Again, I replied because I do not agree that "if" you take something for granted, non-evidence becomes evidence.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:10 pmYou really are coming off as a petulant child here.Not exactly "waiting" -- I have plenty of better things to do and work on -- but, at this point, you and others have made it very clear that we don't have any such ancient reference. That's what the thread was meant to clarify, and it's done so.
If Ulansey's proposal is correct, than Mithraism is evidence of such an occurrence. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I was neither arguing for or against it, yet you have projected so much importance onto that you have effectively created a strawman.
But, as you yourself said, I have better things I can be doing. You've certainly not impressed me any and am glad I've never wasted my time on your scribblings.
It's nothing more complicated than that. Not disingenuous. Not petulant. Not based on misunderstanding. Not considered of any great importance. Not meant to impress you. And not necessary for you to spend any time on, if you don't want to.