Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
That source was used to show that κατὰ σάρκα doesn't mark the end of a clause. You said that wasn't your position, so it doesn't matter. We've been over this.

Why aren't you addressing the matter we were discussing?
Not quite sure what your problem is. Barring arbitrary Greek word order, It does end a sub clause of the sentence relating to the monogenes.

Clause 1: Εί δέ άποφέρουσί τίνες τού Μονογενούς, ώς άκαλλές, καί άνάρμοστον, καί άπεοικδς αύτώ τδ κατά σάρκα πάθος,

Clause 2: άναιρείτωσαν δμοίως αύτού, καί τήν έκ τής άγίας Παρθένου κατά σάρκα γέννησιν.

What exactly is your problem?
 

cjab

Well-known member
First, notice that Noetus and Hippolytus in the 200s are giving in translation exactly the words of the Authorized Version.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

Now this text is NOT an apposition Christ=God text.

Hippolytus tries to play both sides, having Christ is God for ever but then going:



This might be the earliest text where the word God is used for two totally different purposes, against the sensible use of language.
I must admit, I find Hippolytus as contradictory as the AV. This is why I qualified my approval of Hippolytus as limited by his own contradictory Trinitarian dogma that was the staple diet of his era, which self-same contradictions are manifested by the AV.

This is the (multi-fold) contradiction: Hyppolytus notes correctly: “All things are delivered unto me of my Father" which in his view perhaps qualifies Christ as Almighty God (i.e. God over all).

This is clearly not right: it is only Matt 28:18 which qualifies Christ as Almighty.

And yet, in Rom 9:5, Christ is over all, God blessed, even from birth, before anything had been delivered (as Hippolytus correctly notes, and as per my own interpretation of what Trinitarians must be willing to read into their rendering of Rom 9:5 or else be subject to a charge of contextomy).

The context of Rom 9:5, i.e. the generation of Christ the man, being a blessing on Israel, is not the context of “All things are delivered unto me of my Father", which is Jesus' ministry, and even less the context, of "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" post resurrection (Matt 28:18).

At what point did Jesus become "over all" (men & powers and authorities)? Rom 9:5 remains a contextual and grammatical anachronism, even if your Trinitarian rendition were correct. You must offer us endless apologies for its imprecision and confusion.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
Not quite sure what your problem is. Barring arbitrary Greek word order, It does end a sub clause of the sentence relating to the monogenes.
Clause 1: Εί δέ άποφέρουσί τίνες τού Μονογενούς, ώς άκαλλές, καί άνάρμοστον, καί άπεοικδς αύτώ τδ κατά σάρκα πάθος,

Clause 2: άναιρείτωσαν δμοίως αύτού, καί τήν έκ τής άγίας Παρθένου κατά σάρκα γέννησιν.

What exactly is your problem?
What is my problem? 😂🤣😂 You are the one trying to qualify your earlier position even though I told you in the post you quoted it doesn't matter. It amuses me that you are willing to make a fool of yourself for no reason. I also know why you won't address this post...
And as I just pointed out, you do not know what the "subject" is. You keep referring to ὁ Χριστὸς as the subject!

I dispatched your assertion that it is "caught intractably by the whole context in which it appears" below, and you've yet to respond it.

This disproves your assertion here:

You are attributing to the adverb phrase the commonality that the terms "the husband of this woman" and "this man" and "the son of that woman" share because they are different descriptors of the same referent.

See if you have a problem with the following snippet. If you do, please share your reasoning. It would be informative:
ἐξ ὧν ὁ Ἰούδας τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων προδότης κατάρατος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν


My point has been all along that you are assuming that "according to the flesh" means "in the flesh" or some such. Your assumption may not be true, and you haven't made a case for why you think it must be.

I didn't call you a liar to my knowledge. Is your accusation an ad hominem?

I've not been discussing theology here. You are the only one of us who keeps bringing it up. I have been discussing the biblical language as a biblical language while criticizing your unwillingness to do the same.

This is what it boils down to: you don't have a grammatical reason to forbid the possibility you don't like and you reject it for theological reasons.

And if I noted that Samuel was once in the flesh but seems now to be a spirit, would you be able to think of a few more possibilities or is that hoping for too much?
You can't.
 

cjab

Well-known member
What is my problem? 😂🤣😂 You are the one trying to qualify your earlier position even though I told you in the post you quoted it doesn't matter. It amuses me that you are willing to make a fool of yourself for no reason. I also know why you won't address this post...
I'm not "trying to qualify your earlier position".

I'm asking you what point you're trying to make quoting all these clauses, which only reinforce everything I've said.

Obviously you're no longer sure.
 

cjab

Well-known member
And as I just pointed out, you do not know what the "subject" is. You keep referring to ὁ Χριστὸς as the subject!
Whether referent or subject depends on what perspective of your Trinitarian clause you are inferring: certainly the subject of your Trinitarian "blessed for ever" clause is Christ.

ἐξ ὧν ὁ Ἰούδας τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων προδότης κατάρατος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν
Sounds sinster

My point has been all along that you are assuming that "according to the flesh" means "in the flesh" or some such. Your assumption may not be true, and you haven't made a case for why you think it must be.

If I recall, my original and essential points from way back were that (a) "according to the flesh" was a something of a pleonasm, because "The Jews ... from whom the Christ" could only infer "in the flesh", also because "the Christ" is axiomatically a man of flesh, (b) that the neuter article introduced a conceptual element to "according to the flesh" (like human descent), although it can also be taken as adverbial, with a similar inference.

Then (c) that Christ himself was never primary the topic here, but the blessings of the Jews, as to whom the human descent of Christ is but one.

So it is very very strange to decontextualize this specific and very limited reference to the human descent of Christ, which must infer the human element, and start stating that Christ is God, as if to change the entire topic of the sentence, mid sentence.

I am not saying your grammar is "technically" impossible (I am not nearly qualified enought to do that).

I'm just saying your grammar is bad - even in English.

"Theirs is the human descent of Christ, who is over all, God."

Unless you're willing to entertain the preconception that baby Jesus in the manger is "God over all", which is what you Catholics believe in anyway, you just wouldn't credit anyone saying it.

Samuel isn't relevant. What you're clearly implying by your Rom 9:5 translation is that baby Jesus was God, even as a fetus, because of the context in which your reference to God occurs.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I'm not "trying to qualify your earlier position".
The "your" in this quote is cjab. You (cjab) were qualifying your (cjab's) earlier position.
I'm asking you what point you're trying to make quoting all these clauses, which only reinforce everything I've said.

Obviously you're no longer sure.
I don't think I quoted the first passage at all. And the instance I meant to cite in your second example occurred just prior to the one you've given here.
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.
If I misunderstood you that is also your fault, because you never clarified what you meant by "prepositional clause" when I asked you.
And what IS a prepositional clause?
I stopped pursuing all of your errors because you implied that I misunderstood you in post I was quoting below.
If you aren't claiming that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα will always mark the end of a clause it is irrelevant.
If you are having this much trouble remembering what's been said, you really should see someone.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Whether referent or subject depends on what perspective of your Trinitarian clause you are inferring: certainly the subject of your Trinitarian "blessed for ever" clause is Christ.
Well, that is the option you say is grammatically impossible, so that's kinda the point...
Sounds sinster
But you aren't saying that it is grammatically incorrect, now are you?
If I recall, my original and essential points from way back were that (a) "according to the flesh" was a something of a pleonasm, because "The Jews ... from whom the Christ" could only infer "in the flesh", also because "the Christ" is axiomatically a man of flesh,
Nope. If we changed the sentence to "according to the spirit" it wouldn't suddenly made Judas a spirit. If it doesn't work both ways, it simply doesn't work.
(b) that the neuter article introduced a conceptual element to "according to the flesh" (like human descent), although it can also be taken as adverbial, with a similar inference.
Either way you take it, it refers to "from whom."
Then (c) that Christ himself was never primary the topic here, but the blessings of the Jews, as to whom the human descent of Christ is but one.
"From whom" modifies "Israelites" not blessings.
So it is very very strange to decontextualize this specific and very limited reference to the human descent of Christ, which must infer the human element, and start stating that Christ is God, as if to change the entire topic of the sentence, mid sentence.
It says he came from the Israelites, but it doesn't say what he is one way or the other. It implies that there is something about his being "from Israelites" but it doesn't specify what that is.
I am not saying your grammar is "technically" impossible (I am not nearly qualified enought to do that).

I'm just saying your grammar is bad - even in English.
It's not. Every grammar recognizes it as a valid possibility. It is sheer stupidity for you to argue that it is bad grammar.
"Theirs is the human descent of Christ, who is over all, God."
"Theirs is the human descent of Christ according to the flesh..." This is the part we were discussing and the omission of "according to the flesh" demonstrates that you still don't understand.
Unless you're willing to entertain the preconception that baby Jesus in the manger is "God over all", which is what you Catholics believe in anyway, you just wouldn't credit anyone saying it.
If Jesus was not a human being at the time that Romans was written, then the possibility is open that he was "God over all" at that time even if he had been a human earlier (And again the phrase "the according to the flesh" doesn't identify what Jesus was it modifies his being "from the Israelites".) Any disagreement with this statement is a theological disagreement and not a grammatical one as I have already said earlier.
Samuel isn't relevant. What you're clearly implying by your Rom 9:5 translation is that baby Jesus was God, even as a fetus, because of the context in which your reference to God occurs.
After reading this, hopefully you understand where you've gone off the rails. You won't, though.
 

brianrw

Member
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.
John 1:1, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. The article distinguishes between subject and predicate. It's no fable, and that interpretation is consistent from the earliest of times, well before Nicea. You'll have quite an uphill battle against this one.

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).
This one's not even worth responding to. Nothing is being ignored, since τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ἐξ ὧν. Your argument is basically incoherent on this matter.

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.
So, despite your objection in the first sentence, you proceed to show my inference was essentially correct. If you had stated what you were trying to say clearly, rather than implying it, I could have nuanced my response. As shown in the scriptures above, there was no "synthesis of new gods of flesh from older God of spirit which is then usurped." No one here is contending for this sort of theology, and the scriptures above (which you failed to address) clearly and unambiguously state that Christ was no mere man. This is the third time, now, you've made this charge against us and simply repeating it doesn't make it true. Trinitarians don't believe Christ was a mere man who became God. We believe that Christ became flesh and dwelt among us.

You are making many absolute statements, but the scriptures noted before disagree with your position. You accuse others of being theologically biased, it seems you still have a need to look inward, since your theology is driving everything you say to misrepresent both the Greek construction and the fathers. Your argument here is theologically driven.

We have the world's ablest scholars on our side.
This is a huge overstatement. You have scholars that will say, "ancient manuscripts rarely contain punctuation, so the translation depends on whether you add a period or not," and the only reason for adding a period in this sort of construction is the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." Adding a period has nothing to do with the actual grammar, and in fact the grammar does not suggest a period should be added. On that note, I have the manuscripts, versions, fathers, the consensus of the NA/UBS committees as well as the vast majority of English translations on my side. In other words, your position requires an emendation of the text, and apparently one most aren't willing to make.

You need to check out Eusebius's last writings on Marcellus and his Ecclesiastical Theology for a better perspective on Eusebius.
I'm familiar with Eusebius, since I've read his works. Maybe you are not as familiar with him as you seem to indicate. Or perhaps you don't have a clear distinction between the modified Sabellianism of Marcellus and Trinitarianism. For example:

...then at length, at the fitting time, the perfect and heavenly teacher of perfect and heavenly thoughts and teaching, the leader to the (b) true knowledge of God, God the Word, revealed Himself, at the time announced for His Incarnation, preaching the Gospel of the Father's love, the same for all nations, whether Greeks or Barbarians, to every race of men, moving all to a common salvation in God, promising the truth and light of true religion, the kingdom of Heaven, and eternal life to all.
...all the angels of heaven, and the ministering spirits, and the divine powers, and on earth the apostles and evangelists, and after them those of all nations who through Him are enrolled under the one and only true God and Father, have learned that Christ is God the Word, and have consented to worship Him as God.
...But as it was necessary for the mysteries of both His Birth and Death to be included in the prophecy concerning Him, Jacob rightly proceeds to add to what has gone before:
"Judah is a lion's whelp. From a seed, my son, thou hast ascended, falling down thou hast slept as a lion and a lion's whelp: who shall arouse thee?"
He calls Him then a lion's whelp because of His being born of the royal tribe. For He was of the seed of (b) David according to the flesh. "From a shoot thou hast grown, my son," he says, because He was born of the seed and root of Jacob who foretold it, being primarily God the Word, and becoming secondarily the Son of man, through the dispensation He undertook for us. (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book 8)​

In his Ecclesiastical History (1.3.7):

"For they also bore in their own persons types of the royal and sovereign power of the true and only Christ, the divine Word who rules over all (τοῦ κατὰ πάντων βασιλεύοντος θείου λόγου)."

And in his Oration of Constantine:

In accordance, therefore, with the soundest reason, we may say that there is one Being whose care and providence are over all things, even God the Word, who has ordered all things; but the Word being God himself is also the Son of God. For by what name can we designate him except by this title of the Son, without falling into the most grievous error? (Oration, 9)​

Additionally, in his Oration in Praise of Constantine:

Lastly, he who is in all, before, and after all, his only begotten, pre-existent Word, the great High Priest of the mighty God, elder than all time and every age, devoted to his Father's glory, first and alone makes intercession with him for the salvation of mankind. Supreme and pre-eminent Ruler of the universe, he shares the glory of his Father's kingdom: for he is that Light, which, transcendent above the universe, encircles the Father's Person, interposing and dividing between the eternal and uncreated Essence and all derived existence: that Light which, streaming from on high, proceeds from that Deity who knows not origin or end, and illumines the super-celestial regions, and all that heaven itself contains, with the radiance of wisdom bright beyond the splendor of the sun. This is he who holds a supreme dominion over this whole world, who is over and in all things, and pervades all things visible and invisible; the Word of God. From whom and by whom our divinely favored emperor, receiving, as it were a transcript of the Divine sovereignty, directs, in imitation of God himself, the administration of this world's affairs. (1.6)​

So it is clear from his writings that Eusebius does refer to Christ as "God," "God the Word," and "over all," and does not regard "over all" as being also over the Father, but that this rule proceeds from the Father.

How long do I need to go about this, before you acknowledge you've been misrepresenting Eusebius, as you also misrepresented Irenaeus?

No one here is suggesting that "over all" (i.e., "over all things," neuter) suggests that Christ reigns also over the Father, any more than Christ himself saying, "All power has been given to me (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία) in heaven and earth" means power also over the Father. Those who would assert otherwise here or in Romans 9:5 are simply arriving at that conclusion through the fallacy of accent.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Hippolytus
6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” [Romans 9:5]. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.

By placing the words in that order, it looks like Hippolytus understands the text as "God blessed (is Christ)" which is the natural reading of the AV. This is based on the English above properly reflecting the Greek text.
 

cjab

Well-known member
By placing the words in that order, it looks like Hippolytus understands the text as "God blessed (is Christ)" which is the natural reading of the AV. This is based on the English above properly reflecting the Greek text.
God is a noun in Greek. The adjective God-blessed isn't made out in the AV. I suggest that you're merely alluding to the English translation here. The Greek rendering would obviously follow Rom 9:5 exactly and it's up to the translator how he translates it: in this case the translation is clearly defective.

What's interesting here is that Hippolytus just quotes ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς on its own, so ὁ ὢν is a substantive and ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is in the first attributive position, between ὁ and Θεὸς; which is a clear allusion to the Father.

The true English rendering would be "[the] God who is over all blessed has been born." or "[the] blessed God who is over all has been born."

Since ὁ Θεὸς is the Father in Greek, what Hippolytus is really saying here is "the Father has been born."

That's right: [the] GOD (i.e. the FATHER) HAS BEEN BORN is what Hippolytus is REALLY saying here.

So much for disproving Sabellianism! (This is the charge that all Chalcedon type Trins face.)
 

cjab

Well-known member
Well, that is the option you say is grammatically impossible, so that's kinda the point...

But you aren't saying that it is grammatically incorrect, now are you?
When I mean grammatically incorrect I don't mean in a technical sense only: I also include whether it makes theological sense and conforms to the usual high standard of scripture. What I'm thinking with Koine is that a less well refined Greek was spoken by the uneducated (e.g. per your example) and that the ECFs have contented themselves with seeing scripture as using a second rate Greek here, which for all I know may have constituted acceptable spoken Greek (like allowing English slang into literature). The thing is to ask oneself is, "Is this (i.e. your Trinitarian sense) to the usually high standard of scriptural Greek?" and "is it second-rate Greek?" and "is it Paul's style?"

Well a lot of people say, "It just isn't Paul's style" and that's an observation that you can't refute, given what is written in Rom 1:3 & 4.

Also, I can't see any evidence for a relative here, when Paul uses ὅς ἐστιν habitually for relatives for other than Θεος as referent.

Nope. If we changed the sentence to "according to the spirit" it wouldn't suddenly made Judas a spirit. If it doesn't work both ways, it simply doesn't work.

Either way you take it, it refers to "from whom."

"From whom" modifies "Israelites" not blessings.

It says he came from the Israelites, but it doesn't say what he is one way or the other. It implies that there is something about his being "from Israelites" but it doesn't specify what that is.

It's not. Every grammar recognizes it as a valid possibility. It is sheer stupidity for you to argue that it is bad grammar
It may be stupidity for you to question Catholic orthodoxy, but for me it's bread and butter. No, I just can't see Paul say what you're making him out as saying, in such terms as you have made out. In any case, the evidence is that Paul personally reserves ὁ ὢν for the Father.

"Theirs is the human descent of Christ according to the flesh..." This is the part we were discussing and the omission of "according to the flesh" demonstrates that you still don't understand.
The omission of "according to the flesh" was deliberate as incorporated in human descent.

If Jesus was not a human being at the time that Romans was written, then the possibility is open that he was "God over all" at that time even if he had been a human earlier (And again the phrase "the according to the flesh" doesn't identify what Jesus was it modifies his being "from the Israelites".) Any disagreement with this statement is a theological disagreement and not a grammatical one as I have already said earlier.
I beg to disagree.
After reading this, hopefully you understand where you've gone off the rails. You won't, though.
You're misunderstanding me. I don't infer that Rom 9:5 is categorizing Christ as only flesh, or a naturally created human being.

I'm saying that the "who is" refers to Christ + his contextual baggage, which is the consideration of his natural generation: being the setting in which Christ is introduced and referenced in the Trinitarian sentence that you posit. It must be, because there is no new sentence. That is the whole point of having sentences: if you import a context into a sentence, the context is retained unless deliberately vitiated in the sentence, or by a new sentence.

"Who is" doesn't vitiate the former context: it retains it.

Christ's generation is the contextual baggage you are stuck with: see Hippolytus's own assessment:

"6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” [Romans 9:5]. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” God blessed over all has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.

This guy is echoing my own sentiments 100%.
 

cjab

Well-known member
John 1:1, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. The article distinguishes between subject and predicate. It's no fable, and that interpretation is consistent from the earliest of times, well before Nicea. You'll have quite an uphill battle against this one.
Precisely. The subject of Jn 1:1c isn't θεὸς, but ὁ λόγος and his character. That doesn't mean that ὁ λόγος usurps or morphs into the person of ὁ θεὸς, of Jn 1:1b.

Otherwise we would have a recipe for Sabellianism. Instead we have a basic model for hierarchy in divinity.

This one's not even worth responding to. Nothing is being ignored, since τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ἐξ ὧν. Your argument is basically incoherent on this matter.


So, despite your objection in the first sentence, you proceed to show my inference was essentially correct. If you had stated what you were trying to say clearly, rather than implying it, I could have nuanced my response. As shown in the scriptures above, there was no "synthesis of new gods of flesh from older God of spirit which is then usurped." No one here is contending for this sort of theology, and the scriptures above (which you failed to address) clearly and unambiguously state that Christ was no mere man. This is the third time, now, you've made this charge against us and simply repeating it doesn't make it true.
Christ prophesied of those who would worship according to the flesh. Labelling the human Christ "God" is but the first step along that road. It's why the apostles in their doctrinal teaching don't even take that first step. Christ was under no allusions as to whom worship should be given to:

Jn 4:24 πνεῦμα ὁ θεός καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν

Trinitarians don't believe Christ was a mere man who became God. We believe that Christ became flesh and dwelt among us.
I believe that also but unlike you, I don't believe the ὁ λόγος should be confounded with ὁ θεὸς, the father's title.

You are making many absolute statements, but the scriptures noted before disagree with your position. You accuse others of being theologically biased, it seems you still have a need to look inward, since your theology is driving everything you say to misrepresent both the Greek construction and the fathers. Your argument here is theologically driven.
The problems that Trinitarians have got themselves into revolve around their use of Greek philosophical concepts to model Jewish concepts. I believe some of the ECFs were too immersed in the former to grasp the latter.

This is a huge overstatement. You have scholars that will say, "ancient manuscripts rarely contain punctuation, so the translation depends on whether you add a period or not," and the only reason for adding a period in this sort of construction is the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." Adding a period has nothing to do with the actual grammar, and in fact the grammar does not suggest a period should be added. On that note, I have the manuscripts, versions, fathers, the consensus of the NA/UBS committees as well as the vast majority of English translations on my side. In other words, your position requires an emendation of the text, and apparently one most aren't willing to make.
No. The arguments are all mainly theological and issues of consistency and style, and good grammar, which make it very unlikely that Paul would, as Hippolytus rightly suggests, have made the following inference:

"6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” [Romans 9:5]. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” God blessed over all has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.

I'm familiar with Eusebius, since I've read his works. Maybe you are not as familiar with him as you seem to indicate. Or perhaps you don't have a clear distinction between the modified Sabellianism of Marcellus and Trinitarianism. For example:

...then at length, at the fitting time, the perfect and heavenly teacher of perfect and heavenly thoughts and teaching, the leader to the (b) true knowledge of God, God the Word, revealed Himself, at the time announced for His Incarnation, preaching the Gospel of the Father's love, the same for all nations, whether Greeks or Barbarians, to every race of men, moving all to a common salvation in God, promising the truth and light of true religion, the kingdom of Heaven, and eternal life to all.
...all the angels of heaven, and the ministering spirits, and the divine powers, and on earth the apostles and evangelists, and after them those of all nations who through Him are enrolled under the one and only true God and Father, have learned that Christ is God the Word, and have consented to worship Him as God.
...But as it was necessary for the mysteries of both His Birth and Death to be included in the prophecy concerning Him, Jacob rightly proceeds to add to what has gone before:
"Judah is a lion's whelp. From a seed, my son, thou hast ascended, falling down thou hast slept as a lion and a lion's whelp: who shall arouse thee?"
He calls Him then a lion's whelp because of His being born of the royal tribe. For He was of the seed of (b) David according to the flesh. "From a shoot thou hast grown, my son," he says, because He was born of the seed and root of Jacob who foretold it, being primarily God the Word, and becoming secondarily the Son of man, through the dispensation He undertook for us. (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book 8)​

In his Ecclesiastical History (1.3.7):

"For they also bore in their own persons types of the royal and sovereign power of the true and only Christ, the divine Word who rules over all (τοῦ κατὰ πάντων βασιλεύοντος θείου λόγου)."

And in his Oration of Constantine:

In accordance, therefore, with the soundest reason, we may say that there is one Being whose care and providence are over all things, even God the Word, who has ordered all things; but the Word being God himself is also the Son of God. For by what name can we designate him except by this title of the Son, without falling into the most grievous error? (Oration, 9)​

Additionally, in his Oration in Praise of Constantine:

Lastly, he who is in all, before, and after all, his only begotten, pre-existent Word, the great High Priest of the mighty God, elder than all time and every age, devoted to his Father's glory, first and alone makes intercession with him for the salvation of mankind. Supreme and pre-eminent Ruler of the universe, he shares the glory of his Father's kingdom: for he is that Light, which, transcendent above the universe, encircles the Father's Person, interposing and dividing between the eternal and uncreated Essence and all derived existence: that Light which, streaming from on high, proceeds from that Deity who knows not origin or end, and illumines the super-celestial regions, and all that heaven itself contains, with the radiance of wisdom bright beyond the splendor of the sun. This is he who holds a supreme dominion over this whole world, who is over and in all things, and pervades all things visible and invisible; the Word of God. From whom and by whom our divinely favored emperor, receiving, as it were a transcript of the Divine sovereignty, directs, in imitation of God himself, the administration of this world's affairs. (1.6)​

So it is clear from his writings that Eusebius does refer to Christ as "God," "God the Word," and "over all," and does not regard "over all" as being also over the Father, but that this rule proceeds from the Father.
I'm of course not disputing the Word of God is over all created things. The issue is that the human Christ is the Son of God in scriptural terminology, as he is a man. This principle, which is so rigorously adhered to in the rest of Romans (e.g. Rom 1:4), is subverted by your Rom 9:5. To this detail Eusebius gives more attention in his final works, which are worth studying. Unqualified "God over all" is reserved for the Father.

How long do I need to go about this, before you acknowledge you've been misrepresenting Eusebius, as you also misrepresented Irenaeus?

No one here is suggesting that "over all" (i.e., "over all things," neuter) suggests that Christ reigns also over the Father, any more than Christ himself saying, "All power has been given to me (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία) in heaven and earth" means power also over the Father. Those who would assert otherwise here or in Romans 9:5 are simply arriving at that conclusion through the fallacy of accent.
Again the issue is that "all power" was given to Christ on his resurrection, but taken away from the Word on his human generation: not that he couldn't "move mountains" in his flesh, but that he had to rely on the power of his Father to do so. This is why it is bizarre to see Paul ascribing power "over all things" to Christ in a sentence alluding to his natural generation.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
When I mean grammatically incorrect I don't mean in a technical sense only: I also include whether it makes theological sense and conforms to the usual high standard of scripture.
In other words, you aren't making a grammatical argument. At least you are admitting that now.
What I'm thinking with Koine is that a less well refined Greek was spoken by the uneducated (e.g. per your example) and that the ECFs have contented themselves with seeing scripture as using a second rate Greek here, which for all I know may have constituted acceptable spoken Greek (like allowing English slang into literature). The thing is to ask oneself is, "Is this (i.e. your Trinitarian sense) to the usually high standard of scriptural Greek?" and "is it second-rate Greek?" and "is it Paul's style?"
You can't read Greek, who are you to comment on Greek style? The type of Greek one spoke had no influence on their education. That's a ridiculous thing to assert.
Well a lot of people say, "It just isn't Paul's style" and that's an observation that you can't refute,
What observation are you referencing?
given what is written in Rom 1:3 & 4. Also, I can't see any evidence for a relative here, when Paul uses ὅς ἐστιν habitually for relatives for other than Θεος as referent.
Well, just looking at Romans 1:3, you should immediately notice that in the phrase περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα Paul did not use the relative and even you agree this is not talking about God.
It may be stupidity for you to question Catholic orthodoxy, but for me it's bread and butter.
The writers of the Greek Grammars we are discussing aren't Catholic. "Catholic Orthodoxy" has nothing to do with you arguing with the grammarians.
In any case, the evidence is that Paul personally reserves ὁ ὢν for the Father.
Logical fallacy.
The omission of "according to the flesh" was deliberate as incorporated in human descent.
LOL! The entire point of the phrase "the according to the flesh" was to let the reader know that something about Jesus's descent from the Israelites was not "according to the flesh."
I beg to disagree.
What you are really saying is that you are choosing to be wrong.
You're misunderstanding me. I don't infer that Rom 9:5 is categorizing Christ as only flesh, or a naturally created human being.

I'm saying that the "who is" refers to Christ + his contextual baggage, which is the consideration of his natural generation: being the setting in which Christ is introduced and referenced in the Trinitarian sentence that you posit. It must be, because there is no new sentence. That is the whole point of having sentences: if you import a context into a sentence, the context is retained unless deliberately vitiated in the sentence, or by a new sentence.

"Who is" doesn't vitiate the former context: it retains it.

Christ's generation is the contextual baggage you are stuck with: see Hippolytus's own assessment:

"6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” [Romans 9:5]. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” God blessed over all has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.

This guy is echoing my own sentiments 100%.
You are right on one count; I am not understanding you in this section. The part in bold especially seems to be the exact opposite of your position. Would you please clarify what you mean by this?

cjab said:
I'm saying that the "who is" refers to Christ + his contextual baggage, which is the consideration of his natural generation: being the setting in which Christ is introduced and referenced in the Trinitarian sentence that you posit. It must be, because there is no new sentence.
Could you restate this also? What you are trying to say is unclear.
 

brianrw

Member
Precisely. The subject of Jn 1:1c isn't θεὸς, but ὁ λόγος and his character. That doesn't mean that ὁ λόγος usurps or morphs into the person of ὁ θεὸς, of Jn 1:1b.
I have no idea what this is intended to mean, or what your theology is, or why you keep ignorantly accusing others here of sabellianism while you counter saying Christ is a mere man. I don't care what you believe about Christ. I care about what the scriptures say. And your comments don't pass muster. Very simply, John here is referring to Christ as "God."

There is no "usurping" of the authority of the Father. We do not say that Christ is above the Father, because he isn't. But I'd like you to explain to me how πᾶς in Matthew 28:18 excludes the Father, but πᾶς in Romans 9:5 includes the Father. This seems like a very convenient double standard. And don't just say it's θεὸς, as though that term is never applied to the Son also, because it is. Or that θεὸς is anarthrous, because then you have to contend with all the places where θεὸς, of the Father, is also anarthrous.

Maybe you haven't grasped also the chief contrasts in Philippians 2:5-11, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων vs. ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος and καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος. Or maybe you believe Paul and John had a difference of opinion.

Christ prophesied of those who would worship according to the flesh. Labelling the human Christ "God" is but the first step along that road. It's why the apostles in their doctrinal teaching don't even take that first step. Christ was under no allusions as to whom worship should be given to:

Jn 4:24 πνεῦμα ὁ θεός καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν
καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ - John 5:24
Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί - John 8:58
ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν - John 10:30

So now you confirm what I said originally, but you previously denied. As far as this topic goes, you have yet to assert why Paul would not call Christ "God." The passages I quoted above very much support that Paul's theology was hand in hand with John's, and there is no reason based upon those statements why Paul would not call Christ "God." To the contrary, in Colossians he ascribes the work of creation to the Son, which is very clearly attributed in the Old Testament to God.

In Hebrews 1:10, the author (whom I regard to be Paul, as the earliest tradition holds) writes that the Psalmist says to the Son, "You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands." You're problem here will be the cross reference, since he is not merely quoting Psalm 102:25-27, but has elliptically referenced "And you, LORD" (וְאַתָּה יְהוָה) from 102:12. And in Hebrews 1:8, "but to the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever.'" (πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος). This is a nominative of address involving the articular ὁ θεός, which you seem to make much ado about.

Or maybe you also think "God" is Solomon's throne?

The problems that Trinitarians have got themselves into revolve around their use of Greek philosophical concepts to model Jewish concepts. I believe some of the ECFs were too immersed in the former to grasp the latter.
Except that the Christian concept of the Word very much mirrors that of the Jewish Memrah ("Word") found in the Targums and Jewish literature. That theology is consistently observed in Irenaeus (a student of John's disciple Polycarp) and the earliest Christin writings, particularly in places such as Genesis 1:26 and 19:24 as denoting the Father and Son. You'd like to craft a narrative to the extent above, but in the end it's something you assert but can't support. The poor faithful souls who, you contend to have proclaimed the truth for thousands of years, are nowhere to be found and only the writings of the heretics remain. Very convenient.

My problem is that you and TRJM are just making assertions. They're not backed up in any meaningful ways, and you in particular have in multiple places misrepresented your sources.

I'm not interested in a convoluted theological discussion, which seems now to be a fallback for a flailing argument.
 

cjab

Well-known member
In other words, you aren't making a grammatical argument. At least you are admitting that now.
Certainly I am. Such grammar as you contend for isn't found elsewhere in scripture.

You can't read Greek, who are you to comment on Greek style? The type of Greek one spoke had no influence on their education. That's a ridiculous thing to assert.
In formal speech, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα does heavily qualify the context of a clause, such that what follows it is, empircally at least, but also logically, seen to denote the start of a new sentence, or denote a continuation of a sentence outside of a τὸ κατὰ σάρκα parenthesis, or even a continuation of a sentence upon the premise of the whole sentence being qualified by κατὰ σάρκα: it is interesting that κατὰ σάρκα occurs twice in one sentence, once in each clause, in the cyrillian text you quoted.

The logical fallacy of continuing a κατὰ σάρκα clause outside of its κατὰ σάρκα context is obvious, but which you refuse to concede. By implication κατὰ σάρκα suggests that what follows it (allowing for irregularities in Greek word order), should denote what I have inferred above, i.e. the continuation of a sentence outside of a τὸ κατὰ σάρκα parenthesis, or a new sentence.

What observation are you referencing?
The whole Trinitarian conception of Rom 9:5.

Well, just looking at Romans 1:3, you should immediately notice that in the phrase περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα Paul did not use the relative and even you agree this is not talking about God.
τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ isn't qualified directly by κατὰ σάρκα, so Rom 1:3 cannot serve as a precedent for Rom 9:5.

The writers of the Greek Grammars we are discussing aren't Catholic. "Catholic Orthodoxy" has nothing to do with you arguing with the grammarians.
The conservative grammarian position is heavily influenced by the ECFs who are in the main chalcedonian, athanasian or cyrillian Catholics.

Logical fallacy.

LOL! The entire point of the phrase "the according to the flesh" was to let the reader know that something about Jesus's descent from the Israelites was not "according to the flesh."
We already know that from Rom 1:4. What you're not getting here is that Paul isn't repeating the Rom 1:3,4 argument. He's got better things to do. Here he's talking about the blessings on Israel: ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα being a necessary item in the agenda of Israel's blessings, and it is "blessings" that are the topic, not ὁ Χριστὸς.

What you are really saying is that you are choosing to be wrong.

You are right on one count; I am not understanding you in this section. The part in bold especially seems to be the exact opposite of your position. Would you please clarify what you mean by this?
I acknowledge Hippolytus echoes the opposite of my position, but in which he shows the inevitable inference of your position, which you don't appear to grasp.

Could you restate this also? What you are trying to say is unclear.
You are inferring Christ was "God" from conception and birth by your Trinitarian Rom 9:5. Christ however only acknowledged himself as King from birth, not God over all.

Mar 15:2

And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
Certainly I am. Such grammar as you contend for isn't found elsewhere in scripture.
The is nothing remarkable about the grammar of Romans 9:5.
In formal speech, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα does heavily qualify the context of a clause, such that what follows it is, empircally at least, but also logically, seen to denote the start of a new sentence, or denote a continuation of a sentence outside of a τὸ κατὰ σάρκα parenthesis, or even a continuation of a sentence upon the premise of the whole sentence being qualified by κατὰ σάρκα: it is interesting that κατὰ σάρκα occurs twice in one sentence, once in each clause, in the cyrillian text you quoted.

The logical fallacy of continuing a κατὰ σάρκα clause outside of its κατὰ σάρκα context is obvious, but which you refuse to concede. By implication κατὰ σάρκα suggests that what follows it (allowing for irregularities in Greek word order), should denote what I have inferred above, i.e. the continuation of a sentence outside of a τὸ κατὰ σάρκα parenthesis, or a new sentence.
All three points of your points are all debunked by Romans 1:1-7.
Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
1) Looking at the sentence, it is clear that none of the κατά phrases cause "a continuation of a sentence upon the premise of the whole sentence being qualified by κατὰ σάρκα." This is one sentence, and Jesus Christ being from the seed of David according to the flesh (to pick one example) is not qualifying the clauses that follow it.
2) There is no κατά parenthesis.
3) κατά does not mark the start of a new sentence.
κατά isn't doing any of the three things here that you say it must do. That makes you wrong.
The whole Trinitarian conception of Rom 9:5.
If it's not grammatical it doesn't matter.
τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ isn't qualified directly by κατὰ σάρκα, so Rom 1:3 cannot serve as a precedent for Rom 9:5.
You didn't mention any qualifications to your statement earlier. You are moving the goal posts now. But you are caught in your own web of silliness. 1) What the κατά phrase modifies is a participial phrase referring to Jesus's descent, the same context as Romans 9:5. 2) You are on record saying that one of three things must happen. The sentence doesn't end after κατά so that can't be it. The κατά is parenthetical so that can't be it. So that means you must believe that the "whole sentence being qualified by κατὰ σάρκα." You are contradicting yourself.
The conservative grammarian position is heavily influenced by the ECFs who are in the main chalcedonian, athanasian or cyrillian Catholics.
What a joke.
We already know that from Rom 1:4. What you're not getting here is that Paul isn't repeating the Rom 1:3,4 argument. He's got better things to do. Here he's talking about the blessings on Israel: ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα being a necessary item in the agenda of Israel's blessings, and it is "blessings" that are the topic, not ὁ Χριστὸς.
No. It is as I said. People repeat things that are important all the time. If it is important enough to qualify once, it will likely be qualified again.
I acknowledge Hippolytus echoes the opposite of my position, but in which he shows the inevitable inference of your position, which you don't appear to grasp.
It's not an "inevitable inference of [my] position." I've given you several other options. You don't seem to have a very good ability to see the options available.
You are inferring Christ was "God" from conception and birth by your Trinitarian Rom 9:5. Christ however only acknowledged himself as King from birth, not God over all.

Mar 15:2

And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
No. I've specifically said that the text does not make it clear what part of Jesus's descent is not "from the Israelites."

In addition to that, you are confused by fallacious thinking again.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I have no idea what this is intended to mean, or what your theology is, or why you keep ignorantly accusing others here of sabellianism while you counter saying Christ is a mere man. I don't care what you believe about Christ. I care about what the scriptures say. And your comments don't pass muster. Very simply, John here is referring to Christ as "God."
John is refering to the Logos as anarthrous θεός: nothing more, nothing less. That θεός is anarthrous has obvious inferences as to which person o θεός denotes. You have to work out what anarthrous θεός means in this context. It means a "direct" wielder of God's power over creation for a start, but which wasn't possessed by the human Christ, whom had to rely on the Father through the Holy Spirit to exercise God's power.

There is no "usurping" of the authority of the Father.
There is certainly a jurisdictional issue entailed in not distinguishing the Logos in heaven from Christ on earth.

We do not say that Christ is above the Father, because he isn't. But I'd like you to explain to me how πᾶς in Matthew 28:18 excludes the Father, but πᾶς in Romans 9:5 includes the Father.
Easy: Ἐδόθη μοι is used in Matt 28:18 which is missing from Rom 9:5.

This seems like a very convenient double standard. And don't just say it's θεὸς, as though that term is never applied to the Son also, because it is. Or that θεὸς is anarthrous, because then you have to contend with all the places where θεὸς, of the Father, is also anarthrous.
Easy: anarthrous θεός infers the power of the Father being wielded, usually through the Holy Spirit, which is why anarthrous θεὸς, is singularly inapposite to receive blessing.

Maybe you haven't grasped also the chief contrasts in Philippians 2:5-11, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων vs. ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος and καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος. Or maybe you believe Paul and John had a difference of opinion.
The crossing of the jurisdictional boundary between heaven and earth rendered it impossible for the Logos in the flesh to continue to function as did the Logos as anarthrous θεὸς in heaven. To say he functioned as anarthrous θεὸς on earth is really to be misapprized as to the limitation imposed by his humanity. It is why is he deemed King rather that God: King of the kingdom of God in his earthly guise. It's an issue of jurisdiction, but also of power: θεὸς must wield the power of God directly, unless we're talking about the John 10:34,35 sense, which Jesus acknowledged, but which was effectively replaced by the terminology "son of God".

καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ - John 5:24
Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί - John 8:58
ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν - John 10:30
I am not denying unity with the Father via the Holy Spirit, nor continuity with the Father, nor the commitment to Jesus by the Father of the Father's ministry.

So now you confirm what I said originally, but you previously denied. As far as this topic goes, you have yet to assert why Paul would not call Christ "God."
For the reason I've suggested already: to avoid confusion and worship of the flesh. Christ is not properly the object of our worship, even if he is the Lord to whom we owe lifelong feudal service. He is the object of the Father's eternal glorification, and our glorification by our worship of the Father.

What is crucial is to understand the error that so many practioners of religion fall into:, being the invention of new Gods/gods. Christ didn't come to invent a new God, but to promote worship of the Father. This concern is seen in all of Paul's writings.

The passages I quoted above very much support that Paul's theology was hand in hand with John's, and there is no reason based upon those statements why Paul would not call Christ "God."
You can't even show that John ever referred to Christ as God.

To the contrary, in Colossians he ascribes the work of creation to the Son, which is very clearly attributed in the Old Testament to God.
The John 1:1c sense.

In Hebrews 1:10, the author (whom I regard to be Paul, as the earliest tradition holds)
or an immediate disciple of the Pauline school of thought....

writes that the Psalmist says to the Son, "You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands." You're problem here will be the cross reference, since he is not merely quoting Psalm 102:25-27, but has elliptically referenced "And you, LORD" (וְאַתָּה יְהוָה) from 102:12. And in Hebrews 1:8, "but to the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever.'" (πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος). This is a nominative of address involving the articular ὁ θεός, which you seem to make much ado about.
The article is required to invoke the nominative of address, it is true, but the reference to θεός in the OT Psalm in the LXX is anarthrous, and caught by the John 10:34,35 qualification of θεός limited to human agency (the Psalm clearly alluding to a human king). In Heb, the OT reference to θεός is being applied to the human Son, and at the same time is also being extended to all of eternity (rather than just the lifetime of the king), so as to reach even to the Logos in heaven.

Or maybe you also think "God" is Solomon's throne?


Except that the Christian concept of the Word very much mirrors that of the Jewish Memrah ("Word") found in the Targums and Jewish literature. That theology is consistently observed in Irenaeus (a student of John's disciple Polycarp) and the earliest Christin writings, particularly in places such as Genesis 1:26 and 19:24 as denoting the Father and Son. You'd like to craft a narrative to the extent above, but in the end it's something you assert but can't support
I don't really understand you.
The poor faithful souls who, you contend to have proclaimed the truth for thousands of years, are nowhere to be found and only the writings of the heretics remain. Very convenient.
Well, the poor faithful souls in the Vatican (who were neither poor nor faithful), and whom had the ability to exterminate Islam back in the 13th century by aligning with asiatic christians influential with the mongols, were too busy quarreling with them over their theology to be interested in the prevalence of the kingdom of God on earth. Ask yourself how the Borgias came to dominate the Vatican. Stop pretending that the "orthodox" churches haven't always had major issues in applying their theology.

My problem is that you and TRJM are just making assertions. They're not backed up in any meaningful ways, and you in particular have in multiple places misrepresented your sources.

I'm not interested in a convoluted theological discussion, which seems now to be a fallback for a flailing argument.
The real issue is that you just will not recognize that with John and Paul "son of God" is the only biblical terminology applied to Jesus the man. The reason for that is because it conflicts with the dogma of your church.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The is nothing remarkable about the grammar of Romans 9:5.

All three points of your points are all debunked by Romans 1:1-7.
Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
1) Looking at the sentence, it is clear that none of the κατά phrases cause "a continuation of a sentence upon the premise of the whole sentence being qualified by κατὰ σάρκα."
Did I even suggest it? Strawman

This is one sentence, and Jesus Christ being from the seed of David according to the flesh (to pick one example) is not qualifying the clauses that follow it.
Because the clause is parenthetical.
2) There is no κατά parenthesis.
That is clearly an untruth. You can take either one or both κατά clauses out, and the rest of the sentence would remain as it stands.

You don't seem to understand what a parenthetical clause is. It doesn't mean its optional: it means its self-contained and can be delimited by commas or even by semi-colons. It means it has no effect on the rest if the sentence if you take it out.

In Rom 9:5 scholars agree that the comma comes after κατὰ σάρκα, if it comes anywhere. Rather they should be seeing that there is an end to a parenthesis after κατὰ σάρκα, in common with so many other similar clauses, as in Rom 1:3,4.

If you regard the whole καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause as parenthetical, which you are entitled to do, on the premise of Rom 1:3,4, and other similar clauses, you can then see that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν starts a new sentence.

This is almost but not quite what Hippolytus does, in the passage to which I referred.

Hippolytus seems to see καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as semi-paranthetical.

Thus he clearly reserves the right to grammatically disassociate ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς from what precedes it.

However he also says that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is qualified by the natural sense of what precedes it, so as to invoke the "generation of God" by natural means - i.e. the idea of the theokotos which is hardly a Pauline concept.

Fundamentally the issue is this: do you see Paul as introducing the theokotos concept at Rom 9:5?

Do you see the Jews as "giving birth to God?" I though it was God who gave birth to the Jews.

Moreover this is way off the whole sense of the sentence; which is about the blessings on the Jews, and not whether they gave birth to "God."

3) κατά does not mark the start of a new sentence.
κατά isn't doing any of the three things here that you say it must do. That makes you wrong.
You logic is chaotic.


If it's not grammatical it doesn't matter.

You didn't mention any qualifications to your statement earlier. You are moving the goal posts now. But you are caught in your own web of silliness. 1) What the κατά phrase modifies is a participial phrase referring to Jesus's descent, the same context as Romans 9:5. 2) You are on record saying that one of three things must happen. The sentence doesn't end after κατά so that can't be it. The κατά is parenthetical so that can't be it. So that means you must believe that the "whole sentence being qualified by κατὰ σάρκα." You are contradicting yourself.
I see καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as fully parenthetical, whereas Trinitarians don't.

Hope this clears it up.


What a joke.

No. It is as I said. People repeat things that are important all the time. If it is important enough to qualify once, it will likely be qualified again.

It's not an "inevitable inference of [my] position." I've given you several other options. You don't seem to have a very good ability to see the options available.

No. I've specifically said that the text does not make it clear what part of Jesus's descent is not "from the Israelites."
You are not so relevant here. You are bound by what the ECFs supposed.

Per Hippolytian orthodoxy (we must suppose that Hippolytus was fully orthodox by the standards of his day), the orthodox supposed that their semi-parenthetic interpretation of Rom 9:5 justified Mary as the mother of God and the Jews as the progenitors of God.

That seems to me to be ridiculous, as it also does to many others.

In addition to that, you are confused by fallacious thinking again.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
Did I even suggest it? Strawman


Because the clause is parenthetical.

That is clearly an untruth. You can take either one or both κατά clauses out, and the rest of the sentence would remain as it stands.

You don't seem to understand what a parenthetical clause is. It doesn't mean its optional: it means its self-contained and can be delimited by commas or even by semi-colons. It means it has no effect on the rest if the sentence if you take it out.

In Rom 9:5 scholars agree that the comma comes after κατὰ σάρκα, if it comes anywhere. Rather they should be seeing that there is an end to a parenthesis after κατὰ σάρκα, in common with so many other similar clauses, as in Rom 1:3,4.

If you regard the whole καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause as parenthetical, which you are entitled to do, on the premise of Rom 1:3,4, and other similar clauses, you can then see that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν starts a new sentence.

This is almost but not quite what Hippolytus does, in the passage to which I referred.

Hippolytus seems to see καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as semi-paranthetical.

Thus he clearly reserves the right to grammatically disassociate ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς from what precedes it.

However he also says that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is qualified by the natural sense of what precedes it, so as to invoke the "generation of God" by natural means - i.e. the idea of the theokotos which is hardly a Pauline concept.

Fundamentally the issue is this: do you see Paul as introducing the theokotos concept at Rom 9:5?

Do you see the Jews as "giving birth to God?" I though it was God who gave birth to the Jews.

Moreover this is way off the whole sense of the sentence; which is about the blessings on the Jews, and not whether they gave birth to "God."


You logic is chaotic.



I see καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as fully parenthetical, whereas Trinitarians don't.

Hope this clears it up.





You are not so relevant here. You are bound by what the ECFs supposed.

Per Hippolytian orthodoxy (we must suppose that Hippolytus was fully orthodox by the standards of his day), the orthodox supposed that their semi-parenthetic interpretation of Rom 9:5 justified Mary as the mother of God and the Jews as the progenitors of God.

That seems to me to be ridiculous, as it also does to many others.
I'll comment on this later, but I wanted to make sure this gem didn't go away.
 
Top