Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

John Milton

Well-known member
OK, let's refine it a little, keeping it simple: any reference to the "Christ" refers to either (a) the man born, or (b) the man both born and now ascended.

A reference to ONLY the man born and now ascended will be contextual to direct references to Christ in the present or in the future without a historical context.

A reference to the historical Christ, as in Rom 9:5, will generally relate only to the man born prior to his ascension.
You are making a distinction where there isn't any because you are desperate. The Christ refers to "the word" before his incarnation, to the Christ in the flesh, and to the Christ after his resurrection. They share the same identity because they are all the Christ.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The "He who....." can easily start a new sentence, or a new clause. ...

John 19:11 ὁ παραδούς μέ σοι μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει
John 3:31 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν
Heb 10:37 ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει

Please clarify a point for me.
Have you claimed that ὁ is functioning as a definite article for God?
Thanks!
 

John Milton

Well-known member
So you disagree with brianrw who claims the Greek must be an apposition, unless you throw in punctuation that does not really have manuscript support. (You do not allow such punctuation, since that would lead to a position like cjab, e.g. if there is a period after flesh/σάρκα.)
The original text almost certainly did not have punctuation. The rendering that cjab prefers would require the text to have that punctuation in it for that sense to be the clear option.
Why not publicly correct brianrw?
If you see the Greek as easily supporting a non-apposition text "Christ=God".
I've not been following all of his remarks.
His error of insisting on an apposition would be as radically wrong as the cjab error of totally separating Christ from God.
I agree it would be wrong to insist on apposition, but it is the more likely option.
And why not actually give your two allowable English texts?
I didn't say I had two allowable texts. What I said was I don't know of a committee translation that gives an unacceptable translation of this passage. That means you can pretty well pick one (apart from paraphrases and what not) and I won't have a problem with it as a possible rendering of the text.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The original text almost certainly did not have punctuation. The rendering that cjab prefers would require the text to have that punctuation in it for that sense to be the clear option. ....

I didn't say I had two allowable texts. What I said was I don't know of a committee translation that gives an unacceptable translation of this passage. That means you can pretty well pick one (apart from paraphrases and what not) and I won't have a problem with it as a possible rendering of the text.

You make vague references to committee translations. A diversion.

Romans 9:5 - RSV
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

So you accept that because it was from a committee?
In which case you basically agree with cjab.

Why not be forthright and give us two translations of which you approve, or create on your own, one with apposition, one without.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
This is a typical go-to: when all else fails, muddy the waters. They weren't ambiguous to the Greeks, and in every case represent the plainest renderings when the same grammar in uncontroverted parallels is applied. The scriptures weren't meant to be read three to six different ways. But when theology gets in the way, that's what happens--we hear what it is not, and then no one of the "nots" can agree on what is.
Just because a half a dozen or so gnostic/ proto-Trinitarian "Church Fathers" opted to punctuate the verse in the Trinitarian fashion does not mean that the grammar here supports the Trinitarian reading. You are giving the false impression that the Trinitarian take here is more than a punctuation (interpretative) issue. So not only is the "Deity of Christ" built upon a generally weak foundation biblically speaking, but it also relies on mis-information and gullibility to perpetuate it.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You are giving the false impression that the Trinitarian take here is more than a punctuation (interpretative) issue. So not only is the "Deity of Christ" built upon a generally weak foundation biblically speaking, but it also relies on mis-information and gullibility to perpetuate it.

brianrw has to pretend that his preferred English, the AV, supports the supposed Christ=God apposition.

Simply reading the text, you find that is not true. (Although it is true for the NIV and some others.)

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.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
brianrw has to pretend that his preferred English, the AV, supports the supposed Christ=God apposition.

Neither brianrw or John Milton are playing with a full deck.

Now, I do agree with their argumentation against the proposed period that totally separates Christ from God, and eliminates Christ from being over all.

However, neither brian or John Milton can really support the supposed apposition text, that TRJM call "Trinitarian" because it would say Jesus is God.

Brian supports the AV text, and it is not apposition.

John Milton absolutely refuses to give his English text, he says the Greek supports wildly contradictory English texts, and he makes the wackiest allusions to Committee translations, which can disagree with each other, all over the map.

John Milton does not give his proposed or preferred English text, because then the jig is up.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You make vague references to committee translations. A diversion.
I told you I don't know of a committee translation that won't work. As far as I know, you can take your pick. What is "vague" about that?
Romans 9:5 - RSV
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

So you accept that
I don't think it is likely to be the one intended, but the Greek text certainly allows that translation.
because it was from a committee?
Not because it was from a committee but because the people involved in the translation committees generally have better language skills than the translations offered by individuals (though there are exceptions to this).
In which case you basically agree with cjab.
No, I don't. The reasons cjab gives for his understanding of the text are not grammatically sound. Insisting that a particular prepositional phrase signals a stop is just one example of the many false grammatical claims he has made in this thread. That is what I've been addressing.
Why not be forthright and give us two translations of which you approve, or create on your own, one with apposition, one without.
I've told you that I approve of most of them. You'd have a harder time finding one I disagree with than one I don't.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Neither brianrw or John Milton are playing with a full deck.

Now, I do agree with their argumentation against the proposed period that totally separates Christ from God, and eliminates Christ from being over all.

However, neither brian or John Milton can really support the supposed apposition text, that TRJM call "Trinitarian" because it would say Jesus is God.

Brian supports the AV text, and it is not apposition.

John Milton absolutely refuses to give his English text, he says the Greek supports wildly contradictory English texts, and he makes the wackiest allusions to Committee translations, which can disagree with each other, all over the map.

John Milton does not give his proposed or preferred English text, because then the jig is up.
That the half a dozen or so gnostic "Church Fathers" which Brian has built his 9:5 case on were theologically motivated is clear since the reading they opted for (taking ὁ ὢν attributively, for starters) has no precedent in the GNT.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
brianrw has to pretend that his preferred English, the AV, supports the supposed Christ=God apposition.

Simply reading the text, you find that is not true. (Although it is true for the NIV and some others.)

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.
As I've explained to you, the problem isn't the AV it's your understanding of it. It doesn't mean "God blessed the Christ" or "Christ is blessed by God" as you suppose. The fact that the translators did not include a verb here as they did in every other rendering involving εὐλογητός should've been your first clue.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I don't think it is likely to be the one intended, but the Greek text certainly allows that translation. …The reasons cjab gives for his understanding of the text are not grammatically sound.
cjab, note that your text is acceptable to John Milton.

He just does not like how you get there.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
As I've explained to you, the problem isn't the AV it's your understanding of it. It doesn't mean "God blessed the Christ" or "Christ is blessed by God" as you suppose. The fact that the translators did not include a verb here as they did in every other rendering involving εὐλογητός should've been your first clue.
You are avoiding the apposition question.
My exploration of God blessed (is Christ) is not dogmatic, and should become clearer over time.
Either way, there is no apposition in the AV.

I answered you earlier on the verb. The ellipsis “is Christ” could not include the verb without a wooden duplication of Christ. Plus, it is not a doxology, which was your context in discussing the verb. And this is a far greater difficulty for apposition and doxology interpretations.

Since you accept many conflicting English texts, you really are in no position to fabricate nonsense objections.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Neither brianrw or John Milton are playing with a full deck.
Classy.
Now, I do agree with their argumentation against the proposed period that totally separates Christ from God, and eliminates Christ from being over all.
It doesn't matter what you agree with. Your modus operandi is to accept whatever supports your position, and you don't have the skill needed to evaluate any grammatical arguments that we make.
However, neither brian or John Milton can really support the supposed apposition text, that TRJM call "Trinitarian" because it would say Jesus is God.
Ridiculous. The Bible says Jesus is God in John 1:1 and John 20:28. There is no reason this passage can't.
Brian supports the AV text, and it is not apposition.
It is. You just don't understand the English.
John Milton absolutely refuses to give his English text,
I don't use an English text. Why should I give one?
he says the Greek supports wildly contradictory English texts,
No. I said the different English translations done by committee, to the best of my knowledge, all give plausible interpretations of the Greek. And I've further qualified that by saying that your understanding of the AV in Rom. 9:5 is different than the translators intended as is evidenced by their translations involving εὐλογητός in every other passage.
and he makes the wackiest allusions to Committee translations, which can disagree with each other, all over the map.
They can "disagree with each other, all over the map" and still be giving possible interpretations of the text in Romans 9:5. The text is ambiguous and can mean different things. It is obvious you are a typical monolingual American or you wouldn't make this mistake.
John Milton does not give his proposed or preferred English text, because then the jig is up.
I said you can pick any one you want, and it will almost certainly be fine. How much more accommodating can I be? I've even told you repeatedly that the AV translation you prefer is perfectly acceptable. Your whining is as ridiculous as someone complaining that the waiter won't select their food for them.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You are avoiding the apposition question.
My exploration of God blessed (is Christ) is not dogmatic, and should become clearer over time.
This is directly contradicted by your remark immediately below.
Either way, there is no apposition in the AV.
Yes, there is.
I answered you earlier on the verb. The ellipsis “is Christ” could not include the verb without a wooden duplication of Christ.
They left it out because it wasn't what they meant. The addition of "is Christ" dramatically changes the meaning of what they wrote.
Plus, it is not a doxology, which was your context in discussing the verb.
My point was that the translators add the words necessary to provide the sense they intend in all cases involving the phrase.
And this is a far greater difficulty for apposition and doxology interpretations.
Why do you think that the position that appears to be the oldest and most widely held is the one with the greatest difficulties?
Since you accept many conflicting English texts, you really are in no position to fabricate nonsense objections.
I accept that many conflicting English texts can contain interpretations that don't violate Greek grammar. It is unfortunate for you that you lack the ability to understand the difference.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
My point was that the translators add the words necessary to provide the sense they intend in all cases involving the phrase.
Exactly the point.
If they wanted to give an apposition text they would have written
“(Christ is) God, blessed for ever” or simply
“God, blessed for ever”.
The later would make God an attribute of Christ, one of three.

over all
God (apposition)
blessed for ever

And it would disconnect God from blessed, its “natural association.” (Murray Harris)
The way they did write, there is no apposition.

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

You have to make word additions or add punctuation to claim the AV text says Christ is God.

And I am rather amazed that anyone can read the AV text and make your claim.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Why do you think that the position that appears to be the oldest and most widely held is the one with the greatest difficulties?
You lost the context of the discussion, which was the omission of “is” or a similar verb in the AV.

They left it out because it wasn't what they meant. The addition of "is Christ" dramatically changes the meaning of what they wrote.
Actually, that is the natural English reading.

Attributes of Christ, who is:
1) over all
2) God blessed for ever

This is how the phrases are laid out in the AV.
Both phrases end with a comma, in a section where Christ is described, they are equivalent grammatically.

If the punctuation were the same, and “Angel” was the word instead of God, even you would see your grammatical foible and failure. (Although some groups see Christ as Gabriel, so they might similarly claim apposition by their doctrinal presupposition glasses!)

The reason for reading the AV as an apposition by commentators is a trivial bandwagon fallacy. Ignoring the doctrinal difficulties (see Thomas Hubeart), the commentators, as usual, are fishing for verses that give them “Christ is God.” By mangling the AV interpretation in this way, they can say to Socinians, Unitarians and others “aha, look, the NT directly says Christ is God”. Without proper nuance or context, like you have in 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in the flesh” (AV-TR).
 
Last edited:
Top