JESUS <3

[robvalue]

Can't remember if I already wrote here.

No, there wasn't, because Jesus was not a name at that time.

Ignoring that, the chances of the stories being based on exactly one historical figure, no more, no less, is staggeringly small in my opinion. If you're going to allow any number of other historical figures to be rolled into the story at any particular point, then it has a reasonable chance.

However, all we could possible find out is what the gospel authors intended to write about, either a historical figure or complete fiction. They couldn't know whether they were actually writing about a real person, even if they intended to, as they had no first hand sources. They had no way of knowing how many other people had crept into the stories at various points, hence my extreme scepticism about "pure hearsay" preserving one single character.

Currently I'm considering that "Jesus the real human" was not the original intent of the story, either.

[pocaracas]

Can't remember if I already wrote here.

No, there wasn't, because Jesus was not a name at that time.

What? Jesus is a Latinized version of Yeshua, a name that did exist in abundance, at the time.

From the wiki:
""
Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע), also having the variants Joshua or Jeshua.
""

In between his tirades against the believers, Minimalist does give us some proper history and this is one piece that he taught me. The name existed... it has been translated, as many names were back then.
There are many examples of other proper names that got translated in order to sound proper in the other language:
- Lisboa (PT) => Lisbon (UK) => Lissabon (DE)
- London (UK) => Londres (PT)
- Berlin (DE) => Berlim (PT)
- Roma (IT) => Rome (UK)
- Stuttgart (DE) => Stoccarda(IT) => Estugarda (PT)

- Petros (GR) => Pierre (FR) => Peter (UK) => Pedro (PT) <~~~ Bar Yona(Hebrew) (what the?! how does that stone analogy work?)

[houseofcantor]

See Lady. So many skeptics take the blue pill to stay on the comfort of their denial.

What are you even on about? 

I've gone back and forth in my stupid brain over this issue a few times. I think it's an aspect of intelligence to never be comfortable with certainty. Historicity doesn't matter unless you're a historian. Scientology clearly demonstrates that lunacy and lies function adequately for religious foundation.

[robvalue]

Pocoras: yes, Jesus "originates from" other names, but it is not the name anyone had at the time. If he was called "Yeshua" then he was not called "Jesus". My name is Robert, regardless of what anyone else may refer to me as in another language.

My point is, what percentage of Christians think his actual name was "Jesus" and not "Yeshua"? 99%?

[GrandizerII]

Pocoras: yes, Jesus "originates from" other names, but it is not the name anyone had at the time. If he was called "Yeshua" then he was not called "Jesus". My name is Robert, regardless of what anyone else may refer to me as in another language.

My point is, what percentage of Christians think his actual name was "Jesus" and not "Yeshua"? 99%?

Depends on one's cultural background. 99% of Christians are not all English-speaking people.

[pocaracas]

Pocoras:

It's a running gag, by now, isn't it?

yes, Jesus "originates from" other names, but it is not the name anyone had at the time. If he was called "Yeshua" then he was not called "Jesus". My name is Robert, regardless of what anyone else may refer to me as in another language.

My point is, what percentage of Christians think his actual name was "Jesus" and not "Yeshua"? 99%?

All those who got the name from Latin/Greek may think it's Jesus... but what does that matter?

[Anomalocaris]

There was many of them. All of them were nuts.

Not necessarily.   Indeed Jesus was a common name. THe ones who died unremebered because they were humble enough not to try to deceive a bunch of  yokels into believing they were a God who fucked his own mother to give himself birth were not necessarily insane.

So there were probably thousands of respectable Jesuses whose names are all forever besmirched by one insane maglomanical "christ".

[Edwardo Piet]

Christ always sounded sanctimonious to me.

[Mister Agenda]

Dear Gawd. You've opened the wormiest of all cans. You'd have better luck getting us to agree on vertical vs horizontal rock crushers. (Horizontal, if memory serves)

Not trying to get anyone to agree on anything. Just curious to know the answer.

I think there probably was such a person (though not literally named Jesus), but I estimate the odds on the low end, like 55% yes, 45% no. I think he probably said some portion of the quotes attributed to him, was a former follower of John the Baptist who split off and got his own following, and did wind up executed by the Romans for his seditious teachings. I don't think there's much more you can say about him that reaches 55% likely.

[robvalue]

Pocoras:

It's a running gag, by now, isn't it?

yes, Jesus "originates from" other names, but it is not the name anyone had at the time. If he was called "Yeshua" then he was not called "Jesus". My name is Robert, regardless of what anyone else may refer to me as in another language.

My point is, what percentage of Christians think his actual name was "Jesus" and not "Yeshua"? 99%?

All those who got the name from Latin/Greek may think it's Jesus... but what does that matter?

It doesn't matter, really. It's just that when all Christians can establish is the guy's name, and that isn't even accurate, they really got nothing.