I will just say you may be correct, and thats all on that. But thats how you percieve it! To me that just doesn't seem right.

I feel if someone is to exist there should be more in recorded history than just one book with amazing tales.


I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you on this, you percieve things differentely than i do.

Be well,

Recorded history or a fairy tale are both creations of imaginaton. When I say that Jesus exists I mean anything we think exists and that there is no difference between what we think or see.



But we both percieve and the percieving of what you call "physical" and "mental" is done by the same mind and within the same mind.

If I must be classified then so be it....but I call myself a NB....or an EX-Christian my good friend

No one else caught this?

Iams if that is true then what do you call Archaeology and what does it do?

BNW, what you are saying violates the principles of logic. The Law of Identity simply states that A is A, in other words reality (whatever the users of the language have decided that word means) is reality. The Law of Excluded Middle asserts that something is either A or nonA, but not both. Therefore, reality cannot be imagination. Reality is reality and imagination is by definition something other than reality. Reality does not require the mind's awareness to exist, imagination does not exist outside of the mind.

Okay, So how did we get to were we are today if science wasn't a part of history?

That is unless you are talking before civilized man! When science was non-existant.

"History is not a science though, so there is no way to use history to prove or disprove something."
Wait, wait, wait.
As someone with a history degree, I have to say that is one of the most abysmally ignorant statements I have ever read.
Of course history can be used to prove or disprove things.
Let's say for example that we want to know if a certain English lord really existed, or was just legend.
Where do we go? Well, the historical records of course. We check official documents, local legends, even architecture and carvings in stone or wood. We find numerous sources from right around the lord's lifetime saying he lived here and died at this time, so we have to conclude he existed.
His existence is proven through history.
And if the record is silent on him, his existence isn't disproven, but the likelihood of it drops through the bottom of the world since someone of importance would be mentioned in many sources.

You of all people should know that with God anything is possible. Who is to say what is logical and not anyways? You cant prove that reality exists without the mind's awareness because it only exists insofar as we are aware of it. How can you prove otherwise????????? Science has shown that the brain interprets reality within the cortexes hence outside is infact inside the brain. The brain is also viewed inside itself which may be something else because we only get the brain's translation and what it is before the brain interprets it can not be found out.

But all this is all known only because of AWARENESS, AWARENESS,AWARENESS. Without awareness how can we know knowledge or a world?? It is the Fundamental of all reality. Consciousness or awareness at it's most abstract level is God or Christ consciousness.



Everything is an expression of infinite consciousness or God.

Back to the original argument. Yes you have ignored the context. Verse one dispells your take on the following verses. It is clear that Christ is seated in the heavenlies, therefore he is not on earth. Only someone who takes subject matter out of context or has a second grade reading education could possibly think the writer of Hebrews is saying Jesus was never on the Earth. Give me a break!

I did not say that science was not part of history, I said history is not a science. Science by definition uses the scientific method to prove or disprove hypothesis. Since we cannot repeat or observe historical events, we cannot prove them. We can find evidence to support one thesis or another, but we cannot prove or disprove a historical event.


Sorry, NHN, history cannot prove or disprove anything, it can provide evidence for an event/person or provide evidence that an event/person did not take place/exist. History is not a science.

Actually, BNW, all sensical things are possible with God, nonsensical things like square circles or rocks so big God can't lift, or reality and imagination being the same thing are nonsense, and God does not deal in nonsense.

re·al·i·ty (rē-ăl'ĭ-tē)
n., pl. -ties.

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

i·mag·i·na·tion (ĭ-măj'ə-nā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.
2. The mental image so formed.
3. The ability or tendency to form such images.
2. The ability to confront and deal with reality by using the creative power of the mind; resourcefulness: handled the problems with great imagination.
3. A traditional or widely held belief or opinion.
4. Archaic.
1. An unrealistic idea or notion; a fancy.
2. A plan or scheme.

The definitions of reality and imagination as accepted clearly indicate that any belief that states reality and imagination are the same violates the very basis of rational thought. You can obviously believe what you want BNW.

LMAO. By providing enough concrete evidence of something you prove it. Hence history does prove or refute things. Both history and science can do this, the methods are simply different.
History builds a case, much like a legal case through hard physical evidence and more peripheral circumstantial evidence, to prove or refute people, places and events. History is a mutable subject, the more we learn the more the explanations it provides change.
Science takes an idea, a hypothesis, and tries to either prove or disprove it through hard evidence and more peripheral, circumstantial evidence. Science is a mutable subject, the more we learn the more the explanations it provides change.
They do the same thing only dealing with different areas.
History deals with more abstract concepts in some cases (people, motivations, complicated events), things that cannot be observed in a lab while science, I am assuming you mean a physical science here, since history by definition is a social science, deals with concrete reality.
Of course history can prove or disprove.
If someone insisted, and I have actually heard this, that Stonehenge is a modern monument, you could take that person to Stonehenge, show them the ancient artifacts, the legends written about it through the history of England, any number of things to prove that Stonehenge is ancient.
Why this stubborn insistence that history is not a science when in fact, and by definition, it is?
Could it be that there isn't that much of a historical record outside the dubiousness of the Bible, for Jesus and thus the importance of history in studying and understanding the world must be downplayed?
I think so.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT A LAME EXPLANATION! Objective reality that is fact is only fact in a subjective mind. The objective world is thought in the brain and the brain is a thought in awareness. What you think and what you see are both mental images. Hahahahaha

BNW, you should really consider the fact that you think rational thinking is lame.

Sorry, I looked at several definitions on various books and sites, and none define history as a science, they define it as a branch of study, but not science.

And on who's authority is rational thinking considered rational?

You are correct, history is not a science, I have searched this myself! But science has helped us better understand history.

Rational thinking would be all this having reason or understanding! Some of us do not percieve things/think on th same level you do.

You are talking about things on a metaphysical level, and not everyone agree's with this philosophy.

Hence rationality is relative. Since it is relative how can we say that one person's rationality is more superior to another's? What do we use a bench mark for rationality in an infinite multi-levelled universe? Both are equally valid and correct in their own inert system.

Well, let's see, why do we have to differentiate between rational and irrational thinking?

Because man is capable of both.

Why is man capable of having both rational and irrational thoughts?

Because the Creator gave man the ability to think.

Therefore, the authority on rational and irrational thinking is ultimately the Creator.

"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.
(Isaiah 1:18a)

One only exists insofar as the other. They arnt opp0sites but one mutual relationship. Where one is the other is present. The other only stands out in contrast or can be known insofar as the other is known. So they are in fact different ends of the same rope. Both different ways of looking at rationality or irrationality. They are one and the same.



Simple because one only manifests insofar as the other.



This is true. However there are many MANY ways of thinking. Not just one rigid unbreakable preconceived notion that rules the universe. If with God anything is possible then all possible systems of logic whether rational or irrational can previal in the universe.



It doesnt actually explain what kind of reasoning here. It just says let us reason together. What I consider reason may not be reason to you. What stalin considered logic or reason is different to what Gandhi thought of it. What Buddha considered reason is different to what christian fundamentalists consider reason to be.

You need to elaborate more in your argument because what you say leaves room open for really open far feteched possibilities which me and you cant comprehend.

HAHAHAHA So when jesus said "...with God anything is possible." He only meant that sensible things that fit within the limited man's capacity for reason is possible. Jesus should have simply said "With God many things are possible" or he should have said "With God anything is possible but that doesnt mean you an fill your head with so many whacky things and ideas" or jesus should have said "With God the sensible things he can do are endless".

I love your interpretation of "....with God anything is possible." :

Actually, BNW, all sensical things are possible with God, nonsensical things like square circles or rocks so big God can't lift, or reality and imagination being the same thing are nonsense, and God does not deal in nonsense.

You make God sound like a conservative politician.

It is really not spiritual at all but still created for me LOADS OF GOOD LAUGHS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE CREATIVE!@! SO THANK YOU. What is classic is that you used a dictonary as a reference to what reality is! HAHAHAHAHA Mate, if jesus did exist he'd be laughing his cloud socks off right now. But hey he wouldnt hold a grudge because I believe jesus had and still does have an awesome sense of humor and besides he aways forgives.

I bet right now he is doing all kinds of practical jokes on God in Heaven and God would be all like : Hahaha that is my beautiful boy! Just gotta love my son jesus and if you dont then YOU'LL BURN IN HELL!@!@!@!.

Then with a smug look on his face God would be thinking: Mate I am good! I am the man! No wait im more than man, I am God! Wow it feels so great to remind myself of that. I wish judgement day would hurry up and come because Im so bored in heaven with like only one hundred people in heaven, I mean surely the bible doesnt contradict itself that much does it? Surely it isnt hard for the people to follow all the rules at all times.The bible was inspired by ME I TELL YOU! BY ME, GOD!@! SO IT IS FUC*&^% PERFECT! I MEAN HOW DARE THEY SAY THE BIBLE IS BORING!@! THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL JUST TO RECIEVE A BOOK INSPIRED BY ME, THEIR CREATOR AND MASTER! satan is evil and he gets all the souls in his hell. So much excitment goes on there because they all think satan is "cool". Oh well if the people think endless scripture study in heaven is boring with me then that is their problem not mine!@! And just to think that I will be signing bibles in heaven. . . . . . These mortals really dont know what they are missing out on *sigh*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I love you Iamson. And God bless your beautiful soul.

Heres a "biased" source on Earl Doherty.....Not my opinions on the man but here is the link

http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyreply.html

You're hilarious BNW, but then irrational thinkers usually are!

Here is a small except from a book to show you how irrational I am!

"To exist is to stand out, away from the background,' The Preacher said. ' You arn't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgement of your existence.'

---From the Book Children of Dune by Frank Herbert. If I have to risk all my conventional conditioning to get a small glimpse of the truth than let me please be insane! Oh'God please take my reason and knowledge and give me pure love!@!@! Love IS SPONTANEOUS AND NEVER COMES ACROSS AS SANE!@!@!@! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT IS SANE IN A CHAOTIC UNIVERSE OF ALL POSSIBILITY? HONESTLY IN ALL HUMILITY HOW CAN I BELIEVE THERE AN ABSOLUTE LOGIC????? THE MYSTICS UTTER TRUTHS THAT YOU MUST BE MAD TO UNDERSTAND!

To your mind I am mad.
To my mind, you are all sane.
So I pray to increase my madness
And to increase your sanity.
My 'madness' is from the power of Love;
Your sanity is from the strength of unawareness.

---A Sufi

You know what is crazy? Jesus walking on water and fasting for forty days in the desert to overcome his ego. But hey I agree it happened because in my universe which your universe ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Nothing cant exist.

It's a branch all right.
A branch of the social sciences.
Not too hard to grasp. Science is not just labs and empirical evidence. It is people, their behaviors and their history, too.

Read it and rebute it, or point out how it is biased and what is incorrect in it. At least make effort instead of admitting to not even reading it.

Good point.

Actually, the majority of historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, consider the historicity of Jesus to be valid.





Sorry, NHN, history cannot prove or disprove anything, it can provide evidence for an event/person or provide evidence that an event/person did not take place/exist. History is not a science.[/quote]
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

You seem to be contradicting yourself here .or are you "cherry picking "the bits that help and discarding the bits that don't .Why are you in a debate on "D id Jesus exist ,If history can't prove anything, what are you talking about .Are you making it up as you go along without consulting any Historical sources?
I agree that we can't prove Jesus existed but it is because there is no Historical evidence to support it

regards fullywired

That was sarcasm.

First, like SLL pointed out, this was sarcasm. Second, it was sarcasm pointed at all those who look at a link and as soon as they see the website is a Christian website say, "I'm not going to waste my time reading that, it's in a Christian website, so it's obviously biased," and in saying so, show their bias.


Notice I did not say, history proved Jesus existed--if it did then there would be no argument to be had here--I said historians consider Jesus's existence to be validly supported by history, there's a HUGE difference between considering something valid and proving something is so.

It looks to the reader as if you are using the word "consider " to suggest belief ,it is a sweeping statement and I do not accept that a "majority " of historians subscribe to that idea .We have been down this road before when speaking of proof ,You are talking of NT proof and I of historical proof and" never the twain shall meet"


fullywired

I am using consider as a word defined thus:

con·sid·er (kən-sĭd'ər)

v., -ered, -er·ing, -ers.

v.tr.

1. To think carefully about.
2. To think or deem to be; regard as. See Usage Note at as1.
3. To form an opinion about; judge: considers waste to be criminal.
4. To take into account; bear in mind: Her success is not surprising if you consider her excellent training.
5. To show consideration for: failed to consider the feelings of others.
6. To esteem; regard.
7. To look at thoughtfully.

That is what consider means. I am not just talking about Christian historians, but yes, they consider the books of the NT to be valid historical documents, that's not what I say, that is what historians say.

This may surprise you but I have a dictionary.it's this( To think or deem to be)implies belief and I contend that is what it looked to imply to me.Any historian that views the NT as a valid historical document is unworthy of the title Historian

Heard it all before a 1000 times. The Jews view much of the OT as history. We have other writing such as Josephus and Philo, but the nay sayers discredit those as well. Yet I was taught via a modern day history book that Columbus discovered America. HMMMM! I was never taught about Jamestown but rather about the Pilgrims and the Mayflower who are creditied with being the settlers of America. Even modern day history needs to be examined for accuracy. I see the writers of the NT having as much credible historical facts as any other, because they were eye witnesses of the accounts given whereas even Josephus was not. But credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

And your professional credentials that would render this as a significant judgment are?

irrational is to believe the existance of jesus based on a book filled with contradictions.

irrational is to ignore the 'gods , saviours and messiahs' that came before jesus and did the same miracles . feats , lived the same life in alot of respects , even rising from the dead and raising the dead. and being born of a virgin. yet to think jesus was unique or the story of jesus not based on previous tales.

irrational that no other account outside of the bible , no historic document records jesus. those that have have been proven forgeries.

in and of itself belief and faith are not rational. since there is nothing in way of proof to back up a belief in god. nothing but
a feeling.

I'm not familiar with any of those other Messiahs...could you list them for me so I can do some research on them? Thanks.

Nice rant, but since I was discussing the difference between rational and irrational thinking and never mentioned Jesus or the Bible, it really does not have anything to do with the discussion I was having.

Additionally, since you're just unwilling to accept what actual historians accept, the irrational thought here is that you would consider yourself an authority that can dismiss those who are actually considered knowledgeable on the subject.

the jews may view the OT as history , and some history is found , but some claimed history isn't reality .

josephus and philo both have been regarded as false. information inserted at a latter date to make it seem plausable.

the NT was not written by anyone who knew jesus personally , nor even during the time during.

First off it is becoming increasing more certain that Jesus was not an historical person. As far as known, the oldest such "god sending son to die and resurrect" myth is the Osiris-Horus myth of the ancient Egyptians. This myth was brought to ancient Greece by Pythagorus who adapted the greek god Dionysius to the role of dying god-man, and this myth was exported to virtually all the ancient mediterannean cultures who adapted one of their own local gods to the leading role (Mithras in Persia, Bacchus in Rome, Attis in turkey). Jesus is the jewish adaptation of this timeless myth, probably first "written" by Greek speaking (and greek assimilated) Alexandrian jews around 10 B.C. As the Jews were monotheastic, they adapted the "messiah" figure in their mythology to the role of dying god-man. The key to the myth is understanding that humans are a mixture of divine immortal spirit and mortal flesh, and that we must struggle to overcome the earthly desires of our flesh and resurrect ourselves to the spirit (or christ) that lives within us. As the great Gnostic sage St. Paul says to the Corinthians "don't you know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells within you?" The resurrection is a symbol for our ability to conquer our earthly desires and wake up to the Christ/spirit within us. The Eurachrist is a symbol of the fact that within each of us lives a fragment of divine spirit (god if you will). For Thaphatum - The story of Jesus riding a donkey into jerusalem (or Horus riding a goat) symbolizes the inner spirits mastery over our earthly natures, the same with the stories of Horus and Jesus walking on water...these symbolizes the divine power within each of us to calm and conquer the strong power of the elements in our lower animal nature. These are powerful myths and symbols that were practised throughout the ancient world for thousands of years before Christ.

The problem is that around 150 A.D. the Christ story started to become believed as actual history...a process which was solidified by Constatatine the Great in 325 when the catholic religion became the religion of Empire. After that.....the Catholic Taliban newly installed in power destroyed the old pagan society...including all their literary works, libraries, etc. to cover up the existance of earlier mystery religions.

It is us who are responsible for our own salvation, our own recognition and bringing-forth of the divine spirt (or christ) within each one of us. Don't believe that all you have to do is believe in a mythological miracle worker from long ago. Believe in the myths (messages, teachings), not in the messengers (horus, Dionysuis, Bacchus, Adonis, Attis, Jesus, et al.)

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/jesusmyth.html

reread your history. you don't understand the term 'America'.

America isn't just the United States. America is every land mass on this side of the globe minus the poles.

north south and central America. We are the United States of America. we are not all of America. Canada is in America .they just don't use the term America. Just like Mexico doesn't. Most don't.Brazil is in South America. get it now ?

so yes Columbus founded America ( he was not the first here however - the vikings were ( some say the egyptians were)

list some of those historians who aren't christian. who don't have a slant. you state a majority of historians accept jesus existed well I'd like to read as to why they do and not from a christian site or christian collage. how about a run of the mill average non partisan philosophy, archeology, historian ? why are they willing to accept something without proof?

plenty of 'historical' figures both myth and real have loads of sources for them. Did plato exist ? the myth of Mirtha ?

yet outside the bible there is no proof of jesus.

could it be possible that jesus is a myth created to cement a new belief system together ? is that at all possible to you?

from THE WORLD'S CRUCIFIED SAVIOURS

There is no Christian teaching which has not been anticipated by other teachers long previous to the era of Christ. Especially does the story of a crucified. Saviour appear in all histories or legends of great [Page 16] religions. Of these [This list of Saviours is from the “World’s Sixteen Crucified Savioursâ€�, by Kersey Graves, from which many of the authorities mentioned are quoted] we have historical accounts, allusions, or legends, of Chrishna, [The Hindu Pantheon] of India, 1200 years B.C. Sakia, [Progress of Religious Ideas] of Hindustan, 600 years B.C.; Thammuz, [Ctesias, quoted in Anacalypsis] of Syria, 1100 B.C.; Wittoba, [Anacalypsis] the Telingonese, 552 B.C. ; Iao, [Georgius] of Nepaul, 622 B.C.; Hesus, [Anacalypsis] of Great Britain, 834 B.C.; Quexalcote, [Mexican Antiquities] of Mexico, 587 B.C.; Quirinus, [Higgins-Anacalypsis] of Rome, 506 B.C.; Prometheus, [Seneca and Hesiod ] of Greece, 547 B.C.; Thulis, [Wilkison] of Egypt, 1700 B.C. Indra, of Thibet,[Georgius] 725 B.C.; Alcestos, [Anacalypsis] of Greece, 600 B.C.; Atys. [Anacalypsis] of Phrygia, 1170 B.C.; Crite [Anacalypsis] of Chaldea, 1200 B.C.; Bali, [Anacalypsis] of Orissa, 725 B.C.; Mithra. [Faber and Bryant] of Persia, 600 B.C.; Salvahana, of Bermuda; Osirus, of Egypt; Horus, of Egypt; Odin, of Scandinavia; Zoroaster, of Persia; Baal, of Phoenicia; Taut, of Phoenicia; Bali, of Afghanistan; Xamolxis, of Thrace; Zoar, of the Bonzes; Adad, of Assyria; Deva Tat, of Siam; Alcides, of Thebes; Mikado, of the Sintoos ; Beddru, of Japan; Thor, of the Gauls; Cadmus, of Greece; Hil and Feta, of the Mandaites; Gentaut, of Mexico; with several others, of lesser note.

http://www.theosophical.ca/WordlsCrucifiedSaviorsJAA.html

an old paper but relevant. there are plenty more newer out there. I wanted a neutral site.

Hey, LT, even wikipedia talks about this, so, it's not some sort of hidden knowledge:

SOURCE

Here's more from Wikipedia LINK

Not sure if this is a *GASP* Christian site or not, but the information seems straight forward LINK

On par with yours


fullywired

I have admitted to not being a historian, which is why I rely on them, so basically...

8 of the 15 sources are obviously christian. very leaning. only one can be other identified as jewish . the rest unknown. the so called 'facts' of history may be nothing more than cherry picked to fit. the fact remains there is no concrete proof Jesus ever existed. And for a character who caused so much grief to the rabbi's and for Rome it would be impossible for a record of him not to exist on multiple levels.

as well as your last link is by Bede's Library a apologist

a·pol·o·gist (É™-pÅ�l'É™-jÄ­st) Pronunciation Key
n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

not exactly neutral huh ?

from your source of wikipedia -

in discussions -

Pervasive problem with sources?
It seems like the only sources for Jesus's historicity is from Christians. Isn't this a bit... unreliable? It seems like the entire article makes it seem like he is definitely a historical figure, but without any external evidence for it, isn't that rather questionable? 129.59.52.135 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC

But the real problem here is this:

"The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstruction" (these are the first sentences btw.)

But all over the article it clearly states that scholars of the historical Jesus only use the bible. Really. The birthplaces is based on the bible, the year of birth, status, family, and as far as I see, every nook and cranny of his life. There is little to none other-than-the-bible-sources. Which kind of renders the line I quoted obsolete.


they even use Josephus as a source. a source now known to be bunk.

Did you read the article?

Did you notice that not all the historians named were believers?

Hey, you know what LT, if you choose to remain ignorant that's your choice.

who are you kidding? check out the home page:
Welcome to Bede's Library - reasonable apologetics and other matters

you knew, right?

you are the one remaining ignorant to keep a fantasy in place. 8 out of 15 were christian. 1 was jewish. the others are not listed but I'm willing to bet christian.

that is not neutral. and they are using the bible to prove thier points. where outside of the bible , other than known sources that have been proven false like josephus ect .. , is there concrete proof?

The idea that there was a real historical Jesus has thus become entrenched in Christian society and Jews living in the Christian world have come to blindly accept this belief because they have never seen it seriously challenged.

Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains that there is no historical Jesus. In order to understand what is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact--the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, however, there is no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.

If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew word neitzer, which means a shoot or sprout--an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu.

We know very little about Yeishu ha-Notzri. All modern works that mention him are based on information taken from the Tosefta and the Baraitas - writings made at the same time as the Mishna but not contained in it. Because the historical information concerning Yeishu is so damaging to Christianity, most Christian authors (and even some Jewish ones) have tried to discredit this information and have invented many ingenious arguments to explain it away.


http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html