generic ("he who" in a general sense), not particular. So more properly, "He who is over all, God, be blessed," and even that just disguises the difficulty presented by the participle in the Greek and the general departure from the normal expression of a Hebrew doxology.

As for what reading is difficult, and what reading is not, you've stood this discussion on its head.

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), ...
https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/monro/κατά
Great. More misplaced rules. Are we going to deal with koine Greek or Homeric Greek? Or should it be classical Greek? You and TRJM are all over the map. Yes, I am well aware that the meaning of a preposition can differ depending upon case.

In koine and Attic Greek κατά with the accusative most certainly does have the meaning "according to, in conformity with," and it can indeed be used adverbially. Why don't you consult something more relevant to the topic as an Attic grammar (which deals with this in more detail than your typical biblical grammar), where you can have your error here rectified. (see Remark 2 at the bottom of the page and note the examples).

What a pain.

I'm afraid not. The antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα is clearly and unambiguously stated by apostle Paul in the first chapter of Romans (1:4) as being κατὰ πνεῦμα. You have to understand that in the bible the antithesis follows the grammatical construct of the thesis, in other words if the thesis is made up of a preposition + a noun (eg. κατὰ σάρκα) then the antithesis has the same sort of grammar (eg. κατὰ πνεῦμα). Take for instance another example, ἐκ τῶν κάτω vs ἐκ τῶν ἄνω in John 8:23. Or another very simple one from John 1:5 τὸ φῶς vs ἡ σκοτία, etc.
At this point you are just bloviating. I'm interested in the context of Romans 9:5. Not the context of Romans 1:4 applied to the context of Romans 9:5. That would be the fallacy of contextomy. In all three of these you are dealing with stated, not implied, antitheses. But somehow in Romans 9:5 you say the obvious antithesis should be ignored for on implied? These examples support my position far better than yours.

It's amazing how badly you both are doubling down, your arguments are simply off the wall at this point with no end to the rule making in sight.

Yeah, they both like to argue against a strawman caricature of their opponent's position, which is not profitable for learning, and "a waste of time."
You can distance yourself from past comments all you want, but I am most certainly not arguing against a "strawman caricature" of your position. I think you just don't realize how bad your own position is.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
You are proposing the human Christ, the man of flesh, morph into "transcendant God" even as he came "according to the flesh."
I don't believe anyone here is contending for that. Let's just take a quick look at some scriptures and see how you've stood everything on its head:
  1. Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (John 8:58).

  2. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος . . . πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν . . . Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας (John 1:1)

  3. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων δι᾽ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας (a metonym for the worlds, the universe)· ἐποίησεν ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ . . . (Hebrews 1:2, 3)

  4. ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ . . . ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν (Colossians 1:13, 15-17)

  5. διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ (John 5:18)

  6. ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (Philippians 2:6)
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
continued from previous post

  1. (7) ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς (Colossians 2:9)

  2. (8) ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον (John 6:62)

  3. (9) καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί (John 17:5)

  4. (10) ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (John 10:30)

  5. (11) μὴ φοβοῦ ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος καὶ ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (Revelation 1:18, 19 Cf., Isaiah 48:12-17)
For this very reason, Paul qualifies Christ as having descended from the Israelites τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

True an adverb doesn't modify a noun directly, but it can indirectly through e.g. an equative verb, which is what we have with τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
Just admit you were wrong and let's move on. Also, the verb is implied and "equative" is not your only option.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
At this point you are just bloviating. I'm interested in the context of Romans 9:5. Not the context of Romans 1:4 applied to the context of Romans 9:5. That would be the fallacy of contextomy. In all three of these you are dealing with stated, not implied, antitheses. But somehow in Romans 9:5 you say the obvious antithesis should be ignored for on implied? These examples support my position far better than yours.

Whether the antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα is explicitly stated or just implied, it is always κατὰ πνεῦμα. Take a look at the following where κατὰ πνεῦμα is implied….

δέομαι δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι τῇ πεποιθήσει ᾗ λογίζομαι τολμῆσαι ἐπί τινας τοὺς λογιζομένους ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας.

2 Cor. 10:2
 

cjab

Well-known member
I don't believe anyone here is contending for that. Let's just take a quick look at some scriptures and see how you've stood everything on its head:
  1. Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (John 8:58).

  2. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος . . . πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν . . . Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας (John 1:1)

  3. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων δι᾽ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας (a metonym for the worlds, the universe)· ἐποίησεν ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ . . . (Hebrews 1:2, 3)

  4. ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ . . . ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν (Colossians 1:13, 15-17)

  5. διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ (John 5:18)

  6. ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (Philippians 2:6)
continued from previous post

  1. (7) ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς (Colossians 2:9)

  2. (8) ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον (John 6:62)

  3. (9) καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί (John 17:5)

  4. (10) ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (John 10:30)

  5. (11) μὴ φοβοῦ ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος καὶ ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (Revelation 1:18, 19 Cf., Isaiah 48:12-17)

ὁ Λόγος !== ὁ Θεὸς

Nothing can justify your eternal attempt to confound ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ with ὁ Θεὸς, or ὁ Λόγος with ὁ Θεὸς,

It is the Trinitarian fable that ὁ Λόγος is Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ
when Christ himself said in John 17:3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

All we can say of the constitution of the Logos, as with Paul, is ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ.
For this very reason, Paul qualifies Christ as having descended from the Israelites τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
Such adds nothing to the flesh not connoting spirit, and the Christ of flesh descended from the Israelites not being the referent of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
For this very reason, Paul qualifies Christ as having descended from the Israelites τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
Then the antithesis of this (bold above) would have been that Christ was not descended from the Israelites τὸ κατὰ πνεῦμα instead of that Christ is ὁ θεός . Also the participle phrase in the second attributive position does not provide the antithesis of its head noun but describes it.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.

Do you have the quote handy?

And I have this quote on a similar topic, where Eusebius seems to be disturbed with how the heavenly witnesses verse (which was likely in some manuscripts, but not others) is too Sabellian.

AD 336 - Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius In his Ecclesiastical Theology contra the Sabellian opinions of Marcellus:
"[To say] that the Father is the same as the Word inside him, and that his Son is the Word inside him is the mark of the heresy of Sabellius. So again also the saying that the Three are One, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for this is also of Sabellius."
Eusebius of Caesarea, De Ecclesiastica Theologia 3.3-3.4 (PG 24:1001-1004c).

Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) theorized that Eusebius made sure that the heavenly witnesses verse was not in the 50 Bibles prepared for Constantine.
 

cjab

Well-known member
n
But as I said, there's no rule that forbids this. And if they did so for the "sake of expediency," then where were their adversaries to say they were breaking the grammar? And why is it that no less than six emendations were proposed by those who held a presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." This is not just a slight problem for your argument. It is in fact quite damning. Even Ehrman, an agnostic who previously held that position, has since reversed it admitting that the reasoning was "circular."
I don't know what you're talking about here. There may not be any rule forbidding it, but there is no precedent for it; which means it is a very dangerous precedent indeed, especially where it makes Paul out to say something he never said elsewhere.

Unitarian, which is TRJM. You should watch the person quoting, because I usually quote multiple people you should check who I am addressing in the quote. I sometimes remember to address on the shift, but more often than not I forget. But you think I'm speaking to you often when I'm not. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

What a foolish thing, to set scripture against scripture as though to say we do not worship Christ, but Antichrist.
I didn't say it of you so stop pretending that I did.

I was referring to the theology of antichrist, which as history has shown over and again, involves the synthesis of new gods of flesh from the older God of spirit, which is then usurped. This is why neither Christ nor the apostles usurp the Father's rightful preeminence and titles.

You haven't effectively made your case. If the scriptures did not plainly call Christ, "God," and "equal" with God, and Christ had not said he had been granted all power in heaven and earth, then we certainly would not adore him as such. But since the scriptures do call Christ "God," and Christ Himself says, "All power [πᾶσα ἐξουσία] is given to me in heaven and earth," we are certainly not so foolish as to believe the Father who gave this authority has now made Himself subject to it, or that the Father himself should be counted among all things created by him.

Translating the passages the way they should be should precedes exegetical interpretation. Otherwise, you are allowing eisegesis under the pretext of exegesis.
There's no difficulty to "get around" whatsoever, nor is it an "obvious synthesis of Greek and English." It's actually taking proper Greek into proper English: in ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ἐξ ὧν adverbially; ὁ ὢν modifies ὁ Χριστὸς and serves as a predicator of ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. This is a perfectly good translation from the Greek.
No it isn't a perfectly good translation from the Greek because as I said before, ὁ Χριστὸς is also caught intractably by the whole context in which it appears, as being from the Israelites, and as grammatically modified by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

Hence ὁ Χριστὸς is completely unsuitable as a referent to what follows, which has no relation to the Israelites or to the flesh.


No. Emending the text by adding a period after σάρκα and translating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as "God who is over all" or "God over all" (treating ὢν as otiose) is getting around the difficulty, since θεὸς is not a subject but a predicate of ὁ ὢν. When ὁ ὢν is taken substantively it is usually generic ("he who" in a general sense), not particular. So more properly, "He who is over all, God, be blessed," and even that just disguises the difficulty presented by the participle in the Greek and the general departure from the normal expression of a Hebrew doxology.

As for what reading is difficult, and what reading is not, you've stood this discussion on its head.


Great. More misplaced rules. Are we going to deal with koine Greek or Homeric Greek? Or should it be classical Greek? You and TRJM are all over the map. Yes, I am well aware that the meaning of a preposition can differ depending upon case.

In koine and Attic Greek κατά with the accusative most certainly does have the meaning "according to, in conformity with," and it can indeed be used adverbially. Why don't you consult something more relevant to the topic as an Attic grammar (which deals with this in more detail than your typical biblical grammar), where you can have your error here rectified. (see Remark 2 at the bottom of the page and note the examples).

What a pain.
It is you who are playing at contextomy by inferring that ὁ ὢν can conveniently ignore the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifier, and indeed the whole context to ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς.... which is the blessings on Israel, which are then contrasted with the blessed God himself (ὁ θεὸς not anarthrous θεὸς).

I think you just don't realize how bad your own position is.
We have the world's ablest scholars on our side. You need to check out Eusebius's last writings on Marcellus and his Ecclesiastical Theology for a better perspective on Eusebius.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
No it isn't a perfectly good translation from the Greek because as I said before, ὁ Χριστὸς is also caught intractably by the whole context in which it appears, as being from the Israelites, and as grammatically modified by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

Hence ὁ Χριστὸς is completely unsuitable as a referent to what follows, which has no relation to the Israelites or to the flesh.
This claim has been debunked.
ὁ ὢν can conveniently ignore the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifier, and indeed the whole context to ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς....
This is a unremarkable feature of the grammar. That you think otherwise proves you know no Greek. Why not try to defend the claims you've made, rather than simply run off to another poster to repeat what you already know you can't defend?
 

cjab

Well-known member
This claim has been debunked.

This is a unremarkable feature of the grammar. That you think otherwise proves you know no Greek. Why not try to defend the claims you've made, rather than simply run off to another poster to repeat what you already know you can't defend?
Ad hominem from start to finish
 

John Milton

Well-known member
More ad hominem from the master of ad hominem.
Why do you say that?
This claim has been debunked.
This is true. The fact that every grammar you can find recognizes the option you deny as valid verifies this. There was no attack here.
This is a unremarkable feature of the grammar.
Same as above.
That you think otherwise proves you know no Greek.
This is hyperbole but still not an attack. You haven't demonstrated an awareness of Greek. For instance, you are still insisting that ὁ Χριστὸς is grammatically modified by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. This most likely shows that either you don't know Greek (the nice option) or are lying or are so confused that you are believing something that is untrue.
Why not try to defend the claims you've made,
You ended your efforts to defend your claim, so this is an allusion to another fact.
rather than simply run off to another poster to repeat what you already know you can't defend?
and you did repeat a claim that you know you can't defend (you know this because every grammar admits the rendering you deny).

All of this justifies my last claim: you don't know what an ad hominem is.
 
Top