Jesus a 400 year old name

[kai]

9 10ths This is getting funny so in hong kong Mcdonald is called Mcdonald What was your point? Oh that ronald and Donald Funny that is why I don't come on hear to often it gets funny.

thats a classic

 

[lilithu]

Names are NOT translated to other languages they are transliterated. The sound of the name is spelt in the other language as it sounds with the others letters that make the same sound.

My name is in the original Alexandros, and Spainish Alejandro, would you like it in Chineese? It still means leader of men.

If your Chinese name is transliterated and not translated as you claim it has to be, then no, it doesn't still mean leader of men.

 

[ChristineES]

I would think that if anyone believed that Jesus existed but didn't believe He was the Son of God would think that He was crazy. Even C. S. Lewis once said (not an exact quote) that either Jesus is or was the Son of God or was crazy.

 

[Smoke]

I would think that if anyone believed that Jesus existed but didn't believe He was the Son of God would think that He was crazy. Even C. S. Lewis once said (not an exact quote) that either Jesus is or was the Son of God or was crazy.

Assuming you believe the canonical gospels to be historically accurate, which is so unlikely that you have to be a Christian to believe it. In fact, we could sit here all day listing Christian scholars who don't believe it. And in fact, we could list Christians from Arians to Jehovah's Witnesses who have believed in the Bible and still weren't convinced that Jesus ever claimed to be God. Also, "Son of God" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody; in fact, the phrase "sons of God" is used in more than one sense within the Bible.

Lewis' argument has been summed up as "Lord, liar, or lunatic." The argument is highly overrated by Evangelicals, though. You have to be convinced already to find it convincing.

 

[lilithu]

I would think that if anyone believed that Jesus existed but didn't believe He was the Son of God would think that He was crazy. Even C. S. Lewis once said (not an exact quote) that either Jesus is or was the Son of God or was crazy.

Or... Jesus didn't actually say everything that the writers of the gospels had him say. The only thing that's problematic is John, and that was written late.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would think that if anyone believed that Jesus existed but didn't believe He was the Son of God would think that He was crazy. Even C. S. Lewis once said (not an exact quote) that either Jesus is or was the Son of God or was crazy.

Or his story was blown completely out of proportion to the man himself.

Of course, this assumes a historical Jesus existed at all, which I put at pretty long odds myself.

 

[sojourner]

I have it on good authority that a man existed, who went about healing people and preaching good news. Many believed in him and followed him. a religious spin-off of Judaism was begun on the foundation of his teaching.

But his real name was Clancey.

 

[logician]

Or his story was blown completely out of proportion to the man himself.

Of course, this assumes a historical Jesus existed at all, which I put at pretty long odds myself.

The problem here, of course, is to define exactly what a "historical Jesus" means. There were a number of men named JEsus who lived in Jerusalem around A.D. 30, but historically nobody writes about a Jesus that remotely fits the description of the biblical Jesus. This subject could go on at length, but Freke and Gandy's 2 books "The Jesus Mysteries:, and "The Laughing Jesus" as well as a number of internet sites, discuss this problem at length.

 

[nawab]

Jesus is just a translation of the hebrew word Isa, so Isa is the King of Jews this topic is so random and basically well understood

 

[crystalonyx]

The problem here, of course, is to define exactly what a "historical Jesus" means. There were a number of men named JEsus who lived in Jerusalem around A.D. 30, but historically nobody writes about a Jesus that remotely fits the description of the biblical Jesus. This subject could go on at length, but Freke and Gandy's 2 books "The Jesus Mysteries:, and "The Laughing Jesus" as well as a number of internet sites, discuss this problem at length.

The whole problem of the historicity of Jesus is it's a house of cards based upon hearsay stacked upon hearsay. It really all boils down to the fact that we're supposed to take the gospels as some kind of stand-alone proof of the existence of Jesus. The problem is, they are proof of nothing, just stories created from previous religious mythology - insert your preferred name here.

 

[sojourner]

The whole problem of the historicity of Jesus is it's a house of cards based upon hearsay stacked upon hearsay. It really all boils down to the fact that we're supposed to take the gospels as some kind of stand-alone proof of the existence of Jesus. The problem is, they are proof of nothing, just stories created from previous religious mythology - insert your preferred name here.

Your assessment of the gospels' essence is quite mistaken. The writer of Luke makes it quite clear that it's an historical account. History books are often wrong in some (or many) of their "facts." What's important in the gospels is not the facts, per se, but the Geschichte -- the story, with its attendant emotional impact and cultural understandings.