03 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by muppymanChrist, the central figure of human history, was either who and what he claimed to be or the most despicable imposter the world has ever known.
I am wondering just what the point of the question might be. How much can it matter what nationality was involved?
I am an avid atheist, but I once heard a believer state his position quite succinctly by saying, "God said it, Christ did it, I believe it, That settles it!"
I doubt that he would have been interested in the nationality of his Saviour.
Anybody fraudulently making those claims would have been one sick megalomaniac... not a mere 'good man'. There's no logical middle ground.
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby>Christ, the central figure of human history<
Well the central figure of the history of Western Europe and the Americas. Much of the rest of the world, including 1 billion Muslims, think otherwise.
>was either who and what he claimed to be or the most despicable imposter<
I never found this either/or arguement to be effective. It is often phrased as, "Christ was who he said he was or he was insane". No polite person is going to argue with you that the Christ was insane, but they will feel you are trying to box them into a corner. Some will argue that the four gospels and the letters of Paul made Jesus into the Christ as at least one other alternative.
05 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rapidfyre"Christ" isn't part of his name. It comes from Greek "christos," meaning "savior."
I once heard he was actually Asian, and his name is Jesus Hong, he doesn't know where the hell "christ" came from.
Thus being said
I personally think he is Italaian but thats only because I want pizza in heaven.
That said, Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew. They have a word for those; I forgot what it is. They're common in Israel and Yemen nowadays.
Someone probably posted this already, but I felt it was my civic duty to respond immediately after reading the title and first thread. To anyone whom I repeat, I apologize.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by scherzoI thought the town of Bethlehem was in Palestine. I dont know what is was 2000 years ago.
Hahahahaaaa ... that's awesome. Go Arabs!
Actually at the time they were called either Philistines (which will later be the root for the Arabic word "Phalasteen" which is Arabic for Palestine) or Canaanites.
07 Oct 08
1 edit
Jesus was, of course, born in Bethlehem, which is in the southern part of modern-day Israel (which would have been Palestine in those times, yes)...
I do not beleive it was referred to as the land of Canaan when Jesus was born...
And yes, Nazareth was next to the Sea of Galilee...
Jesus, born in Bethlehem, just West of the Dead Sea, but moved (way) North to Nazareth, just around the Sea of Galilee...
edit: I'm taking OT Survey right now, and they gave us this map of OT Palestine/Israel/Canaan. Nazareth would be a more modern city, and would require a NT map.