Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Actually, to be fair, ad hominem is greatly overused and misused. In modern days it means an attack on a person to thereby discredit his argument, against the man. Your position on the Bible text is worthless because you do not have a PhD in textual criticism would be an example.

Just criticizing a person does not qualify as ad hominem in this sense. To say a person does not understand something, right or wrong, is simply an argumentative opinion, not an ad hominem.

Ad hominem, even in the strict sense, is often not fallacious. A "Christian" minister may be attacked for immorality, and if true that in fact could be a legitimate reason to discard his arguments against marriage permanence and other doctrinal positions. The sin in his life will effect his reasoning.

===================================

The traditional earlier meaning was different, to the man, accepting a person's argument, often for the purpose of showing reductio ad absurbum. John William Burgon used this in his discussion of Hort's Lucian recensions.

Two very different usages of the same term, and rarely noted in the literature.
 
Last edited:
For instance, you are still insisting that ὁ Χριστὸς is grammatically modified by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. This most likely shows that either you don't know Greek (the nice option) or are lying or are so confused that you are believing something that is untrue.
An equative adverb cannot help but modify its subject indirectly as I have pointed out.

So if one says "from whom X is according to the flesh" then one cannot pretend that "X is a person divested of flesh" where the referent is "X".

Calling me a liar for pointing this out is clearly ad hominem. Whatever else your God is made of, he is a God of flesh. This might account for your attitude.

Of course as TRJM has suggested, if Rom 9:5 had said, "who is according to the Spirit, God above all" we might have had reason to credit Paul as to this.

But just to say "from whom X is according to the flesh who is God above all": then your God (above all) is made of flesh, whatever else he be made of. And Gods of flesh "above all" is not what Jesus admitted in John 10:34,35.

This contradiction has to be resolved by you, which you are nowhere close to doing. Cite another passage in NT doctrinal teaching where the "human" Christ is himself, personally, without any assistance from his Father, "God above all."
 
Last edited:
An equative adverb cannot help but modify its subject indirectly as I have pointed out.
And as I just pointed out, you do not know what the "subject" is. You keep referring to ὁ Χριστὸς as the subject!
ὁ Χριστὸς is also caught intractably by the whole context in which it appears, as being from the Israelites, and as grammatically modified by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
I dispatched your assertion that it is "caught intractably by the whole context in which it appears" below, and you've yet to respond it.
No, the point was that even though "this man" is temporarily "the husband of this woman" it does not mean that he is also temporarily the "son of that woman." That adverbial sense doesn't carry over to the additional modifier of "this man."
This disproves your assertion here:
cjab said:
The husband of this woman is temporarily this man.
==> "This man" is permanently modified by "temporarily." He cannot escape the qualification "temporarily" even if the sentence continues.
You are attributing to the adverb phrase the commonality that the terms "the husband of this woman" and "this man" and "the son of that woman" share because they are different descriptors of the same referent.
How this applies to Romans 9 is that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα it isn't modifying Χριστὸς. If ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς is modifying Χριστὸς, and there is no reason why it cannot, it would mean that whatever the Christ is God over all regardless of how τὸ κατὰ σάρκα relates to the verb.

Look at them side by side and see if it clicks.
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
The husband of this woman is temporarily this man, the son of that woman.
See if you have a problem with the following snippet. If you do, please share your reasoning. It would be informative:
ἐξ ὧν ὁ Ἰούδας τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων προδότης κατάρατος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

So if one says "from whom X is according to the flesh" then one cannot pretend that "X is a person divested of flesh" where the referent is "X".
My point has been all along that you are assuming that "according to the flesh" means "in the flesh" or some such. Your assumption may not be true, and you haven't made a case for why you think it must be.
Calling me a liar for pointing this out is clearly ad hominem.
I didn't call you a liar to my knowledge. Is your accusation an ad hominem?
Whatever else your God is made of, he is a God of flesh. This might account for your attitude.
I've not been discussing theology here. You are the only one of us who keeps bringing it up. I have been discussing the biblical language as a biblical language while criticizing your unwillingness to do the same.
Of course as TRJM has suggested, if Rom 9:5 had said, "who is according to the Spirit, God above all" we might have had reason to credit Paul.
This is what it boils down to: you don't have a grammatical reason to forbid the possibility you don't like and you reject it for theological reasons.
But just to say "from whom X is according to the flesh" who is God above all: then your God is made of flesh, whatever else he be made of.
And if I noted that Samuel was once in the flesh but seems now to be a spirit, would you be able to think of a few more possibilities or is that hoping for too much?
 
It is you who are playing at contextomy by inferring that ὁ ὢν can conveniently ignore the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifier, and indeed the whole context to ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς.... which is the blessings on Israel, which are then contrasted with the blessed God himself (ὁ θεὸς not anarthrous θεὸς).
That's true. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα cannot be in the text for the Trinitarian reading to work , neither frankly ὢν.
 
(1) I didn’t think by “blessings” he was referring to the promises.
Ok.
(2) My point of agreement with him has to do with fact that the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifier makes the Trinitarian reading unworkable.
And that's why I said your first point didn't matter. You are wrong about this. I explained why to cjab a few posts up. You can go read it and see why you are wrong if you want.
 
Ok.

And that's why I said your first point didn't matter. You are wrong about this. I explained why to cjab a few posts up. You can go read it and see why you are wrong if you want.
Your strawman games are designed to detract from the problems of the Trinitarian reading at Romans 9:5.

Back to your real problem, with a simple question : Is κατὰ πνεῦμα the antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα in the GNT ? Yes or No ?
 
I’m not playing your strawman games. They are designed to detract from the problems of the Trinitarian reading at Romans 9:5.

Back to your real problem ; simple question in this regard: Is κατὰ πνεῦμα the antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα in the GNT ? Yes or No ?
There is no grammatical issue with the "Trinitarian reading." You should go read my post. As I told cjab, I've only been discussing the grammar.
 
Whether κατὰ πνεῦμα is the antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα in the GNT is certainly a grammatical question . Even if you don’t think so, it is still an essential aspect of the proper exegesis of Romans 9:5.
 
Well, for once you are correct. That is not the source I intended to quote. I copied and pasted the wrong search result. This is the link for the text I intended to quote, but it doesn't matter if I misunderstood you as you seem to indicate below. https://books.google.com/books?id=Bi7YZ-nsIYUC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq="τὸ+κατὰ+σάρκα+πάθος"&source=bl&ots=YEIl7WF7zn&sig=ACfU3U1tTrnT895KrIpAIfKQtYqJBl6wrg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwienpCRxrf3AhUjSN8KHevIAbsQ6AF6BAgaEAM#v=onepage&q="τὸ κατὰ σάρκα πάθος"&f=false
Case in point: the ambit of the whole sentence is limited to the monogenes considered according to the flesh: tends to reinforce all that I have been saying all along: you can't change the context to suit your doctrine.
 
Last edited:
There are various accusations here of heresy. Par for the course.

e.g. Noetus was accused of heresy by Hippolytus for equating God the Father with Christ in Romans 9:5. Yet, those who believe that God=Christ in the verse never tell us why they reject the Noetus position, since God by default to Paul and the New Testament writers will mean God the Father. So the apposition position, claiming God=Christ, is actually heresy (by their logic and attack on Sabellian positions.)

Ironically, the language of Hippolytus is far from orthodox Trinitarianism,

As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation

Sounds like an economic Trinitarian.

For context, here is Hippolytus section that includes Romans 9:5 and the attack on Noetus
Do you see, he says, how the Scriptures proclaim one God? And as this is clearly exhibited, and these passages are testimonies to it, I am under necessity, he says, since one is acknowledged, to make this One the subject of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able also to save us. And we cannot express ourselves otherwise, he says; for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says, “Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” [Romans 9:5].

3. In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself suffered, Himself raised Himself. But it is not so.

Greg Stafford points out how weak is the Hippolytus position.

Hippolytus applies the term "God" to Christ in Romans 9:5 in such a way that it is redefined to be consistent with Hippolytus’ analogy of "light from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun."[16] The Bible does not use the term God in this way, nor does it make use of such analogies when it comes to the issue of the Logos as theos, in relation to God the Father.

=================================

Beyond heresy, we even have an accusation of blasphemy in this Biblical Languages forum.

and your blasphemy towards the name of God

Now that he may be better informed, I wonder if brianrw still wants to throw out the railing accusation of blasphemy simply for accepting the historic Jehovah, supported by the Reformation Christians and solid scholarship today. And he would be attacking the rejection of the modern creepy alternative Yahweh.

Does brianrw really have a conviction in favor of Yahweh? He says he supports the Authorized Version, which has Jehovah, so there is a contradiction in his positions.

Wake up, Brian. You can't throw out an accusation of blasphemy and then clam up when challenged to either defend your position or retract the accusation (the more excellent way).
 
Last edited:
Personally I find Hippolytus's refutation of Noetus not inadequate bearing in mind Hippolytus's own misunderstanding of Rom 9:5 and his captivation to the philosophical Trinitarianism of his day. At least Hippolytus cites all the right bible verses to refute Noetus, but doesn't realize that Rom 9:5 could itself have been used to refute Noetus if read a different way. For per Hippolytus, Rom 9:5 makes the Christ of flesh the "Almighty" which cannot be, and needs no refutation as non-contextual. Christ was made Almighty only upon his resurrection.

That it never occurred to Hippolytus to read Rom 9:5 in a different way seems strange to us, but it is testament to the power of political propaganda exercised by, such as Cyril of Alexandria. If you crossed Cyril and his mob, you could get yourself murdered, literally, like Hypatia. Nestorius was exiled for life by Cyril, even though Nestorius subscribed to all the correct formulae, such as "God the Word." Cyril was, I believe, the harbinger of the 2 Thess 2:4 power prophesied (I am open to being persuaded otherwise). The orthodox had to agree to the Word being begotten of God in those days, which is why there is such specious uniformity and mutual parroting, which is alien to us.

The Hippolytus text is easy to misread in the critical section 2. In bold below is what Noetus says (i.e. not Hippolytus's words):

2.....Do you see, [Noetus] says, how the Scriptures proclaim one God? And as this is clearly exhibited, and these passages are testimonies to it, I am under necessity, [Noetus] says, since one is acknowledged, to make this One the subject of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that [the Father] might be able also to save us. And we cannot express ourselves otherwise, [Noetus] says; for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says, “Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.” [Romans 9:5].

.
.
.

6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” [Romans 9:5]. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, “Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” [Revelation 1:8]. And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father;” and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed Almighty by the Father. And in like manner Paul also, in setting forth the truth that all things are delivered unto Him, said, “Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For all things are put under Him. But when He saith, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. Then shall He also Himself be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” [1 Corinthians 15:20-28]. If, therefore, all things are put under Him with the exception of Him who put them under Him, He is Lord of all, and the Father is Lord of Him, that in all there might be manifested one God, to whom all things are made subject together with Christ, to whom the Father hath made all things subject, with the exception of Himself. And this, indeed, is said by Christ Himself, as when in the Gospel He confessed Him to be His Father and His God. For He speaks thus: “I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” [John 20:17]. If then, Noetus ventures to say that He is the Father Himself, to what father will he say Christ goes away according to the word of the Gospel? But if he will have us abandon the Gospel and give credence to his senselessness, he expends his labor in vain; for “we ought to obey God rather than men.”


7. If, again, he allege His own word when He said, “I and the Father are one,” [John 10:30], let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, “I and the Father am one, but are one.” For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spake to His Father concerning the disciples, “The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that Thou hast sent me.” [John 17:22-23]. What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition. For the Son is the one mind of the Father. We who have the Father’s mind believe so (in Him); but they who have it not have denied the Son. And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us,” to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” [John 14:8-10] and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognized Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, “Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” By which He means, If thou hast seen me, thou mayest know the Father through me. For through the image, which is like the original, the Father is made readily known. But if thou hast not known the image, which is the Son, how dost thou seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who “has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goeth to the Father.”
 
Last edited:
The Hippolytus text is easy to misread in the critical section 2. In bold below is what Noetus says (i.e. not Hippolytus's words):

2.....Do you see, [Noetus] says, how the Scriptures proclaim one God? And as this is clearly exhibited, and these passages are testimonies to it, I am under necessity, [Noetus] says, since one is acknowledged, to make this One the subject of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that [the Father] might be able also to save us. And we cannot express ourselves otherwise, [Noetus] says; for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says, “Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.” [Romans 9:5].

6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” [Romans 9:5]. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.

First, notice that Noetus and Hippolytus in the 200s are giving in translation exactly the words of the Authorized Version.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

Now this text is NOT an apposition Christ=God text.

Hippolytus tries to play both sides, having Christ is God for ever but then going:

He who is over all, God blessed, has been born;

This might be the earliest text where the word God is used for two totally different purposes, against the sensible use of language.
 
Case in point: the ambit of the whole sentence is limited to the monogenes considered according to the flesh: tends to reinforce all that I have been saying all along: you can't change the context to suit your doctrine.
That source was used to show that κατὰ σάρκα doesn't mark the end of a clause. You said that wasn't your position, so it doesn't matter. We've been over this.

Why aren't you addressing the matter we were discussing?
 
Whether κατὰ πνεῦμα is the antithesis of κατὰ σάρκα in the GNT is certainly a grammatical question . Even if you don’t think so, it is still an essential aspect of the proper exegesis of Romans 9:5.
If you take a look at what I suggested you take a look at, you might understand why it's not.
 
Back
Top