Actually bob++, the “problem”, as was answered already in the first few posts, is that the question starts from a false premise. Hispanics aren’t the only ones using Jesus as a firstname.
But Nava, I think the question framed thusly “why don’t English speakers name their sons Jesus” is legit and quite interesting?
Of course, Levon named his son Jesus, but it’s a rare exception. 
Afterthought: I know two English speaking families that named their sons Tarzan, and that doesn’t seem as weird to me as it would if they’d named them 'Jesus.
The assistant manager where I work is a Mexican Jesus.
There are millions of Christophers and Christines, names that slide off the Jesus radar like water off a duck’s back.
I wonder — are there are any Jesus Christophers?
“You don’t fuck with the Jesus.”
…The Big Lebowski
Does anyone know how “Chuy” became a nickname for Jesus?
It is reasonable to limit the case to Indo-European language speaking Christians, and to the precise name “Jesus”, or some nearly identical variant, perhaps e.g. “Jesu”. (No Joshuas, Christophers, etc.)
That reasonable question has not been answered, except IIRC one member who suggested that English speakers would consider it sacrilegious to give someone the name. I would not mind seeing this elaborated upon, and I would also like to see suggestions for languages other than English.
When I was pregnant, my father, being a big baseball fan, wanted us to name the baby Je-'sus. (Sp pronunciation). And we were like, Dad, two white/Anglo/cauc lesbians can’t call their son Jesus. (Eng pronunciation)
When is it bad to hear “Jesus loves you”?
When you’re in a Mexican prison.
Different from “why are Hispanics the only ones who name their sons Jesus”, though.
Cristo Jesús… again not the original question and you aren’t so much moving the goals as going from footie to baseball. Christopher is not a synonim of Jesus and Joshua is often understood as having a different background, but Emmanuel is from the Annunciation - it refers to Christ. Does Hristo count? It is used by Indo-European language speaking Christians. Are you now going to decide that it must be limited to non-Orthodox ones, or perhaps to those whose language uses variations of the Latin alphabet?
Yes, precisely my point. I wish I could have another son–I think I *would *now name him Jesus. But pronounced as in Spanish. Though I don’t understand myself on this–I couldn’t do the Eng Jesus. It’s just entirely too weird.
(Footie?) I am really at a loss as to why my question should upset anyone.
I am also at a loss as to how anyone could misunderstand this: "the precise name “Jesus”, or some nearly identical variant, perhaps e.g. “Jesu.”
No.
I am at a loss at how can anybody bring up Christopher as a variant of Jesus, myself… it’s the second time in a few weeks, too, but I don’t remember if the other one was you as well.
I guess I’m puzzled by the suggestion that Joshua is the equivalent of Jesus among English-speakers, when no English-speaker refers to the man at the root of this question as “Joshua Christ.” Regardless of the roots of the name Joshua, English-speakers uniformly regard it as something wholly different from Jesus, and I strongly suspect that no English-speakers who name their son Joshua think they are naming him after the Son of God.
This thread is many years old, of course, but I took the OP clearly to be asking why English-speakers essentially never give to children the same name that they apply to Christianity’s Son of God, while at least some Spanish-speaking cultures appear to do so. And I agree with those who say that this question has not really been answered.
As for the use of Issa in Arabic cultures, is it common among Arabic Christians?
The actual answer is “custom”, but for some reason that is a problem with Americans.
For some reason, Americans have a problem with that specific name. Not with Manuel, or Santiago, same as when it comes to female names you keep banging on Dolores (at least lately you’ve learned to spell it) but have no issue with Pilar or Guadalupe. Many cultures in which Jesus is not particularly common have no issue with it being common in others, but you guys do. Versions of this question keep cropping up in these forums. Why? And why not with Manuel or Hristo, if the problem is one of taking the Lord’s name in vain as many of you like to claim?
If you’re at a loss as to how the Christ in Christopher and the Christ in Christine relates to the Christ in Christ, there’s not much left to be said, is there?
No, that wasn’t me (to save you the trouble of looking for yourself), but if your attention has been brought twice to the trinity of Christ, Christ and Christ, perhaps you should stop the forlorn struggle in suggesting the Christ in Christopher and Christine refers merely to Jesus’s title, so it has nothing to do with Christ.
Emmanuel, Christ and Jesus are all names for the same guy; Joshua is also a name for that same guy (spelling will vary for all four, depending on language and alphabet).
Christopher is not.
Do you understand the difference?
My first post in this thread was to illustrate the invisibility of a popular name’s meaning to the culture popularizing it — water off a duck’s back. You’re proving my point.
Jesus. Christopher.
I don’t understand the whole argument here. Yes, most Christian cultures interpret the *“you shall not take the Lord’s name in vain” *thing as indicative that they shouldn’t name kids with the popular form of the name “Jesus”. Other cultures, particularly the Hispanic ones, just ignore that, much like every culture ignores the parts of their religions they don’t feel like paying attention to.
Here in northern Spain is a bit of an old-fashioned name nowadays. If I ever met an under-60 Jesús I’d assume there’s a good chance the guy is Roma, where the name is still prevalent.
One of my great-grandmothers was called Jesusa, but that version is non-existent now.
Women called Jesús (usually a María de Jesús in disguise) are more common than men, at least in Perú.
Men called Jesús as a first name are extremely few here.
Nava is right in saying that it’s simply a case where the name, uncommon as it is, stuck into some sort of collective mind in the US, especially since protestants seem to have avoided the name completely.
But the OP is still valid, though. It’s not, apparently, as common a name in other Catholilc countries.