the naive modalism exception

Here you said that Holy Spirit could be in a Sharp Rule 1 Construction
I said in the NT it isn't. I also said, "I don't see how you could understand 'Holy Spirit' as a personal description." The rest of your argument is non sequitur. It would be something like an apposition, "The Holy Spirit, [article] our Counselor and [no article] Comforter." It would not be something like, "the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." May I remind you, if you wish to seek rebuttal of a point, you yourself are under the burden to provide valid examples.

My explanations aren't "convoluted," you're just not following the simplicity of the rule, and presenting on a case by case basis, which is not helping your understanding. It seems to me that you you are confusing examples of exceptions with the actual exceptions allowed in the rule itself. There will be hundreds of constructions that fall outside of the rule, and when they do, it's because they are (1) not personal, (2) plural, and (3) not an epithet. There is not a new exception built into the rule every time we see one. I am also not applying it any differently than Sharp states the rule, though you keep saying I do. The word catching on your part is also making things much worse and much harder to get the point across. Also, you could confine your responses to one post, and wait patiently. I can't keep up with 6 at a time. I have a few minutes here and there to read and respond.

I said very simply, if you have trouble with it, English essentially has the same rule which follows essentially the same exceptions. So I'm not sure why you are straining so hard against the Greek to keep your interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
May I remind you, if you wish to seek rebuttal of a point, you yourself are under the burden to provide valid examples.

Nonsense.
Not at all. Your categories and exceptions are extremely flexible. That is the nature of the Sharp game, constantly augment the "Rules" to get to the desired target.

Look at the absurd statistical analysis of J. Ed Komoszewski, which was to try to figure out what is what.

The whole thing only qualifies as satire.

the most wonderful handy-dandy exception - "not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons"
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ed-semantically-as-denoting-two-persons.2308/

Look at how you have to mind-read how Paul or Peter is thinking to make your guess as to what they are saying.

It is not my job to figure out how you might define terms like.

personal nouns
proper names
personal names
descriptions
AND the widely varying Rules of Sharp, Middleton, Wallace and Winter.

You accuse even Granville Sharp of blunders on determining how to categorize.
The Rule Maker did not know his own rules!

And especially when you add ontology and Christology and divine "persons" into the mix.
All of that is invalid and irresponsible, since it is inherently circular.

And you play shuffle-board with the Sharp Rules. Rule 1 .. no Rule 4. And then I try to have you give an explanation, and you skedaddle around. It is NOT my responsibility to work with bogus constructs.

In summary, I have ZERO responsibility to parse your confusions.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Gregory Blunt had fun with the Wordsworth trickery.

Here is one spot with a great word, rhodomontade
https://books.google.com/books?id=obJWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA78

1637328401110.png


More on p. 95

Brian, you would do well to read all the GSR history with a tabula rasa.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I said in the NT it isn't. I also said, "I don't see how you could understand 'Holy Spirit' as a personal description." The rest of your argument is non sequitur. It would be something like an apposition, "The Holy Spirit, [article] our Counselor and [no article] Comforter." It would not be something like, "the Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

These are your examples?

"The Holy Spirit, [article] our Counselor and [no article] Comforter."

"the Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

Which one is Rule 1, which one is Rule 4 (or any other Rule) and why?

Where do you see
personal descriptions regarding dignity, etc
., (your phrase)

or

personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,
https://books.google.com/books?id=k7JWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR3
1637329321710.png



Which of your phrases match that requirement?
And which get moved elsewhere?

(Note the confusing and/or usage)

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

To keep it simpler, you can work with simply two subjects, how about:

"the Father and Holy Spirit."

"the Son and Holy Spirit."

==============================
 
Nonsense.
Not at all. Your categories and exceptions are extremely flexible. That is the nature of the Sharp game, constantly augment the "Rules" to get to the desired target.
In reality, it could be succinctly stated that the rule applies to singular, personal epithets. I actually should not have to say that this statement excludes ordinal numbers and plural epithets and personal names (which are not "epithets"). Is plural singular? Are ordinal numbers personal? Are personal names epithets? In each case, no.

You are confusing examples of exceptions with actual exceptions to the rule itself. There may be hundreds of examples of readings that don't fall under the above statement. When they don't, it's because they are not singular, personal epithets.

You accuse even Granville Sharp of blunders on determining how to categorize.
The Rule Maker did not know his own rules!
Except Sharp didn't make the rule. It was widely recognized before him, and even Glassius notes the rule with the same exceptions. The general consensus is that Sharp made a simple mistake. Normally, epithets apply under the rule. However, his mistake [edit: according to consensus] was using passages where an epithet was attached as a close apposition to a proper name, and is thus part of the name itself. That doesn't invalidate the rule.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
I need your explanation as to how to determine if a ”personal description” is involved.

Use my example above and add the “Master” in the CT Jude 4 text.

Thanks!

Also, can you make the and/ors logical.
 
Look at how you have to mind-read how Paul or Peter is thinking to make your guess as to what they are saying.
No, I can follow the grammar. This crazy idea above is from your own head. I only stated uncertainty as to whether those who first called Jesus "Christ" utilize "Christ" as a name (as we consider it today) or (as in the OT) an epithet, and because I can't "mind-read" that, I would take it as a proper name. This affects precisely one passage in the entire new Testament. But seeing as how you keep advancing individuals who try to render clear passages ambiguous by "mind-reading" the Apostle's intent, multiplying contradictory translations, it seems to me here more of you straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.

To keep it simpler, you can work with simply two subjects, how about:

"the Father and Holy Spirit."

"the Son and Holy Spirit."
"Christ" (see comment above) and "Holy Spirit" are considered proper names. "God," "Savior," "Master," "Lord," "Father," "Son," "Advocate," "Comforter" on the other hand are considered common nouns and can serve as epithets. An epithet is "a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing." (M-W). Basic logic dictates that if an epithet accompanies or is used in place of the name of a person or thing, that proper name of that person or thing itself is not an epithet. For example, in "Lord Jesus Christ," Lord is an epithet (a description, i.e. title, of dignity) and "Jesus Christ" is a proper name. Basic logic holds that plural nouns are not singular and that ordinal numbers are not epithets. Just apply the rule to what it states falls under it. That is all.

Neither of the above constructions fall under Sharp's rule, as Holy Spirit is a proper name, not an epithet. "Comforter," on the other hand, would be an epithet of "Holy Spirit." That's why I said, if it is involved in the construction it would be in apposition to the construction.

Nonsense.
Not at all. Your categories and exceptions are extremely flexible. That is the nature of the Sharp game, constantly augment the "Rules" to get to the desired target.
You are just imagining the structure "the"-noun-"and"-noun is what the rule is, and that every exception requires an ad hoc explanation and the Sharp rule is basically just flying by the seat of your pants to get the "desired target." First, your definition is completely wrong. Secondly, the categories and exceptions are neither broad nor extremely flexible. Singular, personal epithet is a very narrow definition to which many examples will apply, You may find hundreds of examples on either side. But those that don't apply, don't apply because they are not singular, personal epithets.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"Christ" (see comment above) and "Holy Spirit" are considered proper names. "God," "Savior," "Master," "Lord," "Father," "Son," "Advocate," "Comforter" on the other hand are considered common nouns and can serve as epithets.

We will pass on combined terms for now?
e.g. Where is Lord Jesus? Or Lord Jesus Christ?

On your list above, what if someone says that Christ (also Messias) is an epithet for Jesus? Seems sensible.
How do you break the news to him that he flunked the Sharp-Winter Grammar Course?

Can you find any place in Christian writings outside of Granville Sharp categories where "Holy Spirit" is called a proper name?
Augustine said that "Gift" is the proper name of the Holy Spirit. Aquinas is in this mix as well.

Who is your authority for the sentence above?

What if it looks like the categories were defined in a circular manner, to hit the target of Jesus Christ is God, within the Sharp structure?

This looks very complicated.

e.g. Aquinas
Objection 1. It would seem that this name, "Holy Ghost," is not the proper name of one divine person.
...
Objection 2. Further, the names of the divine persons are relative terms, as Boethius says (De Trin.). But this name "Holy Ghost" is not a relative term. Therefore this name is not the proper name of a divine Person.
 
On your list above, what if someone says that Christ (also Messias) is an epithet for Jesus? Seems sensible.
How do you break the news to him that he flunked the Sharp-Winter Grammar Course?
Sharp's rule does not hinge on whether "Christ/Messias" is an epithet or not, so really you're just badgering me over how to translate one verse. If it's an epithet, the rule applies. If it is a proper name, it does not. I gave you my opinion on the verse already, which should be satisfactory to you in regards to the AV. I have nothing more to say on the point I haven't already.

Far better for you to learn the Greek language, than to continue on the silly course you've laid out here of talking big yet being completely ignorant of it.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sharp's rule does not hinge on whether "Christ/Messias" is an epithet or not, so really you're just badgering me over how to translate one verse.

I am simply showing that there is no consistent logic in your claims. In fact the Sharp Rules are just like shooting arrows and then moving the targets to the arrows.

To show your inconsistency, it is best to focus on one at a time. Your badgering comment has the wisp of desperation.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Far better for you to learn the Greek language, than to continue on the silly course you've laid out here of talking big yet being completely ignorant of it.

The ignorance is your American seminarian piddle Greek.
See what people who are really fluent in Greek say about this "Rule". We had at least one on the b-greek thread.
 
The ignorance is your American seminarian piddle Greek.
See what people who are really fluent in Greek say about this "Rule". We had at least one on the b-greek thread.
I'm not sure why you keep choosing to be insulting. Providing good examples to support your contention is your burden. Better yet, begin learning the Greek to suprass my "American seminarian piddle Greek." (Though, I did not learn Greek from an American seminary). At least then you would be speaking from a position of knowledge and experience.

I saw the B-Greek conversation, but Vasileos was criticizing Wallace, whom I respect but have many disagreements with. In this case, I don't agree with Wallaces reformulation of the rule as being unnecessarily convoluted. Even Sharp's is overly wordy. He is essentially correct in his conclusion, just how he arrives at it, in my opinion, opens up more criticism than is necessary.

A good grammarian states what a rule of grammar applies to. The rule is simple: singular, personal epithets. I believe I addressed all the examples in the forum in another place. Plurals are neither singular nor personal. And proper names are not epithets, as epithets are used in place of or accompany proper names. Ordinals so obviously don't apply that they should go without explanation. Every example you provide that fails to meet the standard will fail on those points.

Sharp isn't even necessary when one can hearken back to Glassius in the 16th/17th century.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
I'm not sure why you keep choosing to be insulting.

Look up the piddle Greek seminarian arguments about the solecisms in the heavenly witnesses and 1 Timothy 3:16. Then you will find that they are just as bad as your Socinians and Unitarians. They work backwards from their textual agendas, essentially Metzger lemmings.
 
ready for your answer.
I haven't seen the link, your posts are too numerous now to keep up with. However, do we not baptize also "in the name of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19)? Both the Son and the Father have proper names--the former being Jesus and the latter, Jehovah in the AV .Then by what name would you refer to the Spirit?

You seem determined to keep your "naive modalism exception" intact. I will spare you a lot of time in six words: It does not fit the rule. You act as though you understand the rule and your examples are devastating, yet they don't even fit the conditions of the rule It is a slippery slope you are advancing, trying to force fit your "exceptions" into the confines of the rule in order to accuse it.

Look up the piddle Greek seminarian arguments about the solecisms in the heavenly witnesses and 1 Timothy 3:16. Then you will find that they are just as bad as your Socinians and Unitarians.
Because they are using Socinian and Unitarian arguments now. There's a distinct reason why Paul wrote as he did, to mark them, and avoid them. They play over time until their arguments infect the Orthodox. The same is true of all the muddying in Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13, which you are now falling into. I don't see you taking the high ground here.

Neither Romans 9:5 nor Titus 2:13 are vague, difficult passages, but they become difficult when theological bias steps in. Since you are not listening to me, nor others who have expounded the verses, nor the early English commentators, nor the early Christian writers, and have otherwise poisoned the well against any opposing view, I have few options left. Since you've not sought outside help, I did an experiment for you from an impartial observer here (screenshot below).
translate_Titus2-12_Rom9-5.jpg


Note that it can't even properly translate the modern corruption that adds the punctuation in Romans 9:5 after "Christ," since failure to also remove the participle leaves an improper expression. It only translates it correctly once the participle is removed. It's because theology got in the way of good Greek.

The AV translators rendered Romans 9:5 using a postpositive adjective, "blessed," after God to preserve the order of the Greek words and yet not diminish the meaning. Postpositives are used in many places in the AV text, most notably among them are "life everlasting" (Luke 18:30, etc.) and "God Almighty" (Genesis 28:3, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Top