Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
Fyi - "infer" means "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises"; "Imply" means "to express indirectly" (M-W.com) An author may imply something, or I might infer it. I'm not trying to be obnoxious by mentioning this, I just thought it might be helpful to you since you've been using this word incorrectly.
Either infer or imply would work here.
You're using a fancy word but it really doesn't mean anything here. There is nothing "redundant" about the presence of "according to the flesh," since he is qualifying the fact that Christ is David's descendent insofar as the flesh is concerned. But in truth, he is the Son of God.
I think Acts 2:30 proves nothing that is favourable to your argument:

καθίσαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ != ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς

A clause is defined as "a group of words containing a subject and predicate and functioning as a member of a complex . . . or compound . . . sentence" (M-W.com). It is not the sentence itself. Because the attributive participle in Greek has a verbal function, it can set off its own clause dependent upon the head nominal.
Perhaps I should have said "phrase" instead of clause in my original post to JM.
We don't have an equivalent construction in English, but as the attributive participle is an agnate of the relative clause in Greek, we use a relative clause as its nearest equivalent.
I think we ascertained that the best scholars say there is no unambiguous usage of an attributive participle in the second attributive position in Rom 9:5. That you don't admit it suggests a certain narrowness of outlook that could only come from indoctrination.

And of course, that is part of the problem, and why they say "a little Greek is a dangerous thing."
It's interesting that those who were predicted to subvert Paul's teaching and "draw men after them" were all native Greek speakers, indicating perhaps that too much sophistication is a dangerous thing.

Overuse of subtlety is a problem for people like Hippolytus, and people like Harris: it is hardly a recipe for success when construing one so direct and predictable as Paul.
 

brianrw

Member
Either infer or imply would work here.
This is why you are a difficult student. But, you are free to misuse the terms to your heart's content. I was just trying to help.

I think...
But you think wrong.

Perhaps I should have said "phrase" instead of clause in my original post to JM.
Yes. But your argument is still incorrect.

I think we ascertained that the best scholars say there is no unambiguous usage of an attributive participle in the second attributive position in Rom 9:5. That you don't admit it suggests a certain narrowness of outlook that could only come from indoctrination.
No, we didn't. There has been no substantiation for that point, much less "the best scholars." If you add a period, it is not grammatically driven. It is driven by the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God"--which is, as Ehrman notes, circular.

You can try that straw man argument again and again, and that is all it will be. The manuscripts, versions, Greek fathers and their opponents do not support the reading you advocate. On the other hand, you are the one following a reading involving punctuation introduced by Erasmus in the 16th century, that falls in the company of five other suggested emendations--all of which were suggested under the same premise, that Paul would not call Christ "God."

It's interesting that those who were predicted to subvert Paul's teaching and "draw men after them" were all native Greek speakers, indicating perhaps that too much sophistication is a dangerous thing.

Overuse of subtlety is a problem for people like Hippolytus, and people like Harris: it is hardly a recipe for success when construing one so direct and predictable as Paul.
You're the one incorrectly using the Greek language, misusing and misrepresenting your sources, making unsupported assertions. All you and your ilk have to do is just muddy the translation for others. You don't require a sound conclusion, nor can you make any plausible argument for adding a period. The manuscripts, versions, fathers are all against you and I can literally point out when the reading first appears in extant history. But you want me to simply concede that your point is merely valid, while you say the most natural reading is impossible. I won't do that, because I find it to be specious and refuse to be dithering about how to handle it. Adding a period adds an unnecessary layer of difficulty to the passage that is not present without it.

It is precisely the problem that people suggest one passage can be translated what, eight different ways? Or that Paul is only ambiguous where he appears to assert (as he does) the Deity of Christ? Presupposition is one of the chief causes of variant clusters in the NT.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
It's referring to Christ as blessed God.
Steven's is only interested in supporting his own view; he's been corrected again and again, but in the end he'll go back to calling everything "circular."

Thanks for coming to my defense.

(Christ is) God (who is) blessed (by .... someone.)
The statement involves an adjective and does not require a verbal aspect--you are equivocating over the distinction between the past participle verb (pronounced blest) and an adjective (pronounced bles-sed). It simply means that he is "held in reverence : VENERATED . . . honored in worship : HALLOWED." (M-W.com)
 

brianrw

Member
I think Acts 2:30 proves nothing that is favourable to your argument:

καθίσαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ != ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς
FYI, I quoted the TR MT, not the Alexandrian variant found in NA UBS. In other words, ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν, καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ, not ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ [omitted] καθίσαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. The Alexandrian scribes lost part of the passage (including τὸ κατὰ σάρκα) through transcription and thus emended ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ to read ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. You should have caught this.

In the reading I quoted, a predicator follows τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as it does in Romans 9:5 and marks a continuance of the sentence.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
Steven's is only interested in supporting his own view; he's been corrected again and again, but in the end he'll go back to calling everything "circular."

Thanks for coming to my defense.
His accusing you of misrepresentation was incredible. What spin had said had just been quoted. Anyone could see that your statement was accurate.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
His accusing you of misrepresentation was incredible. What spin had said had just been quoted. Anyone could see that your statement was accurate.
Nonsense.
Saying an adjective or verb is nominalized does not make the word natively a noun.

brianrw tried to quote spin, but the quotes did not have spin saying it was a noun (natively).
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
Nonsense.
What would stop you from calling the truth nonsense? After all, you have no trouble making false statements and then flagging posts when someone calls you out over those willful false statements.
Saying an adjective or verb is nominalized does not make the word natively a noun.
Spin used the words "noun forms" and called the adjective in the sentence a "nominalized verb" which most likely means a) that he thought it was a verb acting as a noun or b) that he thought it was a noun form based on a verb, both options are incorrect. While the fact that he used the words "noun forms" is enough to debunk your assertion, spin most likely intended option b given what he wrote.
brianrw tried to quote spin, but the quotes did not have spin saying it was a noun (natively).
What he quoted in this post earlier in the thread certainly did, though the relevant part didn't appear in this post after quoting it.

Your equivocation is enough to tell the astute reader that you are trying to be deceptive. And "natively"? Get out of here with that trash.
Yes, he did:



And



It's been looked at carefully. The Greek is actually a direct quotation, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς, with a verb tacked on at the end to signify "has been born." Here the English translator chose to use a postpositive adjective. Because of the nature of Greek and the flexibility of word order, when a passage is quoted elliptically in good Greek we still have to bring it in as good English. So there may occasionally be slight shifts in nuance as a result.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
.Spin used the words "noun forms" and called the adjective in the sentence a "nominalized verb"

And that is how he should be quoted, and you can add your explanation.

Misquotes are unethical.

You are wasting time and energy, where you should just say "quote properly". You are embarrassing yourself supporting a misquote.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
And that is how he should be quoted, and you can add your explanation.

Misquotes are unethical.

You are wasting time and energy, where you should just say "quote properly". You are embarrassing yourself supporting a misquote.
He said two nouns. You should learn to read properly.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The word εὐλογητὸς is used only of the Father in the GNT. It is therefore biblical eisegesis to argue that in Romans 9:5 it is used with reference to Jesus.
 

cjab

Well-known member
FYI, I quoted the TR MT, not the Alexandrian variant found in NA UBS. In other words, ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν, καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ, not ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ [omitted] καθίσαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. The Alexandrian scribes lost part of the passage (including τὸ κατὰ σάρκα) through transcription and thus emended ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ to read ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. You should have caught this.

In the reading I quoted, a predicator follows τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as it does in Romans 9:5 and marks a continuance of the sentence.
And in that version ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is made into a parenthesis by ABP (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/acts/2.htm).

Whether you agree with that, or not, it seems that the position of τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is somewhat arbitary, in that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies the whole sentence. As I've pointed out before to JM, Christ the man was linked to the throne of David, and denoted as King (not God) τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

So if hypothetically Paul in Rom 9:5 had had a mind to continue the sentence about Christ specifically, in the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα sense in which he had introduced Christ, he would have been obligated to denote the human Christ as born a king and appointed to sit on David's throne.

Since he was the apostle to the Gentiles, I guess he didn't see any point in it; and Christ wasn't himself the topic anyway: the topic is blessings. So we have two different contexts or jurisdictions: i.e. earth and heaven, appearing in Rom 9:5, which must be construed as delimited by separate sentences. For what you can't deny (although you probably will per your dogma) is that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς belongs to heaven.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Yes I know how to read and quote properly.

By misquoting spin, the goal is to give a false impression, by omitting the nominalzing aspect.

Make your points in explanation, not in deliberate misquotes.
"On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed")"

Spin said "noun form" and that means a noun, more specifically a word in the form of a noun. That means he is wrong.
Then he called it a "nominalized verb". That is also wrong.
If by "nominalized verb" he meant the noun form of a verb, he is still wrong.
If by "nominalized verb" he meant a verb functioning as a noun, he is wrong and contradicted himself.
However you explain it, Spin called an adjective a noun and was wrong.

And you are wrong for saying that's not what he said, for saying brianrw and I are in error, and for not understanding what it was that Spin said in the first place. Worse, you are cheerleading for Spin even after you can check for yourself and see that εὐλογητός is an adjective (εὐλογεῖν = verb; εὐλογία = noun). The pitiful thing is even if he hadn't called εὐλογητός a noun (and he clearly did) he was still wrong and you knowingly support him anyway.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
The word εὐλογητὸς is used only of the Father in the GNT. It is therefore biblical eisegesis to argue that in Romans 9:5 it is used with reference to Jesus.
The word "Father" is never used in the GNT. It is biblical eisegesis to use the word "Father" with reference to "ὁ θεός". Even when I put it this way, you won't see how stupid your argument is, and that's without mentioning circularity.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
in that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies the whole sentence. As I've pointed out before to JM, Christ the man was linked to the throne of David, and denoted as King (not God) τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
You tried to. You were wrong and were refuted. You just keep ignoring it as though it never happened. And then you contradict yourself saying the phrase in 9:5 is parenthetic yet still qualifies the whole sentence. You, TRJM, and Steven Avery should be banned from posting here.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
"On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed")"

All of this is very interesting. Over time, spin, or perhaps someone else, will engage in the real fundamental question of whether he properly sees a feature of the Greek language. It would best be someone on a high linguistic level with both native fluency and a solid classical Greek background.

e.g. Georgios Babiniotis, perhaps the premier modern Greek linguist, helped us immensely on the question of the heavenly witnesses grammar, when he confirmed that the short Critical Text with only the earthly witnesses is solecistic. This is something the seminarians are very reluctant to accept. Seminarian cookie-cutter Anglos will generally be true to their heritage, right or wrong. (And they will quote people like Daniel Wallace and Bill Mounce as authorities!) We see this problem clearly in the heavenly witnesses grammar question, where modern textual criticism errors are really driving the errors in analysis. (Babiniotis was not inclined to any textual position, he just gave a beautiful linguistic, grammatical analysis.)

1 John 5:7-8 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν

Shorter text with the grammatical problem:
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν

So I would not be surprised if we run into the same type of difference on the Romans 9:5 God blessed question. If spin is correct, the examples in support will likely involve other word combinations, not specifically God blessed, which is numerically very limited. (Thus your specific searching did not find much of anything.)

None of what you wrote excuses the deliberate misquoting.

===============

The Granville Sharp "Rule", which is only a special pleading Bible seminarian "rule", and not from the real Greek grammar, would be another case where the seminarian indoctrination takes many into a tailspin.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
πατήρ

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Are you losing the thread?
I put it in quotes for a reason. I meant the English word "Father." I was making a point about how stupid their logic was. I guess your head was too low to catch it.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
All of this is very interesting. Over time, spin, or perhaps someone else, will engage in the real fundamental question of whether he properly sees a feature of the Greek language. It would best be someone on a high linguistic level with both native fluency and a solid classical Greek background.
There is no one alive who has "native fluency" in Classical Greek or Koine. This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled insult directed at my competence and skills which is pretty funny coming from someone who possesses none of these traits and has no idea what my background actually is.
e.g. Georgios Babiniotis, perhaps the premier modern Greek linguist, helped us immensely on the question of the heavenly witnesses grammar, when he confirmed that the short Critical Text with only the earthly witnesses is solecistic. This is something the seminarians are very reluctant to accept. Seminarian cookie-cutter Anglos will generally be true to their heritage, right or wrong. (And they will quote people like Daniel Wallace and Bill Mounce as authorities!) We see this problem clearly in the heavenly witnesses grammar question, where modern textual criticism errors are really driving the errors in analysis. (Babiniotis was not inclined to any textual position, he just gave a beautiful linguistic, grammatical analysis.)
Indeed. But any of those "Seminarian cookie-cutter Anglos" possess more knowledge than you do.
1 John 5:7-8 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν

Shorter text with the grammatical problem:
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν
It doesn't matter if a text contains a solecism. It doesn't change the fact that someone could've said or written it or that it could still be understood. It doesn't mean that it doesn't belong in the text. (And I'm not saying that this section should or shouldn't be included in scripture. I'm pointing out, once again, the fallacious reasoning on which many of your conclusions rest.)
So I would not be surprised if we run into the same type of difference on the Romans 9:5 God blessed question. If spin is correct, the examples in support will likely involve other word combinations, not specifically God blessed, which is numerically very limited. (Thus your specific searching did not find much of anything.)
"If spin is correct"
Wishful thinking, my dear. Wishful thinking. Spin didn't say anything about "examples in support...involv[ing] other word combinations," did he?

My search showed you how the AV translators consistently translated the construction you think is in Romans 9:5. It shows that they translated Romans 9:5 differently. Taken together this suggests that you are misunderstanding their translation of Romans 9:5. The reasoning behind this is nearly the same as the reasoning you've suggested led you to reject the possibility that Romans 9:5 contains a doxology (if I've understood you correctly.)
None of what you wrote excuses the deliberate misquoting.
I didn't misquote anyone and neither did brianrw. You just aren't literate.
===============

The Granville Sharp "Rule", which is only a special pleading Bible seminarian "rule", and not from the real Greek grammar, would be another case where the seminarian indoctrination takes many into a tailspin.
Who mentioned "Granville Sharp?" You are the one who has lost the thread.
 
Top