Opinion of naming your child Jesus

[politicus]

Well?

[justfollowingtheelections]

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

[NewYorkExpress]

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)

[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.

[© tweed]

it's almost exclusively a Hispanic thing, and supposedly dates back to the Moorish occupation.  the Moors had plenty of Mohammeds, so the Christianized Spanish responded by naming their kids Jesus.

[Flake]

I'm fine with it.

[Linus Van Pelt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZR58d77a4A

[Grumpier Than Thou]

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

[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?

[Brodie Hellenes]

I guess it depends on your culture. Just because something isn't common in America doesn't make it terrible.

[Indy Texas]

it's almost exclusively a Hispanic thing, and supposedly dates back to the Moorish occupation.  the Moors had plenty of Mohammeds, so the Christianized Spanish responded by naming their kids Jesus.

Another odd legacy of Muslim Andalusia is the Spanish surname Mahomes - it means "son of Mohammed" (Mahoma being the Spanish version of Mohammed).

[MaxQue]

Wierd in English and French, but very acceptable in Spanish (but if I were Spanish, I would choose another name).

[Hifly]

We already do; Joshua is a very common name.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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)

[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?

[Middle-aged Europe]

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.

I literally loled at that.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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? 

And no way am I considering a name for a son that would even suggest my family is in any way "cool" with Christianity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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)

Not many credible historians seriously believe that.

[Bigby]

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.

[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.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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)

Not many credible historians seriously believe that.

I was just throwing that in there as my personal disclaimer, it's not the meat of my post.  Hence, it is parenthesized. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

No.  No they don't.  The Catholic Church, who basically ruled the part of the world from which we obtained our historical records for centuries, had more than enough reason to fabricate the tale.  I tend to look at the fact that the story of Jesus mirrors that of several other Bronze Age prophets and the aforementioned gains the Catholic Church stood to make from propagating this myth. 

Was there some kind of charismatic preacher floating around the Middle East a few thousand years ago claiming divinity?  Yea, probably, but no doubt word of mouth warped reality into dozens of different stories about their origin/powers/word/etc.

Damn, for a generally liberal forum, this place is so disgustingly apologetic and subservient to religion.  "Jesus's existence must be accepted as fact"?  Wow.  How intellectual. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Generally the study of ancient history works through more or less accepting the rough trustworthiness of ancient documents, rather than through positing conspiracy theories about organizations that only attained any degree of political or economic power decades or in some cases centuries after the earliest known copies of said documents were written. Jesus' existence is accepted as fact by the vast majority of reputable historians of religion essentially because there's no good reason not to that doesn't rely on just such a conspiracy theory. Similarly, the vast majority of reputable historians of philosophy accept the existence of Socrates based on the testimony of manuscripts of Plato's dialogues that are far, far, far further removed in time from Plato than the earliest known New Testament fragments are from their putative authors.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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)

Not many credible historians seriously believe that.

I was just throwing that in there as my personal disclaimer, it's not the meat of my post.  Hence, it is parenthesized. 

If halfway through a post I gave a bracketed clause like (btw guys Hitler was a left-winger and the moon-landing is fake) you would expect me to be called out on it. Parenthesis aren't impervious defences against criticism.

This is the best-written takedown of the "Jesus doesn't exist" theory I've seen:

You must be logged in to read this quote.