You are back…The point is that even Gryllus understands that if Romans 9:5 is taken like so —, that is, ὁ ὢν is not starting a new sentence … ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς then ὁ ὢν … is not in the second attributive position but is more naturally construed as an appositive.
There's not exactly a great gulf between our positions. My understanding is that he is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as a predicate substantive, but that's not what you're arguing for here.
Taking θεὸς as a predicate is unjustifiable where it is preceded by an article. There is no grammar rule which allows an adjective/participle in the first attributive position to be disassociated from its head noun by a supervening rule of construction.
You say a lot of things about the Greek and much of it is not grammatically sound. If we emend the punctuation with a period after σάρκα (which the manuscripts
don't support), I would not take ὁ ὢν would as operating in the first attributive position, but as a substantival usage of the participle as the subject of the sentence. Since it retains the same equative function of its finite equivalents, Θεὸς would be the predicate. So IMHO it is either operating in the 2nd attributive position, or it is a substantival usage of the participle. I don't regard a first attributive usage as a likely option at all.
What I am asserting, and I am most certainly not the first to note it, is that when ὁ ὢν begins a clause in the GNT it never takes a substantive as its subject, because it is operating as the subject itself. Rather, its usage is almost invariably
generic and the nominal head is
always implied
. That means it can apply to anyone of the class of individuals to whom the action of the verb or equation applies.
Quite simply, if it is operating in an attributive position with a noun or noun phrase that matches it in case, number, and gender, then it will modify it in that position, and if it stands between two nominatives and is in an attributive position with the preceding noun it is most naturally going to take what precedes it as the antecedent. So it most naturally modifies ὁ Χριστὸς. Since ὁ ὢν is itself equative, we naturally expect it to take a predicate.
This demolishes his AV apposition claim, that Christ is God in the verse, since you would have to insist on strange fire changes to show the apposition. Here are three tries:
1) comma after God, separating it from the natural association with blessed, creating three distinct attributes of Christ
2) adding “as” as done by Murray Harris, posted by Brian twice but then disclaimed!
A mangled English attempt.
“(Christ,) who is supreme above all as God blessed forever”
3) claiming complex ellipses additions
e.g. (Christ is) God, (who is) blessed for ever, (by creation, his people, or something)
Earlier, I showed that this is the weakest, most unnatural interpretation of the phrase.
You're
completely misrepresenting me on all three points, none of which are points I advocated, much less "Tries."
(#1) Is something
you said my position requires, which I have disputed about a hundred times now.
(#2) Is what
Harris was saying and you were misrepresenting me as saying.
(#3) Is another instance of you ascribing words to my position by something I never said. First, that there is no verbal concept involved with the adjective "blessed," but "blessed" describes "God" as a predicate in the postposition. I have reiterated this point ad nauseam, and you keep pretending I'm saying something different by putting words in my mouth. I have said, and always will say, that "God" in the AV text is an appositive of "Christ" and "blessed" is a predicate adjective in the postposition.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Look:
Of course not, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the participle usage in the GNT and you're not following the terminology. When the participle operates substantively, the head nominal is implied and the usage is almost always generic. That means it refers to any one of the whole class of individuals performing the action. When it operates attributively, there is a
particular individual or individual in view, so the usage is
particular. "Dependent" means that the head nominal of the attributive participle is already stated, so it is
dependent on the identity of the head noun.
Bold above is an appositive. ὁ ὢν is functioning substantivally there . Are you really disputing this ? You need to read more GNT.
Yes, I am disputing this. You assert this because "modifers" are involved, whereas the grammars assert that this is a normal function of the participle. The participial phrase (with its objects and modifiers) operates adjectivally to modify the head noun. It's actually quite similar in English, so it should not be a hard concept to follow. The same is true of nouns and noun phrases in English, the usage is equivalent to the Greek in that respect--the noun phrase has a noun at its head and operates as a noun. The participial phrase operates like an adjective.
It's really simple, and you both keep making the whole thing way overcomplicated. Thus "the only begotten
I'm presuming you're self-taught, no?
1) Brian does not have an English apposition text with Christ = God. His attempt to enlist the AV is a huge failure. (Side note: He continually quotes “God over all..” when his actual text is “Christ .. over all.”)
2) Brian does not deal with the uniqueness of Romans 9:5 as a verse opposed to New Testament dual addressing, which is normative, His main attempt is an appeal to Titus 2:13 as if one mistranslation supports the other. He also enlists the bandwagon fallacy.
3). Brian does not deal with the simple fact that Christ=God is simply a Trinitarian disaster. The article from Thomas Hubeart receives no response. Also the simple question, if not God the Father, what God is Christ in Romans 9:5?
1. It is an apposition. 2. It does not mean "blessed by God." 3. Trinitarians hold to the concept of three persons, one God--the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. I have no idea what Hubeart article you are talking about. Cjab is very verbose. I can't possibly respond to all his points without preparing a multi-volume work. So I am sticking to the language aspect. Virtually none of what you are saying is relevant to the topic, and moreover most of it is a distortion of my actual positions. All you are doing is derailing the conversation with a host of personal attacks against strawman Brian.