I think that one of our key arguments should be that the rules set by the pro-abrogation scholars themselves preclude the abrogation claims that have been made, and we should spell out specific statements and specific claims that contradict each other from a number of key scholars. This way it is not our opinion, but theirs.
BTW, this is my 1000th post.
Congratulations on your 1000th post! Thank you for your valuable, insightful contributions to this and the other forums of this board.
We point out the inconsistency of stated opinions in two topics,
- Missing abrogation claims
In addition, we have in each claim, a post entitled "Who said what
", stating who agreed with the claim and who disagreed. The fact that every abrogation claim has been contested by knowledgeable, pious, licensed scholars is proof of the fallacy of the doctrine.
You will also notice that as we continue to find new books about the subject, we keep finding scholars who arrived at the same conclusion we made long before us! I think you once said that the less original we are the more credible we will be
You are right.