Suggested Rules for Invigilations

Re: Since I've been mentioned...

Countering overwrought speech with likewise.

I have no ill feelings towards you as I don't know you. "Cyber wraiths" is how I describe what we would be to each other in that heated thread.

 

Bill, why are you so hostile? all i have done is try to bring a little practical conversation to the table. it seems that everything is somehow a challenge to you no matter what is said. all i am doing is trying to incite you and others to LOOK like you are what you say that you are. i never said that you weren't anything. you are very touchy and defensive about being questioned. i simply wonder why that is?

Bill said: And which nations do you go to?

that's funny, you want to see my resume so you can prove your better than me? my hope is to do all i can to bring hope to a lost generation through love, truth and example. example being MY strong suit. i hope i do to the best of my ability with where i am now in my walk with the Lord. am i reaching nations? YES! am i going into other nations? YES!

Bill said: One "theologian" in the thread of concern is a church minister. Are you better than he? Another works for a well known Christian apologist who argues for the veracity of the faith. Are you better than he?

that's great and i wish the best for all of these folks. i'm sure that if they are seeking the truth and teaching it they will all continue to do a good job. i am curious who started the whole "who's better" conversation? it sure wasn't me. i simply asked a question and you simply never answered me.

Bill said: But all I am doing is for 35 years teaching disabled children and now am writing a dissertation about the One of whom you read in your Bible. I am trying to show to others in the Church that One is true God. What a waste of time-in your opinion!

Bill, it is this type of attitude that IMO regular everyday people are turned off by Christians. they see people that are clearly intellegent and are some type of leader in the church but they take everything that is said as an assault on them somehow. please explain to me how you took what i said and translated it into me aying that you were wasting your time or that you were a waste of time? with someone of your study and higher thinking i would think you would know that twisting words and assumming things is not a productive way to have a normal discussion.

as a side note: why do you have to prove to the Church that One is true God? kinda scarey to me? shouldn't those in the Church already know this? i myself am trying to show this to the world not the Church. according to Acts being added to the Church requires already believing this.

Bill said: I'm sure you prove yourself to be the better Christian ,and ever so humble, by your judgement of us.

again, why do you even say such things? it really saddens me to see that you took what i said as a question of who is the better Christian.

notice that i went down the line of your post and responded to you comments intead of picking a few lines to try to tear apart as you have. i would hope that you would do the same. i STILL have not recieved any anwers to the questions i asked by the way. i would hope that you would answer them at some point, if none of it applies to you then who cares? you wouldn't be offended i would hope, by something so silly. again i never said anyone is better than the other. YOU started that deal, please don't include me in on it, i would hope that i would NEVER be a part of that conversation. don't twist what i said, just answer my question. i am just wondering if you are as passionate about reaching the world, bringing healing, love and reconciliation as you are about proving who is right here? i hope your dissertaion goes well and it brings forth fruit that can be measured through lives touched and not who's right. i myself would hope that you never tire of foundational Christianity. you know the basics of what Jesus taught. this is my passion and i would hope that you would be glad that ANYONE is attempting to lead in this way by EXAMPLE. i'm just not sure what good it does to God's Kingdom to continually go back and forth with these guys and them you, only to prove who is right. it does seem to me and i'm guessing others that it is a pride thing. i would love to see a good healthy discussion about evangelism and helping others or possibly salvations and testimonys of exciting things happnening in people lives. to me this is the basics of Chritian relationship or fellowship.

 

Re: Re: Since I've been mentioned...

Well now THAT is something I understand and excel at. Peace!
- Carl

 

I say: Blah

Someone else says: Blah Blah

I respond: Blah Blah Blah

They say: Blah Blah Blah Blah

See, I win!!

 

hey han

that is kinda what it seems isn't it? he who has the longest or most blahs wins!

 

Hmm...Religion.

A lot of people do not believe in God. Therefore, it seems to be a pretty simple concept that some would believe dilettante=expert=layman posting, and make no differentiation between them. Religion is inherently different than statistics, chemistry, et cetera in that, even with some 'believers', more 'agnostics', and probably all 'atheists', the question of 'God' and even 'religion' remains scientifically fuzzy. For this population, faith substitutes for a large portion of truth. Sorry.

 

Re: hey han

===

I see. You asked why I should be concerned in my dissertation about exposing the Church's wrong (imo) view on Christ basing that expose on Scripture. You also ask why your posts upset me.

When I explain to you, instead of trying to understand , you pronounce it it to be "blah." So, it seems we cannot communicate.

I see that you choose not to provide your evidence for your own claim above that Acts says one must accept Christ as God to be in the Church. You choose not to evidence your claim.

You make a claim
I politlely ask for evidence
You do not give it.

Such avoidance is a clever method indeed. You will never be proven wrong. And , I'm sure if I press you for evidence some will come and say I'm picking on you. And Han can say, "That's just blah." Those using such a method freely can claim whatever they wish and not be held acccountable.

And what a clever tactic you have of categorizing the explanation I give as 'blah' because you do not understand it. Here's how it went down:



Skidadl: "Say Bill, why would you have to argue in your dissertation that to the Church that Christ is God?'

Bill:" "Well, Skidadl because much of the Church does not understand it. Here's my evidence of that ....(ABC)"

Skidadl: "Oh, that's "blah blah blah."



Here you exemplify what I deplore: avoiding explanations.

Here you would seem to exemplify also what you claim, in agreement with Dayson, to deplore : belittling.

You're a bit two-faced.


You ask a question
I give an explanation
You say (again without evidence) "That's blah."



But if you wish to be like Jesus and Paul, as you claim to wish, then give Scripture for what you say. They did! You said that Acts requires a belief in the deity of Christ to be in the Church. Where is your evidence for that claim?

If you wish me to talk with you, I don't know why you , then give your evidence on Acts.

You say you read the Bible and try to be a good Christian. Where does the Bible say that making false claims about what the Bible says or does not say is being a good Christian?

 

===


Certainly you are correct. But that does not mean that some individual issues within Theology cannot be "scientifically" (ie, re method) studied. Nether, of course, are many scientific findings true either as science keeps on correcting itself!

But I would like you to consider the possibility that certain categories of Theological or Biblical issues can be verified by research.

I do not mean necessarily the existence of God or the truth of the Christian faith. Perhaps these issues can be somewhat verified, not by me, but that is not my interest.

But I do believe that , for example, the Theology of an ancient as Augustine or a modern as Karl Barth can be verified. We have their writings. I also belive that the intent of the syntax or the meaning of the terminolgy of the Biblical languages can be verified. We have the materials and principles by which we can do that. I also believe that it is possible to approach a particular Scripture and by applying to it a set of hermeneutical givens elicit from that Scripture what very likely is the correct meaning.

Perhaps I should point out too, for the benefit of such as Han and Skidadl, that these very things as Historical or Systematic Theology and Hebrew and Greek exegetics are part of the ongoing doctoral studies in the very best of schools . They clearly relate to DL.

Not too long ago Hoover earned his doctorate from Harvard. His dissertation was on the meaning of just one NT verse: Philippians 2:6. More precisely, it was on just one word: harpagmos. Imagine that, getting a doctoral degree from Harvard by doing a narrow exegetical study on just one noun in just one Bible verse. Surely the Harvard doctoral committee required the sound scholarship from Hoover.

What I am saying to you, I know you didn't deny it, is that some of the best of schools believe that scholarly Theological and Biblical studies indeed can be done. They can be done with a verification of the theses made in the most scholarly manners imaginable. Such studies are deserving subjects in the eyes of some of the best schools.


Yet, I can hear the hue and cry of Han and Skidadl to these Harvard scholars, "It's all blah, I tell you, just blah."

What a crock!

 

Actually, at Harvard Divinity School, the top notch divinity school in the nation, Hebrew and Greek only two of the choices one may take.

For the D.Th., Greek or Hebrew or Latin or German or French will suffice.

For the M.Div. all of the above may suffice including Spanish.

For the M.T.S. same as M.Div.

For the Th.M. same as M.Div.

Therefore, if I am reading this correctly, Greek and Hebrew DON'T have to be taken to receive a seminary degree from the best divinity school in the nation.

 

bill Grover said: I see. You asked why I should be concerned in my dissertation about exposing the Church's wrong (imo) view on Christ basing that expose on Scripture. You also ask why your posts upset me.

When I explain to you, instead of trying to understand , you pronounce it it to be "blah." So, it seems we cannot communicate.

Me: I see that you choose not to provide your evidence for your own claim above that Acts says one must accept Christ as God to be in the Church. You choose not to evidence your claim

Bill, please take a chill pill man! your wearing me out! i thought it was funny and so did the other poster. i think we need to just relax a bit. plus i don't have 13 hours a day to be on here. i have 5 kids and alot of resposibilty to take care of. i will be glad to go look up anything i said and if i am wrong i will be glad to say. you see, i have no real credentials to uphold so admitting i am wrong is no problem. now, that was another joke, like ha ha funny kinda thing. i WILL answer your question but i am very short on time right now and you wrote about 14 chapters worth of answer worthy commentary so i should put good effort in to answer you correctly. by the way, the 14 chapters thing was another "funny" thing. from now on i'll be sure to point out when i'm smiling so we're on the same page.

now, if you will do me a great big favor and go back and read my posts then reads your and please make sure that everything that you accussed me of can be read directly from my posts. otherwise you are using poor communication skills. that is just not polite or friendly like.

thank you

 

===

I think that is true-generally .

But if you look again at the HDS site and the requisites for the ThM/ThD programs you will see that the student must be able to use the languages(s ) which is relevant to his study. Therefore, if the student is doing his study in New Testament, GREEK (not btw Aramaic) is in fact required. If you doubt this, check it out. The HDS NT Faculty REQUIRE Greek---not Aramaic.

But I wouldn't want to be "dropping names"

 

I wasn't aware of this. I'd not seen it on any other seminary/divinity school site.

 

===

Jimmy


I meant true at HDS in general. But when in post grad research or focus at HDS is in Biblical Studies, then, I'm confident, the Biblical languages relevant to those studies must be used.

It is also true that doc work in Unizul Dept of Religion may not require Heb/Grk. One could do work in Practical Theology and possibly in Systematic Theology w-out these. It would depend on the topic and method of the research! I could not in my ST topic do without some use of these because I do exegesis in my dissertation and Scripture is woven into my purpose and method.

However in the USA Evangelical schools doc work in Syst Theo or Bib certaqinly does require the Bib lang because Evangelicals here place much stress on the virtue of these for understanding Scripture at the doc level.

BTW, best wishes for your study at Trinity.

 

Okay, I see. I misunderstood you when you said "in general" and took it to mean "generalized."

I know that languages are not always required, especially in some practical theology degree work.

Thanks for the "best wishes" on my Trinity studies. I hope all goes well with them and accreditation.

This will be my third attempt at receiving a degree from a school that may acheive accreditation. Bethany was a TRACS candidate and that fell through and GSST didn't pursue DETC as they had planned.

If I could engage in coursework and write a major paper in two years or so, I would go ahead with the Free State. Actually, if I could afford it, I would go back and finish at ESR or enroll in Starr-King or Meadville Lombard.

Anyway, with accreditation possible (almost probable), taking courses, and writing a major paper in a year to a year and a half, Trinity seemed like a good idea.

Plus the campus is about two hours away from me so I can go to seminars, etc.

I am not sure now I will finish CCHS by May. The change of owners has caused much delay in grading exams, papers, and sending out courses. I should have had all my courses on hand by now but am still awaiting the final two.

I really don't like working on one course at a time. At least with Trinity I can work on three at a time.

Since Trinity holds to a somewhat different theology than I do, I hope I may call on your Greek expertise from time to time. I certainly don't think my interpretations (or of those scholars I choose to follow) will suffice, ha!

I did notice some of the concerns you have about some other schools don't apply to Trinity. I see they have faculty with degrees in the fields they instruct and that some faculty members belong to the ETS.

Continued blessings and best wishes to you also.

 

I'd be willing to bet that the evangelicals would dispute that "top" comment of yours. The HDS is pretty liberal, theologically speaking.

I was just looking at their Spring course offerings:

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/registrar/applications/Courses/cat_spring.cfm

There's a course in Suffering, Pain and Death in the New Testament and Early Christianity. My questions about that subject were received cooly on the Mel Gibson thread, so it reassures me that the Harvard theologians believe that the subject is worthy of scholarly interest.

http://icommons.harvard.edu/~hds-1542/syllabus/

They have an advanced Greek class that will be dedicated to reading ancient texts on martyrdom. They have a course on the saints, relics, pilgrimage and hagiography, that (significantly) considers these phenomena comparatively with their Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu analogues. There's a course on Scheiermacher and a seminar on Hegel.

Harvard Divinity School is offering a course this term on religious epistemology, a topic of great interest to me (if not to Degreeinfo).

http://icommons.harvard.edu/~hds-3535/

They also offer a considerable lineup of courses treating non-Christian religions and comparative topics.

This is the Harvard Divinity School which offers Th.D. degrees, not the Ph.D. program in Religion offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. (Some of the courses are offered jointly, I think.)

Here's the Ph.D. program:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~csrel/

Apparently the specifically Christian dissertations are normally done in the HDS for Th.D.s, while non-Christian dissertations are done in the FAS for Ph.D.s.

I didn't see a list of HDS dissertations but the Ph.D. program lists theirs.

Some examples from 1999-2001:

GUMMER, Natalie : Buddhism
Articulating Potency: A Study of the Suvarna(pra)bhasottamasutra

BRODEUR, Patrice : Islam/Judaism
From an Islamic Heresiography to an Islamic History of Religions: Modern Arab Muslim Literature on 'Religious Others' with Special Reference to Three Egyptian Authors

LEVENE, Nancy : Modern West/Modern Religious Thought: Spinoza and the Dawn of Enlightenment: Reason, Interpretation, and Politics in the Early Modern West

PEKALA, S. Kori : Zoroastrianism/Islam
Spells, Curses, and Exorcisms in Avesta

SCHIFFREN, Mara : Judaism
The Mystical Apprehension of God in the Rabbinic Age

 

Yes, I know, but I consider HDS the premier theological institution in America. I think it still has some Unitarian connection.

One receives a well-rounded theological education there and its graduates are some of the best theological minds in the country.

And we must remember that common sense and reason are not antithetical to faith.

Thank you for all the url's. I am sure I will enjoy them.

 

Bill Grover

I got your message in the other thread. I have had a big stack of projects going on here and wanted to give proper care to my study for the answer that you asked or the claim that I made. Athough I think I have misquoted what I remebered I do believe that there is good evidence that points to the claims being true at least in part. All in all though, I have had some time to think about everything that took place in our conversation and have noticed that maybe we are not really on different pages all together. My biggest thought being that I wouldn't in any way want to say something that would give you the feeling that what you are about and what God has called you to do is somehow not important or useful. I comend you for all of the work that you have done and all that you wil do in the future as long as it i done out of your pure love for the Lord Jesus. So, if I did say anything that gave you that impression I apologize completely.

I appreciate you challenging my claims because it has spurned me to study harder, specifically in Acts. I am about halfway through Acts and am not just reading but really looking intently at each word and gathering other information. I am sure that a seasoned vet like yourself would blow through this alot faster than myself. I still think that in principal that my statement was true but I am not going to speak fast rather I will support my claim with strength and references. I am still looking into it and gathering information and WILL answer you.

Bill, just on principal alone though, don't you think that those who were added to the Church during the first century believed that Christ WAS infact God and equal with and to Him? Isn't that what being added to the Church was? I was at first referring to that principal when I made my claim. I don't think we disagree with who Christ is in an way. I you remember my question to you was, why are you trying to prove this to the Church? Doesn't the Church already know this? Those who believe that Christ IS in fact Lord right? I would think that this would be the evidence that you would be trying to bring to world not the Body.