Jehovah of the Old testament became Jesus of the New.

[HAZARD]

. . . only a fool would deny Christ now who sits at His Fathers right hand in Heaven when the Scriptures clearly teach this fact.

It doesn't say "at," it says "in."

It's positional, not directional

When someone sits ON ones right hand, or AT ones right hand, they can be sitting upon anything but they are still there at or on ones right hand side, the side of power and glory offered by the one in authority to do so, that is God the Father. To sit at or an a Kings right hand is the most honored position. This is where Jesus now sits beside the Father.

In most Scriptures the word "on" is used, but it still means what it says.

"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:64).

"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God" (Mark 16:19).

"Hereafter shall the Son of man sit ON the right hand of the power of God" (Luke 22:69);

"Hereafter shall the Son of man sit ON the right hand of the power of God" (Hebrews 1:3);

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit ON my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?"(Hebrews 1:13).

"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;" (Hebrews 8:1);

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down ON the right hand of God;" (Hebrews 10:12);

"Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." (1 Pet. 3:22).

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down AT the right hand of the throne of God" (Hberews 12:2). In this particular Scripture it does "at." the right hand of God, but is doesnt alter the fact that Jesus is WITH the Father in Heaven, and therefore He cannot possibly be the Father.

[HAZARD]

Im not into poly stuff. The only thing I have to do with polytheist's polytheis'm is this.

A good fishing friend of mine owns poly boat and he swears by it, no maintance at all. Mine is an Alloy Coast Runner!

Haz.

[HAZARD]

Doubtful that HAZ will respond to me, but here's the problem:

Talk about the blind leading the blind?

That's just flat out insulting to anyone who wishes to participate in this discussion. Genuinely asked questions and comments, without any sort of precondition or pretense are immediately rebuked with the assertion that they are blind and foolish. This closes off profitable discussion and builds walls between us.

Here is a scripture which mentions two thrones; Jesus mentions His and His fathers throne in the one Scripture.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21).

Actually this only mentions one throne. Jesus, in resurrection sits "in the throne" of the Father, not "on a throne next to it." Therefore, the throne which Jesus is speaking with regard to Himself is actually the throne of the Father, in which He is sitting.

So, since HAZARD will not respond to me directly, would someone kindly repeat my message?

HAZ - do you see the quoted post? And have you placed a moderator on ignore?

Hi Mate.

I have placed several people on my ignore list. I do not check if thay are moderators or not before I do this. I do this for a reason which I will not make public.

That being said, if and when moderators insinuate themselves into threads by adding to the discussion, they need to excuse themselves from moderating that very thread!! That is only common sense! If they add to the thread and if they become condecending, or intimidating in any way, if they mock of deride any poster at all in any way, if they try and get a laugh out of any member who is posting, then they should not moderate the particular thread. If they find anyone crossing any boundries they can report the matter just as anyone else can. Its that simple.

Haz.

[Floatingaxe]

It is not "in" my right hand--it is most definitely a physical place, as well as a place of power and authority.

God has His throne and Jesus, the King has His.

Psalm 110-1

The LORD said to my Lord,

[Guest shiloh357]

Ok, I believe there is One God the Father. This One God is a Spirit ''The Holy Spirit'', and this one God that is a Spirit became a Man ''The Son''. This God-Man was Jesus both fully God ''The Father'' and fully man ''The Son''.

Yet, EVERY reference in the New Testament to Jesus being the Son of God was a used in connection to His Deity. He was NEVER at any time in the New Testament EVER referred to as the Son based on His taking on human flesh.

The Son = humanity notion is a value that YOU are assigning and is not biblical. In fact, it runs crosswise with the biblilcal revelation.

When Jesus, in the book of John 10, delcared Himself to be the Son of the God, the Pharisees took up stones to kill Him because they understood Son of God to mean that Jesus was making Himself equal with God. Jesus did not correct their understanding. He used His sonship to declare His equality with God and thus to declare His Deity.

When Jesus referred to His humanity, He called Himself "The Son of Man" which was a Messianic title that the Jews would have readily understood. The Bible says in Romans chapter one that Jesus was made the seed of David. The Bible NEVER says that Jesus was "made" the Son of God, which is what YOU are implying. You claim that Jesus was made the Son of God at the incarnation and that is blantant false teaching and contradicts the Bible, which NEVER claims that Jesus' sonship began at the incarnation.

The Bible does not make room for Jesus being anything other than the DIVINE Son of God.

[Ovedya]

Doubtful that HAZ will respond to me, but here's the problem:

Talk about the blind leading the blind?

That's just flat out insulting to anyone who wishes to participate in this discussion. Genuinely asked questions and comments, without any sort of precondition or pretense are immediately rebuked with the assertion that they are blind and foolish. This closes off profitable discussion and builds walls between us.

Here is a scripture which mentions two thrones; Jesus mentions His and His fathers throne in the one Scripture.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21).

Actually this only mentions one throne. Jesus, in resurrection sits "in the throne" of the Father, not "on a throne next to it." Therefore, the throne which Jesus is speaking with regard to Himself is actually the throne of the Father, in which He is sitting.

So, since HAZARD will not respond to me directly, would someone kindly repeat my message?

HAZ - do you see the quoted post? And have you placed a moderator on ignore?

Hi Mate.

I have placed several people on my ignore list. I do not check if thay are moderators or not before I do this. I do this for a reason which I will not make public.

That being said, if and when moderators insinuate themselves into threads by adding to the discussion, they need to excuse themselves from moderating that very thread!! That is only common sense! If they add to the thread and if they become condecending, or intimidating in any way, if they mock of deride any poster at all in any way, if they try and get a laugh out of any member who is posting, then they should not moderate the particular thread. If they find anyone crossing any boundries they can report the matter just as anyone else can. Its that simple.

Haz.

Ironic that you won't be reading this, Haz. But I'm glad others can read this.

I am a Worthy member first and a moderator second. I joined worthy about 4 years ago as a regular poster. Sometime after George asked me to join the moderation team. That's a responsibility I take very seriously.

Great measures are taken between us moderators to insure that we don't take advantage of our abilities here. Unlike many members we are subject to strict "peer review." We copy each other on all the important matters pertaining to the boards and we advise one another when certain actions are taken on the boards with respect to the members.

Being a moderator does not recuse any of us from participation in discussions, but neither does our participation require us from moderating at the same time. I am involved in many discussions here, and I do, and will, moderate those discussions according to the Terms of Service. Therefore if in this thread a member is attacking another, acting rude, or posting material that violates his agreement when he joined Worthy, I will moderate his or her post. There are times when a thread needs to be closed, and I have in the past deferred to another moderator to take that action, so as not to give the impression that I closed a thread for personal reasons. I've also done that in the past with other threads in which moderators were involved.

Now that's out of the way, I would suggest to Haz (If he ever reads this) and to all others here, that the best reason for placing another person in "ignore" is if a member is harassing you or is abusive (In which case we'd want to know about it anyway). Simply placing another member on "ignore" simply because you don't happen to like what they're saying is closing yourself off to the possibility of direct fellowship from God. Seriously. The Lord speaks through the members of the Body. If you can't "take" something another member said then maybe it's God's correction. I would suggest that being open to fellowship, even fellowship that's hard to take, is the better tack to take rather than simply closing off all possibility for fellowship. When The Lord Jesus spoke the "hard word" in John 6 many simply walked away. They distanced themselves from the Lord, from His speaking, and they missed out. The same is true for putting someone on "ignore."

Now back to your regularly scheduled program...

[Ovedya]

Ok, I believe there is One God the Father. This One God is a Spirit ''The Holy Spirit'', and this one God that is a Spirit became a Man ''The Son''. This God-Man was Jesus both fully God ''The Father'' and fully man ''The Son''.

Yet, EVERY reference in the New Testament to Jesus being the Son of God was a used in connection to His Deity. He was NEVER at any time in the New Testament EVER referred to as the Son based on His taking on human flesh.

The Son = humanity notion is a value that YOU are assigning and is not biblical. In fact, it runs crosswise with the biblilcal revelation.

When Jesus, in the book of John 10, delcared Himself to be the Son of the God, the Pharisees took up stones to kill Him because they understood Son of God to mean that Jesus was making Himself equal with God. Jesus did not correct their understanding. He used His sonship to declare His equality with God and thus to declare His Deity.

When Jesus referred to His humanity, He called Himself "The Son of Man" which was a Messianic title that the Jews would have readily understood. The Bible says in Romans chapter one that Jesus was made the seed of David. The Bible NEVER says that Jesus was "made" the Son of God, which is what YOU are implying. You claim that Jesus was made the Son of God at the incarnation and that is blantant false teaching and contradicts the Bible, which NEVER claims that Jesus' sonship began at the incarnation.

The Bible does not make room for Jesus being anything other than the DIVINE Son of God.

Amen.

In His divine status, in the Godhead, He is called "The Only Begotten Son." That places quite a different meaning on John 3:16.

IN His incarnation Jesus was called the Son of God and the Son of man. When the devil tempted Him in the wilderness it was as the Son of God: "If you are the Son of God turn these stones to bread." Satan knew that if Jesus at any time exercised His divine authority then He would be disqualified to die for the sins of humanity as the Son of Man. At every place in the New Testament where Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, it is with respect to His divinity. The demons said to Him, "Son of God, what have we to do with You?"

[traveller]

Doubtful that HAZ will respond to me, but here's the problem:

Talk about the blind leading the blind?

That's just flat out insulting to anyone who wishes to participate in this discussion. Genuinely asked questions and comments, without any sort of precondition or pretense are immediately rebuked with the assertion that they are blind and foolish. This closes off profitable discussion and builds walls between us.

Here is a scripture which mentions two thrones; Jesus mentions His and His fathers throne in the one Scripture.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21).

Actually this only mentions one throne. Jesus, in resurrection sits "in the throne" of the Father, not "on a throne next to it." Therefore, the throne which Jesus is speaking with regard to Himself is actually the throne of the Father, in which He is sitting.

So, since HAZARD will not respond to me directly, would someone kindly repeat my message?

HAZ - do you see the quoted post? And have you placed a moderator on ignore?

Hi Mate.

I have placed several people on my ignore list. I do not check if thay are moderators or not before I do this. I do this for a reason which I will not make public.

That being said, if and when moderators insinuate themselves into threads by adding to the discussion, they need to excuse themselves from moderating that very thread!! That is only common sense! If they add to the thread and if they become condecending, or intimidating in any way, if they mock of deride any poster at all in any way, if they try and get a laugh out of any member who is posting, then they should not moderate the particular thread. If they find anyone crossing any boundries they can report the matter just as anyone else can. Its that simple.

Haz.

Ironic that you won't be reading this, Haz. But I'm glad others can read this.

I am a Worthy member first and a moderator second. I joined worthy about 4 years ago as a regular poster. Sometime after George asked me to join the moderation team. That's a responsibility I take very seriously.

Great measures are taken between us moderators to insure that we don't take advantage of our abilities here. Unlike many members we are subject to strict "peer review." We copy each other on all the important matters pertaining to the boards and we advise one another when certain actions are taken on the boards with respect to the members.

Being a moderator does not recuse any of us from participation in discussions, but neither does our participation require us from moderating at the same time. I am involved in many discussions here, and I do, and will, moderate those discussions according to the Terms of Service. Therefore if in this thread a member is attacking another, acting rude, or posting material that violates his agreement when he joined Worthy, I will moderate his or her post. There are times when a thread needs to be closed, and I have in the past deferred to another moderator to take that action, so as not to give the impression that I closed a thread for personal reasons. I've also done that in the past with other threads in which moderators were involved.

Now that's out of the way, I would suggest to Haz (If he ever reads this) and to all others here, that the best reason for placing another person in "ignore" is if a member is harassing you or is abusive (In which case we'd want to know about it anyway). Simply placing another member on "ignore" simply because you don't happen to like what they're saying is closing yourself off to the possibility of direct fellowship from God. Seriously. The Lord speaks through the members of the Body. If you can't "take" something another member said then maybe it's God's correction. I would suggest that being open to fellowship, even fellowship that's hard to take, is the better tack to take rather than simply closing off all possibility for fellowship. When The Lord Jesus spoke the "hard word" in John 6 many simply walked away. They distanced themselves from the Lord, from His speaking, and they missed out. The same is true for putting someone on "ignore."

Now back to your regularly scheduled program...

I agree with Ovedya here. All the moderators take their position here very seriously. We are held accountable to one another, to George, and to the Watchmen. There is nothing that can be hidden from them. If anyone ever wishes to report a moderator, he may go directly to George, and it will be reviewed.

[Guest]

.... the moderators take their position here very seriously. We are held accountable....

"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:"

"And see if there be any wicked way in me,"

"and lead me in the way everlasting." Psalms 139:23-24