if Christians knew that "Jesus" isn't the real name of him, then why they keep repeat it?
463020
actually in Hebrew Abraham is pronounced Avraham \n\nMoses is Moshe \n\nJacob is Yacov\n\nIssac is Yitzach\n\nthose are the simple ones
745518
There is only  one (1) GOD and he goes by  many different names . Couldn't Jesus be the same person as Mohammed ?
616497
His real name was Joshua or Yeshua. That's what all the people who knew him probably would have called him. But when the various writers of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) decided to write about him, they wrote in what was the most internatiionally used language in their region in those days (Greek) so that as many people as possible would be able to understand their "Good News". So in their writing they translated his name to the nearest Greek equivalent (Jesus).  The way his name is rendered into a langauge is not important. The meaning of his name (Savior) is.
950882
There is plenty of historical evidence that there was a real man named Jesus that did and said the things that are recorded in the New Testament.  Some people choose to dismiss him as  a myth because it easier then to have to deal with who He was and what He taught.  Basically, you either believe He is who He claimed to be - The Son of God - or you don't.  And if you choose not to believe, you have to justify why you don't believe.  Embracing the "myth theory" is one way to justify ones unbelief.  But if you seriously study the evidence, I think you will see that it is a flimsy argument with no historical support.  Most of the people on here that claim Jesus is a myth have never examined the evidence one way or the other.  Most of them just heard someone else say it was so and they latched on to it as a way of dismissing the whole story.  At least in their own mind.
796073
christians : hellooooooo !\nit is obvious this question cannot be answer with your stupid " it is in the bible " ....duh !\nthe question is about records, like the ones the city make? got it now christians?\nsomething that recorded anything about his existance at the time he existed.\nis there anything?\nnothing?\nhow convinient .....\n\nthere were no birth certificates back then, but there was a census ?\nthere were no death certificates back then, but there was a trial where he was sentenced to death ?\n\nhowcome ,christians, there is nothing about this jesus guy?
402199
Jesus doesn't have a Mexican name. Jesus (hey-sus) is just how it's pronounced in Spanish.
1185485
consider:  virtually NO information appears in historical textx that can verify the existence of Jesus.  \n\nConsider: Most of the items in the Bible that can be examined for their historical accuracy, including the importance of Jerusalem in the ancient world, have been found, through archaeology, to be false, or gross exagerations.
939916
Intersting that the only reference cited outside the bible is Josefus, who never mentioned Jesus. Any reference to Jesus in his writing was added 1000 years later by other 'christians 'trying to strengthen their arguement.\n\nGreenleaf may have decided that the story was real but I don't believe that it would stand up in court. It would be interesting to look at his background.
408028
Jesus is a Roman name.  Jesus never had a known Hebrew name, which seems very strange for a person that was supposed to be Jewish and G-d!\n\nSome people try and take his name and create a Jewish name for him, like Yeshua, but this is innacurate and a fraud.  You can't work backwards!
982221
There is no ( or at the very least, precious little) evidence of a person called Jesus outside of the bible.  Xians will say Josephus mentioned him, but in fact, the only translation we have of Josephus was done by a christian writer in the 4th century...we don't have it in the original Latin.  And what is mentioned is very weak and open to interpretation and very likely was subject to interpolation.\n\nThe Romans were meticulous record keepers.  If Jesus existed, and had fostered the kind of revolution that would get their attention by threatening Roman rule, performing miracles, there would be copious writings about him from the Romans, and other sources.\n\nPaul the Apostle is agreeably the earliest christian writer, and he wrote probably a couple decades after the putative events.  Yet Paul makes no reference to a recently living Christ...and if you read his works separate from the rest of the NT, he seems to be writing of a supernatural creature who fought a battle, died and rose again in a spiritual realm, eons ago.  Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and yet he makes no mention of a pilgramage to Golgotha, or the tomb or any sites that would be shrines to a real person recently living, crucified and risen again ascending into heaven. Paul is bizarrely disinterested in anything relating to a real physical Jesus.\n\nAll other accounts, were written much later.  The earliest Gospel of Mark (by the way, it wasn't written by anybody called Mark, it is anonymous) couldn't have been written any earlier than 40-50 years after the events.  The Gospels all contradict each other as to Jesus life, miracles and death.  I recommend any of Randall Helms books on the New Testament and Gospels for a detailed overview of the problems.\n\nIt really is quite interesting if you are prepared to have an open mind about it.  Jesus, if he existed, was at best a wandering prophet/holyman/philospher.  We have lots of legendary heroes with stories about them, like King Arthur, William Tell...but we know they never actually existed.  I think it more likely he never actually existed, and was created as a "founding father" in the heroic tradition by the early church.
446566
good question , they know something about him just not enough to love him people hear about jesus and yet not belivie in him. lets just pray for all that one day they all will have a ear to hear of his goodness
1117272
How can true prophets and false ones be identified?\n\nTrue prophets make known their faith in Jesus, but more is required than claiming to preach in his name\n\n1 John 4:1-3: “Test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. You gain the knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.”\n\nTrue prophets speak in the name of God, but merely claiming to represent him is not enough.\nJesus said: “I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things.” (John 8:28) He said: “I have come in the name of my Father.” (John 5:43) Jesus also said: “He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory.”—John 7:18.\n\nIf any individuals or organizations claim to represent God but decline to use God’s personal name, and make it a practice to express their own opinions on matters, are they measuring up to this important qualification of a true prophet?\n\nAbility to perform “great signs,” or “miracles,” is not necessarily proof of a true prophet\n\nMatt. 24:24: “False Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs [“miracles,” TEV] and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.”\nWhat true prophets foretell comes to pass, but they may not understand just when or how it will be\n\nDan. 12:9: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end.”\n\nThe pronouncements of a true prophet promote true worship and are in harmony with God’s revealed will\n\nTrue prophets and the false can be recognized by the fruitage manifest in their lives and the lives of those who follow them\n\nMatt. 7:15-20: “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. . . . Every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit . . . Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.”\n\nIt was not necessary to wait perhaps for years or generations to determine whether the prophet was true or false by fulfillment of a prediction. If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false. Thus, a prophet who foretold peace for Israel or Judah, at a time when the people were engaging in disobedience to God’s Word and Law, of necessity was false.\n\nThe true prophet never foretold simply to satisfy human curiosity. Every prediction related to God’s will, purpose, standards, or judgment. (1Ki 11:29-39; Isa 7:3-9) Often the future events foretold were the consequence of existing conditions; as the people sowed, so they would reap. The false prophets lulled the people and their leaders with soothing assurances that, despite their unrighteous course, God was still with them to protect and prosper them.
965682
Only if your name is Jesus.
1186318
Jesus is included in other historical documents than just the Bible.  I personally have read about Him in Josephus.  And yes, He is the Christ.  How many people do you know of that would die for a lie?  ALL of the disciples except one died for saying that Jesus is the Christ.
760637
I have yet to meet a non-Christian (besides obvious trouble-stirrers who are just saying things for shock value) who doesn't acknowledge Jesus as a good teacher and example of humankind--even those who don't believe he existed. A story can have just as much power as the truth, and in many cases, far more.
356551
Living or Dead? Well never mind, it would still be Jesus, because he is still alive in millions of people hearts. I am not preaching religion, but its just a fact. More people have heard about Jesus than anyone else.
366019
Tradition.  The translation from the original Greek to Latin and then to English came up with "Jesus."  Even the newer translations which go back to the oldest preserved texts still seem to use the name, even when the translators know better.\nHow do expect this to change if you have to tell millions of worshipers that they have been mispronouncing the name for centuries?  They will always come up with some lame excuse to explain their own ignorance about the topic.