Our Lord's God
Well-known member
No need to repeat the truth over and over to heretics who are going to deny it anyway.
Then you should expect all to ignore you.
No need to repeat the truth over and over to heretics who are going to deny it anyway.
I don't care.Then you should expect all to ignore you.
I don't care.
I am not going to waste my time typing the same thing over and over again to heretics that love to wallow in the mud.
The words of the Bible are properly defined one way, but your heresy teaches the exact opposite.Yes, rather, your truth will be whatever your favorite fantasies dictate.
The words of the Bible are properly defined one way, but your heresy teaches the exact opposite.
We can see quite clearly that the words of the Bible are defined as you want to define them.
Where's the proof for your assertion?
You left it behind in numerous posts.
????What’s not clear about this ? If words have meaning, “ God” is not “son of God.”
God must be related to the monogenes Son of God who "came down from heaven", if words have meaning. Otherwise words are meaningless.????
It is axiomatic that "Christ" is not "God" in Pauline theology, but the "son of God" Rom 1:3,4, 2Co 1:19, Gal 2:20, Eph 4:13
Why would there be exceptions? Is God a God of confusion? Surely exceptions are created by those who desire there to be exceptions in order to "draw disciples away after them" (Acts 20:30). I see no exception in Rom 9:5 or Titus 2:13, but only allusions to the close relation between Christ and God. In any event, your "who is" re Rom 9:5 simply doesn't exist in the Greek: it's an anglicization, not a transliteration.The theory of the Appositionists is that Romans 9:5 is the exception. Some of them like Titus 2:13 also.
just for the record, a transliteration is when you put original language words into the English alphabet, i.e. ἀγάπη = agapē. That's quite different from translation!Why would there be exceptions? Is God a God of confusion? Surely exceptions are created by those who desire there to be exceptions in order to "draw disciples away after them" (Acts 20:30). I see no exception in Rom 9:5 or Titus 2:13, but only allusions to the close relation between Christ and God. In any event, your "who is" re Rom 9:5 simply doesn't exist in the Greek: it's an anglicization, not a transliteration.
Yes, I meant "foreign language transcription" not transliteration.just for the record, a transliteration is when you put original language words into the English alphabet, i.e. ἀγάπη = agapē. That's quite different from translation!
I agree it sometimes is a valid anglicization / translation of the participle, where context and semantics allow. But this is by no means a rule; and so to pre-empt the translation of the participle by insisting on "who is" is to disregard context and semantics: it may lead to a serious error in the translation.Secondly the "who is" is a valid translation of the participle. We can argue about its correctness, but it's certainly in the ballpark.
There is no way that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is in apposition to Θεὸς ; rather the adjective πάντων modifies the noun that immediately comes after it, namely Θεὸς. This is normal grammar. Gryllus has lost all sense of reason & of grammar at Romans 9:5 on account of his lust to find the "Deity of Christ" in this verse. Just terrible.The theory of the Appositionists is that Romans 9:5 is the exception. Some of them like Titus 2:13 also.
There is no way that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is in apposition to Θεὸς ; rather the adjective πάντων modifies the noun that immediately comes after it, namely Θεὸς. This is normal grammar. Gryllus has lost all sense of reason & of grammar at Romans 9:5 on account of his lust to find the "Deity of Christ" in this verse. Just terrible.
Interestingly, the usage of ὁ ὢν in the Pauline epistles is extremely rare. The only other place it occurs is 2 Cor 11:31 in a similar doxology but without the ἐπὶ πάντων attributive and without Θεὸς:
ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι
Using the transcription translation method, ὁ ὢν can only mean "He who is" or "The one being" or "He being", as it follows a verb οἶδεν.
2 Cor 11:31 ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
Rom 9:5 ὁ ὢν (ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
If 2 Cor 11:31 uncontroversially refers to the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", how can Rom 9:5 refer to someone else?
What a lovely ad hominem.There is no way that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is in apposition to Θεὸς ; rather the adjective πάντων modifies the noun that immediately comes after it, namely Θεὸς. This is normal grammar. Gryllus has lost all sense of reason & of grammar at Romans 9:5 on account of his lust to find the "Deity of Christ" in this verse. Just terrible.