Nice to have clarity, isn't it?
When people can't pay attention properly, clarity's always out of reach
Hopefully, people can be logical in getting back to addressing whether or not it's possible for the Messiah to have been married and whether or not marriage in any form was meant to continue in Heaven/the rule of CHrist on Earth (in the 1,000 years)---if, of course, that's the discussion and people actually want to address the facts.
LOL, indeed. The humor is always appreciated when people take themselves way too seriously
I don't quote obscure writers of doubtful doctoral theses in support of my arguments.
Nice attempt at trying to deflect---but it doesn't deal with your history in what you've often posted nor does it deal with the many instances others have called you out on the issue in debate. As said before, we do a review on the matter if necessary to make the point of where much of what you noted was not remotely close to being anywhere near having solid doctroral theise or being anything but obscure.
I do, as you have noted, though, as we all do (well I'd better not assume in your case, in the light of your earlier posts, above), support my own views and research. You'd have to be a real numpty to not support arguments that support your own view!
Arguments supporting a view are not always based on whether or not it agrees with others nor whether or not there's a doctoral theise on the issue. The entire basis behind why many have called you or others out when it comes to trying to critique the Church (or Messianic Judaism) via ignoring what others have said in peer-reviewed circles on the matter and saying it doesn't matter if the truth isn't involved. THis happened recently with another individual claiming that Christ was neither FULLY God or FULLY Man and it was defended alongside talk of the creeds being useless.
Btw, not every thesis submitted for international peer review gets through by any means
- a large number are rejected.
Has nothing remotely to do with the discussion (nor is it something that was not already known). Of course, many solid thesis have not made it and yet are still considered by others aware of their work...and in this sense, there is the reality that not everything that's in international peer review is automatically considered to be the "standard." Thus, the rhetoric of "well, that man's not well known" is a moot point when it comes to establishing what is often done here by yourself/others often when seeing the history.
However, if you have such support for your views on this matter bring them on with details of publication and I will happily look at what is written.
Sorry--but that has already been done and it was avoided. Not wasting time doing so again when one cannot deal with information as it is nor deal with where there's already inconsistency shown in the fact that many things never had details of publication and yet you accepted it because it happened to agree with your own personal stance.
Yes, I have rejected some material that has been peer reviewed, internationally. The most recent being Mark Kinzer's book on Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism - re-defining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People. That is NOT being inconsisten
I would note that to be Incorrect, IMHO as it's inconsistent when claiming that others are not for doing peer-reviewed research and simply bring up people that are not well-known. Concerning what was shared earlier, that was ad-hominem (and a bad attempt at that) as if it proved anything you said when it came to basic study of the scriptures and seeing what was said in the context it was said in. I enjoy peer-reviewed articles and have often discussed the issue with others often bring up things in the name of Messianic Judaism that have NOTHING to do with it. Others that've done excellent work are people such as Dan Juster and Dr.Michael Brown...although many times they were dismissed when it came to views on the church because of their own views of all things "church" being a problem. A pity...but it is what it is.
That said, when you have already failed at consistently giving out peer-reviewed articles if it concerned something you were interested in/found to be sound (without publication), it's inconsistent to claim others have to always do so and it's moot trying to dismiss something in the name of "Well, there's no publication" when you've already given yourself room to do so. It's not a matter of "Do as I say, Not as I do." You've never been 100% "Academic" nor has anyone else here on the forum...and for those doing Full-Time ministry/working in the Academic world (myself included), there's no need to always be academic when it comes to discussion and scripture.
Thankful for where folks like Brother ContraMundum have often pointed this out
If you understand the system you would see that academics often disagree with each other
(if they didn't, we wouldn't have many books to read) and then write from a different perspective to make their point, before yet another person comes along with ever more ideas.
If you actually knew the system, you'd know that academics don't always focus on being academic---and based on your comments, it's rather plain that you don't know the system as well as you claim and often assume others don't either when bringing up things NO ONE was questioning. That's pressumption, on your part...and it often leads to a lot of problems in the world of academia when ministry is concerned.
I am currently reading to argue against another academic who happens to be quite a famous writer, but I believe he has argued more from the perspective of commonly held views, rather than independent research which, I am sure, will throw up an entirely different result. It happens all the time but it doesn't mean I am perfectly right, it just means that I have taken the argument one step further, until some other academic comes along and finds a flaw, or two, in what I have written!
Again, that's great. I've talked with others in the same field of work who've dealt with the same (and all of us are good friends in the Lord, some involved in getting their Ph.D and others already having it). Thus, it's nothing new. Thus, no need talking to others as if they're not aware of it since you're not the only academic here who debates with others in that world.
Nothing wrong with having independent views/research nor does having an independent view mean that one is automatically in error for either being unique or daring to disagree. It also doesn't mean that their disagreement means they're 100% correct on all points. In the world of research, we see this all the time and many are able to handle it fairly well without reacting.
Of course, there've been other discussions where similar has occurred before at other points.
