the naive modalism exception

[Steven Avery]

You provided specific examples that do not fall under Sharp's Rule 1 as he stated it. The arguments I saw where against Wallace, who does not follow what Sharp wrote in 1803, who makes an unnecessarily convoluted argument clearing up the exceptions when sticking to Sharp's statement would have saved him a lot of time ....

RULE 1​

When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle." (Sharp, Remarks..., 1803, p. 3).​

So now we will reject Wallace totally, and go to Sharp, who blunders everywhere, and claims verses in the NT that you reject (even after discounting the textual verses where Sharp theorized absurdly.)

Amazing.

First, there is nothing there about proper names. So you can extrapolate that any which way you desire, to include these words and exclude those. Very flexible. Very meaningless.

Second, you have already said that the categories are fluid, and that it depends on how the writer was thinking. Thus, the specific wording will NOT tell you if the NT writer is saying "Jesus is God" or giving a beautiful verse with dual addressing, as in dozens of NT verses.

Thirds, you are simply ignoring piles of exceptions that have been documented, since you think there are no exceptions.

Fourth, why do you decline to consider the Holy Spirit a "personal description" since your view is that the Holy Spirit is a person?

By not answering these questions clearly, you can fudge the connection band overlap between Rule 1 and Rule 4. Nice trickster game. Quite transparent.

 

[Brianrw]

So now we will reject Wallace totally, and go to Sharp, who blunders everywhere, and claims verses in the NT that you reject (even after discounting the textual verses where Sharp theorized absurdly.)

That's not what I said at all. I said while his conclusion is essentially correct, had he restated Sharp's rule simply as it was written in 1803, he would not have had to posit the definition he does. Since I didn't appeal to Wallace at all, whom you are arguing against, and neither am I relying on Wallace, I said the arguments don't touch what I am saying.

Second, you have already said that the categories are fluid, and that it depends on how the writer was thinking.

I did not say the "categories are fluid" in any way. In context of 1st century Christianity, I said I personally (though they would surely have known then) am not sure if they regard "Christ" as a proper name or title.

Thirds, you are simply ignoring piles of exceptions that have been documented, since you think there are no exceptions.

Your points are both surreal and absurd. You really have no capacity for critical thinking on this do you? Your argument is essentially posting Rule 4 examples and saying they belong to the Rule 1 category, and since they violate the Rule 1 category, therefore the Rule 1 category is absurd--comparing apples to oranges. It's your logic that is both absurd and fallacious.

The rule is literally almost the same in Greek as it is in English, so I'm not sure how your comprehension of it is so absolutely poor: please tell me how the nouns Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and ordinal numbers ( ) are "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill" and thus how they apply to Sharp's first rule? To all this, I'll respond in the same manner you have:

You are simply ignoring the proper application of the rule, because you think the rule is bogus, and by misapplying to refer to any "the"-noun-"and"-noun construction you've satisfied yourself that you've successfully made the case. You haven't.

And, all the more reason why you should be sticking to what you know:

You Don't Know Greek.​

 

[Steven Avery]

That's not what I said at all. I said while his conclusion is essentially correct, had he restated Sharp's rule simply as it was written in 1803, he would not have had to posit the definition he does

Why do you think that Daniel Wallace changed the statement of the rule?

 

[Steven Avery]

I did not say the "categories are fluid" in any way. In context of 1st century Christianity, I said I personally (though they would surely have known then) am not sure if they regard "Christ" as a proper name or title.

And you made it clear that different writers could think differently about the same words.

So what good is the rule if the categories made up in 1800 or 2000 cannot be defined to fit the AD 50 speaker?

Nothing. It is total junk.

 

[Brianrw]

Why do you think that Daniel Wallace changed the statement of the rule?

He seems to have started with an oversimplified statement of it, at least that's what I suppose from the little information given. I'd have to read the monograph to say for sure. Sharp was very clear in stating what fell under it, whereas Wallace says what doesn't. It's fine, but based upon what Sharp wrote, ordinal numbers, proper names and plurals never fell under the rule to begin with. I don't really see the clarification by Wallace but maybe that's the point. I'm not at all dismissing the work, just remarking on his restatement of the rule. But again, I can't verify a work I don't have in front of me. Perhaps Wallace works from a text of Sharp older than 1803? But I can't tell, as I don't believe I've seen the 1798 publication. Wordsworth replied in 1802 with many examples, so it is possible he clarified after that point. I can only surmise at this present time.

Most abuses of the rule and attacks on the rule are based upon passages or quotations that don't follow the criteria laid out by Sharp in 1803.

And you made it clear that different writers could think differently about the same words.

That's not really what I said. I only mentioned Paul, since "God and Christ' only occurs there in the TR. A similar construction occurs in 1 Tim. 5:21 of the critical texts, but that passage involves an apposition so is of no help. I'm just saying others will look at that and one side will say it is a title, the other side will say it is a name. You're the one who added Peter and other writers into the equation, and thus produced this argument above. The issue, then, is not the writer, but rather the reader.

Not too much emphasis should be placed on how I read it. On the other hand, Wordsworth probably dug unto those passages farther than others. He notes the following in his Six Letters, pp. 132, 133:

If there was some form of disagreement or ambiguity among the Greeks, there would be no unanimity and in examples that numerous some differences ought to have been found. So it is vastly improbable that they considered these ambiguous texts.

 

[Steven Avery]

That quote from Wordsworth stands out as one of the most deceptive and false quotes in the whole tawdry history of the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools. Start looking yourself, on the Peter and Ephesians verse. See what you can find that says "one person".

You lose more credibility putting in that quote without examination.

Ironically, it was that quote, more than any other, that made me very suspicious back c. 2011 when I started to look up the ECW.

e.g. Scrivener points out that Wordsworth finds basically nothing for the identity try on 2 Peter 1:1
https://books.google.com/books?id=ex8RAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA386

Scrivener understood that this is a "proposed correction" to the AV. It is rather comical to see you deny the obvious.

Scrivener even defended the corruption translation of Ephesians 5:5.
FYI: As far as I can tell, nobody has done a decent review of the ECW on that verse.

 

[Brianrw]

That quote from Wordsworth stands out as one of the most deceptive and false quotes in the whole tawdry history of the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools. Start looking yourself, on the Peter and Ephesians verse. See what you can find that says "one person".

You lose more credibility putting in that quote without examination.

No, it is not, and I have not by any means "quot[ed] it without examination." I can't say the same for you, thinking Scrivener cancels out Wordsworth. Wordsworth indicates that he has encountered "no fewer than thousands of the form ὁ θεός καὶ σωτήρ (2 Pet. i. 1)," not quotations of the verse itself. 2 Peter 1:1 utilizes the Genitive case, τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος, with the addition of ἡμῶν. None of us reading Wordsworth's Greek, who understand this manner of Greek reference, would understand he's speaking of anything more than parallel constructions of varying cases, which are however every bit as significant. Scrivener only notes that Wordsworth did not discover any important testimony in the ecclesiastical writings of antiquity, i.e., significant quotations of the actual text.

Scrivener understood that this is a "proposed correction" to the AV. It is rather comical to see you deny the obvious.

Your case is greatly diminished by the number of writers in the 1600s and 1700s who had no trouble understanding Titus 2:13 as testifying the Deity of Christ, and there references are up for anyone to see here. Scrivener goes on to note the many awkward references to God the Father, in the portion you don't quote, that also fall under the "Sharp" construction. Those references were clear when translated, only Scrivener, who died in 1891, is simply looking at a more archaic construction that had since fallen out of use and viewing it as "awkward."

 

[Steven Avery]

No, it is not, and I have not by any means "quot[ed] it without examination." I can't say the same for you, thinking Scrivener cancels out Wordsworth. Wordsworth indicates that he has encountered "no fewer than thousands of the form ὁ θεός καὶ σωτήρ (2 Pet. i. 1)," not quotations of the verse itself.

"several thousands"
Wordsworth - ὁ θεός καὶ σωτήρ (the God and Saviour)
(2 Peter 1:1) - ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Knocks out words, radically changing Sharp and Bible text and categories, looks like a trickster approach.
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

If the context is radically different that the Bible verse, what significance does this have?
If a quotation of that form does not specifically say, in essence, Jesus is God, what value do you think it has?
How many of the "thousands" of references of the phrase from 2 Peter 1:1 have you personally reviewed?
How many of the ones you have reviewed put it in the clear context of claiming the grammar for Jesus is God?
Please give five examples, or any you can give.
Give meaningful examples of finding that specific phrase outside of 2 Peter 1:1 and discussions of Sharp.
(Should be trivially easy, since you claim there are "several thousands".)

Same questions with the 1,000 Ephesians 5:5 phrase, here at least we are close.
Wordsworth -

text - τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ
Ephesians 5:5
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ

Same questions with the hundreds Titus 2:13 phrase.

Please answer completely on at least 2 Peter or Ephesians.

Try to answer simply and directly.

Why is "God" a "person"?
Do you believe God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the 4 persons of the Godhead?


Thanks!

 

[Steven Avery]

Fourth, why do you decline to consider the Holy Spirit a "personal description" since your view is that the Holy Spirit is a person?

Once again.

 

[Brianrw]

Wordsworth - ὁ θεός καὶ σωτήρ (the God and Saviour)
(2 Peter 1:1) - ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Knocks out words, radically changing Sharp and Bible text and categories, looks like a trickster approach.

I keep telling you the truth; somehow you keep accusing me of deceit and yet it's your points that aren't holding up, thus you have to impugn my credibility (rather, here, Wordsworth's) rather than making your case.

Wordsworth is not applying any trickery here whatsoever. The word ἡμῶν has no bearing on the construction or usage of the article. You're borrowing that blunder from Abbot. Wordsworth writes it in the nominative case to represent any case in which that construction be found.

ὁ θεός and τοῦ θεοῦ are the exact same words. The same goes for σωτήρ and σωτῆρος. One is used in the nominative, "God, even the Savior" and the other is the genitive case, "of God, even the Savior." Both refer to one person: God, and identify Him as the Savior. When you put that in context, the English translation may have variation in wording, but the meaning of that construction will not change.

If the context is radically different that the Bible verse, what significance does this have?

Wordsworth's point is that he's found it across numerous contexts and it always refers to one individual.

Give meaningful examples of finding that specific phrase outside of 2 Peter 1:1 and discussions of Sharp.
(Should be trivially easy, since you claim there are "several thousands".)

It's not me, but Wordsworth who made the comment. Why don't you go back to his work and examine some of the examples he gives on the preceding pages. They are scattered about on pp. 126-131.

Steven Avery said:
Fourth, why do you decline to consider the Holy Spirit a "personal description" since your view is that the Holy Spirit is a person?

It's not a question I should have to answer; use your own critical faculties and apply the rule as written before asking, and spare me the time answering. You can't discern between a person and a personal description? The "Holy Spirit" identifies the person of the Holy Spirit. What is attached to describe "Holy Spirit" becomes a personal description.

Why is "God" a "person"?
Do you believe God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the 4 persons of the Godhead?

What kind of silly question is this? Since you were so sure the English text of Titus 2:13 speaks (1) of God and (2) of our Savior Jesus Christ, whereas I say Christ is referred to as "the great God and our Savior," I noted the uncontroversial rendering of passages where we find, "God and our Father" and "of God, and of the Father." I asked you if they also, having the same English construction, refer to two persons. The answer I expected was "No," but because that undermines your point on Titus 2:13, you seem to have decided to wrest the words and turn them back on me as though I believe in a Quadrinity (is that even a thing)?

It's this sort of comment that earns you a bad reputation.

 

[Steven Avery]

I keep telling you the truth; somehow you keep accusing me of deceit and yet it's your points that aren't holding up, thus you have to impugn my credibility (rather, here, Wordsworth's)

Wordsworth was the trickster obviously. I did not accuse you, except you used the trickster's arguments.

 

[Steven Avery]

It's not a question I should have to answer; use your own critical faculties and apply the rule as written before asking, and spare me the time answering. You can't discern between a person and a personal description? The "Holy Spirit" identifies the person of the Holy Spirit. What is attached to describe "Holy Spirit" becomes a personal description.

This is all blah blah.
Do the words Holy Spirit count as personal in the Winter Rule? (We are now outside both Sharp and Wallace.)
Does it function differently than Lord Jesus, or God or Christ? If yes, why?

Do the words Holy Spirit make it outside of Winter Rule #1?
And off to #4? As you did earlier.

Simply answer the question.

Do NOT ask me to analyze using your categories. That is nonsense.

Can Father, Son or Holy Spirit be part of a Rule 1 Sharp description.

And if they break Rule 4 does that matter?

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

Winter (not Wallace or Sharp) Rules

Winter - Rule 4. "Father" and "Son" are not a "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill."

Winter -- Your naive Modalism "exception," τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι is Rule 4, speaking of God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Not Rule 1. We're discussing Rule 1.

Winter - Rule 4, (p. 11): "Yet it is otherwise when the nouns are not of personal description or application; for, then they denote distinct things or qualities." - clear as mud

Winter - τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐσίαν: Rule 4.

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

List the phrases and nouns that fit ONLY Rule 4, and NOT Rule 1, in the Winter Rule.

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

When someone is playing a shell game, it takes awhile to see through the nonsense.

 

[Brianrw]

This is all blah blah.
Do the words Holy Spirit count as personal in the Winter Rule? (We are now outside both Sharp and Wallace.)
Does it function differently than Lord Jesus, or God or Christ? If yes, why?

I answered that in the text you quoted. "The 'Holy Spirit' identifies the person of the Holy Spirit. What is attached to describe 'Holy Spirit' becomes a personal description." You're word trapping, not asking questions. Your examples, if I recall, used "Father" and "Son," which are mutually exclusive, and "Holy Spirit." The first substantive is a personal noun. The second substantive would be a personal description respecting office, dignity, etc. Do you believe "Son" is a title of dignity for the Father? Or that the "Holy Spirit" is a personal description of the Father?

We are not outside Sharp. Sharp writes,

When the copulative καί connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjetives, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun our participle​

The bracketed comments are not mine, they are in his Remarks, 3rd edition. Glassius likewise writes,

Whenever an article is added emphatically to the first word, it includes all other additional epithets, and shows that there is a conversation about the same subject. (Quandoque articulus emphatice prime voci additus, reliqua omnia epitheta adjecta includit, & de eodem subjecto sermonem esse ostendit.)​

​

An "epithet," according to m-w.com, is "a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing." I.e., a personal description. So then Glassius and Sharp are expressing nothing different between the two of them.

 

[Steven Avery]

I answered that in the text you quoted. "The 'Holy Spirit' identifies the person of the Holy Spirit. What is attached to describe 'Holy Spirit' becomes a personal description." You're word trapping, not asking questions. Your examples, if I recall, used "Father" and "Son," which are mutually exclusive, and "Holy Spirit." The first substantive is a personal noun. The second substantive would be a personal description respecting office, dignity, etc. Do you believe "Son" is a title of dignity for the Father? Or that the "Holy Spirit" is a personal description of the Father?

We are not outside Sharp. Sharp writes,

When the copulative καί connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjetives, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun our participle​

The bracketed comments are not mine, they are in his Remarks, 3rd edition. Glassius likewise writes,

Whenever an article is added emphatically to the first word, it includes all other additional epithets, and shows that there is a conversation about the same subject. (Quandoque articulus emphatice prime voci additus, reliqua omnia epitheta adjecta includit, & de eodem subjecto sermonem esse ostendit.)​

​

An "epithet," according to m-w.com, is "a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing." I.e., a personal description. So then Glassius and Sharp are expressing nothing different between the two of them.

Speak without riddles.

Are the words Father, Son or Holy Spirit, standing alone, ever capable of being including in a Sharp Rule #1 construction?

Same question for God.
Same question for Word.
Same question for Lord.

Thanks!

Do NOT ask me to parse complex, fluid, dubious definitions.

Just answer the question!

If you can't, then simply say "I dunno". Be a mentsch.

 

[Brianrw]

Are the words Father, Son or Holy Spirit ever capable of being including in a Sharp Rule #1 construction?

Same question for God.
Same question for Word.

Yes. It's just the example constructions you gave don't apply. I'm not speaking in riddles, I've also explained the rest so numerously and you've so far ignored it. If you had a foundation in the Greek language, you'd have a base to understand most of the concepts you are accusing. I don't know why you've chosen to do what you are doing.

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes. It's just the example constructions you gave don't apply

Why?
What precisely determines if those six words can be used in a Sharp construction.
Why did you not give the layout in your quotes above?

Brian Winter - Rule 4. "Father" and "Son" are not a "personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill."

Now you are changing your mind, and saying they can be a "personal description" .. blah blah.

Oops. More shell games.

 

[Brianrw]

What precisely determines if those six words can be used in a Sharp construction.

You are confusing examples of exceptions with the actual exceptions built into the rule itself. While there may be hundreds of examples of exceptions, they all fail as examples because they don't follow the simple statement of the rule.

Now you are changing your mind, and saying they can be a "personal description" .. blah blah.

Oops. More shell games.

This is getting weird. I'm not changing my mind. "Personal description regarding office, dignity" etc. are Sharp's words (I miquoted as "regarding" from memory instead of "respecting"), and they are written into his statement of the rule. Might I suggest you spend a little more time listening and comprehending before making remarks like this? As I stated above:

Sharp writes,​

​

When the copulative καί connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjetives, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun our participle​

 

[Steven Avery]

You did not answer the question.

Stop dancing.

At least give English examples to clearly delineate where a word like “Holy Spirit“ is used

a) in the personal description manner (Rule 1)
b) not in the personal description manner (presumably Rule 4)

if you can not give super-clear examples, simply admit the whole game is a charade.

Be sure your examples are Sharp constructions.

Do not ask me to unravel your convoluted descriptions and definitions, simply give examples.
Feel free to explain exactly what separates the two categories in your examples.

Thanks!

 

[Brianrw]

You did not answer the question.

Stop dancing.

I'm not dancing, I don't even know where this is coming from. You were comparing apples to oranges--it's not my fault you don't understand how the rule works well enough to distinguish good examples from the bad. I already said the Holy Spirit is a person, and you equivocated over "personal." What describes the Holy Spirit would be a personal description. The one who seems to be making this difficult is you, who has an oversimplified view of just what the rule ought to be ("the"-noun-"and"-noun) and that wrong picture is leaving you confused.

At least give examples to clearly delineate where a word like “Holy Spirit“ is used

a) in the personal description manner (Rule 1)
b) not in the personal description manner (presumably Rule 4)

if you can not give super-clear examples, simply admit the whole game is a charade.

I don't see how you could understand "Holy Spirit" as a personal description. Out of 97 instances the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the NT, I found no passages in the Textus Receptus involving the Holy Spirit that falls under Rule 1. Passages mentioning the Holy Spirit preceded or followed by καὶ and a noun are as follows:

1. αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί (Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16), no articles, "he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire"
2. βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Matthew 28:19), 3 articles, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
3. πλήρεις πνεύματος Ἅγιου καὶ σοφίας (Acts 6:13), no articles, "full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom"
4. πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ πίστεως (Acts 11:24), no articles, "full of the Holy Ghost and faith"
5. πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει (Acts 10:38), no articles, "the Holy Ghost and with power"
6. πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ πίστεως (Acts 11:24), no articles, "full of the Holy Ghost and faith"

 

[Steven Avery]

Here you said that Holy Spirit could be in a Sharp Rule 1 Construction

Yes. It's just the example constructions you gave don't apply.

Now you say the opposite.

I don't see how you could understand "Holy Spirit" as a personal description.

Since your answer on "Holy Spirit" goes nowhere, how about trying with the word Son.

Give an example of a Sharp construction where Son would be Rule 1
Then an example where Son would be Rule 4.

And, again, do NOT ask me to parse your convoluted definitions.
Simply give the examples, and explanation.

Thanks!