Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[mondar]

In greek grammar (and I know I have forgotten a lot of my grammar), the word anathema is a noun, that is true

: I'll just say Thank You, I am content. αναθεμ-α is a noun. regardless of whether it is the subject or predicate of a sentence.

Well, something is not clicking somewhere. Why is there such a difference in meaning between the noun and verbal forms in your mind?

Because nouns are persons places and things, and verbs are actions, or be-comings.
There is a large difference between being "a-judge" (A thing) and being "judged" (an action).
The anathem-a(s/i) (αναθημ-α-σι[ν]) hung up on the outer wall of the temple are war trophies, they are things.

There is also some differences between: bearing a curse, being cursed, cursing, and being a curse.
eg:
"John is a real curse, he mocks sally in the forums every day."
"God is a real Scourge, he knocks people down in their arrogance"
"Paul was cursed with a demon, to keep him humble" ( 2Corinthians 12:7 )

The existence of Anathema as objects hung up is recorded in Luke 21:5 ; right there in the N.T. Anathema is not only a thing of the old testament, it was something in existence right to the day of Jesus.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/21-5.htm

These anathema, are not, as you seemed to think, merely a figment of the LXX (eg: The Greek O.T.) which I dredged up.

I do emphasize the LXX; that's quite true, and I will continue to prefer the LXX when it comes to the O.T. quotes, -- for Hebrew texts were not always in use by Christians in the first 400 years of Christianity, and the mixed Hebrew texts we have now have suspect variations.

In Short, the Jewish people went through upheaval and enmity with Christians in those early years, to the point where modifications were either preferentially selected or were introduced into their scriptures to de-emphasize or deny any individual as being the messiah. But in scriptures being used by Christians (eg: the LXX was always in Christian churches) doesn't have those changes creeping in. eg: Notice that one of Christ's messianic prophecies is supported by the word "body" in Hebrews 10:5 which is an exact quote of Psalm 40:6 in the LXX ; But if you check the KJV version (default link) -- you will see "ear" instead. That's because the KJV uses scriptures from a time when no christian church maintained them; they are suspect scriptural variants. The LXX has no such issues of tampering by non Christians after the time of Jesus.

I do use Hebrew where names are needed to be understood -- but I generally follow Koine Greek, when tracing out Christian doctrine that doesn't depend on Hebrew names.

In any event, when I describe something as a noun -- It's not a good idea to try and make it into a verb, to disprove my point about the existence of objects called anathema and the parallel idea that Paul was a war trophy, who suffered punishment and purification (sanctification and suffering go together) but was not "cursed" in the sense of being a damned man. Such talk stops the conversation even if -- at the end of the day -- there isn't *that* much difference between the verb and noun forms of the word.
1Corinthians 12:7

Really -- if there really is so little difference, as you say, it ought to be trivial for you to make your point without changing it into a verb.

The same form appears in Galatians 1:8-9. It is also a noun there and is translated "Curse." What is interesting about the grammar of the two passages, is that both passages have the verb of being and the predicate use of anathema. Thayer's Lexicon mentions the "hung on the wall" concept of anathema in Macabees. He also mentions that in the LXX, the etymology of the word relates more to the concept of "a thing devoted to God without home of being redeemed. He quotes Lev 27:28. I observe that a synonym occurs in the LXX in Lev 27:29, the word anatithemi occurs. It seems to me that the concept of a curse, or cursed is found even in the etymology of the LXX.

Also, somewhere you mention apo vs ek. You seem to make some assumption that the two presuppositions cannot both carry the concept of separation. I would disagree. Dana and Mante specifically say that both prepositions carry the force of separation. Apo is "from within" and ek is "from without." I know you do not like Lexicons, Grammars, and all that stuff, but as someone who is not an authority in the language, it seems obviously right to view the authorities as authorities. It just does not work with me unless you have had the training to say "all grammars and lexicons" are not worth much.

Also, the fact that it is a predicate is important. When diagramming a predicate, it is the practice of nearly everyone to put the noun right with a verb of being as if it is a verb.

So then, it would begin the diagram of the phrase like this....
εγω αυτος / ειναι αναθεμα
απο του χριστου

When Sentences are diagrammed, we used to use lines and put the words on lines to demonstrate the relationship of the grammar

Ahh... how wonderful it would be to have a pen to sketch with, that wouldn't eat up the sites database storage with large digital images, that I could diagram a sentence with. Yes indeed, I would love to do that -- but why do you bring it up?

I'm was not even diagramming the sentence yet, in any event. I was merely seeing if you would accept or reject the definitions I gave for each word.
I don't see any complaints where you substantively disagree with any given word; but I'm curious: are you sure you'd like to let them pass with no more comment?

As to the Grammar books, no thanks. If you need to cite something, go ahead; but I prefer what you have been doing, by cross referencing scripture for usage of eg:anathema as a word.

I don't particularly trust grammar books; Doing meaning verification via scripture concordance takes more work, but clear examples can almost always be found within scripture, and we learn more about the bible at the same time. Grammar books, after all, are nothing more than scholarly opinions which are based on doing exactly that same kind of work though on a larger corpus of Greek texts.

Here in the forums, though:
I think most people know what a simple sentence is in English, even if they forget the formal names for the sentence parts;

A simple sentence typically consists of a subject, a verb, and a predicate:
example: Judy ate fruit.
I don't think we need much of a grammar book for this kind of stuff. Most readers are intelligent enough to realize that a predicate can be replaced with another complete sentence, and this terribly uncomplicated substitution is called a "quote" in English:
Judy said "I am full"

Look at that; two simple sentences lumped into one.

It is going to get confusing, really fast, if we try to discuss the quoted sentence as "I" being the predicate-subject, and so forth; rather than just saying, that within the quote - the subject is "I", and verb is "am" and the predicate is "full". QUOTE: "I am full."

With respect to the sentence in Romans 9:3. It appears to be possible to translate it as Paul telling us a quotation of what he once (but no longer) prays.
eg: a quote, is one way to read it.

#6-#18 (compound subject), #3 verb. #2 ( a relational word written out of English sequence, called "post positive")

for I, from the Christ, over these my brothers, my kinsman according-to flesh, myself,used-to-pray, "he! [is] to-be anathema."

The word "he!" is Aut-os in Greek. It's an intensive pronoun; Generally, aut-os is not a word describing the author who wrote the sentence, but a word talking about someone else in an intensified/excited way. The ending of the word (-os) indicates that it belongs in the subject of whichever sentence it belongs in.
SInce the word happens to align both with the verb of the quote, and the subject of the sentence -- It seems to be applicable to either word.

Aut-os generically (inclusively) means: he!,himself, or she!,herself, or it!,itself.

I suppose it could mean, "myself" when used with The Greek word, Ego, but that kind of usage is extremely avant-garde and rare.
I don't recall seeing it in any Gospel, or any other N.T. book except from Paul.

Almost always, like in Romans 9:3, there is a verb that supports the middle voice (eg: a verb that implies "myself" is middle voice), so that the extra "autos" is superfluous. (Triple redundant, not just double for emphasis.)

Also:
I looked at many examples for "apo" to refresh my memory about it's precise usages.
Generally speaking, when the Greek intends us to understand separation or going "away", it generally uses the preposition "ek" (out). "Apo", does not emphasize separation whenever used by itself; although it can be used with a verb that DOES explicitly mean separation.

So, I still hesitate to think that Paul is saying that he would be willing to be cut off from Christ for the sake of his brothers.
Could you explain why you think Paul uses the imperfect tense?
That tense is rare enough that he had to want to emphasize that he NO longer would dare to pray or even wish this.

Hodge (commentary) mentions that the imperfect tense of ηυχομην is probably related to the fact that the situation Paul refers to of him taking the place of cursed Jews is hypothetical. I am not sure I grasp Hodges point. There are different ways in greek that they would express hypothetical. There are conditional clauses, and I do not think this is one. I need to read more on the imperfect here. I doubt I do this very quick because this does not have a direct bearing on the word anathema.

My objections to your changing the meaning of the word, while it might suit one aspect of its etymology, it serves only to greatly weaken the force of Pauls concept in Romans 9:3.

Also, the sentence illustrations you use above do not demonstrate a predicate nominative. Those sentences would have the accusative endings on them and not the nominative and so could not be considered a predicate "nominative."

I am pressed for time right now. I will have to comment on your 2nd post later. I read it briefly, and have a few things I need to say.

 

[mondar]

There is way to much here that I strongly disagree with. Your illustration can be taken to imply that God cannot save all whom he desires..

Not only will I imply it, I'll say it:
God can no longer save everyone whom he desires to save for he gave at least some of us free will.
(I'm just stating my position. Not proving it.)

Well, I need to ask some questions here. I am not sure that I understand why you are phrasing things the way you do. You stated "for he gave at least some of us free will." Do you actually believe he only gave some free will? Or in your opinion, did he give all men free will? Or are you saying this just to note that we both agree that the unregenerate have free will to pursue any path of sin they desire?

While I am not sure what you are saying, I want to make some extra comments here. Allow me a rabbit trail here please. I would say the people not allowed to pursue their own free will would be the elect. When John 6:44 says that "no man can come to me," he is speaking of the ability of man (note the word dunamis -- "can") No man has the ability to come to Christ. This does not mean that the do not have free will or the ability to choose but rather that mankind's nature is so corrupted in sin nature, or adamic nature, or original sin, that it is natural for man to be an enemy of the gospel, and Christ.

This is where a lot of historic theologies provide different answers.
1--- The Reformed point to regeneration as a prevenient (or preceding) work of Grace in which Christ changes the nature of the elect so that they can obey. Texts such as Phil 1:29 or 1 John 5:1 are commonly quoted to demonstrate a prevenient grace. Of course this work of God comes upon only the elect in reformed theology. This prevenient work of grace, regeneration, is irresistible. (the I in TULIP). Of course the Reformed are commonly understood to the the least supportive of the concept of free will.
2--- Arminians and Roman Catholics view the problem of the nature of man in the same way. In both the council of Trent, and in the writings of Charles Westley, they viewed the prevenient (preceding) work of grace as universal. However, this work of Grace is seen as different in that it is not powerful enough to completely change the nature, but merely restores ability to believe for all mankind. Of course there are some differences between Arminians and Roman Catholics in that Roman Catholics believe that this work of grace happens at initial justification(baptism), Arminians do not relate this work of grace to initial justification. In these theologies we are conceived without free will, but free will is restored in an act of grace.
3--- The third group is closes to Pelagius, a 5th century person condemned as a heretic. Pelagius denied "original sin" and supported the idea that man has total free will to do good at any time he chooses. This includes the free will to believe at any time after a person is able to understand the gospel. Most people claiming to be somewhere between the Reformed and the Arminians are actually in this group, or at least close to this group. So then, I would see outright Arminians or Roman Catholics as being more in the middle between the Reformed and the Pelagians. The Pelagians would be the most extreme group on free will. However, while many are in this came, I would not go so far as the tone of the OP and assume that this makes all Pelagians, or semi-Pelagians as heretics.

The history of the theology is important. There is really no reason to think we can reinvent the wheel of you look into the history of this debate on free will. Augustine vs Pelagius, Luther vs Erasmus, and many many people have written so much. I think the issue will always be, because no one likes to think that we are so sinful as to need a work of grace to change weaken our sin nature. Its not a nice thing to believe. Reformed theology will never be for everyone.

As a person defending the reformed position, and claiming that individuals can freely choose how they are damned, the rest of your argument in that post is surprising to me. ( Your attack on Timothy isn't a surprise, but the reply in general is thought provoking. )

Well, I feel uncertain about the way you paraphrased what I said. People freely choose what path of sin they want, but the penal aspect of sin belongs to God. Sinners will always think that they have been judged unjustly and hate God for his unrighteousness. (Yes, he is truly holy and righteous).

Also, I think you could have worded your comment "Your attack on Timothy." I trust that this is not intended to be some sort of an accusation. You do not seem the sort to do that. That could have been phrased "your interpretation on Timothy." Nevertheless, I am glad things are though provoking.

Am I incorrect in understanding that from the position you defend, that individuals can choose how they are damned?
If so, what does it matter to you whether or not God wishes to save all of the people in the boat or not?
( Let's not confuse the issue of God's compliance with his "desire", with the issue of whether or not God CAN statistically predestine. )

Again, I am not totally certain what you mean by the phrase "statistically predestine." As far as God's compliance with his desires, God is totally complaint. He creates and gets exactly what he wants. There is not one atom outside his control. God did not create for the purpose of saving man, but for the purpose of manifesting his glory. He saves man only because man's salvation manifests the glory of his mercy. This is the very reason Paul says in Romans 9 "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." He also reprobates and hardens some men to manifest the glory of his wrath and justice. Even that is not left to "free will." Romans 9:18 says "and whom he will be hardeneth." Yes, that hardening is compatible with our own sin nature, but its not like our sin catches God by surprise. In fact Romans 9:17 says "For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power," God wanted the Pharaoh to resist. Yeah, God was saying "make my day." (sorry, getting silly, and I do know that Clint Eastwood is by no means God). I can just see the complaint of the Pharaoh in verse 19. "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?" To have such a powerful, and sovereign God loose is frightening. What if he puts me on the wrong side? Scarey!! Yet this is the reason that I reacted to the boat illustration. It puts man in the sovereign drivers seat with salvation. Yes, the natural man is in the driver seat with his sin nature and has free will, but by no means am I saying that we can lift a finger to cooperate with something that is against our nature (sin nature). Can cows fly, can a leopard change is spots, can a dead man resurrect himself? Neither will we accept a life raft in our natural state. We will no more receive a life boat then the fish in the sea. It is not there nature, and it is not our nature. Our free will is exercised only in rejection of the boat. When it comes to acceptance of salvation, first our nature must be changed and then we want the boat. For God to cast life boats to everyone is an exercise in futility. It accomplishes nothing. Its a waist. Would you cast boats to the fish?

The issue of the boat mattered a lot to me because the whole concept of the freedom of man in the boat illustration, I would see as an attack on the free will of God. Thats what Romans 9 is all about. Its Pauls defense on the freedom of God in salvation. "I will have mercy on whom I will have Mercy." That salvation, and election is about God's will, "election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth," verse 11.

The purpose of my illustration was to show that God CAN predestine people without determining WHO (exactly) will be saved.

Yes, to which I objected.

It's also possible that he determine a specific few shall be saved; but that's not included in my example -- for the side effects of such a proposition are hard to discuss....

hmmmmm.....
So: I'm not sure why you read into my remarks more than I put in them. It's not like I just gave you the salvation plan of the whole universe, but an illustration of a single path of death possible in a person's life among many choices and accidents.

Well, if I read something into your words, its probably because I see you as Arminian. Maybe I am being over sensitive about the issue and am reading more into your words than you intend. If so, my apologies. Its an easy thing to do when the format is just print and there is not opportunity for verbal interjections and questions.

Concerning the term Arminianism, I know you denied this, but take it as a compliment. I would see Arminianism as the thing next best and closest to Reformed theology.

First off: The remark I gave was hypothetical -- eg: "if" the boat sank. I didn't make a definite remark -- the boat will sink.
For example, Noah built an ark -- right? He did not build it large enough to hold all of humanity, according to the dimensions in the bible.
A cubit is roughly the distance from the elbow to the index finger; so about 1.5 feet, or roughly 1/2meter.
I'm guessing the Ark was on the order of size of a football stadium; which couldn't possibly hold all of humanity. (Statistic).
But, the boat didn't sink in that example -- and, that's true even though God didn't take your counsel and attach "Infinite" lifeboats to it.

So, let me call your attention to the reason I constructed the argument that way: eg: contingent (based on an "if");
I made that Choice, to show how conditionals affect arguments.
Romans 9:22 is an analogous problem. "What IF God"...

Paul doesn't give us sufficient leverage to claim that his one "IF" proposal is the whole truth of what God's plan is or was. Paul is speculating, and he lets us know.

This again is a grammar thing. I should look this up, but there are several ways to use the term "If." I remember "ean" with a verb in the subjunctive is 3ird class condition. I believe Ei and the indicative (verse 22) means that statements are true even thought they are hypothetical. In other words, God is certainly willing to show his wrath and make his power known, and be longsuffering to those vessels fitted to destruction. I would include verse 23 with the "if" statement in 22. Both verses 22 and 23 are certain. If I might say.... Paul is not speculating, and he lets us know. I do not think your placing the correct understanding on the word "if." There are different words for "if" and they go with different constructions. There are times what you say is true about the word "if" but this is not one of them.

I don't think Paul dumb enough to have supposed that God's entire plan can fit in his head , just because he got to go to the "third" heaven and "see" things. Paul's not like an atheist is; thinking that something which is so great as the universe is a toy that one can reason out all essential possibilities in a trifling three or four minutes in their ultra superior brain.

It's ridiculous, when man hasn't even fully conquered physics, that man could really grasp anything as elusive and complex as knowledge of all God's purposes, and more importantly constraints; It ridiculous to go so far as to claim that God can be calculated -- or even so perfect a calculation as to call him a hypocrite if he doesn't solve the problem in the way the person doing the "wise" calculation is sure God must.

I think you and I are both under the same sentence: there are some things that man just doesn't know.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Of course we will not know everything, but we will know the purpose of God in creation because that is a subject of revelation. The purpose of creation is for his glory, that is easy enough to say. Nevertheless, while we know that, we will deepen in that knowledge throughout all eternity, because God, being infinite, has an infinite glory which will take an infinite amount of time to begin to grasp his glory. Thats heaven. We will grow joyous over who and what God is as we deepen in our knowledge of him.

If there were 100 people and God wants to save 100 people, he would have enough life boats for an infinite number of people. But he gives them all to those whom he chose to save (IE the 60).

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

I'm just going to say, that God desired to save all men is explicitly stated in scripture; whatever "All" means -- and therefore, there is a reason that I don't fully know as to why each and every single man is not saved; but that doesn't give me the right to say God must have been able to do so, and therefore he damns people to hell for no reason.

Well, of course I would say that there is a varied us of the term pas in the scripture and it regularly does not mean all men everywhere in all ages. There are two terms, all and world, that are often taken in wrong ways.

Sorry, gotta go here.

 

[Sinthesis]

[MENTION=94666]About the Son of God[/MENTION]

I am now leaning toward a view of Rom 9:1-5 in which Paul is confessing that he once hoped/prayed that Jesus(whom the Pharisees actually knew was the Christ over the Jews) was, as evidenced by His crucifixion, proved anathema(re-purposed apart from God) because He did not in the flesh fulfill the worldly criteria the Pharisees expected of their Messiah.

Thereby Paul admits that he once stumbled on the stumbling block of flesh vs spiritual expectations. He goes on to explain that the promised effect of God's Word(Jesus) is carried out through spiritual Israel(Church).

 

[reba]

[MENTION=8173]Sinthesis[/MENTION] Splane please

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Freewill religion ! - Part 2
@Sinthesis Splane please

I'd have to put my dentures in to chew this one (strong meat) but I too am leaning toward the clear and concise synthesis of the prior posts (conversations) given by the one known as Sinthesis.

It's okay to wait for ABSoG to weigh in here. Very interesting thread. It's good to do the gleaning here. As sheep that are allowed to graze in our brother's field(s) we may be nourished thereby. I like tending the flocks of my brothers. But just don't look at me, not with any scrutiny... for I too am dark, not lovely.

 

[Deborah13]

Yes, please Sinthesis do. I'm confused.

 

[About the Son of God]

Thayer's Lexicon mentions the "hung on the wall" concept of anathema in Macabees.

That's interesting because Maccabees is lumped in my database with Josephus, a Jewish historian contemporary with Jesus.
The history of the Maccabees is written roughly 50 years earlier than Jesus' life, so it's wording and connotations are very contemporary with Jesus' life and times, and especially that of the New Testament. ( but -- any contemporary, even secular Greek text, could provide that kind of information.... For: We aren't discussing the teaching of the texts, just the meaning of words and structure of sentences. )

The book of Maccabees is not part of the modern day KJV, so it is of limited usefulness; it doesn't carry influence across Christian denominational beliefs any more than Josephus' "the antiquities of the Jews".

I have a hard time understanding why Thayer's would want to define the idea of anathema as something shown clearly in that book; for it's a bad choice in many ways. Anathema as a decoration of the temple is most clearly and explicitly found in the new testament.

Checking Thayer's example, though, just to be thorough;

I only see the word anathema used once in 2Maccabees 2:13, where the historian is talking about Solomon, and the "gifts" (KJV with apocrypha sometimes translates "anathema" as "gift" or "votive" = anathematOn).

eg: If I stretch my imagination, 2Macc 2:13 might be speaking of the Gold Hemorrhoids which King David brought back from the Philistines, eg: it might mean those "gifts" for atonement; but the reference is so vague I have no idea why Thayer's would cite that it as some kind of premiere example.

The really credible information on the golden Hemhroids is found in the books of Samuel...

So, it seems Thayer's made some kind of big assumption -- or is mis-citing Maccabees as the true source of his knowledge. It hardly helps his credibility.

He also mentions that in the LXX, the etymology of the word relates more to the concept of "a thing devoted to God without home of being redeemed. He quotes Lev 27:28. I observe that a synonym occurs in the LXX in Lev 27:29, the word anatithemi occurs. It seems to me that the concept of a curse, or cursed is found even in the etymology of the LXX.

huh?
Does he footnote where on earth he came up with the words "without a home of being redeemed."? I have no idea what a vague "home" is with respect to anathema or a sacrifice....

But let me prevent a glorious false "scarecrow argument" from being hung on a tree: I have always agreed that anathema can mean "A curse"; even in the LXX. OK ? I just think it has MORE than that meaning.

hmmm.... let's see what can we discover about the so called "home" of these anathema....
Why not back up two verses and re-read Leviticus 27:26-28. ( This is not grammar, but just looking for support for word meaning. )

The immediate context of Leviticus 27:27 is to speak about unclean living things.
Temple offerings of unclean items are a problem, since the law indicates unclean animals are unfit to be offered freely -- but, in the law, God also demands ABSOLUTELY that the firstborn of every beast is his own.

The firstborn, by definition, includes the unclean beast as well. (Don't forget the firstborn of all Egypt, were also slain)

So, we are observing in Leviticus a statute meant to close a "loophole" in the law; eg: a technicality in the law about what must be offered, and at the same time what can't be offered on account of its unclean status.

Notice, how Leviticus 27:28 starts out saying "Notwithstanding".... and then follows immediately with the mention of "Anathema"?

Leviticus 27:28 παν δε αναθεμα ο εαν αναθη ανθρωπος τω κυριω .... παν αναθεμα αγιον αγιων εσται τω κυριω
... all anathema holy, of holies are to-the Lord.

Contextually, anathema seems to mean any unclean thing that *must* be offered. (compulsory).

-----------------------
As an aside: I think the most important example of anathema, in terms of sacrifice and Romans 9, would be the firstborn of Egypt. Exodus 4:22-23. VS. Romans 9:17

Also, somewhere you mention apo vs ek. You seem to make some assumption that the two presuppositions cannot both carry the concept of separation

No. I never made that assumption, and I thought I was pretty clear about it.

Dana and Mante specifically say that both prepositions carry the force of separation. Apo is "from within" and ek is "from without." I know you do not like Lexicons, Grammars, and all that stuff, but as someone who is not an authority in the language, it seems obviously right to view the authorities as authorities. It just does not work with me unless you have had the training to say "all grammars and lexicons" are not worth much.

Odd, in another thread you started going on and on about "sola scriptura", and now you're talking about mere lexicons and grammars as "authorities"?
I really do wonder what what you mean.... unno I take them as fallible references, that are useful -- but which have no guarantees of proper interpretation....

I don't mind that you use grammar books ... but If you can not find even two agreeing examples of whatever grammar you cite, even with the help of great grammarians, then I don't see they are much use to you ... and even less to me.

Now: You are saying that "apo" can "carry" the idea "separated from"; So I'd like a clarification.

Could you find two clear examples (scripture would be nice) of Greek sentences where the meaning of "away from" is supported only by "apo"? Can you demonstrate that there are places in Greek where translating "apo" as an unqualified "from" would produce a definitely wrong translation??

Now, please don't try and show me an ambiguous sentence that can be translated "away from", and can also be translated just "from"; for that kind of example just proves my point:

"Apo", does not emphasize separation whenever used by itself; although it can be used with a verb that DOES explicitly mean separation.

Eg: "Jesus left from the water" is not a counter example to what I have stated; it just proves my point for the verb "left" decides that the separation happened -- not the word "from" (apo).

There are different ways in greek that they would express hypothetical.

That's true; eg: For one can use the weird verb tenses called "optative" (wishing/uncertain outcome), or "subjunctive" (hypothetical), but neither kind of verb is used in Romans 9:3. And even though the KJV translates it as "wish", the word translated is not the normal word for wish -- eg:"Thelema", but rather it is the word almost always translated "prayer". (as I have already shown.)

I doubt I do this very quick because this does not have a direct bearing on the word anathema.

OK.... but grammar is not limited to word meaning.... and the imperfect is important to the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Take your time. I'm in no rush -- I like better more thoughtful answers in a debate.

Perhaps this might help....
If I understand your general argument correctly, you would think that what happened in Romans 9:3 is parallel to what is spoken of here with Moses:

Psalm 106;23
Psalm 106:23 (105:23 in LXX) και ειπεν του εξολεθρευσαι αυτους ει μη μωυσης ο εκλεκτος αυτου εστη εν τη θραυσει ενωπιον αυτου του αποστρεψαι την οργην αυτου του μη εξολεθρευσαι

... if not Moses, the out-chosen of-him[God], stood [himself] in the breach...
However, notice the tense of the verb. It's not imperfect....
I think it is the timeless form of the verb in Greek, called, aorist. ( And perhaps the middle/passive voice... )

Strictly speaking: when Moses did the act is not spoken of by the verb, but I translated it as a past tense (stood) in English, because the event did (at very least) happen in the past.

Contrast that with the imperfect in Romans 9:3 ; which says it DID happen in the past, and has definitively ceased; eg: Paul no longer desires to pray that way. Therefore: Paul's mind has changed, for he ceases to Pray --OTOH: Moses is just seen as standing there, holding back wrath, with not even a hint as to when or even if he will stop standing in the "breach".

My objections to your changing the meaning of the word, while it might suit one aspect of its etymology, it serves only to greatly weaken the force of Pauls concept in Romans 9:3.

I am not changing the meaning of the word. I am emphasizing one usage of the word as found in the new testament that you'd like to ignore or discredit if possible:

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts [anathem-a-sin, αναθημ-α-σιν] ....

The word "anathema" is clearly translated as "gift"; not Curse, and right there in the new testament.
It's a noun, in the plural, with a dative ending.

Very clearly these "anathemas" (gifts) are part of the temple, for they are found in a prepositional phrase describing the building materials of the temple: "with goodly stones[d] and gifts[d]"

Therefore: Whatever grammatical role "stones" play in the temple, the "anathemas" do the same thing.

 

[About the Son of God]

You stated "for he gave at least some of us free will." Do you actually believe he only gave some free will? Or in your opinion, did he give all men free will? Or are you saying this just to note that we both agree that the unregenerate have free will to pursue any path of sin they desire?

The third question you mention is sufficient for the argument I was making. The rest are not necessary to the conversation, but I will answer you more fully. Hopefully this does not distract you from the necessary part of the argument, but satisfies your curiosity.

It's possible, for example, that Paul did not have complete free will in choosing salvation.

That is: I do not know for certain if every man has free will or not when it comes to choosing salvation, eg: a salvation that is offered vs. one that is forced upon him.

For, the scriptures, themselves, never propose the alternatives "everyone is predestined to final salvation" or "Everyone is free". Nor is not automatic, that because one person can be forced to believe -- that everyone can be forced to do so. I simply don't have detailed information as to why one hypothetical person, Paul could be coerced....

Alternately: Consider Jesus himself, for he is also a man-- but his awareness of God would make it impossible for him not to have "believed" in God. His will is constrained by his union with the divine "Son" as a single person. So, Jesus was not free to disbelieve in the existence of God. (A partial constraint).

Even though Jesus' case might seem a special case, it serves to illustrate that there are complex interactions between man and God's will -- and points out the high probability of what might be termed "unintended side effects" or perhaps "humanly unpredictable events" involved in bringing people to salvation. (I Think it was necessary that God hide from Satan how salvation would come, ergo: it is likely that being as Satan is greater than man, that God also had to hide it from us.)


But, now: Consider the idea found in the Hebrew Psalm 68:18,
The psalm, I think, differs between the Hebrew and the Greek versions eg: LXX psalm 67:18-19 ... I'm going from memory, so if it's a mistake -- my apologies...

The upshot of that passage is that scripture appears to state that some of those who go to Zion (a figure of Heaven) do so as captives of war. Therefore, they are implicitly anathema or "gifts" of men in my understanding. AKA. Slaves. Perhaps they are men who disobeyed as far back as the day of Noah. (But curiously not before then.) I simply don't know.

This psalm, and prophecy, has a type and it's fullest fulfillment. Hence, it would seem that in Heaven, there will also be some brought there as slaves in addition to those who willingly live there as citizens.

That's the End of my basic thought....

Other than to perhaps examining Pharaoh, I see no reason to bother examining any of these potential variations in the pattern of salvation in this thread; I'm merely answering your inquiry, although I think you have enough information that you don't really need an explanation; and am mildly concerned it will derail the conversation farther.

The "reformed" position I think holds that "all" individuals must be predestined; But I don't think that God must predestine everyone if he doesn't want to, or perhaps he can't for a reason internal to himself.

I think it sufficient -- and perhaps wiser -- in this debate to accept that free will does not have to be fully functional in every case of salvation. ( Damnation is a separate issue ).

I also wish to avoid arguing that I, myself, have perfect knowledge of how God chooses to distribute grace, either as an aid -- or as a force. Such a position is exactly what God lays traps for (the proud) hence, I am content to only argue what is within my humble means; and I think my position is still correct even if everyone has free will...

I don't know exactly how God forces certain events to happen -- but occasionally Key figures MUST do a specific thing; and God is not limited to only one way of making these things happen; It may be that he simply saw ahead of time the ultimate result, or it is possible that he affected it PARTIALLY; For example, that angels, posing as men, might actually be one of many non-free will ways these events could be forced. Jacob wrestled with an angel (and got bumps and bruises), There were three "men" who condemned and destroyed Sodom. and so forth. .... Or .... take for example that some figures in the new testament are said to have been "possessed".

But: There is a difference between selective control, and micro-management.
I view God as in control of history, even the smallest part, but not micro-dictating every human decision in history.

In order for God to be Good, in a consistent sense, eg: as a judge; I think it necessary that God judges a person in proportion to the freedom they had in making the decisions for or against God. Knowledge and power either increases or excuses one from guilt.

eg, as a test case we can examine:
I would say, it is quite possible that God indirectly (through angels/lying spirits/etc., or by his own excessive gentleness) hardened Pharaoh's heart; But Pharaoh is not responsible for any action where God forced him to do something ; Rather, Pharaoh is only be guilty of damnation on the basis that he himself chose to harden his own heart beyond what God did to him.

I think it can be proven that Pharaoh did some things which God did not make him do.
Therefore, it is on the basis of these free choices that Pharaoh might be accused of rejecting any offer of salvation that might have been his. (Hypothetical).

 

[mondar]

huh?
Does he footnote where on earth he came up with the words "without a home of being redeemed."? I have no idea what a vague "home" is with respect to anathema or a sacrifice....

That was a typo, it should have been "hope" not "home."

 

[mondar]

Odd, in another thread you started going on and on about "sola scriptura", and now you're talking about mere lexicons and grammars as "authorities"?
I really do wonder what what you mean.... unno I take them as fallible references, that are useful -- but which have no guarantees of proper interpretation....

I don't mind that you use grammar books ... but If you can not find even two agreeing examples of whatever grammar you cite, even with the help of great grammarians, then I don't see they are much use to you ... and even less to me.

You have an erroneous understanding of sola scriptura. You confuse solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

 

[Sinthesis]

[MENTION=94666]About the Son of God[/MENTION]

I am now leaning toward a view of Rom 9:1-5 in which Paul is confessing that he once hoped/prayed that Jesus(whom the Pharisees actually knew was the Christ over the Jews) was, as evidenced by His crucifixion, proved anathema(re-purposed apart from God) because He did not in the flesh fulfill the worldly criteria the Pharisees expected of their Messiah.

Thereby Paul admits that he once stumbled on the stumbling block of flesh vs spiritual expectations. He goes on to explain that the promised effect of God's Word(Jesus) is carried out through spiritual Israel(Church).

[MENTION=8173]Sinthesis[/MENTION] Splane please

Yes, please Sinthesis do. I'm confused.

Paul is admitting to the misguided thinking he held about Christ and His followers when he was a Pharisee named Saul.

Let me borrow and modify some of AbouttheSonofGod's work from post #356:

6) I{I when known as Saul}
1) used-to-pray,myself (or possibly selfishly) [but no longer] ( Imperfect tense, expected to agree with 1st person subject ).{once trusted}
2) for [postpositive]{that}
5) he [Nominative=subject word]{Jesus}
4) to-be {was}
3) an anathema [Noun, not verb]{a re-purposed servant of God}
7) from{separated away from, or impeached}
8) the[g]{the}
9) ointment/anointing/Chrism/Christ[g]{office of the Christ}
10) over {that is King over... the Jews under the Law}
11) of-the/se[g]
12) brothers[...]
13) of-me
14) of-the
15) kinsmen
16) of-me
17) under [according-to]
18) flesh [acc].

I've rearranged the order to fit an English pattern and inserted my thoughts within {} to get:

For I, when known as Saul, once trusted that Jesus was a re-purposed servant of God who had been impeached from the office of the Christ, that is King over the Jews under the Law.​

The reason the Pharisees believed this is because Jesus didn't fulfill their worldly expectations of the Christ while in the flesh. Rather, He was crucified, which to the Jews would condemn Jesus as cursed if they didn't believe in Jesus' resurrection. This would have been the logical default position if one wasn't an eye witness to His resurrected body like Thomas. Jhn 20:29

Deu 21:22 ¶ And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
Deu 21:23 - His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.​

The Pharisees were willing to kill for their mistaken belief as Jesus prophesied.

Jhn 16:2 - They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.​

 

[reba]

Thanks :gah

 

[About the Son of God]

Paul is admitting to the misguided thinking he held about Christ and His followers when he was a Pharisee named Saul.

Yes, that seems to be one way to take the statement in Romans; based on Greek grammar alone.
For, it explains the imperfect tense "I used to pray" which implies Paul has changed his mind since then.
@mondar still hasn't shown any examples in Greek where "apo" acts like a verb; so there's not much reason to understand the translation in another way but I'd like to speculate on an alternate translation....

If we assume the KJV grammar has some esoteric example in Greek someplace.... then we can simply fix the two definite mistakes in the KJV's lexicon.... and come up with a "closest" equivalent:

Romans 9:3 For I "used to pray" that ,myself were "a curse" from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

At which Point Paul is no longer talking about his own damnation; but rather, he is speaking either of potential martyrdom, or of being an instrument of judgment, or of being a trophy taken by God in war -- and now being displayed to the Jews as a taunt. (I'm only going to explore the first idea.)

It's fairly clear in Romans 8:36, that Paul is believes there are many who will fulfill the prophecies about the messiah:
Romans 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

And it is clear that by the time Paul wrote Romans, that he recognizes the whole church to be Jesus' body: (I presume Paul first learned of this identity, here: Acts 9:4 persecute Christians = persecute Jesus);
Paul says we each become as Jesus was:

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

And, since Jesus was an anathema, raised up on a tree, we too -- have become that by baptism.

Think about what baptism is: eg: being "plunged into" or "overwhelmed by" something; Hence, a more perfect and literal baptism into Jesus' death -- would be to be baptized/die like Jesus died; a martyrdom, an anathema, eg: dying at the hands of the Jews. ( Luke 12:50, Matthew 20:22-23, Mark 10:38, eg: James who asked to drink the cup, I think, was put to death in Jerusalem by Herod. )

I think that Paul could easily have seen himself, as destined to become part of Jesus' Sacrifice to the Father ; because the son's place is sacrifice to the father, and we are to be "like him".
Colossians 1:24

With that in mind: Compare the formula of the Holy Spirit being Paul's witness, when describing what it means to be a child/son of God:
Roman 8:16-17, and Roman 9:1, 9:3-4

It's the immediate context of Romans 9:3.

Now, switching to history to make a connection on the "imperfect" tense:
When Paul wrote Romans, he was already under house arrest; and on his way to the Gentiles (Nero), but I think He might have realized that it was no longer possible for him to die exactly as Chirst did (as anathema, on a tree.)

Paul had been warned through the Holy Spirit, via prophecy, that he would be handed over to the Gentiles (as was Jesus), but Paul was clearly, at first, expecting a death identical to Jesus' : Acts 21:11,13; he didn't appear to consider that God had told him that he would be sent to "the Gentiles" and all the world. ( In Jerusalem, the moment Paul, by his own free will, claimed to be a Roman citizen, he chose the death he would get -- for Roman citizens die a quick death by an axe, eg: circumcision at the neck -- they are exempt from crucifixion. )
Hence, it was pointless to pray to die in Jerusalem.

----------------------------------

One alternate speculation, not related to what I just wrote (So, think new idea otherwise this will be confusing.) I'm not sure how to write out this idea... my apologies if it is confusing....

I think Romans 9:3 also might possibly be Paul retroactively interpreting the scriptures before Christ came; to a time when he, himself, "could" have been the Christ, eg: for scripture did say the Messiah would suffer and die, and be raised up on a tree (They have dug my hands and my feet; Psalm 22:16);
So Paul, according to KJV grammar, might be saying that he had wanted to BE the messiah...
but now he knows that is impossible: 1Corinthians 1:13. Colossians 1:24

The only crucifixion possible is of the Body of Jesus -- and therefore, only a Christian can be crucified and be the messiah (mystical union) as a part (not the whole) of him who saves us.

 

[About the Son of God]

Freewill religion! (Anathema -- serpent -- raised up -- word study)

The same form appears in Galatians 1:8-9. It is also a noun there and is translated "Curse." What is interesting about the grammar of the two passages, is that both passages have the verb of being and the predicate use of anathema.

I figure I might as well do a full word study on anathema; and make a mini-concordance.
I agree that your passage is very interesting.

In a first response to your comment, I would point you to Acts 23:14, where someone is making themselves "anathema" (twice over even, verb and noun both).

Look carefully:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/23-14.htm

What is interesting, there, is that anathema, as either noun or verb, clearly doesn't mean that they are in fact immediately accursed, -- but rather that they are bound by oath or else swearing/devoting themselves to kill someone else. To anathematize (oneself?), then, can mean to devote one's self by oath.

Therefore, even if Romans 9:3's anathema is taken (hypothetically, although I think it a bad idea) in the sense of a verb (to anathematize one's self rather than someone else; ); then I think I can still end up with the same conclusion ( as perhaps @Sinthesis did ), of Paul having sworn/devoted himself to killing Christians or Jesus earlier in his life.

For Paul did obtain letters to persecute (kill) Christians at Damascus (Acts 9:1-2) from the chief priest, just as these Pharisees sought the approval of the chief priests in Acts 23:14 for making themselves "anathema".

The passages and words and ideas are quite parallel.

In any event;
Your comment is a good solid bible debate point; and there is no denying that "a curse" is one of the possible senses of Romans 9:3; It's just not the ONLY connotation of the word. For the word can also mean "a thing lifted up as a sign/oath/curse/trophy", "spoils of war", and "an oath or devotedness to a task"; which are all provable meanings.

I also agree that the passage you cite has the same features as Romans -- although not exactly the same; The word "anaThem-a" is the same in both passages, eg: it's generally treated like a word ending in one of τδθ/μν, where tau is also explicitly tacked on in many examples I can find; that consonant forces anathem-a to act as like a noun having two neuter noun endings;

The word, anaThem-a, (αναθεμ-α) when ending in alpha, can therefore be *either* subject/nominative or predicate/Accusative.; It has the singular noun endings -.α, -.ος, -.ι, -.α :: respectively, when used as subject(N), genitive(G), dative(D), and predicate(A). [ AKA Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative. ]

The http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/9-3.htm lexicon, notice, chooses to validly identify anathem-a as N-NNS, = Noun-Nominative, Neuter, Singular; in spite of what your calling it predicate. ( I won't argue that it can't be predicate, but it could be subject is the bottom line. )

With that technical mouthful said, I'm going to point out the main difference in the passage you cite, vs. Romans 9:3; is that Galatians has an active verb, εστω, which is a command to a singular [he/3rd] person; but Romans does not have a command.

The Galatians verb roughly means:
eg: "anathema, [make]-him-be![come]" or "[make]-him-be![come] anathema"

That's different than Romans 9:3, where the verb of being is not a command, but is merely a vague "infinitive" verb; ( and, Note, it's NOT explicitly specifying first person, either! )

Therefore, Romans 9:3 simply isn't as clear grammatically as the passage you are citing; although I agree, your passage is plausible apologetically....

-----------------------------------
How I think about infinitive verbs.... vs. active ones....
-----------------------------------

The Greek verb tense called "infinitive", is generally translated into English, by first translating the basic meaning of the verb, and then adding an English helper particle ("to") as the verb's prefix.

eg: I decided to-give her flowers.
eg: I used-to-pray-for, "[him] to-be anathema, [himself]",
eg: he locked the door to-keep people out.
eg: he encouraged his friends to-vote for him.

The infinitive, expresses these kinds of ideas: Why did Paul pray --- why did someone lock the door -- and, at least in English, what would someone like to-happen in the future. etc.

--------------------------------
So, what does the infinitive in Romans 9:3 mean?
--------------------------------

An infinitive verb does not guarantee an action took place or will take place. But in English, at least, it is sometimes used to imply an "intention" for the future. Now that I've spent more time focusing on that, I think that might be why the KJV translators discarded the main idea of "used-to-pray", and substituted "could-wish" instead; I still think that is a poor translation, combining two verbs into one -- but not an entirely wrong translation.

The actual phrase in Romans 9:3 containing the infinitive verb of being is:

Romans 9:3 ... αναθεμ-α ειναι αυτ-ος ...
# he,himself anathema to-be.
# he,himself to-be anathema.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Appendix: A Word Study of anathema complete with mini-concordance:

----------------------------------------
The Etymological (word roots) connection.

I'd like to start the word study by pointing out, what at first sight (at least) is a strong contextual etymological link to "anathema", eg: that the "bronze serpent" which was lifted up in Numbers 21:8 is contextually linked to the word anathema; for the events of Numbers 21:2,3 results in the events of Numbers 21:8; First there is an oath, to anathematize, then the place is named "anathema" AKA. ("Horma" in Hebrew), then the people are said to journey to mount "Hor", at which point God sends serpents -- and people die -- and Moses suddenly raises a serpent up on a pole. (Another example of anathema by etymology.) in order that people be healed on the way to mount "Hor".

The connection is not just my own:

Consider: Just as Jesus, in order to die, temporarily became a sign of anathema for the duration of his death on the cross, by being "raised up" on the cross as a sign of contradiction; Just so, the serpent too fulfills that role ( perhaps a prototype vs. the type?? )

John 3:14-15

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini concordance for EXHAUSTIVE biblical word study of anathema/curse/devoted:
This is truly exhaustive, to the best of my knowledge.

Leviticus 27:28, αναθεμ-α*
Numbers 21:2,3 αναθεμ-α-τι-ω [I-will-continuously-devote/anathema], αναθεμ-α* (Hebrew Horma)
Deuteronomy 7:26 αναθημ-α*
Deuteronomy 13:16,18 αναθεμ-α-τι* αναθεμ-α-τι-ειτε, αναθεμ-α-τ-ος*
Deuteronomy 20:17 αναθεμ-α-τι* αναθεμ-α-τι-ειτε
Joshua 6:17,18 αναθεμ-α*, αναθεμ-α-τ-ος* αναθεμ-α-τ-ος* αναθεμ-α*
Joshua 6:21 αν+εθεμ-α-τι-σε [ he-anathematized, aorist ]

Joshua 7:1 αναθεμ-α-τ-ος*
Joshua 7:11,12,13 αναθεμ-α-τ-ος*, ααναθεμ-α*, αναθεμ-α*
Joshua 22:20 αναθεμ-α-τ-ος*

Judges 1:17 αν+εθεμ-α-τι-σαν [they-anathematized;; 3pAorist ]
The KJV says Judges 1:17's city is Horma, but the Greek actually says εξ-ολεθρευ-σις instead....
Judges 21:11 αναθεμ-α-τι-ειτε [ you-all-anathematize!! ; imperative. ]

1Samuel 15:3 αναθεμ-α-τι-εις [ you shall anathematize, indic. but not command ]
2Kings 19:11 αναθεμ-α-τι-σαι [ (???unsure???) to-anathematize : Aorist ind. infinitive ]
1Chronicles 2:7 αναθεμ-α*
1Chronicles 4:41 αν+εθεμ-α-τι-σαν [they-anathematized; 3pAorist ]
Ezra 10:8 αναθεμ-α-τι-σθησεται [passive, future aorist ]
Judith 6:19 αναθημ-α*
Zechariah 14:11 αναθεμ-α*

Mark 14:71 αναθεμ-α-τι-ζ-ειν [to-continually-swear/oath/?curse?]
Luke 21:5 αναθημ-α-σι[ν]* [plural, dative]
Acts 23:12,21 αν+εθεμ-α-τι-σαν [they-anathematized; 3pAorist ] themselves....!
Acts 23:14 αναθεμ-α-τι* [an-oath, dative] ανεθεμ-α-τι-σα-μεν [we-have-bound-ourselves, aorist, 1P indic. ]
Romans 9:3 αναθεμ-α*
1Corinthians 12:3 αναθεμ-α*
1Corinthians 16:22 αναθεμ-α*
Galatians 1:8,9 αναθεμ-α*, αναθεμ-α*

And there is one another spelling that fits the pattern of anathema, but as a first person verb -- whereas all other examples found before this are second or third person ...
Hmmmm....... VERY interesting. It is taken to mean "communicate"; I wonder if there are any extra-biblical examples to justify the lexicon.... Galatians is also the only place Paul spells any verb form of Anathema; so it might be that he considers anathema as a verb to be a second AKA strong aorist.

Galatians 1:16 προσ- αν+εθεμ-ην ; it looks augmented eg:, 1st person, strong aorist, middle voice.
Galatians 2:2 αν+εθεμ-ην ; same exact thing.

---------------------------------------------
Thayers and Maccabees...

I didn't include other books outside of the normal KJV list in my basic concordance/word search, but I'll append the search from Maccabees here since you mentioned them for Thayers: Strictly speaking, this is not necessary for my argument, but is just to complete our earlier conversations.

1Maccabees 5:5 αν+εθεμ-α-τι-σεν [he-anathematized, 3s Aorist]
2Maccabees 2:13 αναθεμ-α-τ-ων* [gifts,spelling #1 Genitive, plural]
2Maccabees 9:16 αναθημ-α-σι-[ν]* [gifts, spelling #2 Dative, plural]

As a side note, to your comment from Thayers, I found a new occurrence of Anathema, which makes much more sense of Thayers comment; eg: 2Maccabees 9:16. If you had been able to cite the verse number, I would have been able to follow his argument better. I feel silly, now, for having missed it in my initial search and realized I was a bit too harsh on him. The best example, though, is still in the new testament.

Some of these dedicated/devoted temple decorations, It seems, were gifts from Antiochus; and he gave them some ~50 years before Jesus' time. Antiochus gave them as atonement for his sins against the temple -- very much like the golden hemhroids from the Philistines many many centuries before [ which I already mentioned was in the book of Samuel ].

2Maccabees 9:16 "And the holy temple, which before he [Antiochus] had spoiled, he would garnish with goodly gifts [anathema], and restore all the holy vessels with many more, and out of his own revenue defray the charges belonging to the sacrifices: 17 Yea, and that also he would become a Jew himself, and go through all the world that was inhabited, and declare the power of God."

--------------------------------------------------
Final note: ( I'm trying hard to document everything, including my assumptions. )

I have treated the spelling variation of anaThEma (αναθημ-α) vs. anaThema (αναθεμ-α) as the same word; for both are translated with the same meanings uniformly in all source texts I looked at. and esp, within the KJV. I can go back to earlier codex's to look for absolute proof of the sameness of the word by seeing if the spelling is sometimes interchanged from codex to codex, but I don't think it necessary for our discussion; as the basic point I want to make (eg: that anthama alternately means oath or being devoted to some task/person) can be made even if I exclude the variant spelling.

 

[About the Son of God]

My objections to your changing the meaning of the word, while it might suit one aspect of its etymology, it serves only to greatly weaken the force of Pauls concept in Romans 9:3. Also, the sentence illustrations you use above do not demonstrate a predicate nominative. Those sentences would have the accusative endings on them and not the nominative and so could not be considered a predicate "nominative."

Now that I've done a word study; I note again, that I am not changing the meaning of the word; but using ones that can be found from scripture by inspection (etymology + solo scriptura, if that's O.K.).

Secondly, anathem-a is neuter which makes it potentially subject(Nominative); eg: see the online link for Romans 9:3, anathem-a is N-NNS Noun-Nominantive Netuer Singular.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/9-3.htm

I listed the correct endings of the singular form anathem-a in the previous post ; Because it is neuter, it is an exception word -- for all singular neuter Nominatives and Accusatives (subjects and predicates) are spelled identically; they end in -a.

Now: I don't have any grammar books specifically by "reformed" authors; and I prefer to work by examples anyway....

So would you mind at least citing the exact wording of the grammar rule that has you stuck, and the particular author? for when I look in the randomly chosen grammar book called "Let's Study Greek", Moody Press, Chicago (by Clarence B. Hale, eg: of NIV fame...? ) -- the index doesn't even have a grammar construction named "predicate nominative"... The distinction, apparently, isn't very important.

I'm sure this can be cleared up very easily....

.....

as to ... serving only to weaken .... hmmm?

1Corinthians 1:18, 25