jayriginal:

I want his "christian" take on the issue of Jephthah's daughter.

yeah, that would be interesting to see.

Goshen360:

I have been reading you from behind and at this stage on the above attempt of Gen. 1:1-2, You are defending "heresy". There is nothing like the earth "became" rather "was" DESCRIBING the initial creation how it was created. If it "became", you are indirectly saying God first created, it was ruined by the devil and later again, God re-created or re-formed or re-made the earth again only for God to destroy the earth after the fall of Adam in the time of Noah and then start all over again. This theory is against our faith and you are not spread this kind of heresy please.

Am sorry to interrupt but if it does explain it, you can start another thread to this effect. As a matter of fact, I had refuted this gap theory in the past. It is actually a pretext and man made theory.

@Goshen and Delafruita

Gen.1:28- And god blessed them, and god said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth.

Re-plenish: definition: To make full again or to complete again or to restock again.

This suggests that there were others prior to Adam and adam's job was to re-plenish or re-populate the earth.
What do you think?

plaetton:

@Goshen and Delafruita

Gen.1:28- And god blessed them, and god said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth.

Re-plenish: definition: To make full again or to complete again or to restock again.

This suggests that there were others prior to Adam and adam's job was to re-plenish or re-populate the earth.
What do you think?

Let me give honour to whom honour is due. The OP had said he will only be Christian in just 36 hours and wanted to answer questions because Christians are not doing well in answering questions. I can answer your question, on Gen 1:1-2, on light and day/if there was no sun how can there be day etc but will rather leave or wait for the OP to do this since he wanted to answer questions in favour of Christians not doing the job well.

Second. I don't won't to derail his thread. So let's wait for him to do his job and let's see how far he will do the job. I only responded because of Gen. 1:1-2 when he said the earth "became" rather than "was" without form and void, Gen. 1:2. I can give you a detailed breakdown line-by-line on Genesis 1.

I hope you understand. We can start another thread on this Genesis 1 issue after the OP's 36hours or we continue here after his stipulated time. Okay.

Goshen360:

I have been reading you from behind and at this stage on the above attempt of Gen. 1:1-2, You are defending "heresy". There is nothing like the earth "became" rather "was" DESCRIBING the initial creation how it was created. If it "became", you are indirectly saying God first created, it was ruined by the devil and later again, God re-created or re-formed or re-made the earth again only for God to destroy the earth after the fall of Adam in the time of Noah and then start all over again. This theory is against our faith and you are not spread this kind of heresy please.

Am sorry to interrupt but if it does explain it, you can start another thread to this effect. As a matter of fact, I had refuted this gap theory in the past. It is actually a pretext and man made theory.

john 1:1 says "in the beginning was the word,and the word was with god and the word was god.all things were made through him and without him was nothing made that was made.
before the creation of the heavens and the earth described in genesis 1:1,the word was with god and god made everything through the word.the bible says that angels were present during the creation in genesis.however,the genesis account doesnt feature angels been created.it doesnt involve satan been created.infact satan had already been cast down to the earth before the genesis account.doesnt that tell you there was another creation before the genesis account?isaiah sheds more light when he says "for thus says the lord who created the heavens,who is god who formed the earth and made it,WHO DID NOT CREATE IT TO BE IN VAIN,WHO FORMED IT TO BE INHABITED"
note that the hebrew word "hayah" which is translated "was" in genesis 1:2 is the same word in genesis 3:20 which translates to "and adam called the name of his wife eve,because she BECAME the mother of all living".also genesis 4:20 "jabal BECAME the father of tent dwellers".why then should there be any objection to translating genesis 1:2 as "and the earth became without forn and void"?
indeed god first created the heavens and the earth.then there was a casting down of the devil and his angels which rendered the earth without form and void.

wirinet:

Typical of a Christian(even if for only a day), you have started employing Misinformation, half truth and deceit to argue your position.

first, you only dealt with the name Jesus, you avoided the other name Christ entirety. That means you agree that Christ was a title and not a name.

Secondly, the name Jesus is not a Greek translation of the Hebrew name Joshua as you wrongly stated, it is a transliteration (an alphabet to alphabet substitutions), Jesus has no meaning in Hebrew.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Jesus'_name_mean

So Jesus could not have been named Jesus when he was born, beside why should the parent give him a Greek name when they were Jews? If you told me that he was called Joshua when he lived, I would have accepted, but I don't see how he could have been called Jesus when he was alive.
So the question stand, what was the name of Jesus when he was alive?

Please also note; the Arabic transliteration of Jesus is ISA, that does not mean his name was isa when he was living:

kristos,translated christ,is a title which means saviour.he wasnt called jesus during his lifetime.he was a jew and went by the jewish name yeshwa.however,the greeks penned down his name as ieseous which became latinized to jesu and anglicized to jesus

@ Delafruita,

Today, I can now see clearly while many people like you interpret the bible with "educated guess" where applicable. Am sorry, I don't mean any insult because I don't like to insult people but just saying your kind of case on scripture interpretation is a clear example of how and why we have many issues from one simple bible. Your interpretation of Gen 1:1-2 and John 1:1 is injustice to scripture interpretation and also an evidence of pretext.

Let me ask you for a favour here. I will kindly demand you to be open minded while I give you detailed breakdown of Gen. 1:1-2 using scriptures to explain scriptures and the rest issues raised here. Since you opened this thread to address issues not being properly handled by Christians, then I will let you do the job. But as soon as your 36 hours is up, then you and I will return to this thread or we can start another thread to delve into this subject.

I said this in order not to derail your thread because your 36 hours is not too far away.

ifeness:


So how old was cain when he married one of his so called sisters?

omipresent? why did he have to come down on the mountain if he could be everywhere at anytime. pls do explain

Pls do explain the verse of the bible below

Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

the bible doesnt tell us how old cain was when he took a wife.

by coming down to the mountain,he was indeed everywhere.the mountain was just one place out of everywhere he was at that moment.

according to the good news bible judges 1:18-19 is translated "the lord helped the people of judah and they took possesion of the hill country but they didnt capture gaza,ashkelon or ekron with their surrounding territories because these people living along the coast had iron chariots and so the people of judah were unable to drive them out"

you should understand that the bible refers to each of the twelve tribes as if they were individuals.take for example judges 1:3-6. "and judah said to simeon his brother,come up with me into the territory alloted to me that we may fight the canaanites and i will go with you into the territory alloted to you.so simeon went with him and ............".you can see from this that the tribes are referred to as if it was just one person.its the same as the verse you quoted.the "he" that couldnt drive them out isnt yahweh.its judah

ifeness:


you also forgot to tell us how god got mary pregnant, did he do the usual stuff?

how did eve get produced from adam?

cyrexx:


hmm, nice i must commend you. you are not doing bad as a temporary apologetic of this great myth called christianity. kudos

thats good to hear

e:
BUT

you artfully avoided my question, as is common with skilled apologetics. you explained hell as an expression of emotional outbursts and jealousy of yahweh. but you did not really reconcile gods love with this hell issue.

one thing that is very clear from the bible especially the old testament is that yahweh isnt really into the "love thing".his relationship with the jews was more of a master and slaves affair.all he demanded was that his rules be oneyed and that there be no grumbling.he was quick to anger and didnt hesistate to strike.with the arrival of jesus on the scene,love came to be.it became sort of a "good cop bad cop" routine.jesus was more of love but even he exhibited some traits of anger by cursing a fig tree and some other things.like i said earlier,my interpretation of hell isnt of a fiery fire burning for eternity.i believe the grave is hell not because i want to believe so but because the bible says so.there are 3 words translated "hell" in the bible however this translations have been proven to be wrong."gehenna" referred to a refuse dump outside of jerusalem which used to be constantly on fire.reference was made to gehanna in the bible and it became translated to mean an everlasting furnace.
"sheol" which is also translated hell is also curiously translated as grave and pit in other verses which shows that translators made translation to suit the meaning they intended.
the third one "hades" definitely refers to the grave.

e: 1. if yahweh is as petty as you describe him (@ bolded), i seriously doubt if he is the same one who created this unbelievably gigantic universe. such a weak god can even change his mind about those he admitted to paradise later in eternity.

lol.

e: 2. you are not seeing from the perspectives of the victims of this hell sentence i.e. non-christians. if god want everybody to go to heaven, he could have in his omnipotence make everybody born into a christian family and make them saved by default. are you telling me that billions of muslims and buddists and african religionists who eventually ends up in hell will see this monster of a god as a loving being.

again,hell isnt a place of eternal torment as some bible translations paint it.the unrighteous wont wake up forever and thats their hell.the righteous would enjoy the bliss of heaven for eternity

e: 3. you said yahweh is a multi-linguist. hmmm, do you know that word adam and eve are hebrew words. so yahweh is multi-linguist and he decided to create mankind speaking hebrew and when he eventually divided human language into thousands we have nowadays, he still preserves hebrew language. aren't you sensing jewish tribalism and racism here? doesnt this shows that yahweh is a tribalistic deity and not the god of the whole world.

isreal were his chosen people.why he chose them is beyond me but he chose them

jayriginal:

I want his "christian" take on the issue of Jephthah's daughter.

jephtah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to the lord

plaetton: 1st question:

In the beginning god said let there be light and there was light. What was the source of the light? Where did the light shine from?

the angels were created from light and their creation was long before the genesis account.john 1:1 says "and without him(the word) was nothing made that was made".all he had to do was speak the word and it came to be

plaetton: Gen.1:8. And god called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
But created the sun and the stars on the 3rd day(gen. 1:14), so hw did we get morning and evening on the first and second days if there was no sun?

the hebrew word translated "day" is "yom" and its translation goes beyond the day as we know it.it could be translated as "at the end of the day" and such translation wouldnt strictly refer to a 24hour day.

Goshen360: @ Delafruita,

Today, I can now see clearly while many people like you interpret the bible with "educated guess" where applicable. Am sorry, I don't mean any insult because I don't like to insult people but just saying your kind of case on scripture interpretation is a clear example of how and why we have many issues from one simple bible. Your interpretation of Gen 1:1-2 and John 1:1 is injustice to scripture interpretation and also an evidence of pretext.

Let me ask you for a favour here. I will kindly demand you to be open minded while I give you detailed breakdown of Gen. 1:1-2 using scriptures to explain scriptures and the rest issues raised here. Since you opened this thread to address issues not being properly handled by Christians, then I will let you do the job. But as soon as your 36 hours is up, then you and I will return to this thread or we can start another thread to delve into this subject.

I said this in order not to derail your thread because your 36 hours is not too far away.

as a "brother in christ",you should highlight the errors of my interpretation whenever you perceive such

^^^

Delafruita:
as a "brother in christ",you should highlight the errors of my interpretation whenever you perceive such

Don't worry my brother. I will allow you to finish in 36 hours and we will resume this subject here or we open another thread to that effect. Okay. I perceive you have alot to do in your stipulated 36 hours and again, I don't want to derail you.

Goshen360: ^^^


Don't worry my brother. I will allow you to finish in 36 hours and we will resume this subject here or we open another thread to that effect. Okay. I perceive you have alot to do in your stipulated 36 hours and again, I don't want to derail you.

a lot to do?not really.at least not yet

Delafruita:
kristos,translated christ,is a title which means saviour.he wasnt called jesus during his lifetime.he was a jew and went by the jewish name yeshwa.however,the greeks penned down his name as ieseous which became latinized to jesu and anglicized to jesus

Thank you for being honest and accepting that he could not have been called Jesus Christ when he was alive. The question is if his real name could not have been Jesus, why ascribe so much power to the sound Jesus? Why is there power in the name Jesus and not the original Hebrew name yeshwa, yeshowa or Joshua or any of its other transliterations like ieseous, Jesu, or even isa?

Put in another way how come you believe that the sound Jesus is powerful and not his original Hebrew name?

My second question is,
As a Christian, how many gods are there in existence? Is there only one God and all other gods are his creations? Ie sub-gods? Or there are three gods Sharing power equally as we were taught in bible class? Or there are many independent gods like baal, posiedon' thor, sango, etc, with the Christian god being the most powerful.

Why does the Christian god like the spilling of blood? Whether animal blood or human blood, whether physical blood or spiritual blood. Why does he demand shedding of blood either personally or on our behalf by his son before he can forgive us our sins?

One major problem with your proposition is that you did not state your denomination and sub-denomination of your temporary Christian status. If you are catholic, I would have taken you up on Mary, Saints, purgatory, etc. If you were pentecostal, I would have taken you up on tithes, first fruits, speaking in tongues, anointing oils and Hankies, etc. Or even jehova witness, Anglican, Methodist, and so on.

So please state your denominations.

Delafruita:
the bible aptly demonstrated that just as god expresses love,so does he mete out punishment as he deems fit.his ways are not our ways just as his ways are our ways.a loving human father will sometimes in a fit of anger,do things that will hurt his offspring.you might argue that god isnt human and should be above human emotions.however,man was created in the image of god and our emotions(good and bad) were part of the image of god we were created in.going by this analogy,god isnt the anomaly you think he is,he is just as emotional as we are.the bible talks about his jealousy.he even says that he is a jealous god and wouldnt want any deity to share in his glory.that shows just how emotional yahweh is.

there is evil in the world.thats a fact.god knows there's evil in the world and he lets the evil remind us that there is a bliss we are working towards.sunny days wouldnt be special if it wasnt for rain,joy wouldnt feel so good if it wasnt for pain.heaven wouldnt feel so wonderful if it wasnt for the pain and evil of this earth.however,he promised to give us the strenght to cope with every evil and pain.even when believers die in brutal circumstances,they know they are going to a better place

the concept of a burning hell hasnt found a universally accepted framework in christendom.some are of the belief that hell refers to a situation in which those who didnt accept the lord jesus christ as their lord and seviour will not be awakened to be part of the new earth.their "hell" will be their grave forever.some are of the view that hell is an actual everlasting flame which will burn for all eternity.in reality there is no evidence of this in the bible.proponents of this idea cite the parable of lazarus and the rich man in which the rich man was pleading for just a drop of water from hell.this story is allegorical at best and is similar to other parables of jesus.

god is a multi-linguist.whatever language it was that adam and eve could understand was the language he spoke.it couldnt have been hebrew because the garden of eden must have been located somewhere in modern day iran based on bible description.god speaks the language of our minds.he reads our thoughts and thats why he said "once have you spoken,twice have i heard".

Hmmm!

Funny guy!

You did not take a stand on which is the truth it seems you just presented the two as an option.

As such it will be difficult to defend Yaweh better.

In all, you are very smart.

Though as a matter of life and death getting people convince with those two pesentaion, i think your listeners will be confuse.

You have to stand with and for the truth that will be consistent with the scriptures from GENESIS to revelation.

So, i score you 10% = take a stand for truth for life.

Delafruita:
thats good to hear


one thing that is very clear from the bible especially the old testament is that yahweh isnt really into the "love thing".his relationship with the jews was more of a master and slaves affair.all he demanded was that his rules be oneyed and that there be no grumbling.he was quick to anger and didnt hesistate to strike.with the arrival of jesus on the scene,love came to be.it became sort of a "good cop bad cop" routine.jesus was more of love but even he exhibited some traits of anger by cursing a fig tree and some other things.like i said earlier,my interpretation of hell isnt of a fiery fire burning for eternity.i believe the grave is hell not because i want to believe so but because the bible says so.there are 3 words translated "hell" in the bible however this translations have been proven to be wrong."gehenna" referred to a refuse dump outside of jerusalem which used to be constantly on fire.reference was made to gehanna in the bible and it became translated to mean an everlasting furnace.
"sheol" which is also translated hell is also curiously translated as grave and pit in other verses which shows that translators made translation to suit the meaning they intended.
the third one "hades" definitely refers to the grave.


lol.


again,hell isnt a place of eternal torment as some bible translations paint it.the unrighteous wont wake up forever and thats their hell.the righteous would enjoy the bliss of heaven for eternity


isreal were his chosen people.why he chose them is beyond me but he chose them

just on the aspect of hell, you sure have a lot of pinch here. Though not absolute.

wirinet:

Thank you for being honest and accepting that he could not have been called Jesus Christ when he was alive. The question is if his real name could not have been Jesus, why ascribe so much power to the sound Jesus? Why is there power in the name Jesus and not the original Hebrew name yeshwa, yeshowa or Joshua or any of its other transliterations like ieseous, Jesu, or even isa?

Put in another way how come you believe that the sound Jesus is powerful and not his original Hebrew name?

the significant thing here is the individual.

Like the word jesus is a name that other people even do answer even in the bible.

But when the word is ascribed to the CHRIST/MESSAIAH it is a reference to a particular person.



The most important thing is t he is the christ/masaiah

Delafruita:
jephtah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to the lord

^^^^

ERROR ERROR ERROR

Delafruita:
a lot to do?not really.at least not yet

I said you will have a lot to do in the sense that you might have a lot of questions you will have to answer before your 36 hours is up. That is why I said you should finish with those questions. Ours (you and I) is not question answer, it's clarification and teaching issue. I hope you understand.

wirinet:

Thank you for being honest and accepting that he could not have been called Jesus Christ when he was alive. The question is if his real name could not have been Jesus, why ascribe so much power to the sound Jesus? Why is there power in the name Jesus and not the original Hebrew name yeshwa, yeshowa or Joshua or any of its other transliterations like ieseous, Jesu, or even isa?

Put in another way how come you believe that the sound Jesus is powerful and not his original Hebrew name?

you harp so much on a name and its translation.yeshwa means the same as jesus.just as the yorubas say olodumare and the igbos say chineke.different languages have a different pronunciaton but that takes nothing away from the power in the name.besides till this day,people still bear that name in isreal

truthislight:

the significant thing here is the individual.

Like the word jesus is a name that other people even do answer even in the bible.

But when the word is ascribed to the CHRIST/MESSAIAH it is a reference to a particular person.



The most important thing is t he is the christ/masaiah

Your response here is highly incoherent.

I do not recall reading about any other Jesus in the bible, if there is please provide me with verse and chapter.
The question again is why is the physical sound of the name so powerful like it being able to destroy demons, raise the dead, bring riches and prosperity, etc, while his real name or any of its other translations and transliterations are so powerless even though we are talking about the same personality or character?

Also when you ascribe the name to the messiah, you are not ascribing the the name to a personality but an idea of a personality since nobody knows the physical characteristics of the character, because some people imagine him to be a white Caucasian while to others he is a Negroid and to others still he has latino characteristics.

Delafruita:
thats good to hear


one thing that is very clear from the bible especially the old testament is that yahweh isnt really into the "love thing".his relationship with the jews was more of a master and slaves affair.all he demanded was that his rules be oneyed and that there be no grumbling.he was quick to anger and didnt hesistate to strike.with the arrival of jesus on the scene,love came to be.it became sort of a "good cop bad cop" routine.jesus was more of love but even he exhibited some traits of anger by cursing a fig tree and some other things.like i said earlier,my interpretation of hell isnt of a fiery fire burning for eternity.i believe the grave is hell not because i want to believe so but because the bible says so.there are 3 words translated "hell" in the bible however this translations have been proven to be wrong."gehenna" referred to a refuse dump outside of jerusalem which used to be constantly on fire.reference was made to gehanna in the bible and it became translated to mean an everlasting furnace.
"sheol" which is also translated hell is also curiously translated as grave and pit in other verses which shows that translators made translation to suit the meaning they intended.
the third one "hades" definitely refers to the grave.


lol.


again,hell isnt a place of eternal torment as some bible translations paint it.the unrighteous wont wake up forever and thats their hell.the righteous would enjoy the bliss of heaven for eternity


isreal were his chosen people.why he chose them is beyond me but he chose them

nice. you cleared some things for me, though.

so if Jewish Yahweh is not into "love thing" and he can be a macho-man boss from the sky that can do whatever he likes, tell me how he is different from Arabic Allah, Yoruba's Obatala or Indian's Brahma. they are from different ciltures in the world and they all claim to be the creator and Allah especially claims that he will condemn into eternal hell on the judgement day those who believed he has a son

NOW,

1. why did yahweh permit this confusion, knowing that billions of precious people will be born into non-christian cultures and non-christian families.

2.if Yahweh's character is similar to other gods (do-as-i-say-or-go-to-hell), give me a compelling good reason why i should follow yahweh and his son Jesus Christ, tell me a good reason why i should be a christian, and not follow any other religions.

wirinet: My second question is,
As a Christian, how many gods are there in existence? Is there only one God and all other gods are his creations? Ie sub-gods? Or there are three gods Sharing power equally as we were taught in bible class? Or there are many independent gods like baal, posiedon' thor, sango, etc, with the Christian god being the most powerful.

there is only 1 god and that is yahweh.there is nothing like a 3-in-1 god.thats heresy and had it not found a foothold in christendom,adherrents of such should have been branded delusional.the trinity doctrine came about at the 1st council of nicea which began in 325AD.constantine was supposedly a new convert to pauline christianity and he wanted to make christianity the state religion of rome principally to ensure peace.however,there was chaos in christendom which had begun to lead to a crisis between those who believed mary should be a co-mediatrix and those who believed she was just the human vessel to bring the saviour into the world and deserved no such honour.followers of aries were the prominent voice against the co-mediatrix proposal and with constantine's refusal to invite them to nicea,it was apparent he was in favour of co-mediatrix as were most of those at the council.take into account the fact that constantine never broke his ties with mithraism and even invited mithran bishops to the council.it is believed that constantine proposed the "of one essence" principle.

it was initially proposed that the trinity be god the father,god the mother,god the son but this was kicked against by most of the 318 bishops in attendance.eventually the settled on god the father,god the son,god the holy spirit and accorded mary the honour of "mother of god.
the trinity is a human invention with no basis in scripture.

e: Why does the Christian god like the spilling of blood? Whether animal blood or human blood, whether physical blood or spiritual blood. Why does he demand shedding of blood either personally or on our behalf by his son before he can forgive us our sins?

the creator has a purpose for everything he created.he created man to worship him and he gave man dominion.man spills blood whenever he wants to exercise his dominion.his dominion enables him to hunt animals at will and in so doing he spills their blood just to feed himself.the bible tells us we are created in the image and LIKENESS of god.man believes he should show appreciation to god for the authority he has been granted and so he makes sacrifices to god.as time went by,a man's status began to be measured by his "level of dominion" which was based on the number of flocks and herds that belonged to him.whenever there was a need to give thanks,pay obeisance or remit sins,it became the norm to take out of one's belongings i.e. livestock to make it as a sacrifice unto the lord.this was to imply that god is acknowledged as been greater than and this was believed to make god happy.god did request some sacrifices but the purpose wasnt to shed the bblood of animals man already had dominion over,it was to ensure that despite man's dominion,he regognized that the creator still owns everything.

where did god command shedding of blood on behalf of his son?

wirinet: One major problem with your proposition is that you did not state your denomination and sub-denomination of your temporary Christian status. If you are catholic, I would have taken you up on Mary, Saints, purgatory, etc. If you were pentecostal, I would have taken you up on tithes, first fruits, speaking in tongues, anointing oils and Hankies, etc. Or even jehova witness, Anglican, Methodist, and so on.

So please state your denominations.

true christianity doesnt depend on denomination.its all about what jesus means to us and our understanding of the bible.take me up on any aspect regardless of denomination and i will respond based on my understanding of scripture

truthislight:

Hmmm!

Funny guy!

You did not take a stand on which is the truth it seems you just presented the two as an option.

As such it will be difficult to defend Yaweh better.

In all, you are very smart.

Though as a matter of life and death getting people convince with those two pesentaion, i think your listeners will be confuse.

You have to stand with and for the truth that will be consistent with the scriptures from GENESIS to revelation.

So, i score you 10% = take a stand for truth for life.

i believe i let it be known which side i am tilted towards.

Goshen360:

I said you will have a lot to do in the sense that you might have a lot of questions you will have to answer before your 36 hours is up. That is why I said you should finish with those questions. Ours (you and I) is not question answer, it's clarification and teaching issue. I hope you understand.

understood.however,i did quite an exhaustive research on the gap theory a few years ago and it seemed the most plausible explanation.however,am open to your views when the time comes

Delafruita:
you harp so much on a name and its translation.yeshwa means the same as jesus.just as the yorubas say olodumare and the igbos say chineke.different languages have a different pronunciaton but that takes nothing away from the power in the name.besides till this day,people still bear that name in isreal

I thought I have been able to make it clear to you that Jesus is not a Greek translation of the Hebrew yeshwa. Jesus is not the same as yeshwa. In fact the name Jesus has no corresponding equivalent in Hebrew, whether in meaning, translation or pronounciation.
See this link for further details - http://jesusisajew.org/YESHUA.php

Its is completely false and misleading to equate the yoruba eledumare to the igbo chineke. Just as the case of Jesus eledumare is not a translation of chineke. In this case they are different deities entirely. ask adherants of the religions and stop assuming.

wirinet:

Your response here is highly incoherent.

I do not recall reading about any other Jesus in the bible, if there is please provide me with verse and chapter.
The question again is why is the physical sound of the name so powerful like it being able to destroy demons, raise the dead, bring riches and prosperity, etc, while his real name or any of its other translations and transliterations are so powerless even though we are talking about the same personality or character?

there was no other jesus mentioned in the bible but there were other jesuses during that period and a distinction had to be made by calling hin jesus christ to seperate him from the like of jesus,son of sapphias or jesus the monomaniac.you assume only the english rendering "jesus" possesses such power and thats wrong.the italians call him "gesu",the spanish call him "senor jesucristo",the japanese call him "iesu",its not in the pronunciation but in the person reffered to.

e: Also when you ascribe the name to the messiah, you are not ascribing the the name to a personality but an idea of a personality since nobody knows the physical characteristics of the character, because some people imagine him to be a white Caucasian while to others he is a Negroid and to others still he has latino characteristics.

the closest we have to the physical appearnce of jesus comes from the imprint on the shroud of turin.it depicts a man with beards and is believed to have been the cloth jesus was buried in.dating methods place the shroud at around the time of jesus's crucifixion and the imprint indicated a puncture on the wrist which would be where the nail was drilled in.attempts at painting the shroud a fake have failed over the years.a group of scientists came together for that purpose and called themselves STURP.however,till date(after more than 100years of study)they havent been able to prove its a fake.that is just one evidence that jesus existed and was crucified