harry wrote:

Giggle. I speak (or at least read) a smidgen of Aramaic. While
Aramiac was, indeed, the vernacular during the era and location of
Jesus, it bears little resemblance to modern Arabic. Even the
alphabet is different (Aramaic uses the Hebrew alphabet both today
and at the time of Jesus). The Talmud, portions of which pre-date
Jesus, is written (mostly) in Aramaic. Aramaic is not too different
from Hebrew.

Jesus most certainly was a Jew. He said He was - His mother was
Jewish. You can't get more Jewish than that. Jesus was a
Palestinian, to the degree that He lived in the Roman province of
Palaestina. Being a Palestinian, or a Canadian, has nothing to do
with His Jewishness.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Er we're talking 2000 years ago. Anglo saxon was the precursor of
English so it's hardly surprising.

If he lived in Palestine and spoke Aramaic (precursor of Arabic) then
he was a Palestinian and his indirect descendants were Arabs.

Arrant nonsense.

1. Arabs pre-date Palestinians, but the origins of both are lost in
pre-history.
2. According to the Church, Jesus had no descendants.
3. Palestine is a "place," "Arab" is an ethnicity. They cannot be compared.
If you insist on "place," note that Palestine is distinctly different from
Arabia. A Palestinian cannot be an Arab and vice-versa. If you insist on
ethnicity, note that the Palestinians are universally despised by other
Muslims. No, the two adjectives are completely different.


So everytime you Yanks murder an Arab, that Arab may be related to
Jesus.
I should think you would definitely go to hell for that.

I suppose it's possible. The Church admits that Jesus had brothers, so, with
inter-marriage and what-not, some individual Arab could be an Nth degree
cousin of Jesus. But look at it like this: Arabs kill Arabs with more
regularity than Yanks, Christians, of Jews kill Arabs. If it's okay with
them, well...