Thomas... My Lord and my God

amazing grace said:

Is Romans 9:3 'according to the flesh' also act in contrast to Paul having prexisted as God?



I will clarify my point.
First, i should have said Romans 9:5.
The addition of "according to the flesh" would not be needed in the verse if Jesus were only human since the Jewish lineage appears clearly without adding that phrase -- so "according to the flesh" would be unnecessarily redundant.

The necessary reason for "according to the flesh" is that Paul then contrasts his flesh lineage with the greater mention of Jesus as God.
That makes perfect sense (y)
 
This leap you make from the word "word" to God is in your mind. Then you take this jump of yours and turn it on me saying I made God neuter.
Not my mind

John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe you should actually consider scripture.


Let's see

The Word was God

God is masculine

But You want to make a word ("word") which is masculine in modern lexicography a neuter word to be God

Thus you are indeed speaking of a neuter God

Maybe you should stop substituting your theology for exegesis.
 
amazing grace said:

Is Romans 9:3 'according to the flesh' also act in contrast to Paul having prexisted as God?

I will clarify my point.
First, i should have said Romans 9:5
The addition of "according to the flesh" would not be needed in the verse if Jesus were only human since the Jewish lineage appears clearly without adding that phrase -- so "according to the flesh" would be unnecessarily redundant.

The necessary reason for "according to the flesh" is that Paul then contrasts his flesh lineage with the greater mention of Jesus as God.
Let's see - Paul was a human being yet the phrase 'according to the flesh' was used in reference of him ......
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh...... showing his lineage as an Israelite.
And, also in the same sense, Jesus being a human being the phrase 'according to the flesh' was used in reference of him
.... To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. Who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. BOTH HUMAN BEINGS - BOTH ACCORDING TO THE FLESH belonged to the lineage of Israelite.

Why would it be unnecessarily redundant to say it of Jesus if he was human yet not redundant to say it of Paul since he is a human? I don't get your logic.
 
Not my mind

John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe you should actually consider scripture.
don't you know that the Word was God really means the word in not God lol.

who would of thunk it .............................

I mean don't you know when the bible says Jesus created everything it really means He created nothing.

When the Apostles called Jesus God it really meant Jesus is not God

When the Bible say on many occasions Jesus was worhipped it really means they did not worship Him.

Its like backwards masking the bible, topsy turvy theology, up is down , right is wrong, light is darkness, obedience means to sin, eternal means having a beginning, and the list goes on and on

its crazy how some can twist the bible into such a PRETZEL
 
The word "Word" is the Greek word logos. Not Jesus.
True, but did you read the context and discover the word became flesh. And the becoming flesh took place far after his existence

and you are still defective, making God a non personal thing.

John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe you should actually consider scripture.


Let's see

The Word was God

God is masculine

But You want to make a word ("word") which is masculine in modern lexicography a neuter word to be God

Thus you are indeed speaking of a neuter God

Maybe you should stop substituting your theology for exegesis.
 
don't you know that the Word was God really means the word in not God lol.

who would of thunk it .............................

I mean don't you know when the bible says Jesus created everything it really means He created nothing.

When the Apostles called Jesus God it really meant Jesus is not God

When the Bible say on many occasions Jesus was worhipped it really means they did not worship Him
.

Its like backwards masking the bible, topsy turvy theology, up is down , right is wrong, light is darkness, obedience means to sin, eternal means having a beginning, and the list goes on and on

its crazy how some can twist the bible into such a PRETZEL
LOL I guess it is just beyond me.
 
True, but did you read the context and discover the word became flesh. And the becoming flesh took place far after his existence

and you are still defective, making God a non personal thing.

John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe you should actually consider scripture.


Let's see

The Word was God

God is masculine

But You want to make a word ("word") which is masculine in modern lexicography a neuter word to be God

Thus you are indeed speaking of a neuter God

Maybe you should stop substituting your theology for exegesis.
Let me correct your statement below since you are saying it's what I am saying...

But You want to make a word ("word") which is masculine in modern lexicography a neuter word to be the Greek word
logos. Not God

Thus you are indeed speaking of a neuter
logos. Not God
 
Let's see - Paul was a human being yet the phrase 'according to the flesh' was used in reference of him ......
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh...... showing his lineage as an Israelite.
And, also in the same sense, Jesus being a human being the phrase 'according to the flesh' was used in reference of him
.... To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. Who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. BOTH HUMAN BEINGS - BOTH ACCORDING TO THE FLESH belonged to the lineage of Israelite.

Why would it be unnecessarily redundant to say it of Jesus if he was human yet not redundant to say it of Paul since he is a human? I don't get your logic.
I can share some bible resources. It sounds like you those desperately.

You might notice that no phrase about God followers right after Paul having kinsmen of same ancestry. Also, Paul is talking to gentiles so he is showing his relationship with the unsaved Jews -- it is fleshly brothers contrasted to those who follow Christ. pray your interpretation methods improve.

Just remember that Paul is never speaking of himself as "God over all." That point remains only for Jesus.
 
Let me correct your statement below since you are saying it's what I am saying...

But You want to make a word ("word") which is masculine in modern lexicography a neuter word to be the Greek word
logos. Not God

Thus you are indeed speaking of a neuter logos. Not God
Um Logos is masculine see the following

(Greek NT BYZ+) ενG1722 PREP αρχηG746 N-DSF ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S προςG4314 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM θεονG2316 N-ASM καιG2532 CONJ θεοςG2316 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM
Theos θεος

N-NSM


Nominative simplex masculine noun

Logos λογος is also masculine.

N-NSM

(Greek NT TR+) ενG1722 PREP αρχηG746 N-DSF ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S προςG4314 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM θεονG2316 N-ASM καιG2532 CONJ θεοςG2316 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM
(Greek NT WH+) ενG1722 PREP αρχηG746 N-DSF ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S προςG4314 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM θεονG2316 N-ASM καιG2532 CONJ θεοςG2316 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM

God is masculine in all translations.

A masculine logos matches a masculine God

Your interpretation is a mismatch which was pointed out previously

P.S. And in no way did I speak of a neuter Logos




True, but did you read the context and discover the word became flesh. And the becoming flesh took place far after his existence

and you are still defective, making God a non personal thing.

John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe you should actually consider scripture.


Let's see

The Word was God

God is masculine

But You want to make a word ("word") which is masculine in modern lexicography a neuter word to be God

Thus you are indeed speaking of a neuter God

Maybe you should stop substituting your theology for exegesis.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you have to reject the Bible to hold his view.

Posted below: what the Bible states, followed by what he claims.

I mean, don't you know when the Bible says Jesus created everything, it really means He created nothing.

When the Apostles called Jesus God, it really meant Jesus is not God

When the Bible says on many occasions Jesus was worshipped, it really means they did not worship Him
.
 
1 Corinthians 1:3
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.


View attachment 2683
Happy Birthday Jesus! Thank you God for your wonderful gift to the world ---

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. [Luke 2:11]
 
I can share some bible resources. It sounds like you those desperately.

You might notice that no phrase about God followers right after Paul having kinsmen of same ancestry. Also, Paul is talking to gentiles so he is showing his relationship with the unsaved Jews -- it is fleshly brothers contrasted to those who follow Christ. pray your interpretation methods improve.

Just remember that Paul is never speaking of himself as "God over all." That point remains only for Jesus.
If the verse wasn't ambiguous you may have a point. The interpretation relies upon the placement of punctuation therefore the interpretation lies within one's own bias.

Paul is never speaking of Jesus as 'God over all' either. Jesus is over all God blessed forever. Over All, 'according to the flesh', Jesus is God blessed forever . . . .

ὧν - of whom, whose οἱ πατέρες - the fathers καὶ - and ἐξ ὧν - from whom ὁ Χριστὸς - the Christ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα - according to the flesh ὁ ὢν - the one being/who is ἐπὶ πάντων - over all/above all θεὸς - God εὐλογητὸς - blessed
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας - unto the ages/forever ἀμήν - Amen
Textus Receptus --- of whom the fathers and from whom the Christ according to the flesh' the one being over all God blessed unto the ages -- Amen.

Merry Christmas!
 
Um Logos is masculine see the following

(Greek NT BYZ+) ενG1722 PREP αρχηG746 N-DSF ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S προςG4314 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM θεονG2316 N-ASM καιG2532 CONJ θεοςG2316 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM
Theos θεος

N-NSM


Nominative simplex masculine noun

Logos λογος is also masculine.

N-NSM

(Greek NT TR+) ενG1722 PREP αρχηG746 N-DSF ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S προςG4314 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM θεονG2316 N-ASM καιG2532 CONJ θεοςG2316 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM
(Greek NT WH+) ενG1722 PREP αρχηG746 N-DSF ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S προςG4314 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM θεονG2316 N-ASM καιG2532 CONJ θεοςG2316 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM

God is masculine in all translations.

A masculine logos matches a masculine God

Your interpretation is a mismatch which was pointed out previously

P.S. And in no way did I speak of a neuter Logos
The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ.
 
The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ.
The Word is Jesus as the Apostle John makes known in his epistle and revelation and John’s prologue. The Word is a person who is personal and is before all things and created all things. God is the creator not an imperial thought or idea.

Next fallacy

hope this helps !!!
 
The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ

Has it never occurred to you that your description of what the Logos is or does proved what we haave been saying when we day the Logos/Word is separate from God the Father.

He was in the beginning and it is not that the Father is silent while the Son talks instead of Him, but that God speaks as the Word, and that Word is the Son.

IOW... and I hope I get done before family gets herer....

Go back to Genesis and you will see the start of a statement repeatedly. “And God said …”

John interprets that act of speaking:

“In the beginning was the Word (Logos)… All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” (John 1:1–3)

Niow we also have Paul agreeing....

“For by Him all things were created… all things were created through Him and for Him.” (Col 1:16)


And number 3 shores it up.....

“Through whom also He made the ages.” (Heb 1:2)

IOW .... The Father is the source, The Son (Logos) is the agent, and The Spirit is the life-giver (Gen 1:2; Ps 33:6).

This fits how God later reveals Himself.

Speaks God’s words (John 12:49–50), Reveals the Father (John 1:18), Is called God’s final speech (Heb 1:1–2)

Creation by the Word and revelation by the Word are part of the same pattern.

If you don't understand this it is simply because you do not want to.
 
Last edited:
The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ.
Logos is used metaleptically in a way that bridges Philo's approach as well the Greek philosophy sans the misconceptions of those groups. As such, the logos is made flesh, from unseen to seen, in Christ Jesus. This is a continuity of existence. Even though used metaleptically, Jesus also is named Word of God.

I honestly have not seen enough of a logical argument against the Trinitarian understanding of God to dissuade from orthodox Christianity.
 
Back
Top Bottom