Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

If it is modifying ἐξ ὧν, it is also modifying ὁ Χριστὸς (grammatically speaking), because the verb is equative.
No. The adverbial accusative limits the scope of the verb or equation implicit in ἐξ ὧν, not ὁ Χριστὸς.

This means you cannot continue with ὁ Χριστὸς in any other grammatical sense than how it is appears in its clause. ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by and into its clause.
Yes, ὁ Χριστὸς can be modified attributively by a participle in spite of the presence of an adverb.

The addition of the art. strongly emphasizes the limitation. ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by the limitation, grammatically speaking. The limitation predominates.
"Limitation" means that the adverbial preposition limits the scope of the verbal action/equation implicit in ἐξ ὧν. It doesn't force an end to the sentence. Acts 2:30, case in point.

None of these excuses will get you anywhere. The issue is whether you emend the punctuation with a period, which the manuscripts don't support.

Your argument is unsound, I have no idea where you are getting all of this.
 
Last edited:
An adverb between a noun and a participle doesn't break the attributive participle construction. The construction article-noun-article-modifier represents the minimal elements required to form that particular construction--it doesn't mean every construction is made up of only four words or that absolutely nothing can come between the head noun/noun phrase and its modifier.
Do you have an example from the GNT of such a construction in the second attributive position? I haven’t seen one.


Why are you stating that an adverbial accusative is modifying the noun ὁ Χριστὸς?
Not sure why you would accuse me of that.

As I have explained repeatedly before , there is an implied verb in the following , not to mention the implied adverb — καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

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
 
This means you cannot continue with ὁ Χριστὸς in any other grammatical sense than how it is appears in its clause. ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by and into its clause.

The addition of the art. strongly emphasizes the limitation. ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by the limitation, grammatically speaking. The limitation predominates.
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is just functioning adverbially. I did not need to read a grammar to figure this out. Kind of like how in English “home” in the statement “I went home” is being used adverbially. The implied equative verb relates to ὁ Χριστὸς and ἐξ ὧν as in ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς or ὁ Χριστὸς ἐστιν ἐξ ὧν τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
 
I apologize for the underlining in that post. I didn't preview it, so I didn't catch it. I started the post with a capital U in brackets to show that it wasn't capitalized in the original quote, but I forgot to add "\" so it thought I was giving the underline code. I didn't do it on purpose.
 
Cjab rightly notes that “ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by and into its clause.” The implied verb ἐστιν assures us of that. So the word order in isolation of the clause only appears to allow ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα to apparently function as the “ head noun” of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. It’s sleight of hand.
 
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is just functioning adverbially. I did not need to read a grammar to figure this out. Kind of like how in English “home” in the statement “I went home” is being used adverbially. The implied equative verb relates to ὁ Χριστὸς and ἐξ ὧν as in ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς or ὁ Χριστὸς ἐστιν ἐξ ὧν τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
Moreover the κατὰ πνεῦμα sense demanded by Trinitarians in order to continue the sentence only became forcefully declared upon his resurrection from the dead (per Rom 1:4). It would hardly make any sense to derive an implied reference to his resurrection from a context in which his generation alone is being alluded to.
 
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα demands a period.
No, it doesn't. The expression could be used to introduce a quotation, as a nested expression like "τὸ κατὰ σάρκα σῶμα," and any other way an articular prepositional phrase can be used. You are making a bogus assertion. These types of things prove that you don't know Greek.
It is impossible, if you have any natural sense of the Koine of the bible to take ὁ ὢν (ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς) as being in the second attributive position to an imagined “head noun”, namely ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
If you had any sense of the Koine, you'd know that your assertion is baseless.
 
Non-sequitur and completely fallacious reasoning.
Try explaining yourself for a change. Why do you think "nuh-uh" is a rebuttal?
I haven't disputed the fact, so your critique is misplaced. I'm disputing your interpretation of an adverbial accusative.
No. You are disputing BDF's interpretation of Romans 9:5. I've explained to you what it meant.
Nothing you say above detracts from my reasoning.
Just look at this miserable post! All you've done is deny what I've said. Is that the best you've got?
 
Moreover the κατὰ πνεῦμα sense demanded by Trinitarians in order to continue the sentence only became forcefully declared upon his resurrection from the dead (per Rom 1:4). It would hardly make any sense to derive an implied reference to his resurrection from a context in which his generation alone is being alluded to.
What "κατὰ πνεῦμα sense demanded by Trinitarians in order to continue the sentence" are you talking about? I made a single point from a perfectly vanilla parallel construction to show you how dumb your argument is and there you go conjuring the Trinitarian boogeyman as though it were something that Trinitarians have done from times immemorial. Not only that, you have completely missed the point that I was making! The fact that κατὰ πνεῦμα can be modified shows it doesn't necessarily end a clause (much less the sentence!). The same holds true for κατὰ σάρκα. This fact is not open for debate. The fact that you and TRJM are disputing it shows what I have known and asserted all along: neither of you has the faintest idea of how to read and understand Greek.
 
If it is modifying ἐξ ὧν, it is also modifying ὁ Χριστὸς (grammatically speaking), because the verb is equative.

This means you cannot continue with ὁ Χριστὸς in any other grammatical sense than how it is appears in its clause. ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by and into its clause.

The addition of the art. strongly emphasizes the limitation. ὁ Χριστὸς is bound by the limitation, grammatically speaking. The limitation predominates.
Rubbish. Example: The husband of this woman is temporarily this man, the son of that woman. Do you see it yet? (And, predictably, you still don't seem to understand what "limitation" means.)
 
No, it doesn't. The expression could be used to introduce a quotation, as a nested expression like "τὸ κατὰ σάρκα σῶμα," and any other way an articular prepositional phrase can be used. You are making a bogus assertion. These types of things prove that you don't know Greek.

If you had any sense of the Koine, you'd know that your assertion is baseless.
You would have to elaborate on bold above, hopefully with an example from the GNT. Because it sounds like a fairy tale.

“A nested expression”? You mean τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is somehow “a nested expression”? Is that a grammatical term or did you just make it up? And are you now trying to also suggest that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα σῶμα is a quotation ? Of what, from where ? Is it a partial quotation or a full quotation ?
 
You would have to elaborate on bold above, hopefully with an example from the GNT. Because it sounds like a fairy tale.

“A nested expression”? You mean τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is somehow “a nested expression”? Is that a grammatical term or did you just make it up? And are you now trying to also suggest that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα σῶμα is a quotation ? Of what, from where ? Is it a partial quotation or a full quotation ?
What I meant by "The expression could be used to introduce a quotation" was that "τό" could be indicating that what followed (κατὰ σάρκα in this case) was a quote.
"τό" Introducing Quotation
Romans 13:8-9
"Μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν· ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν. τὸ γὰρ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται [ἐν τῷ]· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν."

Nested Expression
Romans 1:15 "οὕτως τὸ κατ’ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελίσασθαι."
 
The fact that κατὰ πνεῦμα can be modified shows it doesn't necessarily end a clause (much less the sentence!).

The same holds true for κατὰ σάρκα. This fact is not open for debate. The fact that you and TRJM are disputing it shows what I have known and asserted all along: neither of you has the faintest idea of how to read and understand Greek.
Three points

(a) In Rom 1:4 the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause is followed by a preposition ἐξ which relates back to τοῦ ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει. Thus the construction of the sentence after the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause in Rom 1:4 bears no relation to the Trinitarian rendition of Rom 9:5. Rom 1:4 can't help you.

κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is but a parenthetical clause. The clause could be completely omitted without in any sense altering the rest of the sentence. Such parenthetical clauses involving κατὰ are often found. Arguably the κατὰ clause in Rom 9:5 is technically parenthetical, as I myself have suggested, as also Winer.

However it also serves to reinforce an important point, which is that the flesh of Christ is being referred to, because the context is his generation. And that is the whole problem with respect to your bogus Trinitarian attempt to refer to the flesh of Christ as "God." You want to divorce the reference to "the Christ" from both the adverbial grammatical clause and the context in which it is found, which is the generation of the savior.

There is no case for allowing the context or grammar to also infer his resurrection, which is the precondition in Rom 1:4 for any declaration that he was shown to be from heaven.

(b) The real subject of Rom 9:4-5 is the blessings on the people of Israel. The divine status of Christ is in this context irrelevant: there is no reason why it should be alluded to.

(c) There is no adverbial sense deriving from τὸ in Rom 1:4. So the force of κατὰ πνεῦμα is reduced in importance. It isn't the dominant idea in Rom 1:4, as it is in Rom 9:5.
 
Last edited:
Three points

(a) In Rom 1:4 the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause is followed by a preposition ἐξ which relates back to τοῦ ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει. Thus the construction of the sentence after the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause in Rom 1:4 bears no relation to the Trinitarian rendition of Rom 9:5. Rom 1:4 can't help you.
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν
In the passage above, ἁγιωσύνης immediately follows κατὰ πνεῦμα, not ἐξ. You know this and are likely trying to be deceptive both by stealthily admitting that κατὰ πνεῦμα does not end the clause (and thereby indirectly conceding that κατὰ σάρκα doesn't necessarily mark the end of a clause either) and by omitting the text citation so that your unnecessary-to-address-because-you-have-already-made-an-unrecoverable-error assertion might appear plausible to those who couldn't know better.

κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is but a parenthetical clause. The clause could be completely omitted without in any sense altering the rest of the sentence. Such parenthetical clauses involving κατὰ are often found. Arguably the κατὰ clause in Rom 9:5 is technically parenthetical, as I myself have suggested, as also Winer.
They can be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical because they are prepositional phrases. I was the one who explained this to you earlier as seen in quote from me below. However, the omission of the phrase would definitely change the sense of the sentence.
In this stretch of text you referred to, it is obvious that the phrase τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ which follows κατὰ σάρκα is a resumption of what had already been said about the son. There is no reason why Romans 9:5 could not be doing the same thing. As with all prepositional phrases τὸ κατὰ σάρκα can be dropped and still leave a grammatical construction which would run "ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας". In that case even you, as ignorant of Greek as you are, should understand that it is grammatically acceptable.

However it also serves to reinforce an important point, which is that the flesh of Christ is being referred to, because the context is his generation. And that is the whole problem with respect to your bogus Trinitarian attempt to refer to the flesh of Christ as "God." You want to divorce the reference to "the Christ" from both the adverbial grammatical clause and the context in which it is found, which is the generation of the savior.
No. The "whole problem" is that it is left to the reader to understand what τὸ κατὰ σάρκα means in relationship to his generation. You are assuming that it refers to "the flesh of Christ" but that need not be it.

You shouldn't comment on my wants and motives. You have no clue what they are. What I want is for you to stop making false statements in support of your theology. If you were defending you beliefs with valid arguments, I wouldn't have a problem with you.
There is no case for allowing the context or grammar to also infer his resurrection, which is the precondition in Rom 1:4 for any declaration that he was shown to be from heaven.
This has no bearing at all on the use of the phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα that we were discussing.
b) The real subject of Rom 9:4-5 is the blessings on the people of Israel. The divine status of Christ is in this context irrelevant: there is no reason why it should be alluded to.
This has no bearing at all on the use of the phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα that we were discussing either.
(c) There is no adverbial sense deriving from τὸ in Rom 1:4. So the force of κατὰ πνεῦμα is reduced in importance. It isn't the dominant idea in Rom 1:4.
There is no "τὸ" in Romans 1:4 of course there is no sense arising from it! Whether it is the dominant idea or not (and, again, you still don't understand what the article is doing and what BDF explained) is once again....not relevant to the phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα that we were discussing.

If this is all you can muster, no wonder you keep making assertions while keeping your mouth shut!
 
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν
In the passage above, ἁγιωσύνης immediately follows κατὰ πνεῦμα, not ἐξ. You know this and are likely trying to be deceptive both by stealthily admitting that κατὰ πνεῦμα does not end the clause (and thereby indirectly conceding that κατὰ σάρκα doesn't necessarily mark the end of a clause either) and by omitting the text citation so that your unnecessary-to-address-because-you-have-already-made-an-unrecoverable-error assertion might appear plausible to those who couldn't know better.
I referred to the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause.

ἁγιωσύνης being a genitive is irrelevant even if it is directly associated with πνεῦμα.

Stop waffling above irrelevance. If you didn't treat others as fools, you might learn something.

They can be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical because they are prepositional phrases. I was the one who explained this to you earlier as seen in quote from me below. However, the omission of the phrase would definitely change the sense of the sentence.
The omission of the phrase would not change the sense of the sentence in any way shape or form. The the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause is a parenthetical clause, which could be bracketed or omitted.

What you explained to me I forget. I was referring to other instances of parenthetical κατὰ clauses I have come across in the bible.

No. The "whole problem" is that it is left to the reader to understand what τὸ κατὰ σάρκα means in relationship to his generation. You are assuming that it refers to "the flesh of Christ" but that need not be it.
σάρκα means flesh. How can it not be related to flesh?

You shouldn't comment on my wants and motives. You have no clue what they are. What I want is for you to stop making false statements in support of your theology. If you were defending you beliefs with valid arguments, I wouldn't have a problem with you.

This has no bearing at all on the use of the phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα that we were discussing.

This has no bearing at all on the use of the phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα that we were discussing either.

There is no "τὸ" in Romans 1:4 of course there is no sense arising from it! Whether it is the dominant idea or not (and, again, you still don't understand what the article is doing and what BDF explained) is once again....not relevant to the phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα that we were discussing.

If this is all you can muster, no wonder you keep making assertions while keeping your mouth shut!
I feel discussing anything with you is futile, as you want to talk down to me all the time.
 
I referred to the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause.

ἁγιωσύνης being a genitive is irrelevant even if it is directly associated with πνεῦμα.

Stop waffling above irrelevance. If you didn't treat others as fools, you might learn something.
The clause doesn't stop at κατὰ πνεῦμα! I'm not the one who needs to learn.
The omission of the phrase would not change the sense of the sentence in any way shape or form. The the κατὰ πνεῦμα clause is a parenthetical clause, which could be bracketed or omitted.
It could be omitted, but it provides additional information that the sentence would lack without it. Therefore, the sense of the sentence would change. I can't believe you are arguing about this fact.
What you explained to me I forget. I was referring to other instances of parenthetical κατὰ clauses I have come across in the bible.
Ok.
σάρκα means flesh. How can it not be related to flesh?
I'll try to use an example to explain. If Paul wrote that Timothy was from Eunice according to the flesh, you would likely understand that he was saying that Eunice was Paul's mother. The implication of that sentence would be that there is a sense in which Timothy was not "from" Eunice. What this sense is may never be known to the reader. If you supposed that it meant in this instance that he is from Paul because he obeyed the gospel and/or was baptized by Paul and thereby Paul's spiritual son, you may or may not be correct. If you suppose that it means in this instance that he is from Christ because he put on Christ, you may or may not be correct. If you suppose that it means in this instance that he is ultimately from God, you may or may not be correct. The point is that Paul didn't tell us plainly what he meant by his implication.

In the texts in Romans 1 and 9, we don't know exactly what Paul meant by his implication that there was a manner in which Jesus is not from the fathers. And if we don't know this, the manner in which he is "from" the fathers is likewise not completely defined.
I feel discussing anything with you is futile, as you want to talk down to me all the time.
People belittle me all the time. That doesn't mean that I can't learn from them. Your discussions with me are futile because of you. If you looked into what I've said, you should be able to understand why you are mistaken. But you haven't done this. You just erroneously assert "you are wrong" and continue making your willfully ignorant claims.
 
What I meant by "The expression could be used to introduce a quotation" was that "τό" could be indicating that what followed (κατὰ σάρκα in this case) was a quote.
"τό" Introducing Quotation
Romans 13:8-9
"Μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν· ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν. τὸ γὰρ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται [ἐν τῷ]· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν."

Nested Expression
Romans 1:15 "οὕτως τὸ κατ’ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελίσασθαι."
Before I get into a discussion of the broader problems associated with this bizarre take of Romans 9:5 , I would like you to clarify if you are taking the entire following expression “τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς “ as a “nested expression” or just “τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.”

I’m also not sure how this helps your cause . Are you saying that the “nested expression” allows you to take τὸ as a nominative ? Could you please do a much better job of explaining your position ? And don’t get upset or offensive for my asking, just explain your position clearly. Would appreciate that.
 
And don’t get upset or offensive for my asking, just explain your position clearly. Would appreciate that.
No problem, TRJM. This is a refreshing change. I'll be perfectly pleasant so long as you are.
Before I get into a discussion of the broader problems associated with this bizarre take of Romans 9:5 , I would like you to clarify if you are taking the entire following expression “τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς “ as a “nested expression” or just “τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.”

I’m also not sure how this helps your cause . Are you saying that the “nested expression” allows you to take τὸ as a nominative ? Could you please do a much better job of explaining your position ?
My remarks were made in specific regard to your claim that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα marks the end of a sentence (My understanding is that you stated that as an absolute rule). My assertion is that there is nothing about the phrase that necessarily indicates the end of a sentence. The relevance to Romans 9:5 is that if my statements are true you cannot assume that a new sentence begins immediately after the phrase. You would instead need to make an argument for why it does in that instance.

Did that clarify things?
 
Did that clarify things?

Not particularly.

Take a step back and look at the sentence and the clause (bold below) 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.
 
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?
  1. ὁ ἀρχιοινοχόος καὶ ὁ ἀρχισιτοποιός οἳ ἦσαν τῷ βασιλεῗ Αἰγύπτου οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ (Genesis 40:5).
  2. οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄντες (Genesis 24:54)
  3. οἰκία ἡ οὖσα ἐν πόλει… (Leviticus 25:30)
  4. χήρα ἡ οὖσα ἐν ταῗς πόλεσίν σου (Deuteronomy 16:14)
  5. λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι (1 Kings 16:22)
  6. καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι οἱ ὄντες ἐχθὲς... (1 Samuel 14:21)
  7. νομὴ ἡ οὖσα τοῗς σκύμνοις (Nahum 2:11)
  8. οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν Αφαρσαχαῗοι οἱ ἐν πέρα τοῦ ποταμοῦ μακρὰν ὄντες (Ezra 6:6)
  9. οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι οἱ ὄντες μετ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (John 11:31)
  10. 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)
  11. υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (John 3:13, as found in nearly all manuscripts outside the Alexandrian family, including A*)
  12. ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 12:17)
  13. οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ οἱ ὄντες κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν (Acts 11:1)
  14. ὅ δέ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν (Acts 14:13)
  15. τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου (Romans 7:23)
  16. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (1 Cor. 1:2)
  17. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (2 Cor. 1:1)
  18. τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ (2 Cor. 1:1)
  19. τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (Ephesians 1:1)
  20. τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς (Ephesians 4:18)
  21. πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις (Philippians 1:1)
  22. τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1 Thess. 2:14)
  23. 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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top