No. The implied verb will be some form of "be" it is incapable of having an object.
No. The logic is airtight. You don't think Romans 9:5 is a doxology because it doesn't match the other doxologies. Therefore, you shouldn't think the text means what you propose because it doesn't match the other examples of the interpretation you have proposed.
Also you:
Did you notice the part where I said that the order (θεὸς εὐλογητὸς/εὐλογητὸς θεὸς) didn't matter? It still doesn't.
You're absolutely right. Now for the important part that you are still missing: your interpretation of the text is wrong. It adds even more problems than just a missing verb.
God doesn't have a single "function" in the text, much less two.
The verb was missing in the examples I gave you above and the translators supplied it. If they meant the interpretation you suppose, there is no reason to think they wouldn't have supplied it there since they did in every other instance that I have seen where it was absent.
That's stupid. Look at the examples above.
It doesn't work as an interpretation of the text at all. Even the translators of the AV are arguing with you through the parallel passages I've brought to your attention. You are mapping your misunderstanding of the English onto the Greek text that clearly doesn't support that meaning. Sorry you don't like to hear it, but that's how it is.
LXX Gen. 26:29 μὴ ποιήσειν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν κακόν καθότι ἡμεῗς σε οὐκ ἐβδελυξάμεθα καὶ ὃν τρόπον ἐχρησάμεθά σοι καλῶς καὶ ἐξαπεστείλαμέν σε μετ᾽ εἰρήνης καὶ νῦν σὺ εὐλογητὸς ὑπὸ κυρίου
No. Why would you think that?
I'm not saying "God be blessed." I'm saying the text says "blessed God" (noun adjective).
I understood what you meant. I'm not sure why you thought I think that it contains a doxology.
In your God blessed, who is giving the blessing, who is receiving the blessing?
It's undefined. Why are you assuming blessing must be given or received? In Paul's doxologies do you imagine that God is blessing himself?
In this very post you suggest that you don't know in what manner God is blessed and yet you say that my understanding is "totally confusing and undefined?" My understanding seems to be how the word generally works. If you say someone is "blessed" you don't know whether they actually are or not. You don't know the particular ways that state was achieved (God-given gifts like our abilities and inclinations or special endowment like Solomon's wisdom) or whether or not what you perceive as a blessing truly is. You are commenting on your perception of the state that someone or something is in. Apart from clear context such as the announcement of the birth of Jesus, for example, or the mention of receiving blessing from a specific party, the exact meaning of the phrase will be obscure.
I never said totally undefined. And the answer is "no." I gave you enough information that you should understand what I meant. Most of Paul's doxologies are undefined; I didn't suppose you needed me to provide you those scripture citations again.
And you have Hippolytus writing God blessed, sandwiched between attributes of Christ, but the words just hang in the air.
It's referring to Christ as blessed God.