Steven Avery
Administrator
I may be far too kind in talking of this as a Rule for Fools.
Let us take
Holy Spirit
Holy Ghost
Comforter - Paraclete
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of God
Spirit of Christ
Gift - given by Augustine as a proper name
Is Holy Spirit the only one that is a proper name?
Why? What is the substantive grammatical difference?
In the New Testament the grammar is often pointing to Paraclete masculine rather than Pneuma neuter, which is auxiliary.
So why is Paraclete not a proper name?
Brian quotes as epithets
over all
Great
Lots of discussion here
Per Brian, Granville Sharp could not figure it out.
Brian can not figure it out, he has to guess how the apostle was thinking about grammatical categories.
The whole thing is so dumb.
And I am enjoying working with this nonsense, up to a few minutes.
All of the Granville Sharp nonsense is based on Backwards Targeting.
Know what the Target is, and then make the definitions try to match the Target.
grammatical analysis descends to satire
Let us take
Holy Spirit
Holy Ghost
Comforter - Paraclete
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of God
Spirit of Christ
Gift - given by Augustine as a proper name
Is Holy Spirit the only one that is a proper name?
Why? What is the substantive grammatical difference?
In the New Testament the grammar is often pointing to Paraclete masculine rather than Pneuma neuter, which is auxiliary.
So why is Paraclete not a proper name?
Brian quotes as epithets
the fun-damental questions of interpretation and text/punctuation
Like John 1:18 the fundamental questions get mixed up here. Romans 9:5 (AV) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. This is the balanced and perfect Bible text. It is high Christology like a basic group of texts...
www.purebibleforum.com
Great
Lots of discussion here
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...
www.purebibleforum.com
Per Brian, Granville Sharp could not figure it out.
Sharp made a simple mistake. Normally, epithets apply under the rule. However, his mistake 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.
Brian can not figure it out, he has to guess how the apostle was thinking about grammatical categories.
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. ...
"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.
I don't see how you could understand "Holy Spirit" as a personal description.
The whole thing is so dumb.
And I am enjoying working with this nonsense, up to a few minutes.
All of the Granville Sharp nonsense is based on Backwards Targeting.
Know what the Target is, and then make the definitions try to match the Target.
grammatical analysis descends to satire