Sanyam Deshi
Junior Member
- Messages
- 100
I don't think Ren would be trying to put such a blindfold over everyone if he wasn't confident that there was a parallel between the two works. If I actually cared to look into it, I'd probably find the same parallels myself. Heck, I'd probably come to the same conclusions Ren came to... but what's the point of coming to a conclusion about a historical work if you are unsure of the validity to that work? The whole point of my argument, which I have been trying to get across to you two for weeks now, is that despite the fact that these parallels exist, there may be little integrity or validity to the work that Ren is referring to.Your evidence is just referring to the parallels in your precious book that might not even be real, and some links to people who agree with you. Without even reading your links, I cannot deny that their are parallels between the story of Azizus and the Bible.
You haven't read the book. How do you know?
Ren's entire "factual claim" is based on the assumption that the documentation of Azizus is a 100% factual piece of source material that undoubtedly relays the events in a direct and valid manner. That's an extremely biased stance to take. Wouldn't you say that it takes away from the entire idea of an intelligible debate?