On a typical Church Service, shouts of " In the name of jesus", in the mighty name of jesus",fill the ear. In fact, the name of Jesus is revered so much that nearly all christians believe in the supernatural powers of blessing and protection whenever the name is shouted.

Every christian knows by heart the story of the conception, birth and childhood of jesus. Therefore, for a very important historical figure, the tiny( or large) issue of what his mother and father named and called him should never ever be a source of much speculation or controversy.
Yet in this case, it is.

We read that Jesus is an anglicised version of iosous, which itself, is a hellenized verson of Yeshua, which is an abbreviated form of the name Yaheshua, which is also the same as Joshua, the yet again, anglicised version of Yeshu, which is synonyimous with Yeshua.

Is it just me or does this really seem like a tangled webb?

Translation, retranslation,transliteration etc., What does all that matter?
Shouldn't the only thing that matter be whatever real name and pronunciation that his dear mummy and pappy bestowed on him?
It was certainly not Jesus.
So, What is that name?
Is it Joshua, Yeshua, Yaheshua, Yeshu,iosous , Issa or Abinadab?

It would be hard to believe that the son of god incarnated to earth with an identity crisis. He would most likely have had a specially chosen name that would resonate both his grace and power.
So, again, I ask, what is that name and why is that name not in use today?

Why would an anglicised tranaslation of a Greek variant ,not even a translation , of a Hebrew name, be prefferable to the original name chose and given to him by his divinely inspired parents?
Who made that decision?

For christians, I ask, where is the power in the name if the name is wrong? Is there still power in the name if we decide to call him Chukwuemeka(God is salvation) or Shango or Orkija?

Christ by any other name is still christ?

And by the way, didn't Issiah prophesy that the messiah shall be called Immanuel?
So what happened? Why wasn't he named Immanuel?

And lastly,why in christianity, is it very common for self-selected group of men to arbitrarily edit, rewrite, rephrase and rename what is supposedly the inerrant(without error) words of an omnipotent god?

Jesus could send all these christians to hell for calling him Jesus.

"Guys! my name is Yeshua"

Logicboy03: Jesus could send all these christians to hell for calling him Jesus.

"Guys! my name is Yeshua"

Yeah,If he was the true son of his father.

plaetton:
Yeah,If he was the true son of his father.

Or a son of himself.....Jesus is God

plaetton: On a typical Church Service, shouts of " In the name of jesus", in the mighty name of jesus",fill the ear. In fact, the name of Jesus is revered so much that nearly all christians believe in the supernatural powers of blessing and protection whenever the name is shouted.

Every christian knows by heart the story of the conception, birth and childhood of jesus. Therefore, for a very important historical figure, the tiny( or large) issue of what his mother and father named and called him should never ever be a source of much speculation or controversy.
Yet in this case, it is.

We read that Jesus is an anglicised version of iosous, which itself, is a hellenized verson of Yeshua, which is an abbreviated form of the name Yaheshua, which is also the same as Joshua, the yet again, anglicised version of Yeshu, which is synonyimous with Yeshua.

Is it just me or does this really seem like a tangled webb?

Translation, retranslation,transliteration etc., What does all that matter?
Shouldn't the only thing that matter be whatever real name and pronunciation that his dear mummy and pappy bestowed on him?
[size=18pt]It was certainly not Jesus.[/size]
So, What is that name?
Is it Joshua, Yeshua, Yaheshua, Yeshu,iosous , Issa or Abinadab?

It would be hard to believe that the son of god incarnated to earth with an identity crisis. He would most likely have had a specially chosen name that would resonate both his grace and power.
So, again, I ask, what is that name and why is that name not in use today?

Why would an anglicised tranaslation of a Greek variant ,not even a translation , of a Hebrew name, be prefferable to the original name chose and given to him by his divinely inspired parents?
Who made that decision?

For christians, I ask, where is the power in the name if the name is wrong? Is there still power in the name if we decide to call him Chukwuemeka(God is salvation) or Shango or Orkija?

Christ by any other name is still christ?

And by the way, didn't Issiah prophesy that the messiah shall be called Immanuel?
So what happened? Why wasn't he named Immanuel?

And lastly,why in christianity, is it very common for self-selected group of men to arbitrarily edit, rewrite, rephrase and rename what is supposedly the inerrant(without error) words of an omnipotent god?

so what was the name? Provide concrete evidence.

I mean surely you have a good idea what you are talking about... all that rigmarolle just to arrive at your own preconceived notion based on a warped agenda...

I wonder if the christians has been trained to tremble at the name of our Heavenly Father Zeus or name our Lord and Saviour Almighty Cassava Stick.

I am sure those names (or any other name) will still have the same effect it does on them now.

davidylan:

so what was the name? Provide concrete evidence.

I mean surely you have a good idea what you are talking about... all that rigmarolle just to arrive at your own preconceived notion based on a warped agenda...

Here you come again.
Typical knee-jerk reaction from insecurity.
Asking me to prove what with what concrete evidence?

The question, in case you did not comprehend, is, What is the real given name of your lord and saviour, and why is that real holy name ignored in favour of the supposedly anglicised, translated hellenized variant?
That is a very very valid question worthy of discussion among christians and non-christians.

This discussion is for mature adults, and not for immature and insecure children. So,You dont have to start feeling insecure already. If you have something positive and intelligent to add, pls lets hear it, otherwise, just sit pack and learn what others might have to say, whether you agree with them or not.

plaetton:

Here you come again.
Typical knee-jerk reaction from insecurity.
Asking me to prove what with what concrete evidence?

The question, in case you did not comprehend, is, What is the real given name of your lord and saviour, and why is that real holy name ignored in favour of the supposedly anglicised, translated hellenized variant?
That is a very very valid question worthy of discussion among christians and non-christians.

This discussion is for mature adults, and not for immature and insecure children. So,You dont have to start feeling insecure already. If you have something positive and intelligent to add, pls lets hear it, otherwise, just sit pack and learn what others might have to say, whether you agree with them or not.

Again you ignore substance to chase shadows. You claim above that Christ was given a completely different name, implying that you know the REAL NAME he was given when born... well what is this name and pls provide concrete evidence of your claims.

What is the problem in the question?

davidylan:

Again you ignore substance to chase shadows. You claim above that Christ was given a completely different name, implying that you know the REAL NAME he was given when born... well what is this name and pls provide concrete evidence of your claims.

What is the problem in the question?

I am really bewildered . Are you for real?.
Implying?
I said the real name is certainly not Jesus-simply because any slightly educated adult knows that the name Jesus is an improvised anglicised version of another name. Is that not a fact? Are you learning this for the first time?

You are the one who is sidestepping the real issue and the real question posed by my thread, to jump at what I may be implying and attacking my motives.
Again, how shallow can one be?

For the records, I did not open this thread to prove anything, nor am I claiming to know any real name.
Since you are pretending to be an elementary school child, let me help you a bit.

The name "Jesus" has been constantly rammed and hammered into our consciousness from our infancy. We have accepted that name to be special,holy and powerful. Now, later in our adult life, we learn or read(on our own or by chance) that Jesus is the anglicised version of the real name. This comes as a shock to us. The first question that comes into the mind of any person with a brain is: why the anglicised version? Why not the original name, no matter how it is pronounced in Hebrew. After, all, if God wanted an english name,am quite sure your lord and saviours would have been born in England and named William English.

If you have never asked that question in your mind, then perhaps you are not as intelligent as you think.
So, davidylan, this thread is not about me ,my implications or my motives.

Its about a simple question from the mind of a curious human being, who for most of his childhood and adolescent life, was made to invoke and revere this anglicised name" Jesus".

I have the right to feel like I had been hoodwinked into worshipping a false name.

But lets get back into the topic.
What was the real name? Yeshu, Yeshua, Yaheshua, Joshua, iesous,Issa, Immanuel, or it does not matter?
If there is power in a the name, in which of these possible names would the power reside?

And also, I ask again, who decided,who overides the scriptures of god to decide which among these names is better for general use, and why?

^^^^^

Cowardly defender of the absurd.
You ran away.
He he he.

Anyone else care to try?

^^^ Its not a worthy thread Plaetton. God is worshipped in spirit. As such, when one mentions a name its the inner idea of the person one evisages that counts. If truly Jesus is God or the son of God (you know I believe neither) it would be irrelevant what human name he is called by - particularly if it is the same given name but merely translated or transliterated. The difference would be as pedantic as that between Yahweh and Jehovah and between Eli and Allah, or Cephas and Peter.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Its not a worthy thread Plaetton. God is worshipped in spirit. As such, when one mentions a name its the inner idea of the person one evisages that counts. If truly Jesus is God or the son of God (you know I believe neither) it would be irrelevant what human name he is called by - particularly if it is the same given name but merely translated or transliterated. The difference would be as pedantic as that between Yahweh and Jehovah and between Eli and Allah, or Cephas and Peter.

I don't disagree with you.

But how many times how you heard the phrase " there is power in the name in the name of Jesus"?
If you know anything about ancient Hebrew Mysticism, you would know that words and names are not just letters but also numbers, and that each word or name is an almalgam of letters, special numbers and special vowels. Therefore a holy name is not just a group of letters but a special combination that is supposed to ignite certain energies and passions when invoked.

The name of the Ancient hebrew deity was so sacred that only the high priest was allowed utter it only once at a special time, on a special day, once a year, inside the holy of holies.

Therefore, a son of a hebrew deity would most certainly have a name whose unique configuration of letters, numbers and vowels, would manifest the power and glory of an omni omni deity.

Therefore, if and when the letters of that name is altered(something that would be equivalent to blasphemy), the numerical as well as the energy configuration of that name would also change.

So my question is: In which name or variants of his original name would the power reside, in the case of Jesus?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Its not a worthy thread Plaetton. God is worshipped in spirit. As such, when one mentions a name its the inner idea of the person one evisages that counts. If truly Jesus is God or the son of God (you know I believe neither) it would be irrelevant what human name he is called by - particularly if it is the same given name but merely translated or transliterated. The difference would be as pedantic as that between Yahweh and Jehovah and between Eli and Allah, or Cephas and Peter.

On further reflections on the bolded, I recognise one of the contradictions of religious belief.
In other words,Yahweh is Yahweh, no matter what you call him, as long as you are imagining an old bearded white man sitting in the white clouds.

Jesus is Jesus, no matter what you call him, so long as you envision a white man with blond golden hair and blue eyes, wearing immaculate white robes.

So, in your own words, its all about the inner idea that counts. Right?

Would you agree then, that god is a creation of the inner mind?

@plaetton,

For somebody who writes so well and with the knowledge on display here(I can assume with certainty that you have at least a bachelors degree. I even believe you studied further), you failed woefully in the most important aspect and purpose of any school system: Critical thinking.

My question for you is this: Since when does difference in dialect, language or accent change the meaning of the object in question? How does "ologbo"(yoruba) and "nwologbo"(igbo) nullify the fact that both words refer to a cat. Likewise for "okwuta"(yoruba) and "okwute"(igbo) for a rock. How about "imu"(yoruba) and "imi"(igbo) for nose. Ok, try "eti"(yoruba) and "nti"(igbo) for ear. What learned person does not know that "Nikola", "Nicolas", "Nicolay" all mean the same thing and the variation indicates different languages or dialects or accents? So how can you begin to reason that "jesus", "yeshua","yeshu", "yaheshua", "yoshua", etc do not represent the same object or do not communicate the same meaning? The differences in the names simply indicate differences in location or era or dialect. These are very fundamental variations of communication, corresponding to diverging societies. Again I emphasize fundamental, so you can understand my amazement that you cannot grasp this concept, to the extent that you are confused(implied by your questions).

I hope you'd excuse my words if they come across as a verbal assault(It had to be done..). Perhaps you need to go back to secondary school...

I don't know if I get the op right. But I have this to say . The power is in the revelation of who Jesus is. Not rhe pronouciation of the name or spelling. Several people do bear the name JESUS and it is pronounced differently by the races.

It's your understanding of this particular Jesus by revelation knowledge that counts. This particular Jesus , his name has been confered with power. So if a man calls on the name with the understanding of this particular Jesus .

Heaven responds to that name

cyrexx: I wonder if the christians has been trained to tremble at the name of our Heavenly Father Zeus or name our Lord and Saviour Almighty Cassava Stick.

I am sure those names (or any other name) will still have the same effect it does on them now.

can this cassava stick give me salvation, can zeus offer me paradise. I need somethingvother than the xtians god.

okeyxyz: @plaetton,

For somebody who writes so well and with the knowledge on display here(I can assume with certainty that you have at least a bachelors degree. I even believe you studied further), you failed woefully in the most important aspect and purpose of any school system: Critical thinking.

My question for you is this: Since when does difference in dialect, language or accent change the meaning of the object in question? How does "ologbo"(yoruba) and "nwologbo"(igbo) nullify the fact that both words refer to a cat. Likewise for "okwuta"(yoruba) and "okwute"(igbo) for a rock. How about "imu"(yoruba) and "imi"(igbo) for nose. Ok, try "eti"(yoruba) and "nti"(igbo) for ear. What learned person does not know that "Nikola", "Nicolas", "Nicolay" all mean the same thing and the variation indicates different languages or dialects or accents? So how can you begin to reason that "jesus", "yeshua","yeshu", "yaheshua", "yoshua", etc do not represent the same object or do not communicate the same meaning? The differences in the names simply indicate differences in location or era or dialect. These are very fundamental variations of communication, corresponding to diverging societies. Again I emphasize fundamental, so you can understand my amazement that you cannot grasp this concept, to the extent that you are confused(implied by your questions).

I hope you'd excuse my words if they come across as a verbal assault(It had to be done..). Perhaps you need to go back to secondary school...

Thank you.
I get your point, and yes, I have a good understanding of how languages and dialects evolve. Infact, studying the evolution of languages is the most reliable method of retracing history.

However, the point I have been trying to make here, which you have missed, is the fact we are not talking about an object here, as in your examples. We are not talking about an ordinary word, nor an ordinary name.
Here ,we are talking about the devine name of the son of the omni omni God.

Let me repeat again, in Hebrew Mysticism, names, apart from having certain unique vowels inserted, also have numerical values. So if you change the letter A to E in a name, you have altered the numerical value of that name, and, in the case of holy names, you would have altered the latent energy configuration of that name. Such an act would have constituted the highest blasphemy, punishable by instant death.

Infact, to insure the spiritual integrity of their holy scriptures, every line of every page of every scroll had a numerical number equalling the sum of the numerical values of all the the words. This was done to prevent word substitutions, embellishments and forgery.
By painstakingly applying this technique in the study of ancient hebrew scriptures, it becomes easy to discover which parts of the ancient scriptures had been altered or edited.

Back to the issue, my point is that when it comes to issues of holy names, the phrase " a rose by any other name is still a rose" does not apply.

If there is power in the name of the son of god, as there should be, it would have to be in the special configuration of letters, vowels and their numerical values.
Only therein would the Real Power reside and resonate.

Joagbaje: I don't know if I get the op right. But I have this to say . The power is in the revelation of who Jesus is. Not rhe pronouciation of the name or spelling. Several people do bear the name JESUS and it is pronounced differently by the races.

It's your understanding of this particular Jesus by revelation knowledge that counts. This particular Jesus , his name has been confered with power. So if a man calls on the name with the understanding of this particular Jesus .

Heaven responds to that name

Good points.

But If I decide to use the name of my village oracle to refer to Jesus, are saying that it make no difference as long as I have the right jesus in mind?
Rather shouting " In the mighty name of Jesus" in church, you decide to shout " In the mighty name of Orkija Juju", would that be okay as long as you visualise the right Jesus(obviously a white man in flowing white robe)?

plaetton:

Thank you.
I get your point, and yes, I have a good understanding of how languages and dialects evolve. Infact, studying the evolution of languages is the most reliable method of retracing history.

However, the point I have been trying to make here, which you have missed, is the fact we are not talking about an object here, as in your examples. We are not talking about an ordinary word, nor an ordinary name.
Here ,we are talking about the devine name of the son of the omni omni God.

Let me repeat again, in Hebrew Mysticism, names, apart from having certain unique vowels inserted, also have numerical values. So if you change the letter A to E in a name, you have altered the numerical value of that name, and, in the case of holy names, you would have altered the latent energy configuration of that name. Such an act would have constituted the highest blasphemy, punishable by instant death.

Infact, to insure the spiritual integrity of their holy scriptures, every line of every page of every scroll had a numerical number equalling the sum of the numerical values of all the the words. This was done to prevent word substitutions, embellishments and forgery.
By painstakingly applying this technique in the study of ancient hebrew scriptures, it becomes easy to discover which parts of the ancient scriptures had been altered or edited.

Back to the issue, my point is that when it comes to issues of holy names, the phrase " a rose by any other name is still a rose" does not apply.

If there is power in the name of the son of god, as there should be, it would have to be in the special configuration of letters, vowels and their numerical values.
Only therein would the Real Power reside and resonate.

plaetton:

I don't disagree with you.

But how many times how you heard the phrase " there is power in the name in the name of Jesus"?
If you know anything about ancient Hebrew Mysticism, you would know that words and names are not just letters but also numbers, and that each word or name is an almalgam of letters, special numbers and special vowels. Therefore a holy name is not just a group of letters but a special combination that is supposed to ignite certain energies and passions when invoked.

The name of the Ancient hebrew deity was so sacred that only the high priest was allowed utter it only once at a special time, on a special day, once a year, inside the holy of holies.

Therefore, a son of a hebrew deity would most certainly have a name whose unique configuration of letters, numbers and vowels, would manifest the power and glory of an omni omni deity.

Therefore, if and when the letters of that name is altered(something that would be equivalent to blasphemy), the numerical as well as the energy configuration of that name would also change.

So my question is: In which name or variants of his original name would the power reside, in the case of Jesus?

Has it occurred to you that those same numbers, signs, symbols and powers could be contained in the translated words in different forms?

Yes, it has occured to me. But is most unlikely, and for many reasons.

Most translations and editings were done for reasons other than the need to recognise and preserving the numerical and spiritual integrity of the scriptures. Most times, they were done for political or doctrinal expediency.

^^^^^^
The best example of this is music and song.
Choose your favourite Yoruba song. By singing the words, you are stretching the vowels and adding numerical character to the words. By so doing, you are adding a unique essence and power to the words.
Now, translate the words of the song it into english, and then sing it again.
How does it sound now?

Through translation, you have lost the musical character and essence By changing the words. Remember that music has a numerical component.

The scriptures(original hebrew) were written in the form of musical masterpieces. Once you change a letter or a word, the music goes off beat and becomes nothing but noise.

plaetton:
However, the point I have been trying to make here, which you have missed, is the fact we are not talking about an object here, as in your examples. We are not talking about an ordinary word, nor an ordinary name.
Here ,we are talking about the devine name of the son of the omni omni God.

Let me repeat again, in Hebrew Mysticism, names, apart from having certain unique vowels inserted, also have numerical values. So if you change the letter A to E in a name, you have altered the numerical value of that name, and, in the case of holy names, you would have altered the latent energy configuration of that name. Such an act would have constituted the highest blasphemy, punishable by instant death.

Infact, to insure the spiritual integrity of their holy scriptures, every line of every page of every scroll had a numerical number equalling the sum of the numerical values of all the the words. This was done to prevent word substitutions, embellishments and forgery.
By painstakingly applying this technique in the study of ancient hebrew scriptures, it becomes easy to discover which parts of the ancient scriptures had been altered or edited.[/b]

Back to the issue, my point is that when it comes to issues of holy names, the phrase " a rose by any other name is still a rose" does not apply.

If there is power in the name of the son of god, as there should be, it would have to be in the special configuration of letters, vowels and their numerical values.
Only therein would the Real Power reside and resonate.

Your fundamental errors are highlight in the above. The only relationship between christianity and Judaism\Hebrew-mysticism is ancestry. No more, no less. They don't have the same values-systems, they don't have the same doctrines, don't have the same interpretation of scripture. Christianity regards Judaism\Hebrew-mysticism as "shadows" while Judaism regards christianity as blasphemy. So you are utterly misled when you try to validate christian values from a Jewish point of view(else, you could as well try to validate Islam using the same system). Their numerology\gematria is just not important in christianity.

plaetton:

Good points.

But If I decide to use the name of my village oracle to refer to Jesus, are saying that it make no difference as long as I have the right jesus in mind?
Rather shouting " In the mighty name of Jesus" in church, you decide to shout " In the mighty name of Orkija Juju", would that be okay as long as you visualise the right Jesus(obviously a white man in flowing white robe)?

Why would you call okija juju.. it has no relevance to jess . besides you aleady know what okija stands for.

okeyxyz:

Your fundamental errors are highlight in the above. The only relationship between christianity and Judaism\Hebrew-mysticism is ancestry. No more, no less. They don't have the same values-systems, they don't have the same doctrines, don't have the same interpretation of scripture. Christianity regards Judaism\Hebrew-mysticism as "shadows" while Judaism regards christianity as blasphemy. So you are utterly misled when you try to validate christian values from a Jewish point of view(else, you could as well try to validate Islam using the same system). Their numerology\gematria is just not important in christianity.

You are flawed. Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, died a Jew, and never renounced his judaic heritage. He was not a Christian, nor was he the founder.
Paul, the founder of Christianity, neither met nor even quotes Jesus in his doctrines.
You may despise your parents, but you cannot divorce your dna.
Your statements above demonstrates the disconnect between the Judaic and Christian concepts of divinity.
Which is also why i have asserted that yahweh is not the Christian god.

plaetton:
You are flawed. Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, died a Jew, and never renounced his judaic heritage. He was not a Christian, nor was he the founder.

Yes!! correct. But again, your error and that of millions\billions(both christians and non-christians) is to assume that christian doctrine claims the opposite of the bolded. I did not make a mistake when I said christian and Jewish values are divergent. Christian doctrine says precisely the same things you have written above. People have simply assumed wrongly(just as you do) that christian living must be according to how Jesus lived during his lifetime. His lifetime did not found christianity but his death(And the significance of this death & resurrection) did. Paul emphasizes this when he wrote:

16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come(2 Corinthians 5:16-17).

So the fact that most people do not understand the message and principles of christianity does not change the message itself nor the existence of it.

Paul, the founder of Christianity, neither met nor even quotes Jesus in his doctrines.
You may despise your parents, but you cannot divorce your dna.
Your statements above demonstrates the disconnect between the Judaic and Christian concepts of divinity.
Which is also why i have asserted that yahweh is not the Christian god.

So You agree with me that both religions don't share the same values? SO why do you seek to validate christianity through a jewish system?

Bobbz there is Power in the Name of Jesus oooh . I remember when I was still squatting with buddies in a BQ and robbers attacked the main house. they came to each room one by one but left the one that had the woman screaming JEEESUS BLOOOOD of JEEESSUSSSSSS!!! she kept at it until they left, saved our lives. in fact she kept praying and interjecting with JESSSSUSSSS! BLLOOOOOOOOOOOD OF JESSSSSUUSSSSS!!! until dawn

lagerwhenindoubt: Bobbz there is Power in the Name of Jesus oooh . I remember when I was still squatting with buddies in a BQ and robbers attacked the main house. they came to each room one by one but left the one that had the woman screaming JEEESUS BLOOOOD of JEEESSUSSSSSS!!! she kept at it until they left, saved our lives. in fact she kept praying and interjecting with JESSSSUSSSS! BLLOOOOOOOOOOOD OF JESSSSSUUSSSSS!!! until dawn

Obviously the thieves themselves were superstitious.

plaetton:

Obviously the thieves themselves were superstitious.

Agreed.

okeyxyz:

Yes!! correct. But again, your error and that of millions\billions(both christians and non-christians) is to assume that christian doctrine claims the opposite of the bolded. I did not make a mistake when I said christian and Jewish values are divergent. Christian doctrine says precisely the same things you have written above. People have simply assumed wrongly(just as you do) that christian living must be according to how Jesus lived during his lifetime. His lifetime did not found christianity but his death(And the significance of this death & resurrection) did. Paul emphasizes this when he wrote:

16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come(2 Corinthians 5:16-17).

So the fact that most people do not understand the message and principles of christianity does not change the message itself nor the existence of it.




So You agree with me that both religions don't share the same values? SO why do you seek to validate christianity through a jewish system?

So why do you and other christians quote OT and OT prophets when it suites you?

plaetton:
So why do you and other christians quote OT and OT prophets when it suites you?

Because both Judaism and christianity share a common ancestory but the interpretations of this history are different. Refer to my second post. I don't need to repeat the same words here.

@ plaetton:

You are asking intelligent questions. Only someone with a deep thought process can appreciate that.

@plaetton

I think you have watched too many films and read too many books where the focus of the magic lay in chants and spells. The name of Jesus is neither a chant nor is it a spell. The magic or juju we are used to seeing in movies and books is a complicated process that involves putting together all the elements that you mentioned. The power in the name of Jesus does not follow this process. The process required is much simpler but yet will elude the wise of this world for it requires the foolishness of faith to work. I will point you to Acts 19:13-17 where some people try to use the "magic" of the name of Jesus. They failed. You seem to be toeing the same line with them. Unless and until you believe in Him, you will not see the name work for you.

I know that for you the problem with faith is that it is not a scientifically verifiable process nor can it be measured accurately but I tell you that for us who believe the name of Jesus is salvation and has been a pillar of strength in time of need.