May be they relaxed the rules for the sake of expediency.
But as I said, there's no rule that forbids this. And if they did so for the "sake of expediency," then where were their adversaries to say they were breaking the grammar? And why is it that no less than six emendations were proposed by those who held a presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." This is not just a
slight problem for your argument. It is in fact quite damning. Even Ehrman, an agnostic who previously held that position, has since reversed it admitting that the reasoning was "circular."
What sect is that? I own neither Arians nor Socinians.
Unitarian, which is TRJM. You should watch the person quoting, because I usually quote multiple people you should check who I am addressing in the quote. I sometimes remember to address on the shift, but more often than not I forget. But you think I'm speaking to you often when I'm not. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
As a protestant, I know which category of theology the 2 Thess 2:4 antichrist is associated with.
What a foolish thing, to set scripture against scripture as though to say we do not worship Christ, but
Antichrist.
You haven't effectively made your case. If the scriptures did not plainly call Christ, "God," and "equal" with God, and Christ had not said he had been granted all power in heaven and earth, then we certainly would not adore him as such. But since the scriptures
do call Christ "God," and Christ Himself says, "All power [πᾶσα ἐξουσία] is given to me in heaven and earth," we are certainly not so foolish as to believe the Father who gave this authority has now made Himself subject to it, or that the Father himself should be counted among all things created by him.
Translating the passages the way they should be should precedes exegetical interpretation. Otherwise, you are allowing eisegesis under the pretext of exegesis.
Putting Christ at the end of the prepositional clause is I suppose one way to get around your difficulty, but again this entails a too obvious synthesis of Greek and English.
There's no difficulty to "get around" whatsoever, nor is it an "obvious synthesis of Greek and English." It's actually taking proper Greek into proper English: in ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ἐξ ὧν adverbially; ὁ ὢν modifies ὁ Χριστὸς and serves as a predicator of ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. This is a perfectly good translation from the Greek.
No. Emending the text by adding a period after σάρκα and translating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as "God who is over all" or "God over all" (treating ὢν as otiose) is getting around the difficulty, since θεὸς is not a subject but a predicate of ὁ ὢν. When ὁ ὢν is taken substantively it is usually generic ("he who" in a general sense), not particular. So more properly, "He who is over all, God, be blessed," and even that just disguises the difficulty presented by the participle in the Greek and the general departure from the normal expression of a Hebrew doxology.
As for what reading is difficult, and what reading is not, you've stood this discussion on its head.
May be you don't know that every individual preposition has its own idiosyncrasies, and that general rules of grammar are sometimes subordinate to particular rules of grammar respecting particular prepositions.
The preposition κατά (by apocope κάδ, etc.) means
down, and is parallel in most uses to ἀνά.
It is never purely adverbial (κάτω being used instead, cp. ἄνω), ...
https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/monro/κατά
Great. More misplaced rules. Are we going to deal with koine Greek or Homeric Greek? Or should it be classical Greek? You and TRJM are all over the map. Yes, I am well aware that the meaning of a preposition can differ depending upon case.
In
koine and Attic Greek κατά with the accusative most certainly does have the meaning "according to, in conformity with," and it can
indeed be used adverbially. Why don't you consult something more relevant to the topic as an Attic grammar (which deals with this in more detail than your typical biblical grammar), where you can have your error here rectified. (see Remark 2 at the bottom of the page and note the examples).
What a pain.
I'm afraid not. The antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα is clearly and unambiguously stated by apostle Paul in the first chapter of Romans (1:4) as being κατὰ πνεῦμα. You have to understand that in the bible the antithesis follows the grammatical construct of the thesis, in other words if the thesis is made up of a preposition + a noun (eg. κατὰ σάρκα) then the antithesis has the same sort of grammar (eg. κατὰ πνεῦμα). Take for instance another example, ἐκ τῶν κάτω vs ἐκ τῶν ἄνω in John 8:23. Or another very simple one from John 1:5 τὸ φῶς vs ἡ σκοτία, etc.
At this point you are just bloviating. I'm interested in the context of Romans 9:5. Not the context of Romans 1:4 applied to the context of Romans 9:5. That would be the fallacy of contextomy. In all three of these you are dealing with
stated, not
implied, antitheses. But somehow in Romans 9:5 you say the obvious antithesis should be ignored for on implied? These examples support my position far better than yours.
It's amazing how badly you both are doubling down, your arguments are simply off the wall at this point with no end to the rule making in sight.
Yeah, they both like to argue against a strawman caricature of their opponent's position, which is not profitable for learning, and "a waste of time."
You can distance yourself from past comments all you want, but I am most certainly not arguing against a "strawman caricature" of your position. I think you just don't realize how bad your own position is.