Does it really matter…

[Crow]

A most excellent post Stevil.

Indeed.

[edit] Same goes for all the other posts I have enjoyed reading them.

[Sweetdeath]

Stevil's post makes A LOT of sense. I've said 'Jeebus' plenty if times, and   Xstians look at you like you're a monster for 'mocking the lord.'

[AnimatedDirt]

Shakespeare wrote "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...", but Christianity does not accept this philosophy, for Christians the name "Jesus" is more important than the man. You must believe in the name, you must believe that this name represents your path from sin, your path to heaven.

Not so much.  I would disagree.  The name is only powerful in that we believe He is the son of God.  However one can probably invoke His blessings under another name as long as you refer to that "name" being the son of God and His redemptive work.  The name really does nothing in and of itself.  It's who that name refers to specifically that has the "power". 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Stevil's post makes A LOT of sense. I've said 'Jeebus' plenty if times, and   Xstians look at you like you're a monster for 'mocking the lord.'

I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

[Sandra Craft]

Stevil's post makes A LOT of sense. I've said 'Jeebus' plenty if times, and   Xstians look at you like you're a monster for 'mocking the lord.'

I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

I think that question answers itself, Bruce.  SD already answered it in the post you quoted.

[Dobermonster]

Stevil's post makes A LOT of sense. I've said 'Jeebus' plenty if times, and   Xstians look at you like you're a monster for 'mocking the lord.'

I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

Thus spake Homer the Simpson: "Jeebus! HELP ME JEEBUUUUS!"

Selah.

[Stevil]

Not so much.  I would disagree.  The name is only powerful in that we believe He is the son of God.  However one can probably invoke His blessings under another name as long as you refer to that "name" being the son of God and His redemptive work.  The name really does nothing in and of itself.  It's who that name refers to specifically that has the "power". 

But that makes no sense.

AD, you have never met the god's son. You wouldn't know what he looks like, what he sounds like. You don't know his personality. What is it that you are praising if it is not a name?

Are you praising the legend story of a character called "Jesus"?
You have read some stories about a person whom you don't know ever existed, written by people who themselves had only heard of the legend. You have read that he was put to death and then there were a few alleged sightings and then no more sightings.

If "Jesus" could not offer you eternal life, would you praise him?

[Asmodean]

I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

I don't. I may, for instance, mildly mock another Alex by calling him(/her) axle, or a Leif by calling him loff (pronounced luf, means white bread)

[Tank]

Not so much.  I would disagree.  The name is only powerful in that we believe He is the son of God.  However one can probably invoke His blessings under another name as long as you refer to that "name" being the son of God and His redemptive work.  The name really does nothing in and of itself.  It's who that name refers to specifically that has the "power". 

But that makes no sense.

AD, you have never met the god's son. You wouldn't know what he looks like, what he sounds like. You don't know his personality. What is it that you are praising if it is not a name?

Are you praising the legend story of a character called "Jesus"?
You have read some stories about a person whom you don't know ever existed, written by people who themselves had only heard of the legend. You have read that he was put to death and then there were a few alleged sightings and then no more sightings.

If "Jesus" could not offer you eternal life, would you praise him?

I think that any name is simply a symbolic place holder for an object or concept. All language is symbolic. If one writes Jesus or Jebus or Joshua bar Joseph we all know that the reference is to a person some consider to be the Son of God. It's the name (word) that is irrelevant, the concept it symbolises is the important part. Christians don't worship a name, they worship a concept that historically has become symbolised by the name Jesus.

[Stevil]

I think that any name is simply a symbolic place holder for an object or concept. All language is symbolic. If one writes Jesus or Jebus or Joshua bar Joseph we all know that the reference is to a person some consider to be the Son of God. It's the name (word) that is irrelevant, the concept it symbolises is the important part. Christians don't worship a name, they worship a concept that historically has become symbolised by the name Jesus.

But they don't know the person. The name does not represent the person to them.

If you asked me if I like Sir Edmond Hilary, I would say that his claim to fame was that he was (along with sherper Tinsing) the first person to climb Mt Everest.
That he used his popularity to encourage NZ children into sports, that he used his popularity to do good things for some people in India. I would say that my perception is that he was a great example of a humanist and that he input much benefit into the world.

However I would also have to say that I didn't know Sir Ed, that his private life is a mystery and that it is quite likely that the real man was quite different from my perception of the man behind the name. What Sir Edmond Hilary is to me is simply a name which represents a public image, a persona and that I actually don't know who Sir Edmond Hilary the man actual is.

I think the same thing applies to Jesus. The worshippers don't know the man. They worship a name and a persona, not the man. But to be on topic with this thread, could a Christian be a Christian without the worship of the Jesus name and the Jesus persona? I think the answer is no.

[Tank]

I think that any name is simply a symbolic place holder for an object or concept. All language is symbolic. If one writes Jesus or Jebus or Joshua bar Joseph we all know that the reference is to a person some consider to be the Son of God. It's the name (word) that is irrelevant, the concept it symbolises is the important part. Christians don't worship a name, they worship a concept that historically has become symbolised by the name Jesus.

But they don't know the person. The name does not represent the person to them.

If you asked me if I like Sir Edmond Hilary, I would say that his claim to fame was that he was (along with sherper Tinsing) the first person to climb Mt Everest.
That he used his popularity to encourage NZ children into sports, that he used his popularity to do good things for some people in India. I would say that my perception is that he was a great example of a humanist and that he input much benefit into the world.

However I would also have to say that I didn't know Sir Ed, that his private life is a mystery and that it is quite likely that the real man was quite different from my perception of the man behind the name. What Sir Edmond Hilary is to me is simply a name which represents a public image, a persona and that I actually don't know who Sir Edmond Hilary the man actual is.

I think the same thing applies to Jesus. The worshippers don't know the man. They worship a name and a persona, not the man. But to be on topic with this thread, could a Christian be a Christian without the worship of the Jesus name and the Jesus persona? I think the answer is no.

You have added persona to the mix. I would agree that they worship the idea/persona/concept of a Son of God, who just happens not to be called (insert any name you like here) but is currently called by some Christians Jesus. The persona is what's the important part, what that persona is called in irrelevant. The word Jesus could be Asmo. As long as the person speaking/writing the word is using the same meaning as the person listening/reading then communication has succeeded.

Take your example of Sir Edmund Hilary. If I asked "Who first climbed Mnt Everest?" and you replied "Sir Edmund Hilary." I would now know you thought a person (probably male given the name) had climbed Mnt Everest. If somebody then asked me "Who first climbed Mnt Everest?" I would say (because I trust you to not guess something you didn't know), "Sir Edmund Hilary." In this case we have a real person who is documented to have claimed to have climbed Mnt Everest, who we trust to be honest, his statement is verified by another person, who we also trust to be honest. We have a photograph of the alleged event. We have evidence in written form of ledgers and diaries of other people that Sir Edmund was on Mnt Everest at the time he claims to have climbed it. But suppose we didn't know the name of the person who climbed Mnt Everest. By some fluke we knew everything about the event but the name. We use a place holder 'That bloke from NZ'. That one change makes no difference to the action that was carried out. Mnt Everest was climbed, by "That bloke from NZ.'

Linguistically if a Christian says 'I believe that we have been saved by the son of god' or 'I believe that we have been saved by Jesus' they are saying the same thing where 'son of god' = Jesus. The word/name Jesus is simply the linguistic convention used by Christians to refer to the man who they believe was the son of god.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

I don't. I may, for instance, mildly mock another Alex by calling him(/her) axle, or a Leif by calling him loff (pronounced luf, means white bread)

At least you are consistent.

[AnimatedDirt]

Not so much.  I would disagree.  The name is only powerful in that we believe He is the son of God.  However one can probably invoke His blessings under another name as long as you refer to that "name" being the son of God and His redemptive work.  The name really does nothing in and of itself.  It's who that name refers to specifically that has the "power". 

But that makes no sense.

AD, you have never met the god's son. You wouldn't know what he looks like, what he sounds like. You don't know his personality. What is it that you are praising if it is not a name?

Are you praising the legend story of a character called "Jesus"?
You have read some stories about a person whom you don't know ever existed, written by people who themselves had only heard of the legend. You have read that he was put to death and then there were a few alleged sightings and then no more sightings.

If "Jesus" could not offer you eternal life, would you praise him?

I think Tank is making the point well. 

[Crow]

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

[AnimatedDirt]

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.