Opinion of naming your child Jesus

[politicus]

Well?

[politicus]

Honestly there are much worse things a parent could name a child than Jesus (no matter the pronunciation), so I'm fine with it.

If we want to mine the bible for example we have; Methuselah, Pontius, Barabbas and Nimrod, none of which are names anyone would want to have today (especially Nimrod)

Pontius actually has a nice ring to it, especially if you are a pilates instructor.

[politicus]

I suppose it depends on how you pronounce it.  I'm fine with it as long as they use the Spanish pronunciation.

How about the Portuguese?

[politicus]

Freedom.  It reinforces the notion that Jesus is just a man.  (I mean, it's more likely he didn't exist, but whatever, if he did there is nothing to suggest he was special)

No, that's not an option given the sources. Jesus did exist, the question is what he was.

You are part Portuguese, would you consider it for a son?

[politicus]

Freedom.  It reinforces the notion that Jesus is just a man.  (I mean, it's more likely he didn't exist, but whatever, if he did there is nothing to suggest he was special)

No, that's not an option given the sources. Jesus did exist, the question is what he was.

You are part Portuguese, would you consider it for a son?

Given the sources?  What? 

You have to refute both all historicity of the Synoptic Gospels (they are too close to the events for that to be realistic), Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews and the (anti-Christian) Roman historian Tacitus'  Annals and ignore the fact that there is no evidence of the enemies of the Christians saying Jesus didn't exist (its pretty unlikely they wouldn't have used that against them, if at all possible). The basic stuff: Jesus was a Jew and had a following, John baptizing Jesus and Pontius Pilate executing him must be considered facts.

[politicus]

Not something I'd do, but I see no reason why to go crazy over it. It's mostly a Hispanic, Iberian, and Christian Arab thing.

I don't think anyone is going crazy over it, I was just curious. My cousin recently got a (Chilean) boyfriend named Jesus, it feels weird.

[politicus]

Hockeydude, Jesus of Nazareth existed as a human person.  at around age 30 he felt a calling,(probably)  corresponding to his Baptism by the so-called John the Baptist, became an itinerant preacher, preaching the "kingdom of God".  he travelled to Jerusalem, went to the Temple and caused enough of a stir to be seen as a political criminal by the Romans, who executed him via crucifixion. 

the above is accepted by 98-99% of historians who study the subject.  there are a few that don't, they're called "Mythicists" and take the hermeneutic of suspicion to its limits.  they have a larger following on the internet than they do in academia. 

I'm generally accepting of the charismatic preacher and that political opponents were crucified.  I'm also accepting of the idea that winners shape history, and I can't think of a bigger "winner" in Western history than Christians. 

So then why did you say Jesus probably didn't exist in the first place?

I believe most of the character of Jesus was forged.  What I believe happened and what Christians believe are so far removed from each other that I think it's appropriate to classify my views as those that don't believe the guy existed. 

That doesn't make sense. Whether Jesus existed and what he was are two unrelated questions.