ὁ Λόγος !== ὁ Θεὸς
Nothing can justify your eternal attempt to confound ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ with ὁ Θεὸς, or ὁ Λόγος with ὁ Θεὸς,
It is the Trinitarian fable that ὁ Λόγος is Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ
when Christ himself said in John 17:3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
John 1:1, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. The article distinguishes between subject and predicate. It's no fable, and that interpretation is consistent from the earliest of times, well before Nicea. You'll have quite an uphill battle against this one.
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).
This one's not even worth responding to. Nothing is being ignored, since τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ἐξ ὧν. Your argument is basically incoherent on this matter.
I didn't say it of you so stop pretending that I did.
I was referring to the theology of antichrist, which as history has shown over and again, involves the synthesis of new gods of flesh from the older God of spirit, which is then usurped. This is why neither Christ nor the apostles usurp the Father's rightful preeminence and titles.
So, despite your objection in the first sentence, you proceed to show my inference was essentially correct. If you had stated what you were trying to say clearly, rather than implying it, I could have nuanced my response. As shown in the scriptures above, there was no "synthesis of new gods of flesh from older God of spirit which is then usurped."
No one here is contending for this sort of theology, and the scriptures above (which you failed to address) clearly and unambiguously state that Christ was no mere man. This is the third time, now, you've made this charge against us and simply repeating it doesn't make it true. Trinitarians don't believe Christ was a mere man who became God. We believe that Christ became flesh and dwelt among us.
You are making many absolute statements, but the scriptures noted before disagree with your position. You accuse others of being theologically biased, it seems you still have a need to look inward, since your theology is driving everything you say to misrepresent both the Greek construction and the fathers. Your argument here is theologically driven.
We have the world's ablest scholars on our side.
This is a huge overstatement. You have scholars that will say, "ancient manuscripts rarely contain punctuation, so the translation depends on whether you add a period or not," and the only reason for adding a period in this sort of construction is the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." Adding a period
has nothing to do with the actual grammar, and in fact the grammar does not suggest a period should be added. On that note, I have the manuscripts, versions, fathers, the consensus of the NA/UBS committees as well as the vast majority of English translations on my side. In other words, your position requires an emendation of the text, and apparently one most aren't willing to make.
You need to check out Eusebius's last writings on Marcellus and his Ecclesiastical Theology for a better perspective on Eusebius.
I'm familiar with Eusebius, since I've read his works. Maybe you are not as familiar with him as you seem to indicate. Or perhaps you don't have a clear distinction between the modified Sabellianism of Marcellus and Trinitarianism. For example:
...then at length, at the fitting time, the perfect and heavenly teacher of perfect and heavenly thoughts and teaching, the leader to the (b) true knowledge of God, God the Word, revealed Himself, at the time announced for His Incarnation, preaching the Gospel of the Father's love, the same for all nations, whether Greeks or Barbarians, to every race of men, moving all to a common salvation in God, promising the truth and light of true religion, the kingdom of Heaven, and eternal life to all.
...all the angels of heaven, and the ministering spirits, and the divine powers, and on earth the apostles and evangelists, and after them those of all nations who through Him are enrolled under the one and only true God and Father, have learned that Christ is God the Word, and have consented to worship Him as God.
...But as it was necessary for the mysteries of both His Birth and Death to be included in the prophecy concerning Him, Jacob rightly proceeds to add to what has gone before:
"Judah is a lion's whelp. From a seed, my son, thou hast ascended, falling down thou hast slept as a lion and a lion's whelp: who shall arouse thee?"
He calls Him then a lion's whelp because of His being born of the royal tribe. For He was of the seed of (b) David according to the flesh. "From a shoot thou hast grown, my son," he says, because He was born of the seed and root of Jacob who foretold it, being primarily God the Word, and becoming secondarily the Son of man, through the dispensation He undertook for us. (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book 8)
In his
Ecclesiastical History (1.3.7):
"For they also bore in their own persons types of the royal and sovereign power of the true and only Christ, the divine Word who rules over all (τοῦ κατὰ πάντων βασιλεύοντος θείου λόγου)."
And in his Oration of Constantine:
In accordance, therefore, with the soundest reason, we may say that there is one Being whose care and providence are over all things, even God the Word, who has ordered all things; but the Word being God himself is also the Son of God. For by what name can we designate him except by this title of the Son, without falling into the most grievous error? (Oration, 9)
Additionally, in his Oration in Praise of Constantine:
Lastly, he who is in all, before, and after all, his only begotten, pre-existent Word, the great High Priest of the mighty God, elder than all time and every age, devoted to his Father's glory, first and alone makes intercession with him for the salvation of mankind. Supreme and pre-eminent Ruler of the universe, he shares the glory of his Father's kingdom: for he is that Light, which, transcendent above the universe, encircles the Father's Person, interposing and dividing between the eternal and uncreated Essence and all derived existence: that Light which, streaming from on high, proceeds from that Deity who knows not origin or end, and illumines the super-celestial regions, and all that heaven itself contains, with the radiance of wisdom bright beyond the splendor of the sun. This is he who holds a supreme dominion over this whole world, who is over and in all things, and pervades all things visible and invisible; the Word of God. From whom and by whom our divinely favored emperor, receiving, as it were a transcript of the Divine sovereignty, directs, in imitation of God himself, the administration of this world's affairs. (1.6)
So it is clear from his writings that Eusebius does refer to Christ as "God," "God the Word," and "over all," and does not regard "over all" as being also
over the Father, but that this rule proceeds from the Father.
How long do I need to go about this, before you acknowledge you've been misrepresenting Eusebius, as you also misrepresented Irenaeus?
No one here is suggesting that "over all" (i.e., "over all
things," neuter) suggests that Christ reigns also over the Father, any more than Christ himself saying, "
All power has been given to me (Ἐδόθη μοι
πᾶσα ἐξουσία) in heaven and earth" means power also over the Father. Those who would assert otherwise here or in Romans 9:5 are simply arriving at that conclusion through the fallacy of accent.