Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides!

I keep telling you that you're reading the passage wrong. That's why comments such as above keep happening. Why do you think you're virtually the only one who feels he has it right?

Simply learn how an adjective works in Greek, and you'd get this. They aren't constructed the same as they are in English.

I told you the truth, but you keep calling me a liar, wresting my views, etc. So the prospect of me sharing anymore good information with you is quickly drying up the more you become belligerent and insulting. Why bother trying to correct someone who doesn't want to be wrong? At this point, you can stand before God when you do and explain what's transpired here.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I keep telling you that you're reading the passage wrong.

The main part below has now been brought over to the specialty thread:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/romans-9-5-god-blesses-christ-no-apposition-why-not-with-tr-greek.2323/#post-9041
=================================

Then you should address the key issue:

If that claim is made, then show the adjusted Greek that would give that singular usage of God blessed understanding.

Again, can you give an alternate Greek text that matches the sense of a single-duty God, part of the natural association "God blessed", not in apposition to Christ, a Greek proposed text that is different than the TR text used in the AV.

Or, are you really claiming that the idea is impossible to express in Greek?

Or do you agree that the TR text is the way, or a good way, to express that idea?

You must choose one of the three, there are no logical alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Another collection of assertions I never made. "God blessed" in the AV is a postpositive adjective, as I have already said. It functions the same as other postpositive adjectives such as "God Almighty." I said you can't translate the text of Romans 9:5 as "blessed by God." The construction makes that impossible. The Greek can exxpress it fine (and this is I believe the ninth time saying), but it requires the verbal form: ευλογητόμενος από τον Θεόν, and the like.

What you are doing in the statement above is trying to engineer such conditions that the only way to read the Textus Receptus is as you do, and you are implying I am in some way diverging from the Greek text. I assure you, I am not.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Another collection of assertions I never made. "God blessed" in the AV is a postpositive adjective, as I have already said. It functions the same as other postpositive adjectives such as "God Almighty." I said you can't translate the text of Romans 9:5 as "blessed by God." The construction makes that impossible. The Greek can exxpress it fine (and this is I believe the ninth time saying), but it requires the verbal form: ευλογητόμενος από τον Θεόν, and the like.

Why would you need a verbal form to express an adjectival phrase?

1) Christ is ... God blessed for ever.

2) Christ is ... blessed by God for ever.

While (1) is more majestic and fluid, they are equivalent adjectival constructions.

Why are you always trying to force in a verb?

Christ is .... God Almighty for ever also would not need a verb.
 

Oseas

New member
Romans 9:v.5-ASV - 5 ... whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

In my understanding, what the Holy Spirit reveals about Christ JESUS in the verse above is:

... whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh (the Word-GOD-made flesh, as revealed in Col.1:v.15&19 and 2:v.9), who is over all (over all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come), God -Christ - blessed for ever. Amen.


Colossians 2:v.1-3

1 For I would have you know how greatly I strive for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;

2 that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, that they may know the MYSTERY of God, - Christ,

3 in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Three complementary threads, with references in agreement on no apposition

Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides!
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...istology-unitarian-errors-on-both-sides.2285/

Romans 9:5 - God blesses Christ, no apposition - why not with TR Greek?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ist-no-apposition-why-not-with-tr-greek.2323/

the English AV pure Bible text of Romans 9:5 - claims of apposition
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...text-of-romans-9-5-claims-of-apposition.2365/
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
spin on BCHF has a very strong Greek background.

He agrees that the Greek is saying that God is blessing Christ for ever.

Spin
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62844#p62844

θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας
God blessed for ever

The last line is Greek working differently from English. We'd use a subordinate clause, "who God blessed forever." The Greek instead uses a verbal form as a noun, still with the subject "God" and tacks the whole nominalized sentence on. We might try "blessed by God forever". God is the one doing the blessing and the Christ is the one blessed. However, the trinitarian Christian oblivious to the fact that Paul is not trinitarian (or even binitarian) happily reorganizes the sentence to make the messiah God. This is amazing doctrinal manipulation of the text. It shows just how easily faith clouds judgment even of those who are supposed to be supplying the best tools for the faithful to use. Instead, they are letting their readers down.

Spin
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62855#p62855

On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"), both nominative singular masculine, so you naturally link them together (just another indicator). But if you can propose a grammatical reason for separating the two NSMs and placing the first with a phrase it has no apparent grammatical connection with, I'll be willing to read it, but I won't hold my breath. Perhaps you might like to reorder ο ων επι παντων θεος as well to help you. I won't mind. Honest.

The rest of the discussion is interesting, nothing is really added to the Romans 9:5 substance. Spin is often a mess, but it is good here to avoid the genetic fallacy, as he is very strong on Greek issues.

And he explains more detail about the natural association of God and blessed.
 
Last edited:

Oseas

New member
John 14:v.28 - JESUS said: ... my Father is greater than I.
So, JESUS is saying be lesser than the Father.

And Hebrews 7:v.7-KJV (the number of perfection) says: - 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. (in my own words,"without all contradiction"the lesser is blessed by the greater).

That said, making an analysis of everything that has been interpreted over time and since the roots of the biblical text, focused in the topic, what comes to my mind following what is written in the Word of God, and also expressed by the Spirit of Christ in John 14: v.28 quoted above, it's conclusive, convincing, by saying that : "God is blessing Christ for ever" is definitively the true interpretation.

Honestly, when I read that JESUS said "my Father is greater than I", I cried, my eyes stayed full of tears, my heart was extremely moved with the words of our Lord JESUS. How much humility!
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
What you are doing in the statement above is trying to engineer such conditions that the only way to read the Textus Receptus is as you do, and you are implying I am in some way diverging from the Greek text. I assure you, I am not.

It is curious that you, Brian, ran from answering a simple question:

How in Greek would you express the idea of God blessing Christ for ever (the natural reading of the AV) in the last phrase of Romans 9:5. If you object to the TR text for that purpose, then give a sensible Greek text that would accomplish that aim. As often happens, you tried diversion instead of substantive response.

Now we see that a gentleman with, I believe, far more background and expertise in Greek than you, says that the TR Greek text is in fact the Greek that expresses that idea. (He also welcomed alternate ideas and feedback.)

Note that in this translation he does not try to lessen Christ with any faux punctuation, that would take Christ away from being over all, or blessed for ever. Simply put - he agrees with my position.

The only difference is that I got there by believing my AV, he got there from Greek-savvy. People who actually believe their AV text find that this is a frequent harmony.
 
Last edited:
spin on BCHF has a very strong Greek background.
I'm having trouble believing this, based on his comments. Namely:

The last line is Greek working differently from English. We'd use a subordinate clause, "who God blessed forever." The Greek instead uses a verbal form as a noun, still with the subject "God" and tacks the whole nominalized sentence on. We might try "blessed by God forever".​
He's referring to θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

His further details are equally abhorrent:

On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"),

First, there is no pronoun in the Greek that justifies the addition of "who" before God. It's an equative clause involving a participle verb (lit. "being," translated "is"), which means the whole of what follows between that and the adjective is descriptive of Christ. Secondly, εὐλογητὸς is not a verbal form used as a noun. It is literally an adjective. Don't believe me? You can verify that here. In other words, he pretends that an adjective is actually a verb working as a noun, and that somehow the two nouns connected together have the force of a verb joined together with a preposition. I'd laugh, but it's not funny.

Is this where you got your interpretation from? It's honestly terrible. This guy's a fraud.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I'm having trouble believing this, based on his comments. Namely:

BCHF is an open forum. Feel free to place your critiques there. He invited alternate views. And there are others there who may contribute to the discussion.

From what I have seen, he is far more familiar with Greek than you are, so you might want to step lightly. Express your understanding, and let's see his response. Should be very educational. Well, you can call him a fraud if you like, but I would suggest not.

We have a posting history that goes back about 15 years, there was a forum called IIDB, also FRDB, where there are some archives.

And I just came across this the day I posted it above.
 
Last edited:
From what I have seen, he is far more familiar with Greek than you are, so you might want to step lightly.
I've been at this for 28 years buddy, trust me, I'm being kind to him. I can tell you almost 100% he was looking at a parser and misread it when he made that statement. You can narrow the list to ones that note the etymology of the word.

εὐλογητὸς .jpg

Go ahead and verify the link above. The Greek εὐλογητὸς is not a "verbal form as a noun," and we are not looking at two nouns together. See that little "nom"? It means it is an adjective in the singular, masc(ulin) nom(inative) case.

Finding what parsers are out there. He didn't get it from Biblehub...
biblehub.jpg

Probably something more like BLB, which gives the etymology:

BLB.jpg
 
Last edited:
You can simply place a post with your parser theory into BCHF.
It's extremely tempting, but you quoted him here so I will address it here. Maybe I'm wrong about the parser, but that just makes his statements worse. If he's not reading from a parser, I can't see how on earth someone with a "strong" Greek background can say the construction is a noun coupled with a verb nominalized as a noun, that is two nouns strung together forming a relative clause (he actually says subordinate clause) joined together by a preposition. It's absolute madness. There's nothing coherent in that how statement. Pretty much, it's like using a bunch of words strung together to sound smart.

It is not nominalized verb acting as a noun. It is a nominative adjective in the predicate position.

Also, it seems the native Greek writers as far back as we have record, and the heretics who might have benefited from this reading, missed the memo on this one too ("who God blessed forever.")
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
It's extremely tempting, but you quoted him here so I will address it here.

That is the home forum for spin and many others.

And if you do not want to engage there, I will place your position there.
If I do it, I have to include all your negative language, if you do it, you could tailor it for a discussion.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tony Garland
https://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Romans_9-11/01_Romans_9_1-5/notes/01_Romans_9_1-5.htm
Context favors Christ as the subject or object of blessing
The context of Paul's lament concerning the special privileges of Israel reaches a climax in her production of Messiah. The focus is on Christ and especially Israel's failure to accept her own Messiah. It makes less sense for the last phrase to be taken as a doxology of the Father ( "God be blessed" ).

Lynnford Beachy
Some have used this verse in an attempt to prove that Jesus is “the most High.” But, that is not what the text says. It says that Christ is blessed by God over all. God blessed Him more than He blessed anyone else. (He does fall into the apposition idea as sort of literal)
 
Last edited:

Oseas

New member
Speaking of He Himself, JESUS left very clear of His subordination and obedience to the Father, according John 5:v.19 and 30 KJV:

19 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: ...
... the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works-John 14:v.10 KJV.

In my understanding Lynnford Beachy make an excelent and very clear explanation.


Tony Garland - spiritandtruth.org - he made a slight reference to Romans 9:v.5, in fact he was more interested to do an extensive comment and highlighting the people of Israel saying "the uniqueness of the nation of Israel in God's plan". It seems he is not well informed about Israel, and speaks in generalized way without analyse and separate the wheat from the tares.

Even Paul said: they are not all Israel, which are of Israel-Romans 9:v.6KJV

GOD the Father, and JESUS, from both we read: I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan - Revelation 2:v. 9 KJV

Revelation 3:v.9 - Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do LIE; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Dialogue between Jews and JESUS: John 8KJV

Jews said: - We be Abraham's seed,...John 8:v.33KJV
- JESUS said: - I know that ye are Abraham's seed...John 8:v.37KJV (Positive)

Jews said: - Abraham is our father.... John 8:v.39KJV
- JESUS said:- If ye were Abraham's children...John 8:v.39KJV (If???? hum!!!)


Jews said: - We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. John 8:v.41KJV
- JESUS said: - If God were your Father...John 8:v.42KJV (If???? hum!!!)

- JESUS said to the Jews: Why do ye not understand my speech? John 8:v.43
- JESUS openly and emphaticaly said to the Jews: Ye are of your father the Devil..., (Should we believe in JESUS here? Course) In Revelation 12:v. 9KJV, JESUS said: And the great Dragon (the red Dragon) was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. By the way, "red Dragon" is the new name of the Devil in this time of Apocalypse)

Genesis 3:v.4-7KJV

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
And they sewed FIG LEAVES together, and made themselves aprons. (Fig leaves? Yeah, fig leaves, course)

Even JESUS said to the Jews: Ye are of your father the Devil...,

Why did JESUS call the Jews of serpents?
It is because they are sons of the old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, now red Dragon. Matt.23:v.33-35: 33 -Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

What is the mystery JESUS linked the Jews to the murder of Abel? That upon the Jews may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth?

Isaiah 1: 9-13KJV
9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us A VERY SMALL REMNANT (144K-Revelation 14), we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.


10 Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of SODOM(Revelation 5:v.10); give ear unto the law of our GOD, ye people of GOMORRAH.
11 To what purpose is the multitude OF YOUR SACRIFICES unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and SABBATHS, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

Romans 3:v.5-6 and 9-11
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the Day of Wrath (this Day arrived) and revelation of the righteous Judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew FIRST, and also of the Gentile;


10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew FIRST, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

The Word is GOD. What is written above will fulfil LITERALLY henceforward, day by day, until the mysterious Day called Day 1.335.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here is another gentleman who can work with beautiful, simple, clear English.

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

https://carelinks.net/download_attachment/-1699656143/wscrip.pdf

All this verse seems to be saying is, God blessed Christ for the ages

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

https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/jesus-and-his-relationship-with-the-father-god/

Marianne 2012
Actual translation is this
Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
So this says that God blessed Christ.


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

Here the writer is upset that the King James Bible gives the meaning that God blessed Christ.

==========================================================
 
Last edited:
Tony Garland
https://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Romans_9-11/01_Romans_9_1-5/notes/01_Romans_9_1-5.htm
Context favors Christ as the subject or object of blessing
The context of Paul's lament concerning the special privileges of Israel reaches a climax in her production of Messiah. The focus is on Christ and especially Israel's failure to accept her own Messiah. It makes less sense for the last phrase to be taken as a doxology of the Father ( "God be blessed" ).

Lynnford Beachy
https://lastmessageofmercy.com/article/print/romans-95-doesnt-paul-say-christ-is-the-most-high-who-is-over-all Some have used this verse in an attempt to prove that Jesus is “the most High.” But, that is not what the text says. It says that Christ is blessed by God over all. God blessed Him more than He blessed anyone else. (He does fall into the apposition idea as sort of literal)
Here is another gentleman who can work with beautiful, simple, clear English.
The issue is equivocation over the adjective "blessed" and the past participle verb "blessed," which in the English construction may either be inadvertent or purposeful. They are identical in spelling but not usage. The latter involves the past participle of "bless." Participles can be described as verbal adjectives and performs a verbal actions. The Greek supports an adjective, not a participle. The burden is on you to justify the translation "blessed by God," as it relates to the Greek text, and the same argument applies to those who assert the same thing. I can certainly say the Greek is an an adjective and that it is in the predicate position, and I have also provided both lexical and grammar sources as well as Greek, Latin, and English writers in support.

In other words, please explain the following jump from Greek to English:

θεὸς (noun) εὐλογητὸς (adjective in the predicate position--i.e., without the article)​
blessed (participle verb) by (preposition) God (noun)​
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sticking for the English for now, you always talk about a verb, however, God blessed is a compound adjective, describing Christ.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Compound-Adjectives.htm

You tried to insist that God blessed would have to have a hyphen to be an compound adjective, yet the definition makes it clear that it does not need a hyphen. In addition, just look at the AV at the compound adjective "only begotten". No hyphens.

This compound adjective function is also the natural association of God and blessed.

The source words of a compound adjective individually can be "adjectives, nouns, quantifiers, participles, and adverbs." Yet they are working as one unit in an adjectival manner.

This is also why your "God Almighty" and "lamp bright" proposed analogies were worthless.

The fact that you clearly do not understand the English language elements in the AV text of Romans 9:5 is a good part of the reason why I consider your Greek claims as nothing more than claims.
 
Last edited:
Top