Since the other thread became contaminated with some off-topic nonsense I thought I'd move my last post over here so we could continue in a, hopefully, troll free zone.
Wayne asks:
"Did you read the whole article, or just the beginning? The article says:"
Of course I did. Thus my comment that the author's attempt to claim it as Aramaic, rather than Arabic, is a POV (Point Of View) not held by many scholars. The vast majority of Islamic scholars hold that there was no crucifixion. I'd have found you one of their writings were it in English and as I don't ONLY post things I agree with I posted the link with what I thought the appropriate caveat.
Using the more obscure "Aramaic" rewrite may be comforting but it should not be. There are hardly any scholars that buy the argument.
