WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy 147 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jgnat

  Your ignorance of history is astounding, Schizm.

  Go find me your evidence. There is no evidence of Roman occupation in those lands. The Chinese dynasties overspanned the Roman ones, and they have a continuous line of Kings, all recorded in their scrolls, graves, and palaces. There was no corruption of Chinese to Latin, nor any exchange of characters. The same with the Americas, Australia, the Pacific Isles. AND, come to think of it, the Scots, of which I am a descendant. The Romans built a wall to enclose them when they could not be conquered. Are you saying that Rome occupied our current known world without bothering to civilize or tax the natives? How unlike them.

  How did the people get there before the Romans? They walked. While there were still land bridges. And as far as I can tell, the Aborigines in Australia were always just there. Walkabout.
• 

  Schizm

  
  You're really good at ignoring questions that are placed before you, jgnat. As per just two examples: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/102760/1776624/post.ashx#1776624 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/102760/1776649/post.ashx#1776649

  There is no evidence of Roman occupation in those lands. The Chinese dynasties overspanned the Roman ones, and they have a continuous line of Kings, all recorded in their scrolls, graves, and palaces. -- jgnat.

  You claim that there NEVER was a time when Rome exercised universal rule. You claim that all the while Rome ruled that China had its Kings who were NOT subject to Rome's jurisdiction.

  Yes, that's what you CLAIM, but where is the proof? So far all we have is your word for it. Produce the proof you think you have, and then we'll see just how reliable it is.

  .
• 

  startingover

  SCHizm - SCHolar

  Is there something about someone who chooses a name that begins with SCH that causes one to argue in this manner?
• 

  Leolaia

  You're asking jgnat to prove a negative. Skepticism on her part is entirely legitimate. The burden of proof is instead on you to show that Rome DID exercise rule over the Chinese, the Bantu, the Finns, Siberians, Australian Aborigines, the Maya, the Olmec, the Ojibwe, Samoans, etc., if such an extraordinary thing is what you are in fact claiming (i.e. literal universal rule over everything under heaven).
• 

  Schizm

  You're asking jgnat to prove a negative. Skepticism on her part is entirely legitimate.

  Skepticism on MY part is entirely legitimate as well. She has made claims that she needs to defend with proof, rather than requiring others to simply take her word for it. All she has to do in order to defeat my argument is to produce solid evidence that will prove the things she claims.

  The burden of proof is instead on you to show that Rome DID exercise rule over the Chinese, etc.

  Why? Because YOU say so? Who appointed YOU to be the one to make such rules as this, Leolaia? Did someone actually make YOU the referee over this discussion? Please tell.

  ....if such an extraordinary thing is what you are in fact claiming (i.e. literal universal rule over everything under heaven).

  You cause me to wonder if you've really been listening to this discussion. What part of "wherever" is it that you don't understand? If you don't know what I mean with that question, then I know you haven't been paying attention. Instead of trying to play the part of a referee, Leolaia, why don't you have a share in the discussion instead. Think you could do that in an unbiased fashion? .
• 

  City Fan

  Here you go Schizm, from Wikipedia, Rome at it's greatest extent circa 117AD

  

  Trajan's victories over the Parthians led to Mesopotamia being part of the Roman Empire but the area between Mesopotamia and Parthia was never demilitarised and Parthia (modern day Iran) never fully conquered.

  Now Schizm how about some secular evidence that contradicts this or will we just get the usual insults and name calling?

  CF.
• 

  Schizm

  Now Schizm how about some secular evidence that contradicts this or will we just get the usual insults and name calling?

  CF.

  You never miss a chance when it comes to an opportunity to smite a person, do you CF?

  Actually, you went to a lot of work for nothing. You want to know why?

  .
• 

  gumby

  Schizm says,

  You're really good at ignoring questions that are placed before you, jgnat

  You claim that there NEVER was a time when Rome exercised universal rule. You claim that all the while Rome ruled that China had its Kings who were NOT subject to Rome's jurisdiction.

  Yes, that's what you CLAIM, but where is the proof?

  gnathead replies,

  The Chinese dynasties overspanned the Roman ones, and they have a continuous line of Kings, all recorded in their scrolls, graves, and palaces. There was no corruption of Chinese to Latin, nor any exchange of characters. The same with the Americas, Australia, the Pacific Isles.

  Poor poor blind, unhumble, haughty, i''m never wrong, can't get egg on my face Schizm bastard man! Even IF jgnat PROVIDED the Chinese, Austrailian, American records of authoritarian dominion.....you'd find an argument to justify your assnine idea that the Romans held power over the globe. I personally know of an ancient tribe who were smartasses and wrote " Romans Suck" ........they engraved it into every tree on their island........and there ain't one damn bit of evidence that proves the little Romans ever did a thing about it or arrested anyone! Howdya like them apples buddy? Gumby
• 

  Schizm

  You claim that there NEVER was a time when Rome exercised universal rule. You claim that all the while Rome ruled that China had its Kings who were NOT subject to Rome's jurisdiction.

  Yes, that's what you CLAIM, but where is the proof?

  gnathead replies,

  The Chinese dynasties overspanned the Roman ones, and they have a continuous line of Kings, all recorded in their scrolls, graves, and palaces. There was no corruption of Chinese to Latin, nor any exchange of characters. The same with the Americas, Australia, the Pacific Isles.

  Which proves absolutely NOTHING!!!

  Have you never heard of "Kings" being in subjection to a higher authority. King Herod, of Jerusaleum, was one such King. He was a "King," indeed, but he was subject to Rome.

  Is that little stick-horse you ride around on beginning to rub you raw between the legs, Gummy?

  .
• 

  gumby

  Have you never heard of "Kings" being in subjection to a higher authority.

  
  

  
  So ...lets see here then. All the various countries already mentioned that were billions of miles from Rome.....somehow were under Roman rule? Did China have an ambassador that made sure the chineese were holding and answering to Roman authority....then if the people weren't... he rode on his chariot back to Rome and squeeled on the cheatin, misbehavin, chineese people cuz they was carvin dragons instead of makin ceaser heads for the Roman museums like their arses was posta been doin?!!!!

  Gumby * who plans on praying for schizms deep seated spiritual problems*