The fact that you do not know if I wrote this post demonstrates your fallibility. I know I wrote this posts, and I am the infallible judge of the fact that I wrote this post.
As far as comments like "You must be joking..." Do you really want to raise the emotional level of the conversation? Why do you not restrain yourself in what you write?
When you say... "Please, get real. You call that an answer?" I take it that you cannot express yourself without some bluster like "you must be joking....... Please get real. You call that an answer"
Of course bluster works well to raise the emotional level of those who cannot think through the issues. Also, it has the advantage that you do not have to actually deal with what I have been saying.
Of course historians can have reasonable doubt. Historians are fallible. On the other hand, if an historian makes a mistake, lets say that he thinks that Columbus discovered America in 1942. Certainly that is error on the part of the historian, on the other hand, his mistake does not mean that the truth that Columbus discovered America in 1492 is not infallible.
Of course this expresses that an infallible truth can be known by fallible people.
Let me approach the question in another way. If infallible truth cannot be known in a fallible way, how can you actually know that infallibly. Then you must either say that infallible truth is actually fallible, or you yourself are infallible. If you deny infallibility, then on what basis can you know any infallible truth?
Here is some history. Trent claims to be infallible. Can you actually tell me you know what Trent said If you are fallible? Would then an infallible truth be known fallibly, or infallibly?
Of course your speculation only proves my point. All along I have said that the infallible scriptures can be known fallibly. So yes, a faintly remote possibility that Constantine messed with the scriptures must always be considered, the evidence weighed, and then a fallible decision must be made. Possibly new evidence will come along to show something different in the future. Nevertheless, when we weigh the evidence, there is no evidence of Constantine messing with the scriptures. Anyone familiar with the evidence will know that the papyri that preceded Constantine corroborates with the later vellum of the Constantinian Scribes. Take for instance the Rylands papyri, written in 125 AD. How can that be changed by Constantine who lived in the 300s?
Now the question is do I infallibly know this? Obviously not because I am just going on the evidence in a fallibly way. I am not infallible. So then, I know these things fallibly. If I am correct, then I know infallible truths.
And no, you cannot make even once bonifide scenario that will cast doubt upon my thesis that infallible truths can be known fallibly. Give it a try.... : ). You cannot demonstrate the negative, that it is impossible to fallibly know infallible truths.
Yes, and it is obvious you cannot express your opinions without bluster and being ingratious to anyone who differs in opinion with you.
It would be great to hear a coherent response. I give logical evidence that infallible things can be known fallibly, and you do not respond other then to bluster and rant with accusations against me as a person. LOL, then you turn around and accuse me of ad-hominids?
Your whole constantine scenario does not demonstrate that infallible truths cannot be known fallibly. It actually demonstrates the opposite. We do not know with absolute infallible certainty about the manuscripts because we are fallible. So then, your scenario demonstrates what I am saying, not what you are claiming.