Is Jesus of New T LORD/Jehovah of the Old T?

Originally posted by menace71
He answered you a few post back I believe.



Manny

no i dont believe he did, in fact, he cannot even distinguish between the father and the
son, the creator and the created, they even have different names which distinguish
them, yet it has evaded him, perhaps due to poor translation, 'The Lord', not being a
name at all, but a title.

-Removed-

never mind Agers what about these insurmountable obstacles to your claim?

-Removed-

what a cop out, you expect us to answer all your questions in detail and when you are
pressed in the same way you evade it! Its nothing short of fraud!

Its states clearly in the name of the Father, last time i looked, Jesus was the name of
the son, but hey if you are unwilling to acknowledge that the son himself had a saviour
making all your other claims erroneous, you are hardly likely to differentiate between
the name of the father and the name of the son, let it be known, you have evaded the
truth of the matter for days now while trying to find a pretence against it.

-Removed-

Matthew 27:46 (New Living Translation)
46 At about three o’clock, Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?

If Jesus did not need a saviour or help from his father, why did Jesus say this?

Please no side stepping or changing the subject here. Just a to the point explination by you.

-Removed-

In the name of:
With appeal to; often used to introduce oaths; By the authority of; Under the name or possession of; Under the designation or excuse of
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_the_name_of

So, probably, it is best interpreted as "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them by the authority of of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In other words, what is conferred by baptism is conferred by the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not by that of the baptizer, who is only the "administrator." This is theologically sound and works grammatically whether the predicate of "in the name of" is singular or plural.

Of course the original language could be looked at.

-Removed-

Fair play...that was me being a bit of a dick, apologies. :]

-Removed-

I'm not really understanding your comment it seems. Did Jesus need his Fathers help or did he not? Did he need to be saved from the tomb after his death or could he have resurrected himself without his Fathers help? Or was Jesus never really dead at all?