
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
"Phaedrine Stonebridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lisa R.) wrote: > > > Part of the reason Arafat rejected Oslo is that he didn't sincerely > > think that Jews have a legitimate claim on Jerusalem. His opinion is > > echoed by some pro-Palestinian Americans. > > > > But think it this way---what claims could either Islam or Christianity > > have on Jerusalem if Judaism hadn't claimed it first? > > > > The answer is: Neither religion would have any claims to Jerusalem. > > In fact, there wouldn't have been any Jerusalem as we know it. > > Jerusalem would have faded into obscurity after the Jebusites were > > overrun. Instead of turning up a plethora of Biblical antiquities as > > they do today, archeologists would instead be excavating the dusty > > ruins of some nameless tenth-rate town that had ceased to matter to > > anybody three millenia ago. > > > > Jerusalem is important to Muslims and Christians because it was > > important to Jews, and for no other reason...... > > While you may be correct with respect to muslims, but with respect to > Christians you are way off base. When I read this, the first thing that > popped into my head was, "What is she thinking?" I normally don't get > into theological discussions but this is just so obvious. Jerusalem is > what--- maybe 5 or so miles from Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ? > And a few miles more from Nazareth? This is where Christ grew up and > lived. Saying that the only reason Christians place importance in the > region is because it is important to Jews is just plain nonsense, sorry. I agree.....
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |