Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

"Some verbs have an object as well as a subject. The object is the person or thing affected by the verb:"

We have the implied verb (ellipsis) affecting Christ.
No. The implied verb will be some form of "be" it is incapable of having an object.

What you are trying to do is give the adjective a verbal meaning. It can do that but the person one is blessed by would need to be in the dative (again, using the words you requested).
 
That is not logically valid.
No. The logic is airtight. You don't think Romans 9:5 is a doxology because it doesn't match the other doxologies. Therefore, you shouldn't think the text means what you propose because it doesn't match the other examples of the interpretation you have proposed.

You:
And there can easily be more than one way to say something.
Also you:
You never gave one in the reverse order.
Did you notice the part where I said that the order (θεὸς εὐλογητὸς/εὐλογητὸς θεὸς) didn't matter? It still doesn't.
 
Clearly, the Christ being blessed interpretation DOES work with the English text.
It has less of a missing verb problem than the other choices.
You're absolutely right. Now for the important part that you are still missing: your interpretation of the text is wrong. It adds even more problems than just a missing verb.
The apposition interpretation is extremely difficult, trying to give God two clashing functions
God doesn't have a single "function" in the text, much less two.
and there is no Christ is God. Missing verb.
The verb was missing in the examples I gave you above and the translators supplied it. If they meant the interpretation you suppose, there is no reason to think they wouldn't have supplied it there since they did in every other instance that I have seen where it was absent.
The doxology interpretation runs into the missing is. .. God is blessed.
That's stupid. Look at the examples above.
You might claim it does not work with the Greek text, but it is the smoothest of the three interps of the English text.
It doesn't work as an interpretation of the text at all. Even the translators of the AV are arguing with you through the parallel passages I've brought to your attention. You are mapping your misunderstanding of the English onto the Greek text that clearly doesn't support that meaning. Sorry you don't like to hear it, but that's how it is.
 
It doesn't work as an interpretation of the text at all. Even the translators of the AV are arguing with you through the parallel passages I've brought to your attention.

Do you have a url or the verses?

I've never seen any real case that Christ can not be blessed by God.
 
Do you have a url or the verses?

I've never seen any real case that Christ can not be blessed by God.
LXX Gen. 26:29 μὴ ποιήσειν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν κακόν καθότι ἡμεῗς σε οὐκ ἐβδελυξάμεθα καὶ ὃν τρόπον ἐχρησάμεθά σοι καλῶς καὶ ἐξαπεστείλαμέν σε μετ᾽ εἰρήνης καὶ νῦν σὺ εὐλογητὸς ὑπὸ κυρίου
"thou art now the blessed of the LORD"

LXX Gen. 43:28 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν ὑγιαίνει ὁ παῗς σου ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ἔτι ζῇ καὶ εἶπεν εὐλογητὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῗνος τῷ θεῷ καὶ κύψαντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ
Not present in the AV. "That man is blessed by God." (Or "blessed be that man by God") This is another good example of what I proposed earlier.

LXX I Sam. 25:33 καὶ εὐλογητὸς ὁ τρόπος σου καὶ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἡ ἀποκωλύσασά με σήμερον ἐν ταύτῃ μὴ ἐλθεῗν εἰς αἵματα καὶ σῶσαι χεῗρά μου ἐμοί
"And blessed bee thy aduice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from comming to shed blood, and from auenging my selfe with mine owne hand."

I never said that Christ couldn't be blessed by God. I said that Rom. 9:5 can't bear that meaning.
 
This is circular, your apparent idea of God be blessed.

God blessed is Christ was the actual discussion, if you go uphill.
I'm not saying "God be blessed." I'm saying the text says "blessed God" (noun adjective).

In the post you quoted, I was pointing out to you that a doxology will have some form of implied be verb (as in "is" or "will be" or "was"). And be verbs don't have objects.

You seem to become confused rather easily.
 
It's undefined. Why are you assuming blessing must be given or received? In Paul's doxologies do you imagine that God is blessing himself?

The theory in many doxologies is that God is blessed by creation, or his people, or the author. Angels would be another possibility.

Or God blessed can be part of God giving a blessing.

This explains a lot about your recent postings. You have an "undefined" God blessed, meaningless, no idea who is blessing, no idea if some particular person or entity is blessed.

Where else in scripture do you see this totally confusing and undefined "God blessed" other than Romans 9:5?
 
Last edited:
The theory in many doxologies is that God is blessed by creation, or his people, or the author. Angels would be another possibility.

Or God blessed can be part of God giving a blessing.

This explains a lot about your recent postings. You have an "undefined" God blessed, meaningless, no idea who is blessing, no idea if some particular person is blessed.

Where else in scripture do you see this totally confusing and undefined "God blessed" other than Romans 9:5?
In this very post you suggest that you don't know in what manner God is blessed and yet you say that my understanding is "totally confusing and undefined?" My understanding seems to be how the word generally works. If you say someone is "blessed" you don't know whether they actually are or not. You don't know the particular ways that state was achieved (God-given gifts like our abilities and inclinations or special endowment like Solomon's wisdom) or whether or not what you perceive as a blessing truly is. You are commenting on your perception of the state that someone or something is in. Apart from clear context such as the announcement of the birth of Jesus, for example, or the mention of receiving blessing from a specific party, the exact meaning of the phrase will be obscure.
 
In this very post you suggest that you don't know in what manner God is blessed and yet you say that my understanding is "totally confusing and undefined?" My understanding seems to be how the word generally works. If you say someone is "blessed" you don't know whether they actually are or not. You don't know the particular ways that state was achieved (God-given gifts like our abilities and inclinations or special endowment like Solomon's wisdom) or whether or not what you perceive as a blessing truly is. You are commenting on your perception of the state that someone or something is in. Apart from clear context such as the announcement of the birth of Jesus, for example, or the mention of receiving blessing from a specific party, the exact meaning of the phrase will be obscure.

Again, is this the only scripture citation of God blessed which is totally undefined?
 
Again, is this the only scripture citation of God blessed which is totally undefined?
I never said totally undefined. And the answer is "no." I gave you enough information that you should understand what I meant. Most of Paul's doxologies are undefined; I didn't suppose you needed me to provide you those scripture citations again.
 
I never said totally undefined. And the answer is "no." I gave you enough information that you should understand what I meant. Most of Paul's doxologies are undefined; I didn't suppose you needed me to provide you those scripture citations again.
And you have Hippolytus writing God blessed, sandwiched between attributes of Christ, but the words just hang in the air.
 
Back
Top