Trinity cracks me up

Unk,

Except for the summary, I've just finished chap 6 of the UZ dissertation. One and a half more to go! I'm taking a position in chap 6 on the theanthropic Son which is much different than my local unofficial DTS PhD reader holds who is published on the subject and who teaches Biblical studies and Greek at a RA school. You can bet my 99 handwritten pages (so only about 50-60 typed) with 345 footnotes and references for this last chapter include many rigorous attempts on my part to interact at a scholarly level with the data and with the issues . I used your pal Chemnitz and literally scores and scores of other fine thinkers , meeting them all on their own turf and responding to their views.

So, yes, I expect that someone else doing a doctorate in Bible studies should also use the same rigor as I am struggling now to employ. I'm an old man whose thinking processes have likely degenerated along with his muscles and my languages are poor. This is genuine work for me. Any doc program in Bible , therefore, which cuts corners by omitting something so crucial as interacting with the issues by employing the Biblical languages will arouse my ire ; my ire is not reserved for Trinity despite North's thinking that TTS is my fetish. My fetish is to expose doc study in Bible that is not rigorous.

Now, if friend North will excuse this misapplication,

"Come, come, flee from the land of the North" (Zech 2:6)

 

ad hominem Zeeeesh

Actually, I like to ad hominem. Sometimes on the side but also a bowl of Menudo would not taste the same without it. Although with corn being a carb and carbs being verbotten in any slight quantity I may need to rethink that. But can't imagine what low carb substitute would work for hominem in Menudo.

North (mean spirited, vegetable adding, irreverent Reverend, Trinity sympathizer/apologist/shill, and all around bloody nice chap)

 

I enjoy Christian classical music.

 

On occasion so do I. I must admit that although I do not care too much for Harold Camping's theology, I enjoy tuning in to hear some of the classic hymns and spiritual music on Family Radio. There are times that it is very soothing to the soul.

I grew up as an Anglican and so Isaac Watts was king so to speak. Although, I am now far more evangelical and less liturgical, I still have fond memories of Anglican high church services.

North

 

===


North

We are not the issue!

Do you really not see what I am saying?

Or do you really see the weight of my responses, but are unable to answer meaningfully what I say ; are you just avoiding doing that in this inefficient cover-up you employ?

I'm am not hurt. I am not the issue. You need not repent . You are not the issue. The issue connects to these points which you by adhominem , and I never said "attack", rigorously choose to avoid answering:




1) Your point was that the Levicoff Union doc did not require Biblical languages, so why should TTS.

I responded that it has no relevance as that doc is not in Bible.

You make no answer!


2) Your point is that the TTS doc in Bible should not be measured by DTS standards.

I responded with a request for you then to provide any, just one, RA doc in Bible that does not require the Biblical languages and by that example give some credence to the TTS doc.

You make no answer!



3) Your point is that my criticisms of TTS fit Unizul as a school too.


a) I responded that UZ requires an accredited master's, but TTs does not.

You make no answer.


b) I responded that UZ requires a prior thesis to evidence the ability to do doc work, but TTS does not.

You make no answer!


c) I responded that UZ requires Biblical languages for Biblical docs, but TTS does not.

You make no answer!


4) Your point was that neither does my work at UZ escape my criticism of what TTS does not require , that the latter, since it does not include the Biblical languages, cannot require the student to interact with the issues and the research that employs the Biblical languages. You said my work too could be "ripped apart."

I responded that your claim is baseless. As evidence, I provided an example, an outline of about 20 pages from my UZ work , chap 5, to show that my work does indeed employ the Biblical languages and does indeed interact with the issues and with the research. I invited you to answer why IYO my work does not .

But instead of answering you turn this evidence of mine , my response to your own point, again into adhominem by saying that I am merely trying to prod you into a discussion of trinal subordinationism. That is, you see something unsuitable in the motive behind my response.

But North, what I did by that example from the UZ work is to respond to your own claim that both work in the TTS doc and my UZ work falls under the criticism I level at TTS. I proved it does not!

Again, you make no answer!

You have attempted in most of this discussion to turn attention away from the real issue of the need to have rigor in doc Biblical studies into a focus rather on you and me.


But North, we are not the issue. Bible learning is the issue.

 

Christian Rock? What's that?

Sorry to butt in here, but rock music is not supposed to be "Christian". It is supposed to be about sex, drugs, despair, young love, depravity, and partying one's way on the highway to hell. Anything else just doesn't cut it as rock - IMHO.....

 

What is a DRS?

I'm looking for a doctoral-level seminary program via DL, and recently took TTS's online evaluation. I got a call from an admissions counselor, followed by a "sign-up now, tuition is going to increase next month, and there's a 30% scholarship available" hard-sell. It didn't give me a great deal of confidence I was dealing with a serious seminary. Please let me know if I'm receiving this wrong.

My real question is about TTS's "Doctor of Religious Studies" degree, which is what they recommend for me. I know what PhD, ThD and DMin's are, but what exactly is a DRS? What does it prepare you to do? The counselor told me it is more than a DMin, a professional degree that also qualifies you to teach.

Can someone help me more?

Steve

 

Re: What is a DRS?

===

Steve

Please use the search function here for "Trinity Seminary."

The TTS DRS (Dr religious studies) is a 42 unit doc which may be taken in Biblical Studies without one course in the Biblical languages as I understand. How could such a program with such a significant omission enable one to interact with the most scholarly research literature, deal with the more complex linguistic issues, or teach the Bible with any depth of knowledge?

Please ask the TTS "counselor" to show you :

1) just one RA accredited doc program in Bible in the USA that does not require the Biblical languages.

2) just one RA accredited doc program in the USA in Bible called "DRS."

3) just one RA accredited school offering a doc in Bible that has allowed those possessing only TTS masters in Bible,(ie, not also a masters from elsewhere), to enter and where these TTS grads have actually finished that RA doc program.


Now, having said this, it is quite possible that TTS will get RA and that then the DRS will be an accredited doc. So, if just that is entirely satisfying to you, despite the deficits of the program and the deviousness of the school, perhaps you should "go for it" quickly before the big sale is over

 

Dear Fellow Board Members,


I am a HUGE fan of Stryper. Remember something. It is the message, not the music. When I can attend a Stryper concert( yes they toured this past year...yes the new cd 7 Weeks in America is out) and feel good, I give nothing but thanks. There all types of christian rock( POD and Petra to name two), so remember that as well. Also, I am a metalhead who does not drink( never have,never will), smoke (see afterforementioned) or do drugs. Music, be it secular or not, it is still an enjoyment for all. Rock can be for all those who want it to be. I am not scholarly enough to comment on Trinity.

 

Who are these people?

Oy. When I was your age I liked Arnold Schoenberg. You kids don't know what noise is.

And TTS is still a bad joke.

 

Re: Who are these people?

TTS may have some issues but apparently it is academically solid.

North

 

Re: Re: Who are these people?

===



The solidity of a school's academic programs, as the TTS grad degrees in Bible, should in part be measured by whether the school becomes NCA accredited-no doubt about that.

But were one speaking of academic solidity there are other things to measure as well besides the NCA nod of approval! This is because of the expectations attached to grad degrees in Bible.

EG, the outcomes of instruction , ie, what a graduate is actually enabled to do in a scholarly manner by completing the requirements for said grad degrees in Bible might be of some small concern to those whose goal is actually to know the Scriptures at a level implied by having a doctorate in Bible , and who are not , rather, just wishing to be called "Dr.".

Here are three common outcomes of RA grad studies in Bible by which to measure the solidity of the TTS grad degrees in Bible (using the existing TTS reqs for degrees as I understand them) :


1) Will a TTS masters in Bible , even if NCA accredited, actually prepare one to enter an RA doc in Bible? No. So, for that purpose , the measurable outcome of the TTS program is not academically solid!

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. So, if I'm wrong, give the name of the RA school offering said doc in Bible and show how the TTS masters in Bible would enable one to enter and do the doc work in Bible at that school.


2) Will a TTS doc, even if NCA accredited , enable one to use the best research tools and literature concerning the Bible ? No! So, for that purpose the measurable outcome of the TTS program in Bible is not academically solid!

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. For example , in reference to a significant Christological text in Hebrews one of the popular scholarly commentaries says,

"On recalls ei in the quotation from Ps 2:7 in v.5. The force of the present participal is difficult to determine. Since eimi denotes a state rather than an event, no aorist participal is available ; yet some such substitute as genomenos (Phil 2:8) could have been used... ."

So, if I'm wrong, one may present evidence here to show how the TTS doc in Bible would enable the grad to use this popular research commentary.



3) Will a TTS doc in Bible, even if NCA accredited, enable one to research the linguistic difficulties connected Biblical texts? No! So, for that purpose the TTS instruction is not solid.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. For example, James White in his popular The Forgotten Trinity says that pros in John 1:1 suggests a close relationship. But , is White correct since the verb is static not active? That is a research problem. If I am wrong, then someone can show how a TTS doc prepares one to do such a research.

Someone may say that these expectations in 2,3 are too high. If so, then show one RA doc in Bible wherein the grad would not be able to do the simple exercises in 2, 3 above.


By these very measurable outcomes TTS is shown to be not "academically solid" whether or not the NCA says it is. Of course, if one cares just for the degree and not for the learning, then, hurry, hurry before the sale ends!