the total absurdity of the Rule for Fools

Steven Avery

Administrator
If Christ is indeed a proper name to Paul (and this point is debatable), the translation will largely depend on your opinion (title? or name?). That's why I say err on the side of caution. It's not as clear cut as if he had said "Jesus" or "our Lord Jesus." It is not an issue with validity the rule itself, but a perceived ambiguity surrounding "Christ," if it is a proper name or not. Only Paul can know that.

So Peter can write a sentence and think he Is writing Christ is God.

Paul writing the exact same words has the meaning of Christ and God as separate, dual addressing.

The Rule is only for mind-reading Fools!
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Your argument basically runs like this: "Sharp's rule says proper names can't be included, so if a proper name is included, his rule must not be true!" And again, "Sharp attacked the AV, therefore what he says about the Greek is wrong." Both propositions are fallacious.

It has been very apparent to me over the course of the discussion that you don't know Greek, and are ignorant of some if it's most basic constructions. And yet you will simply shoot your mouth off about things you don't know. It's not a wise thing to do, as word is clear about not bearing false witness--that includes not accusing others falsely every bit as much as it means not testifying of things you know nothing about.

You've clearly misunderstood me, and have misrepresented me in such a way as to obfuscate my point entirely, and have essentially inserted your own meaning into it. We are not merely dealing with "words" but rather, how the "words" are being used in a sentence to convey ideas. It's called "language." In equivalent constructions, Peter and Paul both refer to Jesus Christ as "God and our Saviour" (2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13), using the "same words" in "equivalent constructions."

The context of the quote above is whether the construction τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ in Ephesians 5:5, with the article before Christ and not before God, should should be translated "of Christ and God" or "of Christ, even God." My point about Ephesians 5:5 above is that proper names have always been excluded from the rule, though titles like "Lord" and "Saviour" are not. While Sharp promotes this among his Christological texts, he seems to have have stumbled into that conflict. The real point can be expressed rather simply. Either (1) It's a name and the construction applies or (2) it is a title and the construction does not apply. It actually does nothing to the rule itself, only whether it works here as properly state as not. As Sharp was concerned, it was a not a sound example. On the other hand, he has on his side Chrysostom and Theodoret, who both spoke and wrote natively in Greek.

I simply said I'd err on the side of caution, thus translating it "Christ and God," as it reads in the AV. So I don't understand why you want to keep harping on this? Also, when responding to someone in this manner, it is also polite to notify them that you have.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The context of the quote above is whether the construction τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ in Ephesians 5:5, with the article before Christ and not before God, should should be translated "of Christ and God" or "of Christ, even God."

And you said it would depend on whether the author thought of Christ as a proper name. If Paul and Peter wrote identical words, yet one thought of A as a proper name, while the other did not, the words would mean "Jesus is God", or it would be dual addressing, solely based on how the writer thought about proper names.

And you are, 2000 years later, engaged in mind-reading the writers, based on a bogus Rule invented c. 1800.

It is simply absurd.

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

In your construct, Granville Sharp was not able to properly discern proper names even while inventing the Rule for Fools!

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

What do you think about the naive modalism exception?

For about the fifth time. There are many exceptions, but this one is particularly important because, like the NT verses, it deals with Christological constructions. Even Dan Wallace said they break the rule.

Have you read the 3-page b-greek forum?

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

Btw, a proper name can in fact share its singular full identity with a title or description.

The village baker makes wonderful cakes, Joe Baker brings out apple strudels every Sunday.

Joe Baker is the village baker. (It's a small town.)

==================
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
And you said it would depend on whether the author thought of Christ as a proper name. If Paul and Peter wrote identical words, yet one thought of A as a proper name, while the other did not, the words would mean "Jesus is God", or it would be dual addressing, solely based on how the writer thought about proper names.
You've certainly read far too much into what I wrote. If such a parallel case existed, I would apply the same reasoning to both. If it was so treated by Paul, his usage probably reflected that period of time in general. I may be wrong, but I would rather err on the side of caution. However, it doesn't happen, so your comment is irrelevant. This construction appears only here, in Paul's epistle to the Ephesians. Hence, I mention Paul alone. It's that simple.

You can send the link to the b-greek forum if you'd like, and I'll look at it. If it's not rule 1, our topic, you'll be wasting my time. I ran a search, and of course this came up on one of the forum pages:

A ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [2 Peter 1:1]​
B ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. [2 Peter 1:2]​

The individual couldn't figure it out why Sharp's rule applied to one, and not the other, but he would if he actually knew the rule, not a caricature of it. And there was no help in the immediate vicinity either to explain or clarify the rule. Ἰησοῦ in v. 2 is a proper name. The rule does not apply to proper names. It's that simple.

Elsewhere, I saw examples I have no idea where they came from. So I don't expect to be impressed.

What do you think about the naive modalism exception?
I have no idea what you are talking about with this. You keep bringing it up.

For the the "exceptions," please list them. I'll probably have fun trying to explain them to the air.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
I have no idea what you are talking about with this. You keep bringing it up.

the naive modalism exception

This goes back two years, the studies go back 10 and more as CARM was 2010, tonight I expanded the page, however I have not gone through the pithy quottes on the b-greek forum. Now you know, again, where is that forum discussion.

Expanding this is helpful on my end :) !
 
Top