Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[cjab]

I'll comment on this later, but I wanted to make sure this gem didn't go away.

May be you could focus on saying something intelligible, while you're at it, because frankly I'm tired of your responding to sophistry and I may not respond in future as I have better things to do with my time.

 

[John Milton]

Did I even suggest it? Strawman

You said "Such grammar as you contend for isn't found elsewhere in scripture." And I responded that it wasn't remarkable. I was saying that you could find examples of the grammar in that passage throughout the New Testament.

Because the clause is parenthetical.

Here is the one grammarian you seem to accept: Winer.

But in most of the passages which it has been usual to adduce as parenthetical there is neither parenthesis nor digression….In Rom. i. 1-7, where Schott in his last edition assumes two parentheses, the whole passage continues with one unbroken thread; only the words expressing the main ideas are enlarged by means of relative clauses (ver. 3 sq., 5, 6).

That [There is no κατά parenthesis] 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.

What I said was clearly true and Winer directly supports it above.

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.

No. I've understood it all along.

Now let me help you out. Here's your good buddy Winer again:

We give the name of ‘interrupted sentences’ to those sentences whose grammatical course is arrested by the intervention of a sentence which is complete in itself….This intervening sentence is called a parenthesis; and it is customary to present it to the eye as severed from the main sentence, by the use of the familiar marks of parenthesis.
According to the above definition we cannot, in the first place, regard as a parenthesis any accessory sentence which is introduced (even though it be of considerable length), if–either by means of a relative or as a genitive absolute–it stands connected in construction with the principal sentence….Still less can this name be given to appositional clauses…to clauses which are appended to a completed sentence to give an illustration, explanation, or reason…or, lastly, to clauses which grammatically support any part of the sentence which lies beyond their own limits.

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.

No. See above.

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.

Concerning the underlined portion:
You aren't entitled to do so according to the principles that Winer mentioned.

Concerning the rest of the quoted text:

If a grammarian is going to take anything as parenthetical, it would be ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

I don't think you've actually paid attention to the text of Romans 9:4-5. If you had you might've noticed that the phrase that you so badly wish to omit is most interesting. Note the pronouns used in the following stretch which I'll underline.

οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, ὧν οἱ πατέρες.

Do you see how consistent they are when referring to the Jewish people generally? Now what happens before Christ is mentioned?

καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς

It's different. An astute reader would go, "Hmmm. That's unusual. I wonder if there's a reason for that." And then they would read

τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and say, "Ah. That explains it. There is something different about the Christ that the author wishes to emphasize."

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.

I've been discussing the grammar of Romans. I don't care about the ways in which you misunderstand Hippolytus.

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."

In other words, it is a theological argument. This is what I've said repeatedly.

You logic is chaotic.

Thanks for the chuckle.

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

Hope this clears it up.

I know. I've told you repeatedly that you are wrong. Now Winer has.

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

What an asinine statement. I'm not bound by the suppositions of the ECFs.

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.

You are once again in the weeds of theology. (And to be kind I should add, since you've said it repeatedly, that your suppositions about how Hippolytus or others viewed the text carry absolutely no weight. You can't know what they were thinking unless they mention it specifically while discussing the grammar of a passage.)

 

[John Milton]

May be you could focus on saying something intelligible, while you're at it, because frankly I'm tired of your responding to sophistry and I may not respond in future as I have better things to do with my time.

This one elicited a full on belly laugh, but I'll agree that you should have better things to do with your time than continuing to make false statements and assertions about the grammar of a language you can't read.

 

[brianrw]

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.

You're not qualifying this statement, "anarthrous θεός," with anything meaningful. In an equative construction, the article is placed before the subject. The Word is Christ, it is one of his names (Revelation 19:13), and in John 1:1 he is called "God."

There is certainly a jurisdictional issue entailed in not distinguishing the Logos in heaven from Christ on earth.

Again, the Word is Christ.

You can't even show that John ever referred to Christ as God.

John 1:1 does just that. It's not my fault you are not familiar with a basic equative construction involving a predicate nominative.

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.

You've lost the point. It's time to move on.

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.

Why don't you let Hippolytus speak for himself? Nowhere does Hippolytus ever contend that Jesus is a generated God. You seem to be missing the point of what he is saying--completely (cf. Against Noetus, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, etc.!). In other words, did you even bother to know Hippolytus' position before lazily misrepresenting it? In similar fashion, you previously misidentified the beliefs of Noetus as those of Hyppolytus. You should be more careful:

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe in His name. (Against Noetus, 17)​

​

The word of prophecy passes again to Immanuel Himself . . . For he means that He increased and grew up into that which He had been from the beginning, and indicates the return to the glory which He had by nature. This, if we apprehend it correctly, is (we should say) just restored to Him. For as the only begotten Word of God, being God of God, ‘emptied Himself,’ according to the Scriptures, humbling Himself of His own will to that which He was not before, and took unto Himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the ‘form of a servant,’ and ‘became obedient’ to God the Father, ‘even unto death,’ so hereafter He is said to be ‘highly exalted’; and as if well-nigh He had it not by reason of His humanity, and as if it were in the way of grace, He receives the ‘name which is above every name,’ according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the matter, in truth, was not a giving, as for the first time, of what He had not by nature; far otherwise. But rather we must understand a return and a restoration to that which existed in Him at the beginning, essentially and inseparably. And it is for this reason that, when He had assumed, by divine arrangement, the lowly estate of humanity, He said, ‘Father, glorify me with the glory which I had,’ etc. For He was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead. (Commentary Fragment)​

You seem to like to assert a lot, but you certainly are not careful in how you approach these things.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe in His name. (Against Noetus, 17)

God did this with no intention of doing His own will?

If not God's will, then whose will?

 

[cjab]

Here is Hippolytus using the ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς of Rom 9:5 substantively in Εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοητοῦ τινος (Eng trans. Schaff).
_______________

6. ὃ δὲ λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολος, Ὧν οἱ πατέρες, ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας,

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 forever.”

καλῶς διηγεῖται καὶ λαμπρὸν τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας μυστήριον.

This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly.

οὗτος ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεός ἐστιν.

He who is over all is God;

λέγει γὰρ οὕτω μετὰ παρρησίας, Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρός.

for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father."

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται, καὶ ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος Θεός ἐστιν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.

He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever.

 

[John Milton]

Here is Hippolytus using the ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς of Rom 9:5 substantively in Εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοητοῦ τινος (Eng trans. Schaff).
_______________

6. ὃ δὲ λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολος, Ὧν οἱ πατέρες, ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας,

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 forever.”

καλῶς διηγεῖται καὶ λαμπρὸν τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας μυστήριον.

This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly.

οὗτος ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεός ἐστιν.

He who is over all is God;

λέγει γὰρ οὕτω μετὰ παρρησίας, Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρός.

for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father."

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται, καὶ ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος Θεός ἐστιν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.

He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever.

That's just embarrassing, cjab. It's so unclear what big point you think you've made that I've literally got to ask! So, what relevance do you think this has?

 

[cjab]

That's just embarrassing, cjab.

Yes it is, for you. It's enough to rebut your last 100 posts.

It's so unclear what big point you think you've made that I've literally got to ask! So, what relevance do you think this has?

Your entire argument has been based on little more than a premise that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς couldn't have been intended substantively, and must be relative, and that all ECFs saw ὁ ὢν as a relative.

It proves three things:
(a) the ECFs were willing to use ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς substantively,
(b) there never was a grammatical argument against seeing ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as a substantive,
(c) The use of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as a relative was down to preferential choice by the ECFs, and nothing more.

 

[cjab]

So here is one place in Hippolytus, whereτὸ κατὰ σάρκα is followed by other verbiage, but two things to note:

a) τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies the whole sentence, not just the immediate clause.
b) τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is used to qualify an external quotation.

περὶ οὗ πάλιν δεικνύων τὸ κατὰ σάρκα αὐτοῦ σημαίνει," Ἐγὼ ἤγειρα αὐτὸν μετὰ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ εὐθεῖαι."

(Schaff) And again, exhibiting the truth regarding Him, he points to the fact of His being according to the flesh when He says, “I have raised Him up in righteousness, and all His ways are straight.”

Note also what follows this quotation:

"For what is this? Of whom does the Father thus testify? It is of the Son that the Father says, “I have
raised Him up in righteousness.” And that the Father did raise up His Son in righteousness, the
Apostle Paul bears witness, saying, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Christ Jesus from the
dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.”1619 Behold, the word spoken by the prophet is thus made
good, “I have raised Him up in righteousness.” And in saying, “God is in thee,” he referred to the
mystery of the economy, because when the Word was made incarnate and became man, the Father
was in the Son, and the Son in the Father, while the Son was living among men. This, therefore,
was signified, brethren, that in reality the mystery of the economy by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
was this Word, constituting yet one Son to God."

This indicates a possible reason why Hippolytus chose to read ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς substantively, and hence appositively, and not as an attributive, because he saw these words as relating to the economy of the Son being above all via the Holy Spirit, i.e. God being in the son, and not as comprising the unique person of the son.

The problem for Hippolytus is then that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς on its own can only refer to the Father such that it doesn't even qualify as an appositive but as an antithetical subject. Only by having regard to the principle of the economy of the Son (God is in thee), and by bringing in other scriptures, can he assert ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς as γεγέννηται. So his is an exegesis built upon the words, rather than a direct reading of the words.

Whatever, it seems Hippolytus would repudiate any inference of the pseudo-Sabellian theokotos principle here.

 

[John Milton]

Yes it is, for you. It's enough to rebut your last 100 posts.

Your entire argument has been based on little more than a premise that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς couldn't have been intended substantively, and must be relative, and that all ECFs saw ὁ ὢν as a relative.

I never claimed any of those three things, cjab. Why are you lying? This has nothing to do with what I've written.

 

[John Milton]

So here is one place in Hippolytus, whereτὸ κατὰ σάρκα is followed by other verbiage, but two things to note:

a) τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies the whole sentence, not just the immediate clause.
b) τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is used to qualify an external quotation.

περὶ οὗ πάλιν δεικνύων τὸ κατὰ σάρκα αὐτοῦ σημαίνει," Ἐγὼ ἤγειρα αὐτὸν μετὰ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ εὐθεῖαι."

This neither supports your earlier claims nor addresses my points about those claims.

(Schaff) And again, exhibiting the truth regarding Him, he points to the fact of His being according to the flesh when He says, “I have raised Him up in righteousness, and all His ways are straight.”

Note also what follows this quotation:


This indicates a possible reason why Hippolytus chose to read ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς substantively, and hence appositively, and not as an attributive, because he saw these words as relating to the economy of the Son being above all via the Holy Spirit, i.e. God being in the son, and not as comprising the unique person of the son.

The problem for Hippolytus is then that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς on its own can only refer to the Father such that it doesn't even qualify as an appositive but as an antithetical subject. Only by having regard to the principle of the economy of the Son (God is in thee), and by bringing in other scriptures, can he assert ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς as γεγέννηται. So his is an exegesis built upon the words, rather than a direct reading of the words.

Whatever, it seems Hippolytus would repudiate any inference of the pseudo-Sabellian theokotos principle here.

How many times must I tell you that I don't care about your theological tangents?

 

[cjab]

You said "Such grammar as you contend for isn't found elsewhere in scripture." And I responded that it wasn't remarkable. I was saying that you could find examples of the grammar in that passage throughout the New Testament.

Here is the one grammarian you seem to accept: Winer.


What I said was clearly true and Winer directly supports it above.

Whether you regard any clause as strictly parenthetical may involve a study of the semantics.

I was using it in its loosest sense, ignoring semantics.

I guess Winer is making a pedantic point, that the relative clauses in Rom 1-7 are not "after-thoughts" but integral to the sentence.

I could agree with that, but that doesn't mean to say they are not "by way of a series of explanations."

The relative clauses in Rom 1:3,4 are certainly explanatory, and they can certainly be circumscribed with commas.

I spot in the NIV no less than 2 commas and one "-" in the first four verses of Rom 1.

In any case, Winer is German, and the book is written with the Germanic language in mind. It's not clear whether the word parenthetical in German conveys the exact meaning as the word does in English.

The point I was making was obvious. You can put commas round the relative clauses without impacting the other relative clauses.

If you're disagreeing with me on that point, which you seem to be, then on what basis?

No. I've understood it all along.

Now let me help you out. Here's your good buddy Winer again:

No. See above.

I personally don't see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν as

a) connected in construction with the principal sentence
b) appositional,
c) appended to a completed sentence to give an illustration, explanation, or reason
d) a clause which grammatically support any part of the sentence which lies beyond their own limits.

I note that Hippolytus may see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as appositional, in a qualified sense, (i.e. of inferring God in Christ,) but not in the direct sense (i.e. of inferring God as Christ the man).

I don't really agree with that, because the point is too subtle. Paul never leaves such matters to conjecture but explicates them, if he intends them. It seems to me he didn't intend to make such a point as Hippolytus makes, even if theologically a perfectly valid point to make by way of exegesis: i.e. that God was in Christ, and that if God is blessed, so is Christ.

Another reason is that "God" isn't limited to the human Jesus. If "God is blessed," then this sentiment must include both the Father in heaven, as well as the Father in Christ.

(The rest, may be later.)

 

[cjab]

You are once again in the weeds of theology.

All the learned Trinitarian scholars say that the true interpretation of Rom 9:5 depends on the correctness of the theology, so I take it you're not among them.

(And to be kind I should add, since you've said it repeatedly, that your suppositions about how Hippolytus or others viewed the text carry absolutely no weight. You can't know what they were thinking unless they mention it specifically while discussing the grammar of a passage.)

Grammatically Hippolytus was able to quote ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς on its own without any antecedent.

If you can't see the significance of that, you're clueless.

 

[John Milton]

Whether you regard any clause as strictly parenthetical may involve a study of the semantics.
I was using it in its loosest sense, ignoring semantics.

You are using the wrong terminology.

I guess Winer is making a pedantic point, that the relative clauses in Rom 1-7 are not "after-thoughts" but integral to the sentence.

I could agree with that, but that doesn't mean to say they are not "by way of a series of explanations."

The relative clauses in Rom 1:3,4 are certainly explanatory, and they can certainly be circumscribed with commas.

I spot in the NIV no less than 2 commas and one "-" in the first four verses of Rom 1.

In any case, Winer is German, and the book is written with the Germanic language in mind. It's not clear whether the word parenthetical in German conveys the exact meaning as the word does in English.

The point I was making was obvious. You can put commas round the relative clauses without impacting the other relative clauses.

If you're disagreeing with me on that point, which you seem to be, then on what basis?

I disagreed with your assertion that there was parenthesis in Rom. 1:1-7, and I demonstrated that you were the one who does not understand parenthetical expressions. Beyond that, you have stated many different and often conflicting reasons why the "Trinitarian" rendering of Rom. 9:5 must be wrong. I have dispatched all of them, but it is impossible for me to say which ones you have abandoned and which ones you still cling to.

I personally don't see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν as

a) connected in construction with the principal sentence
b) appositional,
c) appended to a completed sentence to give an illustration, explanation, or reason
d) a clause which grammatically support any part of the sentence which lies beyond their own limits.

So? I've never said the verse must be interpreted a particular way. I have been refuting your many erroneous grammar assertions.

I note that Hippolytus may see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as appositional, in a qualified sense, (i.e. of inferring God in Christ,) but not in the direct sense (i.e. of inferring God as Christ the man).

I don't really agree with that, because the point is too subtle. Paul never leaves such matters to conjecture but explicates them, if he intends them. It seems to me he didn't intend to make such a point as Hippolytus makes, even if theologically a perfectly valid point to make by way of exegesis: i.e. that God was in Christ, and that if God is blessed, so is Christ.

Another reason is that "God" isn't limited to the human Jesus. If "God is blessed," then this sentiment must include both the Father in heaven, as well as the Father in Christ.

(The rest, may be later.)

Theology. Don't care.

 

[John Milton]

All the learned Trinitarian scholars say that the true interpretation of Rom 9:5 depends on the correctness of the theology, so I take it you're not among them.

I don't think it matters how one understands the passage. But there is no reason to allow false assertions about the grammar, like yours, to stand.

Grammatically Hippolytus was able to quote ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς on its own without any antecedent.

Why would you think he wouldn't be able to? There's nothing at all surprising about that.

If you can't see the significance of that, you're clueless.

I think it is far more telling that you think there is something profound about a particular usage of a phrase. The problem that you have is that you are unwilling to concede the fact that this phrase could be understood to refer to ὁ Χριστὸς earlier in the verse. Your objections to this are all theological and not grammatical as you have earlier asserted. The "grammatical" points that you have tried to use to forbid this connection have all been false.

 

[cjab]

The problem that you have is that you are unwilling to concede the fact that this phrase could be understood to refer to ὁ Χριστὸς earlier in the verse.

Hippolytus could have written ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. He didn't. He just wrote ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. Says it all, and proves you wrong in insisting on a relative in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς.

 

[John Milton]

Hippolytus could have written ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. He didn't. He just wrote ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. Says it all, and proves you wrong in insisting on a relative in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς.

I've never insisted "on a relative in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς."

 

[cjab]

I've never insisted "on a relative in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς."

There is only one noun in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς. Go figure.

 

[John Milton]

There is only one noun in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς. Go figure.

I guess you've just given up altogether now. Your last several posts have been pointless.

 

[cjab]

I guess you've just given up altogether now. Your last several posts have been pointless.

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς = ὁ .... Θεὸς can only denote the Father, per John 1:1b. So Hippolytus used this clause to refer to the Father, a long time prior to the arrival of the hardcore Trinitarans and pseudo-Sabellians post Nicea. You've got nothing to say except to still critique me? It's you who's give up.