All-American |
07-28-2006 05:50 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Ah, the old asking me to prove a negative trick. That's the oldest trick in the book.
|
Why not? That's what Brodie tries to do, after all. :)
No, I'm simply pointing out that the lack of an original document upon which they have signed their name to their testimony is irrelevant, given the frequent reiteration of their testimonies. If the lack of the original document was so problematic, one could not expect all three witnesses (along with the eight) to go all the way through their lives, down to their graves, proclaiming the testimony to be true as written.
Nevertheless, I recognize that you and I can look at the same pieces of evidence and come up with completely different results. I also recognize that the same distrust you harbor for church historians (which, to be honest, is probably not unreasonable) is the distrust I harbor for anti-church historians. I do encourage you to aspire to the greatest extents of academic integrity, as I sincerely hope you would challenge me and hold me to them. However, I hope I would never ask you to go beyond your own convictions, as I would hope you would never ask me likewise.
Gentlemen, I suspect that we've exhausted the profitable exchange on the matter. We've all heard these arguments before and they've not changed our minds. Let's not let the differences of our evaluations force us to behave uncivily.
|