I have had that situation many times. Both produce their scriptural evidence for what they believe and how they came to that belief. Every time we have agreed to disagree it was over non essential to salvation understanding of some small point. I have had times that I have been enlightened having overlooked something other times I’ve been proven correct in my understanding. Always listen but prove by scripture.
>> I can see two options: which one agrees with you (or your understanding of which the Holy Spirit agrees with); which one has more who agree with them (using the same criteria/method).<<
Never, ever do I allow the “crowd” to influence what I believe. “narrow is the road” has become more vivid to me as I study and grow.
Bottom line is that I alone am the person who will face my savior when the time comes. I alone will answer for my beliefs and convictions. I alone will answer for my unwavering trust in Christ and in no one else.
So the method is to each argue their case, and only then if it involves the set of "essential to salvation"? Would it be correct to say the differences of interpretation are settled by argument using the rules of reason?
The obvious follow up here is: If someone who differs with you presents a more compelling, stronger, argument for their interpretation contra yours, will you change your view?