Amaros
Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline
quote:
None of it is the issue, and I didn't write the damn book, which I'm guessing you never read - I think it's perfectly plausible but like I said, I'm not really interested in debating it, since win or lose, it isn't going to change history, whatever that might actually have been.
In the event you were wondering -
This is a discussion board
Generally this would indicate that things would be brought up for
discussion,
debate
and on occasion efforts to clean the lint from one another's navels
in order to better understand
ourselves,
the people we are communicating with,
others
and the world in general...
Stating something
- and then saying it is off limits for debate
- and, getting piqued in a fit of parsimonious and righteous indignation (good 'verbage' by the way)
- is rather a silly stance...
Especially where you continue to discuss it after having your hissy fit...
Question:
Do you need a hug?
I can do that for you... 
Wonderingly:
~J
But seriously- improbably impossibillities that do not have any relevant supporting information from the time thye allegedly occurred (or, even in a short century or two thereafter) is indicative of fairy tale stories, more than anything that might be considered a reality... But, if you desire to spread tales as "plausable" - please... we need to get you a campfire and a flashlight... (they are more tittilating that way!)
Next week: We will debate ancient European houses of slavery and declare that they are real because we cannot prove a negative!
I brought up some history, it's all documented in the bibliographies of the books I mentioned, while you are simply saying you don't beleive it, and backing that up with hypotheticals you're pulling out of your ass:
quote:
1. Availability of rare billets on board a vessel to an (unwed mother) single woman without papers in lands losely controlled by the Romans
2. Gaining embarkation at the start as a known conspirator - and, not being turned in to the authorities... a real past time in Judea at the time.
3. Surviving a multiple multiple multiple legged sea voyage that would last months (> a year?) on board ship was rare for health men of middle age (~22 years old at the time) - she was a matron (~34 at the time of the alleged voyage) and one who had led a hard life by all accounts.
4. Being allowed on any ship... unless a person owned a ship, they were seldom considered to be allowed on - let alone a woman (The Romans developed the supersition, developed from Mesopotamian tales about a woman's unluckyness on a sea going vessel)
5. There were not viable or flourishing jewish communities in those areas at those times... they were barely under control of the romans and strangers to outpost areas were generally... well - killed for their money and thrown into the nearest hole. It is not as though she booked passage through Expedia. Legs were negotiated at the place of embarkation... and there would be the need for translators, local currency/exchange.. potentially a contact.
One stop in Sicily (a common travel mid-point) and she likely would have been enslaved for her foreign disposition.
Anyhow - it is entirly improbable and highly unlikely and has no proof of occurrence. It was not until the 15th and again the 18th century that such tales pop up - uibndicating they were fiction and lore more than reality.
Nice tales to muse over.. nothing more.
This sisn't a debate, you're just countering one supposition, backed with evidence, however circumstantial it may be, and mocking the notion that anybody can know anything about how life was lived 2000 years ago, then turning right around and making huge, unsupported assumptions, while apparently somehow thinking that the shit you're making up is somehow more authoratiative.
Myself, I haven't done any real primary research into this thing specifically, nor am I in any position to do so at this time, and it's neither here nor there to me - I brought up the books because they do contain a lot of background about various religions around at the time, for somebody who asked, and some insight into how people of the time thought - I have no stake in Biagent, et al's central thesis, which I clearly stated in the first post I mentioned these books in - it is of interest to me, but not the topic of the OP, and as I say, there is nothing here to debate: you either accept that it's as plausible as any other hypothesis or you don't.
It's clear you don't, and I could care less about that - at the same time, I'm bothered that your arguments, which you insist on continuing to make, and seem to think are devastating, are so specious, and based on misinterpretation if not utter ignorance of the theory you're trying to refute.
It sounds more like you need a hug, sound like you're distraught at being being so repressively overtaxed, having your redeemer questioned, and all other liberal assaults on your dignity and sense of entitlement, poor dear. Wah.
|
RE: BDSM Saint? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread