Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
continued from previous post

This is completely wrong, and you've been offered multiple commentaries and also examples to the contrary. Ignoring them or making specious arguments to dodge the problems with the assertion don't cut it. You have yet to produce a rule where an adverbial usage of the accusative (τὸ κατὰ σάρκα) somehow demands the end of a sentence; it doesn't in the only other usage in the GNT and it doesn't in numerous places in the writings of the fathers. In other words, the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't met it.

I don't know whatever happened to not bearing false witness. I guess for some the ends justifies the means.
I never said "it demands the end of a sentence." Talk about false witness. That is far too wide.

Let's try and refine this more precisely than previously. No examples of κατὰ σάρκα followed by anything without a reference to transition or movement of some description, as between the jurisdiction of heaven and earth (e.g. as in Rom 1:3.4, Acts 2:30 etc), such as raising up, sending, going, becoming, ascending descending, emptying, declaring, being born, &etc).

Why would κατὰ σάρκα be followed by ὁ ὢν? It doesn't seem logical, inherently so, given the theological nature of the topic.

We know that what is of the earth is from below, and what is from heaven is from above. They are eternally distinct.

So the only way in which the human Christ could equate himself with the Logos was by a reference to his identity, "Before Abraham was born I am." What he could not say is "I am over you as God," because he wasn't.: he had come "from God."

If Jesus couldn't talk about his power without his ascension into heaven being clearly in view, neither could the apostles say it of the human Christ.

Therefore "your" Rom 9:5 isn't just a deific statement: it's a statement of synomity with the Father, which is theologically impermissible.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
I never said "it demands the end of a sentence." Talk about false witness. That is far too wide.
Your position has changed so much you don't even remember it. This may not be your position now, but it was here.
If κατὰ σάρκα is seen as a natural clause terminator, which it seems to be, then there is no ambiguity in Rom 9:5.

In Rom 8:1 Paul uses a conjunction ἀλλὰ after κατὰ σάρκα. This would also be required in Rom 9:5, if Paul was to continue the sentence.

Let's try and refine this more precisely than previously. No examples of κατὰ σάρκα followed by anything without a reference to transition or movement of some description, as between the jurisdiction of heaven and earth (e.g. as in Rom 1:3.4, Acts 2:30 etc), such as raising up, sending, going, becoming, ascending descending, emptying, declaring, being born, &etc).
In other words, what examples do you have besides the ones you've already provided that demonstrate that I am wrong? This is funny.
Why would κατὰ σάρκα be followed by ὁ ὢν? It doesn't seem logical, inherently so, given the nature of the subject,
κατὰ σάρκα can be followed by anything, and it can limit something in its own phrase or clause without affecting the sense of the remainder of the sentence. The problem you are having, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly is that your logic is flawed. It doesn't seem logical to you because logic is one of your great weaknesses.
We know that what is of the earth is from below, and what is from heaven is from above. They are eternally distinct.

So the only way in which the human Christ could equate himself with the Logos was by a reference to his identity, "Before Abraham was born I am." What he could not say is "I am over you as God," because he wasn't.: he had come "from God."

If Jesus couldn't talk about his power without his ascension into heaven being clearly in view, neither could the apostles say it of the human Christ.

Therefore "your" Rom 9:5 isn't just a deific statement: it's a statement of synomity with the Father, which is theologically impermissible.
This doesn't pertain to the biblical languages.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Your position has changed so much you don't even remember it. This may not be your position now, but it was here.
It hasn't changed. I was specifically referring to the non-parenthetical κατὰ σάρκα clause as in Rom 8:1. The four primary examples in Rom 1:3, 1:4, 9:5, Acts 2:30 are all to a marked degree paranthetical (although possibly not fully parenthical for the grammatical purist).

As concerning Rom 8:1, is it too much to suppose that those who believe Rom 9:5 refers to the deity of Christ's flesh, such as you, are in danger of being "in Christ according to the flesh"?

In other words, what examples do you have besides the ones you've already provided that demonstrate that I am wrong? This is funny.
Seldom do you say anything of merit.

κατὰ σάρκα can be followed by anything, and it can limit something in its own phrase or clause without affecting the sense of the remainder of the sentence.
I have made this point frequently in respect of parenthetical clauses/phrases in which κατὰ σάρκα is often found. You however ignore my observations, deliberately it seems, to make ad hominem points, which are your favourite.

This doesn't pertain to the biblical languages.
So vocabulary and meaning aren't part of biblical languages? Go back to your classical Greek of gods and goddesses if you're not interested such things. Presumably this explains your inability to grasp what the Father's title is, because your whole perspective is from the pagan viewpoint.

If you end up with a meaning that inherently conflicts with what Christ actually said, then may be it's time for you to go back to drawing board.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
It hasn't changed. I was specifically referring to the non-parenthetical κατὰ σάρκα clause as in Rom 8:1. The four primary examples in Rom 1:3, 1:4, 9:5, Acts 2:30 are all to a marked degree paranthetical (although possibly not fully parenthical for the grammatical purist).
This is not true. You "specifically" mentioned Romans 9:5 in the post.
As concerning Rom 8:1, is it too much to suppose that those who believe Rom 9:5 refers to the deity of Christ's flesh, such as you, are in danger of being "in Christ according to the flesh"?
I have never talked about "the deity of Christ's flesh." I have stated that the phrase τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies Christ's descent and implies that there is a way in which he is not descended from Israel. Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Seldom do you say anything of merit.
Seldom do you do anything but whine and make false statements like this.
I have made this point frequently in respect of parenthetical clauses/phrases in which κατὰ σάρκα is often found. You however ignore my observations, deliberately it seems, to make ad hominem points, which are your favourite.
If you acknowledge this, then why do you think it "doesn't seem logical" that "κατὰ σάρκα [can] be followed by ὁ ὢν"? You seem unaware that you are contradicting yourself on some level.
So vocabulary and meaning aren't part of biblical languages? Go back to your classical Greek of gods and goddesses if you're not interested such things. Presumably this explains your inability to grasp what the Father's title is, because your whole perspective is from the pagan viewpoint.

If you end up with a meaning that inherently conflicts with what Christ actually said, then may be it's time for you to go back to drawing board.
If you aren't actually discussing a biblical language, the discussion has no place here. No one here cares about the manifold ways in which you misunderstand the Bible or about the false claims that you make about a language you can't even read. If anyone shouldn't be here, it is you, not I.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Indeed, in order to show consistency with the rest of scripture, as Stephen Avery has suggested, you would have to insert a second article before Θεὸς.

No, I did not say anything about consistency of scripture, simply that this would be the natural spot to put a definite article with God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
This is not true. You "specifically" mentioned Romans 9:5 in the post.

I have never talked about "the deity of Christ's flesh." I have stated that the phrase τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies Christ's descent and implies that there is a way in which he is not descended from Israel. Why are you putting words in my mouth?
We have been through this before. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα gives context to the sentence. You cannot then separate Christ from his flesh and pretend that the words "according to the spirit" are in the text. They're not. Consequence: the human Christ is being imputed as God over all, by your account of Rom 9:5.

Seldom do you do anything but whine and make false statements like this.
I have produced a list of 12 reasons why I am right and you are wrong. I'm still adding to them.

If you acknowledge this, then why do you think it "doesn't seem logical" that "κατὰ σάρκα [can] be followed by ὁ ὢν"? You seem unaware that you are contradicting yourself on some level.
I guess it is within the realm of possibility that the meaning (not the words) of ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο from John 1:18 could have been used in Rom 9:5 in place of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

But what is Paul talking about in Rom 9:5? The blessings on Israel, and more widely, the whole issue of Isreal. For he continues in 9:6 "It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." It's all about blessings and cursings on Israel. That is his theme. There is no room for some profound theological digression about Christ. It's just wide of the mark.

Paul is on a mission to explain the problem of Israel, not talk about the Messiah. So the issue is that context as much as grammar is precluding your interpretation. You are the one demanding a second attributive or appositive after an adverbial accusative, so you show us examples of it. Here Paul surely would have used ὅς ἐστιν rather than ὁ ὢν if he had wanted to make a "who is" reference, but evidently such was not his intention nor does the context suggest it was so.

If you aren't actually discussing a biblical language, the discussion has no place here. No one here cares about the manifold ways in which you misunderstand the Bible or about the false claims that you make about a language you can't even read. If anyone shouldn't be here, it is you, not I.
As so many scholars have said about Rom 9:5, the conclusive answer to Rom 9:5 lies in its best theological sense. What you don't seem to grasp is I know that everything you say comes with an ulterior motive to ram hardcore Trinitarianism down people's throats. And yet you pretend to some purist grammarian ideal that ignores the attribution of "God above all" given to Christ even in his state of humanity being without scriptural precedent, and also "human" not "spirit" being the ineluctable context of the sentence in which Christ appears in Rom 9:5.
 

cjab

Well-known member
No, I did not say anything about consistency of scripture, simply that this would be the natural spot to put a definite article with God.
I did not say you said anything about consistency of scripture. That was my remark. I was only referring to your suggestion re the article.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Indeed. But any of those "Seminarian cookie-cutter Anglos" possess more knowledge than you do.

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.)

For Bible believers with a high view of the Bible text (brianrw is probably in this group) the text is pure, and, in discussing variants, solecisms show that variant not the authentic text (granted, there is a special discussion about Revelation.) This high Christian perspective is not "fallacious", it is simply the case that you are in opposition to the view. Thus you commit a fallacy of projecting your own beliefs, or unbelief, onto others.

Skeptics, liberals and unbelievers will give the argument that any error is possible. It would be popular on the board where spin posts.

The Anglo seminarians have totally botched their grammar in recent years in trying to counter the grammatical argument for heavenly witnesses authenticity. That is trivially easy to see, a type of Logic 101.

I almost missed this gem "we see". Look at you pretending that you have language competence. How cute.

What is involved is the competence to understand a simple logical argument.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.

Native fluency in the modern Greek language, combined with extensive studies in Classical and Koine Greek, is the ideal.

The difference between skilled men of that class, like Eugenius Bulgaris and Georgios Babiniotis, and the Anglo seminarian crew, is huge.

And I wasn't really thinking of you, I do not know much of your background, but apparently you got stung.
Thus, if the shoe fits.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
We have been through this before. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα gives context to the sentence.
We have been through this before, and I explained to you that the only thing that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies is Christ's descent in the phrase ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. The rest of the sentence is unaffected by it.
You cannot then separate Christ from his flesh
Once more, Christ's flesh is not what the passage is talking about. The passage clearly says that Jesus is from the fathers according to the flesh.
That means there is a component of Christ's descent which is not from the fathers and this component is left undefined.
and pretend that the words "according to the spirit" are in the text. They're not.
I never said or implied that they were, so why do you keep falsely implying that I have?
Consequence: the human Christ is being imputed as God over all, by your account of Rom 9:5.
No, because "the human Christ" is a figment of your imagination. That's not what the text says and that's not what I have said that it says. You don't seem to grasp what I've said, so your best course of action is to ask me for clarification and let me speak for myself.
I have produced a list of 12 reasons why I am right and you are wrong. I'm still adding to them.
You mean the one above that I dismantled? Don't make me laugh.
I guess it is within the realm of possibility that the meaning (not the words) of ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο from John 1:18 could have been used in Rom 9:5 in place of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

But what is Paul talking about in Rom 9:5? The blessings on Israel, and more widely, the whole issue of Isreal. For he continues in 9:6 "It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." It's all about blessings and cursings on Israel. That is his theme. There is no room for some profound theological digression about Christ. It's just wide of the mark.

Paul is on a mission to explain the problem of Israel, not talk about the Messiah. So the issue is that context as much as grammar is precluding your interpretation. You are the one demanding a second attributive or appositive after an adverbial accusative, so you show us examples of it. Here Paul surely would have used ὅς ἐστιν rather than ὁ ὢν if he had wanted to make a "who is" reference, but evidently such was not his intention nor does the context suggest it was so.
Since you insist on a theological discussion, I'll grant you your wish just this once. Just a bit earlier in the previous chapter (8:1-11) Paul talks about the importance of being in Christ:
Romans 8:1-11 said:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
There are many things that you need to note here, but I'll only mention three.
1) Those who are literally "in the flesh" as it seems you have defined it are able to walk "not according to the flesh" and be living "according to the spirit" even though they remain physically "in the flesh." This means that the issue at hand isn't the dichotomy of flesh or spirit as you have framed it (as referring simply to the Christ's fleshly existence).
2) The clear problem that Paul addresses in chapter 9 is a continuation of the thought that those who are not in Christ are under condemnation (8:1). They aren't saved simply by their descent from the Fathers ("For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" 9:6). This once again demonstrates that a fleshly existence isn't in view.
3) This passage confirms what I said that Jesus was unique in regard to his being from the Fathers ("By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" 8:3 emphasis added) in that he was like them but also unlike them. He was like them insofar as his descent according to the flesh.

There is much more that needs to be shown to you, but this will suffice to make my point. I don't know how in the world you can claim that "Paul is on a mission to explain the problem of Israel, not talk about the Messiah" when the entire point that he is making is that Israel's problem is that they don't have Christ and aren't living in the Spirit as Christ did. I've said this before but it bears repeating: it's hard for me to believe you've even read Romans.
What you don't seem to grasp is I know that everything you say comes with an ulterior motive to ram hardcore Trinitarianism down people's throats.
I don't know why you keep saying this. I've said repeatedly that I don't claim to be a Trinitarian, and I have never once given a defense of Trinitarianism in any context other than a philosophical discussion with Caroljeen nor have I shown the slightest inclination to. The truth is not in you.
And yet you pretend to some purist grammarian ideal that ignores the attribution of "God above all" given to Christ even in his state of humanity [1] being without scriptural precedent [2], and also "human" not "spirit" being the ineluctable context of the sentence in which Christ appears in Rom 9:5 [3].
[1] At the time this was written, Christ wasn't in a state of humanity. I've pointed this out to you before.
[2] There is a scriptural precedent "scripture itself did not qualify Christ being over all things in Psalm 8:6" as, once more, I've pointed out to you before.
[3] I addressed this in my ultra-brief comments on Romans 8. (Ultra-brief because there is days worth of stuff there that could be unpacked and that you need to think about that I didn't cover.) Oh, I almost forgot: I've also explained this to you before.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
For Bible believers with a high view of the Bible text (brianrw is probably in this group) the text is pure, and, in discussing variants, solecisms show that variant not the authentic text (granted, there is a special discussion about Revelation.)
A solecism is simply a variation from standard, accepted grammar. I don't even think such a concept (standard grammar) existed then in the sense that we mean it today. And even if it did, calling common written or spoken variations "errors" is presumptuously prescriptive. (Much less your ridiculous assertion that these show a variant text!)
This high Christian perspective is not "fallacious", it is simply the case that you are in opposition to the view. Thus you commit a fallacy of projecting your own beliefs, or unbelief, onto others.
No. I'm simply pointing out that you are erroneously applying your foreign 3rd millennium ideas to a 1st millennium text.
Skeptics, liberals and unbelievers will give the argument that any error is possible. It would be popular on the board where spin posts.

The Anglo seminarians have totally botched their grammar in recent years in trying to counter the grammatical argument for heavenly witnesses authenticity. That is trivially easy to see, a type of Logic 101.
Well, if I felt any error were possible, I would allow you, cjab, and TRJM to make whatever absurd comments you wished, wouldn't I?
What is involved is the competence to understand a simple logical argument.
That's just it: you can't "understand a simple logical argument" about a language you have no "competence" in. You don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the claims. Unless you are directly quoting someone who does, you've got nothing to offer, far,far less than the "Anglo seminarians" you wrongfully disparage.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Native fluency in the modern Greek language, combined with extensive studies in Classical and Koine Greek, is the ideal.

The difference between skilled men of that class, like Eugenius Bulgaris and Georgios Babiniotis, and the Anglo seminarian crew, is huge.
The difference between those scholars and the seminarians you mention is far less than the gulf between these seminarians and you.
but apparently you got stung.
Thus, if the shoe fits.
Once again, your logic has failed you.
 

brianrw

Member
I never said "it demands the end of a sentence." Talk about false witness. That is far too wide.
So then you don't think the grammar requires a period after σάρκα? I'm with JM, I think you've lost your place in the argument... or maybe you need to articulate it more clearly.

As concerning Rom 8:1, is it too much to suppose that those who believe Rom 9:5 refers to the deity of Christ's flesh, such as you, are in danger of being "in Christ according to the flesh"?
Your argument is devolving into nonsense. I have no idea what "deity of Christ's flesh" is even supposed to mean, or how it has anything to do with the discussion here--these seem to be your words, exclusively. Who here is speaking about the "deity of Christ's flesh"? Or do you still think τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ὁ Χριστὸς? The body is like a tabernacle--or, in Christ's case, he refers to his body as a temple (John 2:19).

Why would κατὰ σάρκα be followed by ὁ ὢν? It doesn't seem logical, inherently so, given the theological nature of the topic.
The attributive participle acts as a predicator and sets off a participial phrase that gives us further information about Christ. There is nothing inherently illogical about this at all.

You cannot then separate Christ from his flesh and pretend that the words "according to the spirit" are in the text. They're not
This makes no sense; τὸ κατὰ σάρκα simply restricts the scope of ἐξ ὧν.

Christ is only an Israelite by descent insofar as the flesh (i.e., physical descent) is concerned. He did not begin to exist when he became man.

Paul is on a mission to explain the problem of Israel, not talk about the Messiah. So the issue is that context as much as grammar is precluding your interpretation.
You're really failing to grasp the context here.

You cannot then separate Christ from his flesh and pretend that the words "according to the spirit" are in the text. They're not.
If I recall correctly, it wasn't long ago that this was the position taken up by you and the TRJM. However, I don't think JM has and I certainly have not taken that position at all. For my part, I have said that the antithesis is stated--ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.

You actually don't have a grammatical argument, but you are very clearly proving with all your dogmatic theological assertions the very thing I have been saying: emending the passage with a period after σάρκα is based upon the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." The presence of the participle would not suggest such a sentence division.

It hasn't changed. I was specifically referring to the non-parenthetical κατὰ σάρκα clause as in Rom 8:1. The four primary examples in Rom 1:3, 1:4, 9:5, Acts 2:30 are all to a marked degree paranthetical (although possibly not fully parenthical for the grammatical purist).
:rolleyes:

If you aren't actually discussing a biblical language, the discussion has no place here. No one here cares about the manifold ways in which you misunderstand the Bible or about the false claims that you make about a language you can't even read. If anyone shouldn't be here, it is you, not I.
(y)
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Christ is only an Israelite by descent insofar as the flesh (i.e., physical descent) is concerned. He did not begin to exist when he became man.

Yeah, this is nonsense. Humans come into existence at conception, we are not literally pre-existing beings, certainly not eternal. So what you are describing above is not a genuine human being. It certainly isn’t also the God of Israel.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Yeah, this is nonsense. Humans come into existence at conception, we are not literally pre-existing beings, certainly not eternal. So what you are describing above is not a genuine human being. It certainly isn’t also the God of Israel.
Certainly "the Christ" did begin to exist only when he became a man, because "the Christ" always denotes a human being. This much is conceded by Peter in 1 Peter 1:20: such can be said without prejudice as to the identity of "the Christ."
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The difference between those scholars and the seminarians you mention is far less than the gulf between these seminarians and you.

On this topic, I am in complete agreement with those scholars.

And the contra Anglo seminarians are opposed to the true scholars.

If you ever learn the topic, you may be able to make informed comments.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
That's just it: you can't "understand a simple logical argument" about a language you have no "competence" in. You don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the claims. Unless you are directly quoting someone who does, you've got nothing to offer, far,far less than the "Anglo seminarians" you wrongfully disparage.

You are simply huffing and puffing.

See if you can follow this logic, and see if it requires special Greek-geek background.
A contra in this context is someone who opposes heavenly witnesses authenticity.

Let’s review.

1) Bulgaris and Nolan make it crystal clear that the solecism involves neuter nouns, not any verses that have masculine or feminine nouns.

2) Contras in recent years, after AD 2000, claim to overthrow the grammatical argument, by referencing 16 verses that all have masculine or feminine nouns. This absurdity is the key argument online used to defend the short text grammar.

3) Steven Avery points out that this is a massive fail of Logic 101, an elementary blunder.

4) Contras have no answer, and do not want to accept the hard truth — so they bluster and claim I am making up rules!

This is all very simple.
And I can show you the words of Bulgaris and Nolan and the false argumentation.
Then you might actually be informed.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
A solecism is simply a variation from standard, accepted grammar. I don't even think such a concept (standard grammar) existed then in the sense that we mean it today. And even if it did, calling common written or spoken variations "errors" is presumptuously prescriptive. (Much less your ridiculous assertion that these show a variant text!)

We are not talking of a common variation.

In fact, that is why false analogy verses are given.

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

Christian Remembrancer (1822)
The Heavenly Witnesses
Frederick Nolan - written June 18, 1822
http://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA460

... the introduction of the Heavenly Witnesses removes every grammatical objection to the context of the Apostle. That the suppression of them creates an insuperable objection to it, may be referred to the decision of a judge whose sentence none will deny to be impartial, and few dispute to be competent. "But what," observes Bishop Marsh*, in reference to the epistle before us, "shall we say to readings, which when connected with the context make false grammar? What shall we say to a verb singular, &c.....to a masculine adjective referring to a neuter substantive? Now the question to be asked is, is it possible, that Velez found this, and the other readings of the same stamp, in a Greek manuscript?" "Even a man," he elsewhere reasons, "who learnt Greek by mere usage and conversation, without being taught its first principles, could not possibly have written" as St. John is proved to have written, by those who reject the disputed text from his epistle.

* Lett, to Travis, Append, iii. p. 276. sqq. comp. Pref. p. i. n. 1.
===================
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Certainly "the Christ" did begin to exist only when he became a man, because "the Christ" always denotes a human being. This much is conceded by Peter in 1 Peter 1:20: such can be said without prejudice as to the identity of "the Christ."
Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father,"
Here's another inconvenient passage for you.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
On this topic, I am in complete agreement with those scholars.

And the contra Anglo seminarians are opposed to the true scholars.

If you ever learn the topic, you may be able to make informed comments.
That's funny. On this topic, I'm sure your own scholars would agree with me, and you are too uninformed to know it.
 
Top