We have been through this before. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα gives context to the sentence.
We have been through this before, and I explained to you that the only thing that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies is Christ's descent in the phrase ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. The rest of the sentence is unaffected by it.
You cannot then separate Christ from his flesh
Once more, Christ's flesh is not what the passage is talking about. The passage clearly says that Jesus is from the fathers according to the flesh.
That means there is a component of Christ's descent which is not from the fathers and this component is left undefined.
and pretend that the words "according to the spirit" are in the text. They're not.
I never said or implied that they were, so why do you keep falsely implying that I have?
Consequence: the human Christ is being imputed as God over all, by your account of Rom 9:5.
No, because "the human Christ" is a figment of your imagination. That's not what the text says and that's not what I have said that it says. You don't seem to grasp what I've said, so your best course of action is to ask me for clarification and let me speak for myself.
I have produced a list of 12 reasons why I am right and you are wrong. I'm still adding to them.
You mean the one above that I dismantled? Don't make me laugh.
I guess it is within the realm of possibility that the meaning (not the words) of ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο from John 1:18 could have been used in Rom 9:5 in place of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
But what is Paul talking about in Rom 9:5? The blessings on Israel, and more widely, the whole issue of Isreal. For he continues in 9:6 "It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." It's all about blessings and cursings on Israel. That is his theme. There is no room for some profound theological digression about Christ. It's just wide of the mark.
Paul is on a mission to explain the problem of Israel, not talk about the Messiah. So the issue is that context as much as grammar is precluding your interpretation. You are the one demanding a second attributive or appositive after an adverbial accusative, so you show us examples of it. Here Paul surely would have used ὅς ἐστιν rather than ὁ ὢν if he had wanted to make a "who is" reference, but evidently such was not his intention nor does the context suggest it was so.
Since you insist on a theological discussion, I'll grant you your wish just this once. Just a bit earlier in the previous chapter (8:1-11) Paul talks about the importance of being in Christ:
Romans 8:1-11 said:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
There are many things that you need to note here, but I'll only mention three.
1) Those who are literally "in the flesh" as it seems you have defined it are able to walk "not according to the flesh" and be living "according to the spirit" even though they remain physically "in the flesh." This means that the issue at hand isn't the dichotomy of flesh or spirit as you have framed it (as referring simply to the Christ's fleshly existence).
2) The clear problem that Paul addresses in chapter 9 is a continuation of the thought that those who are not in Christ are under condemnation (8:1). They aren't saved simply by their descent from the Fathers ("For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" 9:6). This once again demonstrates that a fleshly existence isn't in view.
3) This passage confirms what I said that Jesus was unique in regard to his being from the Fathers ("By sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh" 8:3 emphasis added) in that he was like them but also unlike them. He was like them insofar as his descent according to the flesh.
There is much more that needs to be shown to you, but this will suffice to make my point. I don't know how in the world you can claim that "Paul is on a mission to explain the problem of Israel, not talk about the Messiah" when the entire point that he is making is that Israel's problem is that they don't have Christ and aren't living in the Spirit as Christ did. I've said this before but it bears repeating: it's hard for me to believe you've even read Romans.
What you don't seem to grasp is I know that everything you say comes with an ulterior motive to ram hardcore Trinitarianism down people's throats.
I don't know why you keep saying this. I've said repeatedly that I don't claim to be a Trinitarian, and I have never once given a defense of Trinitarianism in any context other than a philosophical discussion with Caroljeen nor have I shown the slightest inclination to. The truth is not in you.
And yet you pretend to some purist grammarian ideal that ignores the attribution of "God above all" given to Christ even in his state of humanity [1] being without scriptural precedent [2], and also "human" not "spirit" being the ineluctable context of the sentence in which Christ appears in Rom 9:5 [3].
[1] At the time this was written, Christ wasn't in a state of humanity. I've pointed this out to you before.
[2] There is a scriptural precedent "scripture itself did not qualify Christ being over all things in Psalm 8:6" as, once more, I've pointed out to you before.
[3] I addressed this in my ultra-brief comments on Romans 8. (Ultra-brief because there is days worth of stuff there that could be unpacked and that you need to think about that I didn't cover.) Oh, I almost forgot: I've also explained this to you before.