the most wonderful handy-dandy exception - "not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons"

Steven Avery

Administrator
The only reason you keep going on about this is that you want to keep your "naive modalism" example intact, which actually doesn't fit the rule.

Please, please.. stop lying outright.

Trying to parse your absurd categories and definitions has nothing to do with the naive modalism discussion of some 2nd century ECWs who Daniel Wallace said broke the rule. (The ever-changing rules.)

Instead .. start answering the questions.

You can start with why Holy Spirit is a proper name and Paraclete is not.

Matthew 28:19 (AV)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Do you really think that is a command to baptize in the name of Jehovah, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
Holy Ghost is NOT a name, obviously.

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And no names there, either.

John 15:26 (AV)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

The grammar is built around the masculine Comforter.

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

Or would you rather explain your absurdities around

Jesus
Lord Jesus
Christ
Lord Jesus Christ
Saviour Jesus Christ

also
Lord
Son
Son of God
Word

Some of which you say are epithets, some are not, but you really do not know which ones, and you are trying to mind-read the authors.

This is grammar? This is a rule?

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


You are attacking the Holiness of God and Christ with these types of absurdities.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
An epithet is really an exact identity.
Here is an example from your dictionary.

His charitable works have earned him the epithet “Mr. Philanthropy.”

The Comforter had not come yet, it is not simply an epithet for the Holy Spirit, the Comforter is very specific, the Holy Spirit in action for the believers after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. You can NOT go backwards in the New Testament and replace Holy Spirit with Comforter.

You need some English refreshing.
 

Brianrw

Member
It seems you can't man up and substantiate your accusations. I also addressed your statements, but you seem to be in your own world. Enjoy the echo chamber.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Simple question like .. why is the Holy Spirit a proper name and not the Paraclete?

No sensible answer possible.

Good time for you to leave.
As the Winter Rules crumble.
 

Brianrw

Member
It's really not my problem if I answer you and you refuse to either listen, hear, or learn. I answered for "Comforter," do you need me to answer for "Paraclete" which is just a transliteration of the Greek word for "Comforter" (παράκλητος)? The second place it's quoted, it is literally quoted as an appellative of the Holy Ghost.

Why would my answer be any different. You can digest the following for a while, and then returned when properly informed.

Apellative​

  1. noun A common name, in distinction from a proper name. A common name, or appellative, stands for a whole class, genus, or species of beings, or for universal ideas. Thus, tree is the name of all plants of a particular class; plant and vegetable are names of things that grow out of the earth. A proper name, on the other hand, stands for a single thing; as, Rome, Washington, Lake Erie.
  2. noun An appellation or title; a descriptive name.

Oxford Learner's

a common noun that is used to address a person or thing, for example ‘mother’ or ‘doctor’

Proper Name​

noun: proper name
  1. a name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with initial capital letters, e.g., Larry, Mexico, and Boston Red Sox. (Oxford languages)

  2. A common noun is the generic name for one item in a class or group. A proper noun, on the other hand, names a noun precisely . . . The distinction between common and proper nouns is usually quite easy to make, but it can occasionally be more difficult to intuit. (Grammarly)

Again.​

Singular
= to Sharp, who states, "except the nouns be . . . in the plural number." (p. 6)

Personal

= to Sharp, who states, "personal description," etc. (p. 3)

Personal description, etc.
= to Sharp, who states, "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill" (p.3) and "except the nouns be proper names" (p. 6)

Please explain exactly how I have "reformulated" Sharp's rule to make it the "Winter Rule"?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
It's really not my problem if I answer you and you refuse to either listen, hear, or learn. I answered for "Comforter," do you need me to answer for "Paraclete" which is just a transliteration of the Greek word for "Comforter" (παράκλητος)? The second place it's quoted, it is literally quoted as an appellative of the Holy Ghost.

Philippians 1:19 (AV)
For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

Start from the beginning. What makes you think Holy Spirit is a proper name?
Is it the only name in Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7?
Surely does NOT sound like a name. How about Jesus Christ, as in Philippians. At least, that is a name!

And I explained that Holy Spirit and Comforter are NOT synonyms.
There is no Comforter on earth when Jesus spoke. the Comforter is only one facet of the Holy Spirit, after the Resurrection, for the believers in Jesus.

Focus.

So it is NOT an epithet.

You jump around with so many categories, it is just a shell game.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
And explain how you determine which of these references to the Lord Jesus Christ are proper names.

Jesus
Lord Jesus
Christ
Lord Jesus Christ
Saviour Jesus Christ

The Word made flesh
Son of God

and more.

And do you simply have to mind-read how you think Paul and Peter and Jude et al are thinking about their Greek titles?

Surely, they must carry a copy of the Sharp-Winter Grammatical Rule Book along next to their Tanach!

The whole thing is a joke. Let's see if you can answer the question right above.
 

Brianrw

Member
And do you simply have to mind-read how you think Paul and Peter and Jude et al are thinking about their Greek titles?
Mind read what? How long are you going to go on about this nonsense? Were you never taught, for example, rules of English grammar when you were in school?

Somebody way back when named their child after the Greek word for "crown." And that namesake of yours became a proper name ever since. Now, am I going to spend the next fifty posts asking if "crown" is a proper name or not? Or suddenly contend that "Stephen" has an exception as a common noun?

And I explained that Holy Spirit and Comforter are NOT synonyms.
There is no Comforter on earth when Jesus spoke. the Comforter is only one facet of the Holy Spirit, after the Resurrection, for the believers in Jesus.

Focus.
I didn't call them "synonyms." I'm getting tired of having words put in my mouth.

Please tell me the real name of the Holy Spirit. And if being a "Comforter" is one facet of the Holy Spirit, how are you saying it's a proper name? When you go to bank, is the "Teller" a name of the person, or their occupational description? Is "President" a name, or an occupational description? Is "Lawyer" a name or an occupational description? This is all not all guesswork.

You've been at this ever since I answered your "naive modalism exception," you've been bent on proving the Holy Spirit doesn't have a real name. Your essential point is this: If you can't prove the Holy Spirit is a name, therefore the Granville Sharp rule is a rule for fools. It's not a valid argument.

As for the rest, I didn't invent the grammatical terms and rules. Those were developed by people to standardize methods of communication. All I'm doing is saying how they apply.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mind read what? How long are you going to go on about this nonsense?

You are the one who claims everything revolves around "proper names".
As placed in the mind of Peter, Paul, et al.

So stop the bluster and tell us exactly which of these are proper names, in the mind of Paul.

When are you going to tell me how you determine which of these are proper names?
More precisely, proper names in the MIND of Paul and Peter and Jude et al.

Jesus
Christ
Jesus Christ
Lord Jesus
Lord Jesus Christ
Saviour Jesus Christ
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ

If you do not have an ironclad, proven method, indisputable, the Winter Rule fails again.

Oops. - Absolutely nothing left.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The only reason you keep going on about this is that you want to keep your "naive modalism" example intact, which actually doesn't fit the rule.


  1. A common noun is the generic name for one item in a class or group. A proper noun, on the other hand, names a noun precisely . . . The distinction between common and proper nouns is usually quite easy to make, but it can occasionally be more difficult to intuit. (Grammerly)


It's not important to me as it is to you, since the validity of the rule does not hinge on whether "Christ" is taken as an appellative (which seems to me most probable) or a proper name/noun. But the latter is how it is viewed in English. As even Grammerly states, "The distinction between common and proper nouns is usually quite easy to make, but it can occasionally be more difficult to intuit." Since this affects only a single place in the whole New Testament, I'm not concerned as you are.

You can fix those two to Grammarly. And then I will fix it here.
It helps in searching :). I've fixed some of mine.

You might have one or two more, simply search "Grammerly" in the Search.
 

Brianrw

Member
You are the one who claims everything revolves around "proper names".
As placed in the mind of Peter, Paul, et al.

So stop the bluster and tell us exactly which of these are proper names, in the mind of Paul.
I defined the terms for you so I don't have to keep answering, as I have, list after list:

Apellative​

  1. noun A common name, in distinction from a proper name. A common name, or appellative, stands for a whole class, genus, or species of beings, or for universal ideas. Thus, tree is the name of all plants of a particular class; plant and vegetable are names of things that grow out of the earth. A proper name, on the other hand, stands for a single thing; as, Rome, Washington, Lake Erie.
  2. noun An appellation or title; a descriptive name.

Oxford Learner's

a common noun that is used to address a person or thing, for example ‘mother’ or ‘doctor’

Proper Name​

noun: proper name
  1. a name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with initial capital letters, e.g., Larry, Mexico, and Boston Red Sox. (Oxford languages)

  2. A common noun is the generic name for one item in a class or group. A proper noun, on the other hand, names a noun precisely . . . The distinction between common and proper nouns is usually quite easy to make, but it can occasionally be more difficult to intuit. (Grammarly)
Again, from Oxford Languages:

Common noun . . . a noun denoting a class of objects or a concept as opposed to a particular individual.​
Proper name . . . a name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with initial capital letters, e.g., Larry, Mexico, and Boston Red Sox.​

Proper names/nouns are specific names like Brian, Steve, Jesus. Common nouns are lord, savior, god. When used as a title, a common noun should be capitalized (Savior, Lord, God). "Christ" is more difficult to intuit because, as Wiktionary notes, it is "A title given to Jesus of Nazareth, seen as the fulfiller of the messianic prophecy; often treated as a personal name." This is why I said this one example, and only this example is ambiguous to me until I have a chance to examine the usage more fully. And that is a huge labor. Right now, I'm not translating the Bible, so that is not a high priority. I'd prefer to leave it at that. At some point, I may have a better answer for you, but I'd prefer to give it when I'm ready and not because I'm being badgered about it.

Rules of grammar are deliberately designed to standardize the language and mitigate ambiguity. But we don't discard grammatical rules just because an ambiguity results (as they often do). That unfortunately is a result of the human element involved. The "Sharp" rule (I quote, because it was applied to passages and stated in comments and grammars long before him) does not hing on whether I understand "Christ" as a "title" or "a personal name" (Wiktionary). Greek readers can scratch their head on it and say "it's ambiguous," and just read and pass over it. However, translators actually have to make one decision. As a translator, when I see an ambiguity I will err on the side of caution. I will not risk over ascribing Deity to Christ in a passage where I feel there is such ambiguity. I'll only translate it in such a way when the case is clear. That's an honest answer, I wish you would respect that. 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, and Romans 9:5 are clear examples. So is John 1:1, etc.

You can fix those two to Grammarly.
Thanks. I keep misspelling it. For some reason grammar is easy for me, but Grammarly is not. :ROFLMAO: 🙏
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Now, make it nice and simple, and apply those definitions to:

Jesus
Christ
Jesus Christ
Lord Jesus
Lord Jesus Christ
Saviour Jesus Christ
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ

e.g
Why would Paul or Jude think Lord Jesus Christ was not a proper name?

Do some mind-reading.
What if one thought of it as a proper name and the other did not?

Do you really really think they went through their book of "Proper Names in Greek" before they wrote a sentence?
In order to match the Winter Rule?

Do you not realize that you are in the Grammar of the Absurd?
 

Brianrw

Member
e.g
Why would Paul or Jude think Lord Jesus Christ was not a proper name?

Do some mind-reading.
What if one thought of it as a proper name and the other did not?

Do you really really think they went through their book of "Proper Names in Greek" before they wrote a sentence?
In order to match the Winter Rule?

Do you not realize that you are in the Grammar of the Absurd?
What are you going on about now?
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
What are you going on about now?

If you really do not understand all the absurdities:

Simply take my list and tell us yes, no or maybe as to whether they are proper names, in the minds of the NT authors.
For maybe, you can give a statistical pct.

Jesus
Christ
Jesus Christ
Lord Jesus
Lord Jesus Christ
Saviour Jesus Christ
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ

Thanks!
 

Brianrw

Member
in the minds of the NT authors.
This is your problem. At this point, you've received enough instruction. If you can't figure out the above on your own, you won't be satisfied with anything I say. "Jesus" is a proper name. If it is placed next to any one of those titles (or whatever word you'll accept), the title is still a common noun. In English, we capitalize them (Saviour, more out of respect). You're literally running this whole exercise over one instance where I'm not sure, since "Christ" is very often treated as a personal name, equivalent to "Jesus." And this precisely affects one construction in the NT out of probably about 80 where there is no ambiguity. I don't know if that started in the first century, or when.

For the hundredth or so time, the "Sharp" rule does not hinge on whether I can certainly identify that "Christ" is understood as a title or a personal name, so this is getting to the point of absurd.

I'm sorry that you can't accept that language is not perfect, and can be ambiguous. I'm translating what was written 2000 years ago. This one point, right now, is not clear to me. I gave you an honest answer, so at some point you need to respect that and cut the nonsense.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
For the hundredth or so time, the "Sharp" rule does not hinge on whether I can certainly identify that "Christ" is understood as a title or a personal name, so this is getting to the point of absurd.

I'm sorry that you can't accept that language is not perfect, and can be ambiguous. I'm translating what was written 2000 years ago. This one point, right now, is not clear to me. I gave you an honest answer, so at some point you need to respect that and cut the nonsense.

If you can not justify an exact delineation then the Sharp-Winter rule is defunct.
You give up on Christ and Jesus Christ. Ooops.

The whole purpose of the "Rule" is to retranslate verses that refers to Jesus.
So if you can't even get that non-ambiguous there is nothing left.

How do you claim to know that Paul and Peter and Jude did not think of the Lord Jesus as his proper name?

Clearly, you feel they had the Sharp-Winter Greek Grammar book in hand and consulted it before writing any sentence with dual ontological possibilities.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
If you can not justify an exact delineation then the Sharp-Winter rule is defunct.
You give up on Christ and Jesus Christ. Ooops.
Jesus Christ appears in those constructions as a Genitive of apposition, it's not actually a part of the "Sharp" construction but is tacked on afterward, which is another instance of how you don't understand what you're talking about.

What's silly is you can't see why the second statement is so silly.I gave you about thirty or so examples, if I recall the number correctly, of where the rule is applied in the Greek NT and not of Christ. And that was not exhaustive. You're conflating the purpose of the Greek rule with the purpose of Sharp's book as it relates to the Socinian/Unitarian controversy.

The whole purpose of the "Rule" is to retranslate verses that refers to Jesus.
So if you can't even get that non-ambiguous there is nothing left.
I explained every single one of the examples you gave, but declined one, "Christ," because at some point historically the meaning shifted so that it is now considered by many a personal name. I only said I don't know when that happened, so I can't answer for specifically one construction in one passage of the entire NT. Because I don't know, I won't apply Sharp's rule to Ephesians 5:5.

No rule of grammar relies on the "exact delineation" of a proper name or common noun. The rule is not actually a sentence. It is only in a sentence where the construction needs to account for the proper delineation."
If a proper name or common noun is not properly "delineated," it means the construction is ambiguous. That actually happens in language. Greek readers can pass over it with a question; translators have to give what they feel is the best option.

"Jesus" is a proper name. "Christ" was originally a title, at some point it was considered a proper name. Lord, Savior, God are all common nouns but we capitalize them as titles and the construction can be applied to them.

I'm not going to sit here and proper "delineate" every proper name or common noun in the English language because you feel that is necessary for any grammatical rule to work. It's an illogical argument, and one that's going to stop here and stop wasting my time.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
"Jesus" is a proper name. "Christ" was originally a title, at some point it was considered a proper name. Lord, Savior, God are all common nouns but we capitalize them as titles and the construction can be applied to them.

Prove to the world that Paul and Peter and Jude et al. did not think of the Lord Jesus Christ as a proper name.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jesus Christ appears in those constructions as a Genitive of apposition, it's not actually a part of the "Sharp" construction but is tacked on afterward, which is another instance of how you don't understand what you're talking about.

Another circular claim of apposition. Amazing.

What specific words are "tacked on afterward" by the New Testament authors.

This sounds like you do not have any idea what you are talking about.
 

Brianrw

Member
Another circular claim of apposition. Amazing.

What specific words are "tacked on afterward" by the New Testament authors.

This sounds like you do not have any idea what you are talking about.
It's what the construction involves. You really need to look up and understand what an apposition is. You sound really ridiculous in all of this. Would you say "President Biden" does not involve an apposition? Is that a "circular claim?" You don't even understand what you're talking about, but nevertheless feel the need to shoot your mouth off about it.

Do you have anything constructive to add? If not, we're done here.
 
Top