21 total posts
Does this means you've already accepted it as fact and are willing to teach it as such to others?
It seems he is.
But why care? Jesus was a Palestinian Jew boy, so an Arab woman can be just as respectable and respected as he is.
why spread such lies?
Judah was the nation then and his mother had a genealogy dating back to time of King David. Who poured that bit of falsehood into your head?
Actually, Arabs are multi ethic
and the commonality is more in their language. They are Semites as are Jews. We have learned to recognize Arabs by how they are dressed in pictures. The dress of that time and place was dictated more by climate than culture.
He was a Jew (there were no Christians yet) and he lived in Palestina, as defined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine: "a geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River (where Israel and the Palestinian territories are today), and various adjoining lands". And surely he was a boy (not a girl) when young.
So I see nothing wrong with saying he was a Jewish Palestinian boy. What's your objection to that statement?
What's in a name?
So Cochise and Geronimo were Americans because they lived in regions of the USA which is also part of the Americas? Semantics, I'd say. The word "Palestine" was given by the Romans to a conquered territory and not by those who lived there. I could say that the American nations got their names in similar fashion.
And, now I read, it could have been from the Greeks
naming it after the Philistine people but who called them Philistines? At this point, what's the use of trying to second guess a person who was not known to have recorded the name of his domicile?
http://www.indians.org/articles/american-indians.html shows they (or their successors) call themselves American Indians. So I think the answer to your question is "yes".
But if James is more happy if I call Jesus a "Judean boy" [true] in stead of a "Palestinian boy" [lie] (for whatever reason, maybe he prefers the Jewish connotation of 'Judean' to the Muslim connotation of 'Palestinian', I don't know), I'll gladly do that.
It doesn't change the comparison with "Arab woman". As a Jew, you're a boy until you become a man (bar mitzva) at your 13th anniversary.
Post was last edited on January 12, 2016 5:11 AM PST
Well...it's folly to use yesterday's thinking and data
and apply it to today. We've learned that the many people's of that area were nomadic and it would make sense that their territories moved around a bit. Today we draw and redraw borders. Who knows where Palestine might turn up on the map centuries from now.
RE: it's folly to use yesterday's data
Better to use yesterdays data....than tomorrows/future data, UNLESS you can predict the future with certainty.
Additionally...something I read
but would call it "learned".
I have read that a great number of African slaves who were brought to the US were Muslim and were "forced" to convert to Christianity. Is that something to be believed? But, I've also read that these same Africans were acquired by Muslims who had "forced" them to convert to Islam. I can have no idea what, if any, religion or spiritual nature they possessed prior to capture but I'd bet it was neither. In this country, it does not appear that many African-Americans are showing any intention of fleeing back to Islam as being their original religion. Just try stopping at any African-American church and asking to speak to their Imam.
When you read an article such as from your posted link, I'd not pass it as something "learned" but as something from a recently read perspective.
I see very few or none Christian missions in Africa in that time in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christian_missions. So I think it's safe to assume they weren't Christian. 'Heathen' would be the term, I think.
I'm not sure of the role of the Islam there and then, but i think it was practically non-existant also. But I didn't google that.
As I understand it, Egypt is considered part of Africa
and Christian missionaries were there in the 1st and 2nd centuries but what remains (and seems to be a favorite target of ISIS) is the Coptics. It could be true that there's no written record of Christians venturing south into tribal Africa but it has been written that Muslims from the areas of Arabia bought and sold slaves as an enterprise. They were not alone and nor the adoption of Islam create that practice.
As to Arab and Muslim involvement, you can look that up if you're interested. I can offer this one source which appears to come from an African-American resource. Of course, since European peoples didn't really begin mass migration to the (later called American continents until Islam was well established and the slave trade was as well, there's no sense in looking back to what happened in the earliest days of Christianity for anything relevant.
As best I understand it, the majority of black slaves brought here were already slaves of Arabs who had acquired them due to tribal war. It was common practice for defeated armies or tribes to be either slaughtered (so they couldn't reassemble) or be offered the choice of slavery. This wasn't unique to any culture, as I read. There were a few slaves brought to the US from the area of Sierra Leone that may not have been routed through Arab channels. These people were skilled rice farmers and many were brought to coastal areas of the southern US where that crop was once grown. The subject of the book "Roots" by Alex Haley was said to have come from the area around Gambia which isn't far from Sierra Leone. That person, whom Haley called "Kunta Kinte" was captured in the Jungle. These type of stories can give the impression that most African slaves were brought here the same way. Off the subject but Haley's book was later determined to be no all that factual.
The Sinai is part of Egypt also (a well known part since the recent Russian airplane crash/attack there) and is part of the Middle-East, so of Asia. I already felt like that, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_Peninsula confirms it.
Yes, I've "learned" something from this discussion. That's more than can be said from the average SE thread
Fiction can be significantly more enjoyable than fact
but facts might become necessary to present when fiction fails to convince.
RE:I'd not pass it as something "learned" but as something f
I'd not pass it as something "learned" but as something from a recently read perspective.
I "learned" that researchers claim that the Statue Of Liberty was inspired by a project representing an Arab woman guarding the Suez Canal.
Does this mean I have to "teach it to others", OR can I just open up a number of schools, get a bunch of Nuns with Rulers to rap knuckles until the ignorant are converted?
Instead of wearing a robe
(some could see a Muslim connection)
Statue of Liberty should be wearing a pant suit, or maybe a bikini, holding a Light Sabre and a cellphone.
Here's one that's on the same subject
from the Smithsonian magazine
It's complete with comments of all kinds and attitudes but no interviews of the persons actually involved in the project. Just the usual speculations.
You mean Ishtar?