Since you claim to know Koine, please fill in the missing words in Greek in the following καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα
Definitely
not the third person plural
εἰσιν, as you previously proposed before θεὸς "in keeping with what has been going on in the last verse":
I see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as a Subject- Predicate Nominative construction with the assumed to be verb εἰσιν in keeping with what has been going on in the last verse ( where this verb is assumed multiple times as well).. So ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων ( εἰσιν) Θεὸς,….
Though
ἐστιν may be implied (I have, for simplicity, taken that approach in this thread) the nature of the prepositional phrase and Paul's style suggests ἦλθεν (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, 1 Tim. 1:15); the verbal action is one of descent and several English translations exhibit this
. I've said that before, and you made the tremendous blunder of thinking that ἦλθεν would make the (adverbial) accusative τὸ κατὰ σάρκα the "object" of an "action verb!"
I digress to note that "He who is over all
is God" (what you wrote above with
εἰσιν would actually be "He who is over all
are God") is
not the translation you are even championing.
Since you "
claim to know Koine," how is it that you suggest a third person plural verb before a singular noun? And how is it that you suggest a verb before θεὸς, because even when it behaves as a noun the participle ὁ ὢν still retains its verbal aspect and
can function as a predicator?
Do you have an example from the GNT of such a construction in the second attributive position? I haven’t seen one.
I gave 23 examples in the post you're responding to. It's no fault of mine that you have no idea how an attributive participle is supposed to work, which anyone with even an intermediate level of understanding should be able to comprehend.
Or maybe you simply didn't recognize the different masculine, feminine, neuter, singular and plural forms of ὢν?
- ὁ ἀρχιοινοχόος καὶ ὁ ἀρχισιτοποιός οἳ ἦσαν τῷ βασιλεῗ Αἰγύπτου οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ (Genesis 40:5).
- οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄντες (Genesis 24:54)
- ἡ οἰκία ἡ οὖσα ἐν πόλει… (Leviticus 25:30)
- ἡ χήρα ἡ οὖσα ἐν ταῗς πόλεσίν σου (Deuteronomy 16:14)
- ὁ λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι (1 Kings 16:22)
- καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι οἱ ὄντες ἐχθὲς... (1 Samuel 14:21)
- ἡ νομὴ ἡ οὖσα τοῗς σκύμνοις (Nahum 2:11)
- οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν Αφαρσαχαῗοι οἱ ἐν πέρα τοῦ ποταμοῦ μακρὰν ὄντες (Ezra 6:6)
- οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι οἱ ὄντες μετ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (John 11:31)
- ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς (John 1:18 in most manuscripts, TR, MT, PT)
μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς (John 1:18, Alexandrian variant, 3rd attributive position)
- ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (John 3:13, as found in nearly all manuscripts outside the Alexandrian family, including A*)
- ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 12:17)
- οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ οἱ ὄντες κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν (Acts 11:1)
- ὅ δέ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν (Acts 14:13)
- τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου (Romans 7:23)
- τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (1 Cor. 1:2)
- τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (2 Cor. 1:1)
- τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ (2 Cor. 1:1)
- τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (Ephesians 1:1)
- τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς (Ephesians 4:18)
- πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις (Philippians 1:1)
- τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1 Thess. 2:14)
- ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι (2 Corinthians 11:31)
Your root problem is this statement regarding the attributive participle:
Another point to note is that when an adjective has modifiers, it is rarely if ever in the second attributive position. In such cases the adjective with modifiers is an appositive. In other words, the second attributive position is article + noun + article + adjective, not article + noun + article + adjective and it’s modifiers. So at John 12:17 the expression ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν would make no sense without the qualifying μετ’ αὐτοῦ. This tells us that ὁ ὢν μετ’ αὐτοῦ is an appositive. The same holds true at Romans 9:5.
This whole assertion is wrong, from beginning to end. An attributive participle is not an adjective, but a modifier itself (specifically, a verbal adjective, a.k.a. an attributive verb). And whether it functions like an adjective or a noun
it does not lose its verbal aspect and can be modified by a prepositional phrase or other parts of speech. The second attributive position is the most
common position an attributive participle occupies; ὁ ὢν μετ’ αὐτοῦ is
not an independent substantival apposition, but
an attributive participial phrase modifying ὁ ὄχλος.
Not particularly.
Take a step back and look at the sentence and the clause (bold) with the implied verb explicitly stated:
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐστὶν τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject and τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is the adverbial accusative. The conjunction καὶ denotes a terminus after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, otherwise it cannot be there. The to be verb ἐστὶν limits ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς . I have not seen in the entire GNT an example of an apparent participle in the second attributive position which has a head noun with an adverbial accusative . It is just not serious. Especially since the antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα ( implied or explicitly stated) is only & always κατὰ πνεῦμα and not Θεὸς ( not even the same case since it cannot go with κατὰ ) nor κατὰ θεὸν ( not even sensible, nor in the text). So the Trinitarian reading just cannot be.
You originally didn't recognize that the accusative was adverbial, or what "limiter' meant and now you behave as though you know it so well. Since it's the one thing I said that you were actually
corrected by, "τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is the adverbial accusative" is just about the
only part of this whole statement that you get
right.
People who don't understand the language make up rules. I've found that consistently. You and cjab (who is endlessly bloviating) are no exception.