Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Murray J. Harris referred to the “natural association”, which you see in the English AV text. Harris actually drifted away from that idea in his final preferences ignoring the association.

Another gentleman pointed out how both words are nominative singular masculine.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Murray J. Harris referred to the “natural association”, which you see in the English AV text. Harris actually drifted away from that idea in his final preferences ignoring the association.

Another gentleman pointed out how both words are nominative singular masculine.
The term "natural association" without further clarification is meaningless. Whoever the other nameless gentleman is is correct, both are, but that suggests to me apposition and both having the same referent.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
The term "natural association" without further clarification is meaningless. Whoever the other nameless gentleman is is correct, both are, but that suggests to me apposition and both having the same referent.
did not know "natural association" was a biblical Greek term?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Clearly Christ is not saying "simply that he had been commissioned from God above".

He is saying "I am from above"

You need to explain how ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμ translates to "my commission is from above". You're the one who's making it up.

NB: when I said that Jesus the human being is from above, of course I meant his incorporeal parts, the parts that are given by God to created human beings.

For the Lord God created Adam (out of) dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

So if the breath of life comes from God for every human in any event , then may be that provided a route for the Logos to come from God also, down to a human being. Perhaps the difficulties you are creating are because you don't have the right conception of what a human being consists of.
He is certainly not saying with those words that he is a non-human being, for that is what it amounts to for someone to say that they are a “different” human being existentially than all other human beings .
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Your ad hominem says it all jm.

Attack the poster not the argument.

Next
You don’t even have that. “7 Days” = “1 week,” “1 day” = “24 hours.” These are convertible propositions. That is not analogous to the Trinity. In other words “Three persons” is not “=“ to “1 God.” The “is” of predication rather than of identity is being invoked in the “ Triune formula.”

A correct analogy to the Trinity doctrine is “ John, James and Peter are three persons but they have the same , one (human) nature.”

Come back when you have properly studied & understood this Trinity business.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
He is certainly not saying with those words that he is a non-human being, for that is what it amounts to for someone to say that they are a “different” human being existentially than all other human beings .
He is saying unambiguously that before he became a human being, he existed as a non-human being in heaven. I note you haven't addressed my other points.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
He is saying unambiguously that before he became a human being, he existed as a non-human being in heaven. I note you haven't addressed my other points.
If he is no longer the “ I” who existed before he became a human being, he would be lying about claiming to have existed as that I. Those are two different “I”s as per your claim.

You haven’t thought your nonsense carefully enough.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The term "natural association" without further clarification is meaningles

Wrong. It indicates a connection, like God is blessing, or alternatively, God is blessed. In the theory of three distinct attributes for Christ, that connection is broken.

Without that, the only connection would be traveling through the conjectured apposition, which was never demonstrated and is more a doctrinal preference.

Whoever the other nameless gentleman is is correct, both are, but that suggests to me apposition and both having the same referent.

Your logic is circular, since you have not demonstrated the supposed apposition. With God connected to blessed, the apposition becomes hyper-conjectural. An interpretive flying leap.

The grammatical point you acknowledge between God and blessed works perfectly with the idea of a "natural association". It is interesting that only one writer pointed this out. (Although Murray Harris probably noticed it in writing of the natural association.)

His name is spin on the Biblical Christian and History Forum.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
If he is no longer the “ I” who existed before he became a human being, he would be lying about claiming to have existed as that I. Those are two different “I”s as per your claim.

You haven’t thought your nonsense carefully enough.
Not so. Per the Old Testament, the use of the anthropomorphic "I" by Spirit entities (e.g. I am God) is accepted theology. There is thus nothing in the use of the anthropomorphic "I" that mandates an ultimate human source or referent.

I have thought my theology through very well.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
The irony seems to be lost to you.
That would be the case with you. We see this used many times in scripture as God is not a unitarian math equation- you know the typical strawman used by uni's.

One body, many members is another biblical example. The two become One in marriage yet another example. The list goes on and on. God is One and Three in Persons. That fits in with all the other examples provided. Your ad hominems and strawman do not changes those biblical facts. More than One Person is identified as YHWH in scripture.

And a uni god by definition cannot be God for God is love and a solitary being is incapable of knowing and experiencing love apart from a creation hence a uni god is not self sufficient. Only the Trinitarian God ( the True God ) can be and is love. The True God can love within His Being and is Self Sufficient as Scripture reveals about Their Perichoresis in Gods Aseity.

you are incapable of teaching me a single thing about the Trinity or the Deity/humanity of Christ.

in fact you are incapable of teaching me anything about your uni god as I know that false god more than you lol.

Next.................................................................................................
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
One body, many members is another biblical example. The two become One in marriage yet another example. The list goes on and on. God is One and Three in Persons. That fits in with all the other examples provided. Your ad hominems and strawman do not changes those biblical facts. More than One Person is identified as YHWH in scripture.

And a uni god by definition cannot be God for God is love and a solitary being is incapable of knowing and experiencing love apart from a creation hence a uni god is not self sufficient. Only the Trinitarian God ( the True God ) can be and is love. The True God can love within His Being and is Self Sufficient as Scripture reveals about Their Perichoresis in Gods Aseity.

you are incapable of teaching me a single thing about the Trinity or the Deity/humanity of Christ.

in fact you are incapable of teaching me anything about your uni god as I know that false god more than you lol.

Next.................................................................................................
Adam and Eve are literally two separate beings, notice they become “one flesh” ( not “one”) . This is a metaphorical oneness , not a literal one, denoting marriage , and has the copulation act between a man & a woman in view when their flesh is joined or becomes “one.” If this is seriously your analogy of the apparent “oneness” of God , then it is pure polytheism and paganism indeed. Begone.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
Adam and Eve are literally two separate beings, notice they become “one flesh” ( not “one”) . This is a metaphorical oneness , not a literal one, denoting marriage , and has the copulation sexual act between a man & a woman in view. If this is your idea of the Trinity , then it is pure polytheism and paganism indeed.
Clueless as expected. The fact is One is used in many different ways in Scripture as I have proven. You are the one who rejects the biblical facts and truth regarding its usage.

And time and time again you have proven on CARM you have zero "objectivity" and " unbias " when it comes to scripture, language and learning. All qualities of a person that is unteachable. And if you are honest with yourself you will admit those facts. But somehow I doubt you will look at yourself in the mirror, face the truth( the facts) and admit what you see in it as James describes in his epistle.

hope this helps !!!
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Not so. Per the Old Testament, the use of the anthropomorphic "I" by Spirit entities (e.g. I am God) is accepted theology. There is thus nothing in the use of the anthropomorphic "I" that mandates an ultimate human source or referent.

I have thought my theology through very well.
You are not addressing the problem. You said he ceased being the non-human “ I” and became another “I” when he apparently became a human being. So he could not claim to be that other “I”.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Clueless as expected. The fact is One is used in many different ways in Scripture as I have proven. You are the one who rejects the biblical facts and truth regarding its usage.

And time and time again you have proven on CARM you have zero "objectivity" and " unbias " when it comes to scripture, language and learning. All qualities of a person that is unteachable. And if you are honest with yourself you will admit those facts. But somehow I doubt you will look at yourself in the mirror, face the truth( the facts) and admit what you see in it as James describes in his epistle.

hope this helps !!!
“One” always denotes a singular. If a pagan denies polytheism when he worships Adam and Eve as the “one God” because he claims that they are “one flesh,” would you go along with the foolish pagan’s “logic” ? Yet you expect us to go along with your equally foolish Trinitarian nonsense.
 
Top