Opinion of naming your child Jesus

[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)

[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.

[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. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.