Opinion of naming your child Jesus
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:07:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Off-topic Board (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Mikado, YE)
  Opinion of naming your child Jesus
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
FP (freedom practice)
 
#2
HP (horrible practice)
 
#3
Depends on your ethnic background
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 48

Author Topic: Opinion of naming your child Jesus  (Read 5071 times)
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2014, 12:50:25 PM »

I'm not accepting any Christian rot about Jesus having to exist as they see him because you are basically treating your religious texts as fact.  So I suppose his "miracles" are historical fact, too?  i'm granting you that I think there was a charasmatic preacher.  You are taking it so much further by trying to push Biblical "truths" as fact.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2014, 12:56:32 PM »

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.

Nathan, I don't need Plato or Socrates to exist.  I have "their" ideas, philosophy, theories with or without the person in the flesh.  The literal existence of Jesus is very much needed in Christianity.  Christianity asks of you subservience and worship of an actual figure.  There is quite a difference.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2014, 01:00:41 PM »

I'm not accepting any Christian rot about Jesus having to exist as they see him because you are basically treating your religious texts as fact.  So I suppose his "miracles" are historical fact, too?  i'm granting you that I think there was a charasmatic preacher.  You are taking it so much further by trying to push Biblical "truths" as fact.

If you grant that you 'think there was a charismatic preacher' then you're essentially accepting the historicity of Jesus to the same extent that most non-Christian scholars do, you're just reluctant to apply the name 'Jesus' to him for ideological reasons. Nobody here is claiming that most historians of religion accept the tenets of orthodox Christology.

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.

Nathan, I don't need Plato or Socrates to exist.  I have "their" ideas, philosophy, theories with or without the person in the flesh.  The literal existence of Jesus is very much needed in Christianity.  Christianity asks of you subservience and worship of an actual figure.  There is quite a difference.

I don't think you understand the point I was making.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2014, 01:15:59 PM »

I'm not accepting any Christian rot about Jesus having to exist as they see him because you are basically treating your religious texts as fact.  So I suppose his "miracles" are historical fact, too?  i'm granting you that I think there was a charasmatic preacher.  You are taking it so much further by trying to push Biblical "truths" as fact.

If you grant that you 'think there was a charismatic preacher' then you're essentially accepting the historicity of Jesus to the same extent that most non-Christian scholars do, you're just reluctant to apply the name 'Jesus' to him for ideological reasons. Nobody here is claiming that most historians of religion accept the tenets of orthodox Christology.

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.

Nathan, I don't need Plato or Socrates to exist.  I have "their" ideas, philosophy, theories with or without the person in the flesh.  The literal existence of Jesus is very much needed in Christianity.  Christianity asks of you subservience and worship of an actual figure.  There is quite a difference.

I don't think you understand the point I was making.

I do, I was pointing out that, through my own views, that many people don't care if there was a historical Socrates because it doesn't matter.  Not a ton of thought is put into it.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2014, 01:32:41 PM »

This thread is much less interesting than what I thought I would read when I saw "opinion of naming your..." as the partial heading showing in the main page.

Anyway, FP.  It's a very chic name, in my opinion.  Incidentally, many folks named Jesus end up getting called Chuy by their frends.  I used to know a guy named Chuy Bocanegra in high school.  (It also gets spelled Chui sometimes, and is pronounced, more or less, as in Chewy Chewbacca.) 

Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2014, 01:45:18 PM »

Ambivalent, voted option 3. 
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2014, 02:43:55 PM »
« Edited: November 27, 2014, 03:02:19 PM by Deus Naturae »

Yeshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus) almost certainly did exist per the writings of Roman historians. I don't know why atheists get so wrapped up in semantic arguments like this...the fact that Christianity (along with every other religion, pardon my sage) has no rational basis is reason enough for lack of belief in it. Poorly supported historical conspiracy theories about Jesus being invented by the Romans or the Catholic Church forging widely accepted primary source texts or whatever else just distract from that point and make it seem like religious people have "won" the argument over God's existence when they refute them.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2014, 09:50:07 PM »

Naming your child Theodore is even more pretentious IMO.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2014, 01:30:25 AM »

Naming your child Theodore is even more pretentious IMO.

the worst is naming your male child with your own name.  you want an Oedipus complex?, that's how you get it.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2014, 01:40:24 AM »

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. 
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 28, 2014, 02:47:01 PM »

Naming your child Theodore is even more pretentious IMO.

the worst is naming your male child with your own name.  you want an Oedipus complex?, that's how you get it.

I've always hated that. It smacks of egoism and then you've got two people in the household with the same name and either everyone is confused or you do something cringe-inducing like refer to the son as "Little ______" or "_______ Junior."
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2014, 04:44:38 PM »

Naming your child Theodore is even more pretentious IMO.

the worst is naming your male child with your own name.  you want an Oedipus complex?, that's how you get it.

Ugh!  I know!  I've always hated the idea of that.  No son, you are no individual... just an extension of myself. 

Ghastly.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2014, 05:20:59 PM »

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. 
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2014, 05:31:47 PM »

I need to remember Socrates as a potential middle name or something for the Leitch-Read bairn.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2014, 01:22:45 AM »

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. 

Hockey, what would you think if I were to say "I believe that there is a lazy Oklahoman who hates vegetables and mooches off his parents and focuses on Christmas, but I don't believe in Bushie and I think the Updaters forged all the documents"?
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 29, 2014, 02:52:40 PM »

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?
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2014, 05:32:23 PM »

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. 
Logged
Anti Democrat Democrat Club
SawxDem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2014, 05:36:32 PM »

Remember that time 20RP12 told the Starbucks lady his name was Jesus? That was mildly amusing.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2014, 05:55:32 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 15 queries.