Eutychian Errata, thanks to Waltz's Rejoinder

Please note, this post has a high chance of getting date bumped into oblivion, because it is not a high priority.

David Waltz has responded to my previous post via his own blog.

He alleges two errors:

Error #1 – Alexandria was in full control of the Fatimids, NOT the Sunnis, during the period that Eutychius was Patriarch.

Quite right. That was my mistake. I have updated the original post to correct that error.

Error #2 – “your position” has NOTHING to do at all with the Nicene period that Eutychius was commenting on. He was merely supplying historical information on some of the diverse sects that attended the council. (Nice try though.)

This sword has two edges, if it has nothing to do with my position, the question everyone should be asking is: "why did you bring it up?" But I gladly agree that it has very little do with my position. I don't think I claimed it does have much to do with the position I presented, and on reviewing my original post, I don't see any contrary evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I gather that we will not be seeing any further or supporting evidence for the supposed existence of FSM-trinitarians at the time of Mohamed, to provide an excuse for Muslim scholars who do not wish to admit that their prophet erred, and that the Koran is not inspired.

-Turretinfan