Jimmy Clifton Gives Away Doctorates!

Starkman,

I also agree with Bill -- to a point. Sometimes playing the devil's advocate makes for a good discussion

Roscoe

P.S. I think Bill's work is worthy of publication. Perhaps he will contact some journals in the near future. I can think of two at this moment that may be eager to publish his work. He certainly has a gift for scholarly writing and debate.

 

Re: Just my quick two cents . . .

 

.................

Thankyou Roscoe and I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Advise me on those journals if you will. While I cannot publish my thesis chaps I've other stuff,

 

Bill: But "order" does not require hierarchy!

Keith: My contention, exactly.

Bill: But my ire is raised by such statements as these: throughout eternity the Father has the greater authority(Grudem, ST, 459) or "the eternal subordination of the Son is an orthodox doctrine" (Kovach and Shemm, JETS, Sept 99); the Son is eternally subject to the father(Kitano, ThM Thesis, TEDS, 1999, 20)!

Keith: I agree again.

There is, however, the belief amoung some scholars that the lack of ho before theos in John 1:1 (and the Word was God) suggests that the Word is God, but not THE God; not in the inferior sense, but in the along-side-of sense. The Word is not the Almighty God in and of Himself, but is in relationship with regard THE God ("In the beginning was THE God"). There's somehow the idea that the Word is not inferior but "lovingly" subordinate within this scheme.

I understand that this is debated amoung Greek scholars, but I don't know who's who here. Can you comment about it, Bill?

Thanks,

Keith

 

........................

Yes,

1) Were both occasions of Theos in that verse to be articulated (ie, have the article), then the writer would be saying that the Logos was all there is to God. But God is also the hypostases of Father and Spirit.

2) To articulate both would suggest sabellianism (Robertson's grammar, 767).

3) Some say Colwell's rule here applies that definite substantives which precede the verb regularly are anarthrous(no article), but Wallace denies that. I don't get the application here as the second theos follows the verb.

4) Were Theos indefinite (as divine, or a god), then it would be the only anarthrous preverbal predicate noun in this Gospel to be indefinite(Wallace, Grammar Beyond the Basics, 267,266,257)

5) the anarthrous noun Theos regularly is applied to the Father even in this chapter alone as: v6, "a man sent from God" (no article), v18, "God no man has seen"!!

6) On the other hand, "ho theos" is ascribed to the Son as in John 20:28 or Titus 2:13.

7) Were John wishing to indicate lesser deity for the Son,he could have used a different word, "theios"

The anarthrous Theos in 1:1 clearly evinces no subordination of the Son.

 

Thanks, Bill

Mucho thanks,

 

hey guys,

time to give Bill a break!!!!!



Chris

 

Re: Re: Just my quick two cents . . .

Ahhh, I see what you are saying Bill. You are saying that more than Jesus being both God and Man at the same time (not mixed, not separate) as he was at the incarnation (surely you do not deny this basic doctrine), because Jesus was God.... God had to have changed. Since, you deny the unchanging nature of God you are then able to defeat the Reformed notion of economic subordination. God was as I understand your theology, one way prior to the incarnation and then changed His nature in to the subordination relational principle (so obvious in scripture) during the incarnation and this applied to the HS as well who was then sent by the Father & the Son. So, if I understand your assertion, God evolved or devolved during the process to allow for subordination as asserted in scripture. After the resurrection did they return to their pre incarnation state as an entity (beyond the issue of the resurrected glorified body of Christ) or did God again change...metamorph.

In humor,

North

 

ha ha

North

From now on I am immediately going to the bottom of your post. I started reading it from the top and said with crescendo: what?? what?? WHAT?? . My son asked, "what's the matter Dad?

 

Yeah Bill, me too!

Yeah, I was going what...What...WHAT???
But humor has a way of drying the persperation!

Starkman

 

I am DR DR DR DR Trudy's son in law

I am in fact her son in law and she is a FRAUD!!! She is a fraud as a mother, and a human being. The only doctorates she has are in bullshit, narcissism, and poor parenting.

 

Wow, I was still in the Navy when this thread was last touched. Incredible.

 

Found this after googling my crazy mother in law. Figured I had to chime in considering her response.

 

Wow! 12 Years. I think that's a DI record for thread necromancy! Amazing! :smile:

All those six-year-olds from 2003 are finishing high school and probably most are starting college this fall. I'd already been retired for 10 years when the 2003 posts were made.

J.

 

Funny - I've got the same three doctorates, summa cum laude but my kids turned out great! Who'd have thought? :smile:

J

 

If you ever go back to the very beginning you'll find yourself in February of 2001 and you'll see a completely different cast of characters (with some notable exceptions like Chip and Dr. Bear) and if you spend more than a few minutes reading through the threads you'll get a very clear sense of how much the world of distance learning has changed since then. True historians know that degreeinfo was created following the disintegration of the usenet group alt.education.distance. You can still go back there and with some patient searching, going back 15 years, you can find the original, unmoderated discussion forum for distance learning. It seems like it was the wild west of discussion forums and the unmoderated nature of the group is what allowed the millists to spam the group into nothing but useless babbling. I hae spent some time wandering around in those dusty archives and it's pretty fun, especially if you search out some of Steve Levicoff's classic rants. Somewhere afterwards google apparently bought usenet and so now you can find it all here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.education.distance

 

Please . . . I never ranted, I pontificated. :laugh:

The interesting thing about this ancient thread is to see posts from some of the old regulars who have faded off into the sunset in one manner or another - North, the late Uncle Janko, Russell Morris, Dave Hayden, John Wetsch, Bill Grover, Bill Dayson - all frequent posters at one time.

One thing I'll say to Jimmy's credit - he cleaned up his act somewhat over the years and enjoys a much better reputation these days.

Another notable thing about this thread - I did not find any posts in it by me. Which, of course, makes the thread insignificant.

In that light, it seems that for "Dr. Trudy's" son-in-law to resurrect such an ancient tome, I'd say that he needs to get a life. I've heard of mother-in-law issues, but this is ridiculous.

 

You forgot Dennis Ruhl...I liked him. Man, those were some wild and wooly days.

 

Hi, I'm Ted Heiks and I am one of four new mods (though that might change shortly). Years ago I was on both degreeinfo and degreeboard and I managed to find alt.education.distance through some kind of link to degreeboard. I once was a member of online-college.info where people attacvked me for wanting to get a PhD from Union and a JD from Concord. So I left that board when I realized that the people on that board were pretty much crazy. For those of you who would like to read my old posts from o-c.i look for the posts written under the pseudonym Rose Bear (the nam,e of my second wife). For the 2 yrs following my departure from oci i hasd no distance learning boards to go to. Then in two thousand and five i found degreeinfo and the rest is history. Also I have posted on some troll board 4 times under the pseudonym of yoda igorovich. Sorry, Bill, I didn't anticipate that some troll would try to out you as yoda huffman. oops - the five key seems to be broken