Romans 9:5 - three distinct affirmations about Christ - Murray Harris and Wolfgang Friedrich Gess

Steven Avery

Administrator
First Brian says, yes, since he agrees with Murray Harris

Harris then goes on to conclude, p. 167, that "In Romans 9:5b one may isolate three distinct affirmations about Christ: he is Lord of all, he is God by nature, and he will be eternally praised. But as they are stated by Paul, these three affirmations are interrelated."

Brian has the same quote here, where he says that Harris is appositional, which is clearly his position as well. Likely he has said this about a dozen times.

Romans 9:5 - the circular claim that Christ and God are in apposition
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ist-and-god-are-in-apposition.2311/#post-8978

Checking Murray Harris:

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus
Murray J. Harris
https://books.google.com/books?id=TkD7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA167
1640081787246.png


Ironically, Harris seems to sense his problem.

1640081869790.png

Three distinct affirmations requires three clauses.

he is Lord of all,
he is God by nature,
and he will be eternally praised.


Romans 9:5 (AV - comma missing, NOT three distinct affirmations)
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God
blessed for ever.

Amen.

Then Brian says no, when the same position is taken by Gess.

First Gess

1640080174186.png


Gess doesn't have my position, since he forms an appositional phrase that forms three clauses out of two and makes "blessed" appositional of Christ, which is why Godet decries the separation of "God" from "blessed." You should actually read the whole commentary. This is precisely why there should be no comma after "God."

Frédéric Louis Godet (1812-1890)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frédéric_Louis_Godet

Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (1883)
Frédéric Louis Godet
https://books.google.com/books?id=E91JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA345

Wolfgang Friedrich Gess (1819-1891)

Bibelstunden über den Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Römer ...: Cap. 9-16 (1889)
Wolfgang Friedrich Gess
https://books.google.com/books?id=YQMsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39

Christi Person Und Werk is 1870 (used by Abbot)
https://books.google.com/books/about/Christi_Person_und_Werk.html?id=ZegwyQEACAAJ

So, why does Brian attack his own three distinct affirmations position?
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member

So, why does Brian attack his own three distinct affirmations position?​

I'm not. Please stop opening up threads either misrepresenting me or putting words in my mouth.​


Correcting you on all of these is needlessly wasting a lot of my time, and this kind of thing (I am a private citizen) is libel as I've warned you a number of times. 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. 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 separates "God" from "blessed." He states, specifically, 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." But if it is, as you say, it is not really separated at all. So (as you frequently do) you have hastily misread the passage, and you have mistaken the comma usage.

  3. As Godet specifically calls Christ "God blessed" and "God over all" from Romans 9:5 interchangeably, it is certain he is 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.

  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" is not in play here is if the words are separated by a comma. Regarding this, I will refer you back to numbers 1 and 2, and 5.
So you can stop forming all these straw man arguments as though I am contradicting myself.

Also, it should be noted that Gess was a German writer and Godet was Swiss. We are looking at translations of their works; they did not comment directly on the English.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Are you agreeing with Murray Harris that the text is appositional with three distinct affitmations about Christ?

Try to avoid the transparent diversion attempts.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Are you agreeing with Murray Harris that the text is appositional with three distinct affitmations about Christ?

Try to avoid the transparent diversion attempts.

Thanks!
This sort of comment by you usually means you've failed to really read what was written. By all means, take your time.

A diversion would be jumping from Harris to Godet as though they were making the same argument, as you do. Since I noted Godet does not refute the "three affirmations," but only the separation of "God" from "blessed" in order to make "blessed" refer back to Christ, and that he himself believes the passage speaks of Christ as "God over all," your argument really has no other place to go and thus you jump back to Harris.

Yes, I do agree with Harris that Christ is "God," is "over all" and (as God) is "blessed for ever." I also agree with Godet that "God" and "blessed" should not be separated by a comma to make "blessed" a direct apposition to Christ as opposed to a predicate of God. You habitually misread "God blessed" as "blessed by God," and this is messing you up all over the place when you read the commentaries.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Godet is not even in my question for his own view, we have him (also Abbot) helping with Gess, and you had a negative reaction to the Godet explanation of Gess.

You seem to affirm your support of Harris:

"three distinct affirmations about Christ"

Yet you are opposed to the idea that the three distinct affirmations involve three distinct clauses?

If so, I would say you are wrapped up in contradiction.

And, why did you make an issue about commas being different in 1611 in the AV, if in fact you consider the AV text punctuation the only correct one? Now you are saying a comma after God, three distinct clauses and affirmations, would be an error.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Also, it should be noted that Gess was a German writer and Godet was Swiss. We are looking at translations of their works; they did not comment directly on the English.

It is amazing how close Gess is to Murray, as explained by Godet. So we are dealing with that explanation, which is crystal-clear.

You affirmed Murray, and denied Gess. This brought you down the wacky path of wanting three distinct affirmations and also wanting God blessed to maintain its natural association. And somehow, miraculously, only the AV text now supplies you this possibility (because you misread the English grammar books rather than simply letting the English flow.) Earlier you wanted to pretend that the reason there was not a comma after God was because they were not sophisticated enough to give you the true syntactical sense. An earlier error.

And I sense that you realize that you are between a rock and a hard place, but simply cannot accept the truth. I am sympathetic to your quandary, you really, really want to say that the verse says Christ is God in the AV, but it obviously does not.

If you understood dual addressing and the problem of "what God if not God the Father" you would have a much easier time.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
No, I said Gess adding a comma after "God" makes "blessed" refer back to Christ. This is neither my position, nor is it Harris' position. Godet says he doesn't agree, but only in the point that it separates "God" from "blessed." Which he actually specifies. That's because the comma makes "blessed" refer directly to Christ. You're reading into it something else entirely, which is itself "wacky."

Since Godet in his works refers to Christ as both "God blessed" and "God over all," interchangeably, it is clear he sees the passage as affirming Christ's Deity and therefore that Christ is both "over all" and "God" and (as God) is "blessed for ever."

Regarding the affirmations: "Steven Avery, our administrator, is unreasonable," actually says Steven Avery is unreasonable. If I change to "Our administrator, Steven Avery, is unreasonable," it then says Our administrator is unreasonable.

Because both involve an apposition, it is right in both cases to say that they affirm in both cases that Steven Avery is unreasonable (because Steven Avery = our administrator). The nuance, however, is that of the first example I cannot in any way say "unreasonable" modifies "our administrator." That's essentially the mistake you are making above.

So your logic is "wacky" and your conclusion is "wacky."
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Still wasting time on Godet as a diversion.

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

You really do not see the close similarity of

"three distinct affirmations about Christ" - Murray Harris

"three clauses ... affirm three things about Christ' - Wolfgang Freidrich Gess described by Godet

Once again, your problems start with English.
You strongly affirm, and quote Harris, and then run from Gess saying the same thing.

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

Your analogy is worthless, another diversion because it is the true two-comma apposition.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The epithet blessed is too directly connected with the term God to be thus separated from it." But if it is, as you say, it is not really separated at all.

In Greek, the adjective lacks the article and is therefore in the predicate position. A predicate adjective (in this case, "blessed") "describes or modifies the subject of a sentence." Therefore the one blessed is Christ, who is described as God.

Let me know when you make up your mind as to whether blessed is directly connected to Christ or to God.

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

Here you also said that God is the subject of over all, which is not true in the AV.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
, and this kind of thing (I am a private citizen) is libel as I've warned you a number of times.

Grantley McDonald, with a book that de facto attacked the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses, whose errors I corrected (dozens of them) even had a lawyer lined up. (At one earlier point I did in fact soften my comments, but they were far, far harsher than pointing out that you are weak in English and logic.) As a new PhD, or working towards a PhD, he did have some reputation on the line, especially in the European system.

Go right ahead. Be prepared to end up paying my costs (although that depends on the venue) as well as your own.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Still wasting time on Godet as a diversion.

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

You really do not see the close similarity of

"three distinct affirmations about Christ" - Murray Harris

"three clauses ... affirm three things about Christ' - Wolfgang Freidrich Gess described by Godet

Once again, your problems start with English.
You strongly affirm, and quote Harris, and then run from Gess saying the same thing.

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

Your analogy is worthless, another diversion because it is the true two-comma apposition.
Since Godet is the author, it is not "a distraction" to set straight the argument he is making. I suspect in this case, again, that you have not read the full commentary?

My position is not, "Christ . . . who is over all, God, blessed for ever." You've ascribed that to me on your own, thinking it's somehow necessary to form an apposition (but is circular of, it is a compound adjective unless split by a comma). As I have said repeatedly, blessed is an adjective in the postpositive position and that does not require a comma. Yes, that also applies to both prepositions and adverbs, which your Redditor respondents has also noted. Modern English allows this, but more particularly it was one of the norms of early modern English.

Godet sees this as forming "three parallel clauses" all referring back to Christ. He disagrees with this because it forms a separation between "God" and "blessed." Not once does he deny that Christ is over all, God, or blessed forever. Godet, p. 142:


godet_gess.jpg


Previously, on p. 140:

godet_p140.jpg

So there you have it.

Grantley McDonald, with a book that de facto attacked the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses, whose errors I corrected (dozens of them) even had a lawyer lined up. (At one earlier point I did in fact soften my comments, but they were far, far harsher than pointing out that you are weak in English and logic.) As a new PhD, or working towards a PhD, he did have some reputation on the line, especially in the European system.
Mr. Avery, what you are doing goes way beyond innocent misrepresentation. Every time you distort a comment I make and misrepresent my position, and repeat it after being corrected, it shows a reckless disregard for whether what you are saying is false or not, which legally is considered as "actual malice." In many cases, you are simply negligent, and that also is a form of libel. I have far more material to work off of in this line of comments than you seem to realize--more than just "weak in English and logic." To you, reading the Greek correctly is "circular" and an apposition is "circular," even when we're literally staring at an apposition. I don't feel threatened by that, because you come to these conclusions by fallacious means and I believe a candid reader will see that. I'm not threatening legal action, only noting that your behavior is unacceptable for public discourse.

Now, God will be the one to defend my integrity to you. But as one friend to another, someday your luck is going to run out if you aren't careful.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mr. Avery, what you are doing goes way beyond innocent misrepresentation. Every time you distort a comment I make and misrepresent my position, and repeat it after being corrected, it shows a reckless disregard for whether what you are saying is false or not, which legally is considered as "actual malice." In many cases, you are simply negligent, and that also is a form of libel.

So much blah-blah.

You are welcome to take any action you please, just be prepared to waste a lot of money on nothing.

You are welcome to set up a dedicated blog or forum as well.

You are weak on logic and you are weak on English. That has been shown multiple times. You have shifted positions, especially on issues like hyphens and commas in English. Similarly your apposition comments, repeated above. I have carefully shown you that the apposition claim is a conclusion, not a grammatical imperative.

You still avoided my question above.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
You really do not see the close similarity of

"three distinct affirmations about Christ" - Murray Harris

"three clauses ... affirm three things about Christ' - Wolfgang Freidrich Gess described by Godet


Once again, your problems start with English.
You strongly affirm, and quote Harris, and then run from Gess saying the same thing.

This is about Wolfgang Freidrich Gess and Murray Harris, please stop the irrelevant diversion to Godet.

Why did you quote and approve Murray Harris, and attack Gess for saying the same thing?


Your diversion response is a perfect example of your being weak on logic.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
To you, reading the Greek correctly is "circular"

Stop making up fabrications. My concern is that your Greek may well be as weak as your English, in which case I can not conclude that you read it "correctly".

Plus there is more than one Greek. Even though we may agree to look at the TR text, most of the non-apposition Greek readings exist with various punctuations. These are embraced by many of the top scholars today.

And, again, in a verse like this an apposition is a grammatical-interpretive conclusion. It is not a grammatical imperative that thereby forces a conclusion. This is so trivially obvious that it becomes an example of your weakness in logic.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You still avoided my question above.
No. You've avoided understanding my answer.

So much blah-blah.
Lazy.

Stop making up fabrications. My concern is that your Greek may well be as weak as your English, in which case I can not conclude that you read it "correctly".

Plus there is more than one Greek. Even though we may agree to look at the TR text, most of the non-apposition Greek readings exist with various punctuations. These are embraced by many of the top scholars today.
You're the one that keeps making things up. There's not "more than one Greek," nor are there multiple ways to read the Greek from which the AV was translated but there is more than one valid way to translate it into English. There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers, and then there are three or four proposed emendations among English translators. It means they are deliberately tampering with the text and its natural flow, and you seem to have no problem lending legitimacy to that. You're not defending the AV at all, you're defending your own POV.

In addition, there are no "apposition Greek readings," because in the Greek, "God" is a predicate nominative! We convert that to an appositive in the English, which makes the English more concise. You have no idea what you are even rambling on about.

And, again, in a verse like this an apposition is a grammatical-interpretive conclusion. It is not a grammatical imperative that thereby forces a conclusion. This is so trivially obvious that it becomes an example of your weakness in logic.
It's not at all my fault you don't even understand what an apposition is.

You are weak on logic and you are weak on English. That has been shown multiple times. You have shifted positions, especially on issues like hyphens and commas in English. Similarly your apposition comments, repeated above. I have carefully shown you that the apposition claim is a conclusion, not a grammatical imperative.
You are utterly confused throughout this conversation. I haven't shifted positions on anything at all. You keep misrepresenting my arguments, often to an unrecognizable extent, and then attacking the misrepresentation--which is straw man. I approach some of these instances from a position of complete bewilderment. Nor did I backtrack on hyphens or anything else, it just became a complete waste of time repeating myself. It has been a constant pain just to get you to focus accurately on what I'm saying, and even that has been a fruitless endeavor. Let me clarify this for you:

  1. That you have not supported in any way, shape, or form that the reading meaning "blessed by God" is supported by the Greek, the Greek fathers, or is even considered as valid among English translators and commentators. You've done away with all of this by poisoning the well, ad hominem attacks, contextomy, equivocation, hasty generalizations, and appeal to the stone.

  2. My preferred reading is and always has been exactly the one found in the AV, nothing added, nothing omitted. I am saying the Greek can be translated "God over all" or "over all, God." Since we are looking at the AV, then, the only way to read it as supported by the Greek, the Greek fathers, and the overwhelming consensus of English commentators is of "God" being an apposition to Christ.

  3. You're the one who keeps saying I should have a comma here or there, not me, or pretending I'm adding a period or comma in places I never have.

  4. My position is, and always has been, that "God" is an apposition set off by a comma after "over all" and that "blessed" is a predicate adjective in the postpositive position saying that Christ, being "God" is said to be "blessed for ever."

  5. My position is, and always has been, that the Greek of Romans 9:5 does not allow the translation "blessed by God." The Greek construction would require a genitive or accusative construction.

  6. You deny that an adjective can operate postpositively or in the postpositive position, even when offered a number of examples showing a predicate can come after its substantive without a linking verb in many cases where the adjective sets off a new clause, you appealed to the stone.

  7. You continually deny that an apposition is in play, when an apposition is actually in play.

  8. You continually insist that "God blessed" is a compound adjective, and that the only way it is not a compound adjective is unless the words "God" and "blessed" are separated by a comma. All you are really doing is converting a predicate adjective to an appositive adjective.

  9. You claim that it is impossible for an appositive to be described by an adjective, which is false, and we do in English all the time. That is, with statements such as "God" doing "awkward double duty" as being an apposition to "Christ" and being described by the adjective "blessed," and that such a thing is a "super-awkward" and "wacky" ("absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational," m-w.com) claim.

  10. You insist that an apposition is formed by adding a comma after the word and not before.

  11. You alleged that an apposition must be bracketed in commas, even when presented rules that they can fall after a comma at the end of a sentence. (Eg., "This is my brother, Phil.")

  12. As for hyphens, my position is that while you are saying "God blessed" is a compound adjective, you are actually forming a compound verb and constantly affirming it with a subject-verb-object construction and saying the object ("Christ") is implied. You went into how we use commas before a noun, not after, and didn't even bother to look at the relevant rule defining compound verbs, which we do hyphenate. I just got tired trying to repeat myself.
And these eleven points, where you've essentially butchered everything, is making it impossible to have a constructive argument.

You are welcome to take any action you please, just be prepared to waste a lot of money on nothing.
I just said what you're doing (and again what you're doing here) is wrong. What part of "I'm not threatening legal action, only noting that your behavior is unacceptable for public discourse" was too difficult for you to comprehend?

Please stop wasting my time.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
I may answer a few of your more absurd items, however you still first need to answer the question.

This is about Wolfgang Freidrich Gess and Murray Harris, please stop the irrelevant diversion to Godet.

Why did you quote and approve Murray Harris, and attack Gess for saying the same thing?

Your diversion response is a perfect example of your being weak on logic.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
You're the one that keeps making things up. There's not "more than one Greek," nor are there multiple ways to read the Greek from which the AV was translated but there is more than one valid way to translate it into English. There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers,

First, you are fighting about half the scholars today, who say they do not accept the TR text.

You are also speaking an untruth.

" There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers:"

There are even sites that show you the specific stops in ancient manuscripts.
Do you really need a lesson on the specific manuscripts? Are you that slow?

The Byzantine text normalized on one reading.
That is not necessarily the correct reading, as we know from the heavenly witnesses omission. I tend to approve of the reading, but you are trying to speak for all scholarship.

On this issue, you flunk both the Greek and the English.

As to whether the TR or AV text has an apposition, many scholars say it is ambiguous. You are just not up to speed.

Your claim that there is a mandatory apposition in "the Greek" text simply demonstrates that you are very weak in logic. Since this error has been carefully explained to you again and again.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
You claim that it is impossible for an appositive to be described by an adjective, which is false, and we do in English all the time.

So many false claims.
Give my quote.

Why so many fabrications?

The fallacy of composition.
What is true is one very specific case is not true for all cases.

Yet, even if Romans 9:5 had some differences it could be an apposition with an adjective.
e.g. If there was a comma after adding two words, God the creator, you would have apposition and adjective.

You should think before writing. You make so many fabrication errors. My time is limited so I just pull out some of the most obviously false.

One problem is that your logic weakness is interweaved with your doctrinal preferences. So it is very hard for you to ever learn ... anything.

I think I will pass on your other errors above until you give an honest, direct answer to Murray-Gess three direct affirmations. I think you are embarrassed that I caught you giving opposite responses to virtually identical assertions. Fair enough. However, all the diversion.

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

Also, I just had a flip-house closing, and some important stuff in the online bullion biz, so I have been a little bit busier than usual. However, by the grace of God been doing good health-wise after a detox time, commonly called a cold. :)
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Nothing but insult after insult above:

Are you that slow?
Don't be insulting and pretend I'm speaking of anything more than the passage of Romans 9:5, since you know my position on manuscripts from way back, and I can give you an informed answer concerning just about any significant variant in the NT text.

In this case, there's not a single variant listed in the NA28 text. This removes the only "variant" reading listed in the NA27, which is specifically noted as being "Schlichting cj," which means a conjectural (cj) emendation offered by Schlichting. There is also no variant listing in the UBS4 text, which reversed the previous conjectural emendation of the UBS3 committee that forced a doxology to the Father and was used in a small number of translations. The passage is punctuated the same in the critical texts and in the Textus Receptus. So what variant punctuation or variant are you proposing? Where's all the manuscripts with a full stop (not a middot) before/after "over all," etc., or supporting all these "various" readings you keep offering?

Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop. What we find in manuscripts such as Alexandrinus and other manuscripts is a middle dot, which corresponds with our comma, after "flesh." It is not a period. Thus you will find the middot in Stephen's 1550, and the comma in Beza's, and both signify one and the same thing. None of the punctuation will affect the meaning of the text, but rather indicate where the scribe throught was a suitable pause in speech (see Metzger, Punctuation and Textual Commentary, 2nd Ed., p. 460).

On this issue, you flunk both the Greek and the English.
Your matter of opinion on my Greek and English has no bearing on the present discourse, and I can presume is your only recourse since you resort to this type of statement repeatedly rather than actually substantiating your own "compound adjective" claim. All you are doing is citing proponents of altogether different emendations of the text, and strange interpretations of English grammar, I don't feel you are arguing from a position of strength.

So it is very hard for you to ever learn ... anything.
Your burden is to support your claim. Insulting me continually is not accomplishing that. Neither is all your huffing and puffing about different ways of reading the text as though it were ambiguous, therefore asserting that I can't really make any firm assertion about the text.

An emendation is a deliberate corruption of the text, not a variant.

I think you are embarrassed that I caught you giving opposite responses to virtually identical assertions.
Not at all. I think you've just not heard my answer, (1) that you are equivocating over the same words in two different commentaries where two different points are being made and (2) you are misrepresenting Godet as denying the three affirmations, when in fact he does not. Rather, he disagrees with the three clauses because (as he specifically says) "God" is separated from "blessed." There's not one single point where he denies that Christ is God, over all, and blessed. His favored reading, in fact, is "who is God over all, blessed for ever." That is actually a properly formed appositive adjective with the subject "God," rather than "Christ." Me not giving you the answer you want is not me "ignoring" the question.

Yet, even if Romans 9:5 had some differences it could be an apposition with an adjective.
e.g. If there was a comma after adding two words, God the creator, you would have apposition and adjective.
Which just reaffirms my point above, that you presuppose the only way to see an apposition is if "God" were bracketed in commas. This is absolutely false. All that does is convert a predicate adjective in the postpositive position that refers back to "God" into an appositive adjective that refers back to "Christ."

As to whether the TR or AV text has an apposition, many scholars say it is ambiguous. You are just not up to speed.
And no references to substantiate it? Are you talking about the Jehovah's Witnesses (Stafford, al), the Socinians/Unitarians (Abbot, al) who approach the passage from the a priori assumption that Paul would not call Christ "God," and thus can't find an alternate suitable claim that isn't full of problems?

The passage literally involves two of the most basic constructions in NT Greek. Had we read "Lord" and not "God," there'd be no controversy.

Give my quote.
E.g., "God" doing "awkward double duty" as being an apposition to "Christ" and being described by the adjective "blessed," that such a thing according to you is a "super-awkward" and "wacky" ("absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational," m-w.com) claim. Noted in the comment above.
 
Last edited:
Top