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

B

Brianrw

Member
Thank you. The correct response to the compound adjective as actually given to you by Lucian in response to the statement "'God blessed' would be acting as a compound adjective for Christ":

Doubtful; in that particular situation, the most likely English rendering would have been blessed by God; indeed, it would be a translational hapax, were that truly the case, which I highly doubt.​
​
This is actually a pretty blunt review, and along the lines of what I have been telling you. What he means by "hapax" is that there is no precedence for it either in the language or in its literature, not merely in the scope of a particular work. In your response, you push back quoting Murray J. Harris about the "natural association," which you have loaded with your own meaning. Steve Owen's interpretation, which is quite far fetched even in English, is not even worth commenting on.

The Greek simply does not allow it; the relative ὧν in ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν is plural whereas ὁ ὢν in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is singular (to avoid confusion, ὧν is a relative and ὢν is a participle verb). This would have jumped out at you immediately had you known the language.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Steven Avery said:
the English text of the Authorized Version on Romans 9:5 - what is the simplest, clearest interpretation -
Christianity Stack Exchange
https://christianity.stackexchange....rpretation-of-the-english-text-of-the-authori
Click to expand...

You were so concerned about my "Score" on one of the grammar threads.
You found a -3. oh, no!

1639665994027.png
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
Doubtful; in that particular situation, the most likely English rendering would have been blessed by God; indeed, it would be a translational hapax, were that truly the case, which I highly doubt.​
Click to expand...

The question was not about Greek theories, which go all over the map.

The question was about the English AV text, so his reply is off topic anyway.

Plus the hapax argument is basically irrelevant, Murray discusses that aspect.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
Steve Owen's interpretation, which is quite far fetched even in English
Click to expand...

Not at all.
Especially if you allow Israel, through Christ, rather than just Israel.

You just do not like it because it allies with my proposal of simply Christ, same structure.

There is less ellipses in his construction than yours (2 or 3).

Remember, too, you have given up on trying to show mandatory apposition in the AV text.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Oseas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tony Garland understands that God blessing Christ is very possible as the understanding.

9:5 - Eternally Blessed God​

  • "the eternally blessed God"
    There are three general ways the Greek of this phrase has been understood:
  1. "the blessed Christ is God."
  2. "Christ is blessed by God."
  3. "Christ is over all, God be blessed."
  • The original Greek
    Differences in translation are not due to differences among Greek texts, but due to differences in how the phrase is parsed.
  • 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" ).
Click to expand...
 
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
Tony Garland understands that God blessing Christ is very possible as the understanding.
Click to expand...
I'm again looking at an English commentator making an unwarranted assertion about the Greek without source or context, and this is one of the most well documented passages of the New Testament so far as translation is concerned. None of the major Greek commentaries ever even mention this as a possibility, and so far I have not seen a proper grammatical explanation as to how the two nominatives in the Greek can form a compound adjective or prepositional phrase.

At the same time, I am aware of the misreading of the English text which is found in some circles, and I've seen it on YouTube, and in a couple websites you've mentioned. And that involves the inference you make, that "God blessed" means "Blessed by God." I never find this assertion accompanied by a reason or source, and in the case of Spin the argument was erroneous. There are a lot of bad arguments out there from people who reference the Greek. If you believe all of them, you'll be hopelessly confused, and because you have no background you won't discern the good from the bad.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
so far I have not seen a proper grammatical explanation as to how the two nominatives in the Greek can form a compound adjective or prepositional phrase.

At the same time, I am aware of the misreading of the English text which is found in some circles, and I've seen it on YouTube, and in a couple websites you've mentioned. And that involves the inference you make, that "God blessed" means "Blessed by God." I never find this assertion accompanied by a reason or source, and in the case of Spin the argument was erroneous
Click to expand...

The English AV text reads as Christ being God blessed. You need a comma after God to make your idea work.

There is nothing difficult about God blessed meaning blessed by God.
That type of word-order reversal in English is commonplace in our language. Generally it just relates to emphasis.

Christ is God blessed. (emphasis on God.) ... with or without hyphen. This cannot mean Christ is God.
Christ is blessed by God. (emphasis on being blessed.)

The fact that you struggle with this again makes me question your real world English ability.

And I believe spin knows Greek at a far greater depth than you, we will see if he returns to the forum. He had not posted for a few years, came back, posted through early December. I watched his postings on the IIDB forum years back.
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
You've completely lost your position on this one, and are just flailing around and throwing out arguments left and right to excuse what is the most plain and uncomplicated reading of the Greek text. Winer, specifically, approached multiple constructions in Paul's epistles under the stated presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God."

The process you are following, the process Stafford is following, is the presupposition that Christ here cannot be called "God," and especially in so certain terms. By casting aside the simplest and most plain reading, I count no less than five competing solutions off the top of my head--all of them agree the passage doesn't call Christ "God," but none of them agree in what it should say. That's because they all create unnatural difficulties in the text. And this trouble is not found among the Greeks, but among the English translators. The Greeks had nothing to hide behind, but the English always require someone to tell them what the Greek means. This is always the surest sign of trouble in any passage where the plain reading is considered by some individuals as theologically problematic.

In other words, the one reading that presupposes all the others is the one that calls Christ "God," and the others are all specifically designed to avoid that.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
You've completely lost your position on this one, and are just flailing around and throwing out arguments left and right to excuse what is the most plain and uncomplicated reading of the Greek text. Winer, specifically, approached multiple constructions in Paul's epistles under the stated presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God."

The process you are following, the process Stafford is following, is the presupposition that Christ here cannot be called "God," and especially in so certain terms. By casting aside the simplest and most plain reading, I count no less than five competing solutions off the top of my head--all of them agree the passage doesn't call Christ "God," but none of them agree in what it should say. That's because they all create unnatural difficulties in the text. And this trouble is not found among the Greeks, but among the English translators. The Greeks had nothing to hide behind, but the English always require someone to tell them what the Greek means. This is always the surest sign of trouble in any passage where the plain reading is considered by some individuals as theologically problematic.

In other words, the one reading that presupposes all the others is the one that calls Christ "God," and the others are all specifically designed to avoid that.
Click to expand...

Same old blah-blah.
Genetic fallacy is one of your fav tricks.

If the passage calls Christ God, and it is not God the Father, what God is it?

Romans 9:5 - If Christ is God, but not God the Father, what God is he?
 
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
Same old blah-blah.
Genetic fallacy is one of your fav tricks.

If the passage calls Christ God, and it is not God the Father, what God is it?
Click to expand...
You're aware that "Paul would not call Christ 'God'" is actually the stated assertion under which most of the emendations occur? Once the text is broken, problems result. It's true in the manuscript tradition as well as it is in the English Bibles. It's how branching variants form.
 
B

Brianrw

Member
I'm a Trinitarian, so my position is known to you and I've stated it repeatedly. Three persons, consubstantial, one God. We can have that theological discussion elsewhere but it's not for here and now.

As for the punctuation, I've explained why you are mistaken numerous times. So let's recap what is happening here over a number of threads: you quote Gess as placing a comma after God, and then say my position requires it to form an apposition. You then assert that is my view and Godet refutes it. On these points, you are incorrect.

Let's highlight the problems related to what you are doing here:

  1. It is the comma before, not after, "God" that sets off an appositional phrase. A second comma destroys the predicate construction blessed for ever, and converts it to another appositional phrase with its antecedent being "Christ" directly. This separates "God" from "blessed" and I don't agree with that. So it's not my position.

  2. Godet (like me) decries the fact that Gess' construction (a second comma after "God") separates "God" from "blessed." He states the reason for his disagreement "I cannot agree with this explanation. The epithet blessed is too directly connected with the term God to be thus separated from it." I agree with this. What he means by the three affirmations is that they all point back to Christ individually. The context is thus not the same as we find in Harris.

  3. You, however, mistakenly read it to mean Godet reads it as blessed by God. I have already responded that Godet specifically calls Christ "God blessed" and "God over all" from Romans 9:5 interchangeably as the true meaning of the passage, so he is simply not reading it as you do. This asserts Christ is (1) over all, (2) God, and (3) blessed forever. The nuance is that "blessed" is a predicate of God, specifically, and thus refers back to Christ as God. You have read in another thing entirely.

  4. I did not deny or contradict in any way my firm position that the passage speaks of Christ as God, and that as God Christ is said to be blessed. My position, which has not changed in any way since the beginning of the discussion, is that θεὸς ("God") in the Greek text is a predicate nominative of ὁ Χριστὸς ("Christ") and εὐλογητὸς ("blessed") is a predicate adjective modifying "God." In English, the AV translators converted the predicate nominative, "God," to an appositive, which the English allows without destroying the meaning.

  5. Early modern English allows adjectives after their substantive to set off a predicate clause. Thus "blessed" operates here as a predicate adjective modifying "God."

  6. Your argument assumes that the only way a "compound adjective," "God blessed = blessed by God" is not read here is if the words are separated by a comma. So you read "blessed by God" into every commentary where you see the construction "God blessed."

  7. None of the commentators who address the Greek specifically offer a compound adjective here, and none of them require that "God blessed for ever" have a comma after "God" in order to form an apposition.
 
Last edited:
O

Oseas

Member
I am out of the discussion of this thread, I only have read a sequence of this long discussion as an expectator, as a mere reader of the content of this discussion that is focused estrictly in translations from the original source of Romans 9:v.5, and eventual errors in the interpretation of its sense regards GOD - Christ.
In my understanding, as I have learned, the word Christ comes from the Greek Christos, a verbal adjective derived from chrio, which means “to anoint”. The Greek word Christos, in turn, translates the Hebrew Meshiach, which is also translated into Portuguese (my native language) by the word Messiah (Messias) and also means “anointed” - ungido.
GOD, the Father
JESUS, the Christ
Why is Jesus called Christ? In few words , Jesus is called Christ in the Bible because He is God's promised Savior. On the other hand, Christ was not Jesus' proper name (obvious); the expression -Christ- was an indication of His function, His mission. John 1:41KJV - Simon finds his own brother, and saith unto him: We have found the Messiah (JESUS) , which is, being interpreted, the Christ. (that means the “anointed”). Christ in the Greek version of the Hebrew word “Mashiach" - Messiah. Romans 9:v.5KJV may means: Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh -JESUS-,the Christ, came, who is over all, GOD (-the Word is GOD-in this case, Christ as a Person, the Word made flesh or GOD made flesh-) blessed for ever. Amen.
 
Last edited:
O

Oseas

Member
In my understanding (what satisfies me) , as we all know, the Word is GOD, the invisible GOD, GOD the Father, the Most High GOD, a Supreme GOD, Ominiscient, and Omnipotent and Omnipresent, without beginning nor ending. When He Himself was made flesh around two thousand years ago, He chose a NAME for He Himself-JESUS. This explains why JESUS said: I and my Father are One, but JESUS recognized that the Father is greater than He. Of course, if the Word (GOD) was not made flesh, the "human" Person of JESUS would not exist.
 
B

Brianrw

Member
Oseas said:
In my understanding (what satisfies me) , as we all know, the Word is GOD, the invisible GOD, GOD the Father, the Most High GOD, a Supreme GOD, Ominiscient, and Omnipotent and Omnipresent, without beginning nor ending. When He Himself was made flesh around two thousand years ago, He chose a NAME for He Himself-JESUS. This explains why JESUS said: I and my Father are One, but JESUS recognized that the Father is greater than He. Of course, if the Word (GOD) was not made flesh, the "human" Person of JESUS would not exist.
Click to expand...
Hi Oseas! Thanks for the response. The scriptures say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:1, 2, 14) The Word here, who is both God and with God, and who was in the beginning with God, was made flesh and dwelt among us, is Jesus. Of this, He says, "Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5). In Revelation, where we read of Christ's coming, it is written, "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Revelation 19:13).

So it is the Son, not the Father, who is called the Word.

Irenaeus, who learned from the apostle John's student Polycarp, relates, "So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father." (The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 47).

And again, “But there is one only God, the Creator—He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom—heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed.” (Against Heresies, 2.30.9; for eternal coexistence, see also 4.6.2)
 
O

Oseas

Member
Brian Winter said:
Hi Oseas! Thanks for the response. The scriptures say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:1, 2, 14) The Word here, who is both God and with God, and who was in the beginning with God, was made flesh and dwelt among us, is Jesus. Of this, He says, "Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5).
In Revelation, where we read of Christ's coming, it is written, "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Revelation 19:13).
So it is the Son, not the Father, who is called the Word.

Irenaeus, who learned from the apostle John's student Polycarp, relates, "So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father." (The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 47).

And again, “But there is one only God, the Creator—He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom—heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed.” (Against Heresies, 2.30.9; for eternal coexistence, see also 4.6.2)
Click to expand...

Hi Brian
Greetings in Christ JESUS

I enjoyed your reply, and I remembered of the Word of GOD was given to the prophet Hosea who said-chap.6:v.2-3: - 2 After two days (two thousand years) will He revive us: in the third Day (after the end of 2.000 years) He will raise us up (1 Thes.4:v.15-17), and we shall live in His sight. 3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord:

Yes, in the beginning, i.e. in JESUS, was the Word-GOD the Father (John 10:v.38), and the Word was with GOD, i.e. GOD the Father was with JESUS(John 16:v.32- the Father is with me), and the Word was GOD.(No man hath seen GOD at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him-John 1:v.18). As you quoted "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and Truth." (John 1:1, 2, 14)"


Brian Winter said:
In Revelation, where we read of Christ's coming, it is written, "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Revelation 19:13).
So it is the Son, not the Father, who is called the Word.
Click to expand...

We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth-(2Cor.13:v.8). Analyzing more deeply the above description. The Scripture you quoted is about the current time of Apocalypse, you suggest be JESUS, the GOD's Son, this sounds strange because was/is the own JESUS who spoke those words or that verse; so, it is as if JESUS were talking that no one knows His name but himself. This sounds strange, doesn't it?

We cannot be separated the verse 13 from prior verse 12, that says "he has a NAME written (written in the Word of GOD, course), that no MAN knew, but he himself. Here is a mystery, something not revealed. I'm sure this person is not JESUS. Why I say this? I say this because the NAME of JESUS was not/is not unknown in these last 2.000 years, quite the opposite, the name of JESUS was/is known of men(Matt.24:v.14), and of the angels(Hebrews 1:v.6), and also of the demons(Acts 19:v. 15-17).

I'm sure that he which has a written NAME that no MAN knows is the angel of the Lord who was with Moses in the mount Sinai under GOD's name, as an ambassador (Acts 7:v.30-32), later the same was with Joshua (Joshua 5:v.13-15). By the way, when "Pharaoh took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them"-Exodus 14:v.7- , and they persecuted the Hebrews, then this angel of GOD, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

You mentioned Rev. 19:v.13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Yes, Isaiah prophesied about this warrior- Isaiah 63. He is a lord too, GOD sends him as an ambassador(Jeremiah 49:v.14 and Obadiah 1:v.1). As is above described, he protected the Hebrews of the Egyptians, this angel (in my understanding un archangel) saved them: In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. Isa.63:v.9. But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their ENEMY, and he fought against them-Isa.63:v.10 , yeah, this warrior fough even against Hebrews, against them that were rebells.

It is he who is mentioned in Revelation 19, who has a NAME that no MAN knows, but he himself. Who does not know the NAME of Jesus, the Son of God?
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
I'm a Trinitarian, so my position is known to you and I've stated it repeatedly. Three persons, consubstantial, one God. We can have that theological discussion elsewhere but it's not for here and now.
Click to expand...

Clearly, it is.

If a Trinitarian says that God is the three persons, then how can Christ be God (the three persons)?

You want to avoid the discussion because it is the fundamental refutation of the position that tries to change the New Testament away from the Authorized Version to new improved verses that say "Jesus is God" or "Christ is God".

Romans 9:5 - If Christ is God, but not God the Father, what God is he?
 
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
Clearly, it is.

If a Trinitarian says that God is the three persons, then how can Christ be God (the three persons)?

You want to avoid the discussion because it is the fundamental refutation of the position that tries to change the New Testament away from the Authorized Version to new improved verses that say "Jesus is God" or "Christ is God".

Romans 9:5 - If Christ is God, but not God the Father, what God is he?
Click to expand...
This argument is illogical, you're simply affirming the consequent. We have a body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23), correct? If you have a body and a soul, and you are one, is the soul the body? And what of the spirit? Is the spirit the body or the soul? How is it that there can be a conflict between these? The body is not the spirit is not the soul, but they all form one person.

Jesus is already called God in several passages of scriptures, even if you eliminate all the ones you seem to have some contention with. John 1:1 is one place, 1 Timothy 3:16 is another. When Thomas beheld the risen Lord, he said, "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28). John 8:58 is particularly clear, "Before Abraham was, I am," and even more so in the Greek. Isaiah, long before Christ was born, said He would be called "The mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6). And again, "the blood of God" in Acts 20:28. In Colossians 2:9, "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

If we say that God is single, inherently one--the Father in three modes, or merely the Father, then how is it that God speaks as He does of Himself in such ways in the Old Testament (just some examples)?

  1. In Genesis: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”, the action of which Moses—himself a prophet—describes as the action of a singular God, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:1, 26, 27).

  2. “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;” (Genesis 19:24). Both this passage and the former passage are repeatedly referenced in the writings of the earliest Christians to show that the Father is God and the Son is God, and that they are one.

  3. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews writes, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom . . . And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands” (Hebrews 1:8, 10). So again the Father is conversing with the Son.

    Besides these, there are many other places where God speaks of Himself, switching between the first person and third:

  4. In Hosea, God says, “I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God.” (Hosea 1:17)

  5. In Zechariah: “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and you shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.” (Zechariah 2:9)

  6. “And I will strengthen them in the LORD; and they shall walk up and down in his name, saith the LORD.” (Zechariah 10:12).

  7. The LORD says, in Zechariah, “and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” (Zechariah 12:10).

  8. In Amos 4:11, “I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah . . . yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.”

  9. In Jeremiah 50:40, “As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbor cities thereof, saith the LORD; so shall no man abide there…”

  10. At Babel (Genesis 11:5-9), the LORD again refers to Himself in the plural, saying “let us go down, and there confound their language” of which Moses writes, “So the LORD scattered them abroad”.

  11. “Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together . . . Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath [singular] sent me.” (Isaiah 48:12, 13, 16). Compare these with Revelation 1:17, 18, 22:13.
If Jesus is the Father, how can He speak of the Father in distinction from Himself? How can He say the Father is greater? How can the scriptures say in John that Christ is equal to God (the Father)? And how does He pray to the Father, if He is the Father Himself? And yet He says, "I and my Father are one." But since God is incomprehensible, He is neither defined nor confined by the limits of our imagination.

Steven Avery said:
Clearly, it is.
Click to expand...
I addressed a statement, just like I am addressing yours.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top