So then you don't think the grammar requires a period after σάρκα? I'm with JM, I think you've lost your place in the argument... or maybe you need to articulate it more clearly.
In Rom 9:5, I see a period after σάρκα, because I see σάρκα as naturally terminating the list of blessings on Israel.
What comes after σάρκα is a blessing on God. God isn't Israel. There should be a break somewhere, because there is a change of subject: a change in the one being blessed, and so after σάρκα is the right place.
Your argument is devolving into nonsense. I have no idea what "deity of Christ's flesh" is even supposed to mean, or how it has anything to do with the discussion here--these seem to be your words, exclusively.
All I know is that imputing the human Jesus as God (when he was undeniably a man per Rom 5:15) is imputing deity to the whole man of flesh, and not just his spirit. That doesn't mean the literal flesh is being deified: it means that the whole man is being deified because Jesus is one person. (As the Greeks now defer to him: Jesus the godman.)
With reference to Trinitarianism, your rendition cannot be made to say "Jesus's divine nature alone is God," unless you take the "one above all" as Jesus's divine nature to the exclusion of his human nature, which is eisegesis.
This is a serious problem with Rom 9:5 fitting in with Trinitarian theology that you may like to consider.
Who here is speaking about the "deity of Christ's flesh"? Or do you still think τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ὁ Χριστὸς? The body is like a tabernacle--or, in Christ's case, he refers to his body as a temple (John 2:19).
No I don't think τὸ κατὰ σάρκα modifies ὁ Χριστὸς directly. I do think it provides a didactic context to the sentence, which already contains that context anyway. By ὁ Χριστὸς the whole man of flesh is necessarily included: not just, say, his spirit, or his antecedent or subsequent states of being.
The attributive participle acts as a predicator and sets off a participial phrase that gives us further information about Christ. There is nothing inherently illogical about this at all.
Nothing to dictate an attributive participle here. You've got to agree that an adverbial accusative such as τὸ κατὰ σάρκα doesn't ordinarily fall between a noun and an attributive participle. In fact one could strongly argue that just because Paul chose to put τὸ κατὰ σάρκα
unnaturally after ὁ Χριστὸς and not before it (which could have been expected and was open to him had he seen an attributive participle), he was making a very strong grammatical statement about there being no attributive participle.
I am surprised that no-one has thought of this before me.
This makes no sense; τὸ κατὰ σάρκα simply restricts the scope of ἐξ ὧν.
See above.
Christ is only an Israelite by descent insofar as the flesh (i.e., physical descent) is concerned. He did not begin to exist when he became man.
OK
You're really failing to grasp the context here.
If I recall correctly, it wasn't long ago that this was the position taken up by you and the TRJM. However, I don't think JM has and I certainly have not taken that position at all. For my part, I have said that the antithesis is stated--ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.
I fully agree an antithesis is being stated, but it's the wrong thesis you've got, because the subject isn't Christ but the blessings on Israel. We must be weary of supposing that any reference to Christ means that he automatically becomes the subject. Clearly Christ isn't the subject of this Rom 9:5 sentence. The context and subject is other than him.
Moreover κατὰ σάρκα doesn't always demand an antithesis. That would be unreal. It obtained an antithesis in Rom 1:3,4 because Christ was the subject and the context.
In Rom 9:5, Paul is lastly going to allude to the blessed God, which entails a change of subject. This is the true antithesis.
You actually don't have a grammatical argument, but you are very clearly proving with all your dogmatic theological assertions the very thing I have been saying: emending the passage with a period after σάρκα is based upon the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God."
I think that is a reasonable supposition, but it is by no means the only matter I am relying on. In this post I have come up with other good reasons that do not rely on this undoubted truism.
The presence of the participle would not suggest such a sentence division.
The "He who....." can easily start a new sentence, or a new clause. To deny it is absurd.
John 19:11 ὁ παραδούς μέ σοι μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει
John 3:31 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν
Heb 10:37 ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει