ECT Omnipresence of Jesus

Jason0047

Jason0047

Member
0scar said:
We live by faith. The basis of faith is by lisening to the Word of God. And faith is knowing, reasoning. Christian life is reasoning not feeling emotions. I use my reasoning when I read the Bible.
The problem is when we go to far with thinking, and go beyond the Bible. We reason the Bible, not beyon.
The gnostics did use reasoning beside revelation. We reason after revelation. But dont reason beyond revelation
Click to expand...

Yeah, see. That is the problem, my friend. I have presented Scripture to support that God and Jesus are both Omnipresent. However, if one does not want to see it, then it does not matter what the Word of God says. They will stick to whatever their church teaches them or they will rely upon a version of god created in their mind whereby they can limit him so that he is more easily understood. But God is not defined by us trying to understand Him from our limited perspectives. God is so much larger than the limitations that man tries to place upon Him.
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Jason0047 said:
Omnipresent is having the power or ability to be everywhere at one time. Everywhere, meaning that God has the capacity to be in all areas or places in the known creation. Seeing God has this capacity to in multiple places at one time, He can surely fill every square inch of the creation, as well (If He so desired). How so? Well, do you think God is confined to living in just a certain amount of people? Do you think 1 billion or 1 trillion believers would be God's limit for His Spirit to live within them? No. God is beyond His creation. In other words, Omnipresent is defined by the fact that not only can God be present in many places at one time, but He can also fill every square inch of space of His creation (If He so desired).
Click to expand...

1 - Do not imply what I believe or not.
2 - According to you, omnipresent is not being everywhere but the capacity to be at any given place. For how I understand you, omnipresence is having the hability to be in as many places as desired; not necesarelly being everywhere. Ethimologically talking you beter refer to multipresence not omnipresence. "Omni" implies everywhere not manywhere.
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Jason0047 said:
Humans do not have the capacity to be Omnipresent. I am not suggesting the actual physical body of Jesus was Omnipresent. No, no. The Spirit of Jesus was Omnipresent. Not the body. Big difference.
Click to expand...

That is: only half of Jesus was omnipresent. Is that what you are saying?
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Jason0047 said:
Can God choose not to be Spirit?
Can God choose not to be eternal?
Can God choose to erase His divine attributes?
That is essentially what you are suggesting.
That Jesus (Being God) had erased His divine attributes instead of choosing not to exercise them.
Click to expand...

Paul write that Christ emptied out. To empty out is to end with nothing at all. If we found in Jesus that he was not omnipresent is because he emptied out. The concept of choosing not to exercise is not scriptural but a theological need.
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Jason0047 said:
Besides, the reasoning I use is based upon the real world. Jesus used real world examples to illustrate spiritual truth. Can you illustrate your version of spiritual truth with the Scriptures?
Click to expand...

This is all I am asking for: real World of God.
Please repeat those verses in wich we can read what you are saying. (some how I miss them). Where do you read in the real Word of God (Bible) that Jesus is omnipresent?
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jason666 denies what the Bible clearly says. God the Father, who is Spirit can be anywhere at any time. But that doesn't mean he is, as clearly shown in scripture. Which by the way, he hates.

20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

Jason666 choses to reject the Bible.
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Jason0047 said:
The Hypostatic Union or the Incarnation is just essentially saying that Jesus is both God and man at the same time. Do you deny that? If you do, then please explain how your belief is different?



Then you believe in the Hypostatic Union or the Incarnation.
Click to expand...

There is hundreds of christologies saying that Jesus was God and man. The HU is only one of them. I believe that Jesus is God and man; despite not believing in the HU.

I believe in the incarnation, that Christ being God became man.

For the Hypostatic Union there is a thread... there is not a single verse, not even one verse that support the HU.
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Jason0047 said:
Yes, it is called context. Who was Jesus talking to? The men from Mars? No. I mean, do not really believe Jesus was speaking to his disciples when he said that if two or more are gathered in His name He would be amongst them? Are you saying you don't believe he was talking to them?

Can you show me in the context of the chapter that he was not talking to them?
Click to expand...

What I can show you is that Jesus is saying that he will be (future) where 2 or 3 were. That is many places were he will not be. Not being in all places were there is not 2 or 3 christians, is way too many places where Jesus is not. Too many places not being for an omnipresent Jesus.
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Jason0047 said:
No, my belief about God's Omnipresence does not stem from some deep need for theology from man. The Scriptures teach us that both God and Jesus are Omnipresent. I already showed you the passages. It is up to you if you want to believe those passages or not.
Click to expand...

Nathanael got amuzed because Jesus saw him?????
John is saying that Jesus ascended and descended from Heaven???

No you did not.
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Jason0047 said:
Yeah, see. That is the problem, my friend. I have presented Scripture to support that God and Jesus are both Omnipresent. However, if one does not want to see it, then it does not matter what the Word of God says. They will stick to whatever their church teaches them or they will rely upon a version of god created in their mind whereby they can limit him so that he is more easily understood. But God is not defined by us trying to understand Him from our limited perspectives. God is so much larger than the limitations that man tries to place upon Him.
Click to expand...

You have presented not a evidence of Jesus being omnipresent.
 
0scar

0scar

New member
that is all the problem and the panic:
christians believe that if Jesus were not omnipresent, then Jesus is to God
christians understand that denaying the omnipresence of Jesus is denaying his deity

But the Gospels protray a Jesus God and not omnipresent.
(except that Nathanael got amuzed)
The Gospels and NT present a Jesus that was on Heaven, came to Earth where he was not (that is why he came, because he was not), leaving the Heaven to where he ascended back. Today he is not on earth, but only on Heaven and we are waiting for his return.
Jesus teach that he will not be nowhere except 2 or 3 christians get toghether.
 
chairistotle

chairistotle

New member
0scar said:
We live by faith. The basis of faith is by lisening to the Word of God. And faith is knowing, reasoning.
Click to expand...

No Faith is not reason. Faith is prior to reason.

Christian life is reasoning not feeling emotions. I use my reasoning when I read the Bible.
Click to expand...

You have no choice.

The problem is when we go to far with thinking, and go beyond the Bible.
Click to expand...

No doubt

We reason the Bible, not beyon.
The gnostics did use reasoning beside revelation. We reason after revelation. But dont reason beyond revelation
Click to expand...

That is a nonsensical statement. There is no "beside" or "beyond" use of reason. There is correct reason and incorrect reason.
 
eameece

eameece

New member
0scar said:
What you are saying is that the Bible was not writen by God.
You are a excellent example of how wrong is studying theology as the gnostic did - by human thinkings -. You just say that Jesus is not a little more omnipresent that you and me are.
Click to expand...

Jesus is a much greater being than I am. At bottom though, we are all part of the same being. This isn't thinking; it's being.
 
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
0scar said:
And I know by reading the NT that Jesus was NOT omnipresent at all.
Click to expand...
The divine nature of our Lord was and is omnipresent, even while He was but an infant.

Again, just for those who have not read your omnipotent thread:

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this hypostatic union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The hypostatic union is not:

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

If you disagree with any of the above, you are beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

When speaking of these topics you must be careful to distinguish between the divine and human natures when discussing aspects of our Lord while walking on earth.

AMR
 
0scar

0scar

New member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
The divine nature of our Lord was and is omnipresent, even while He was but an infant.

Again, just for those who have not read your omnipotent thread:

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this hypostatic union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The hypostatic union is not:

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

If you disagree with any of the above, you are beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

When speaking of these topics you must be careful to distinguish between the divine and human natures when discussing aspects of our Lord while walking on earth.

AMR
Click to expand...

I have open a thread to discus the Hypostatic Union. Be welcome to participate on it.

Meanwhile, if you participate debating the omnipresence of Jesus, all of us will be blessed if you demostrate that with biblical texts. Otherwise it remain as human philosophy.
 
Jason0047

Jason0047

Member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
The divine nature of our Lord was and is omnipresent, even while He was but an infant.

Again, just for those who have not read your omnipotent thread:

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this hypostatic union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The hypostatic union is not:

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

If you disagree with any of the above, you are beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

When speaking of these topics you must be careful to distinguish between the divine and human natures when discussing aspects of our Lord while walking on earth.

AMR
Click to expand...

If you have the time, I would like to get your opinion on what you think of what I had written regarding my 2nd post of my Hypostatic Union thread here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3810878&posted=1#post3810878

Thank you.
And may God bless you.
 
Last edited:
0scar

0scar

New member
Christ was in Heaven and in the Earth and he came dow
Then he dis ascend to Heaven where he was not and leavet Earth
Now we are waiting on his promes to retur to Earth where he is not

When Jesus was on Earth he alway were in a very specific place
For being somewhere else he needed to travel
Ehen the disciples, people or jew didnt kniow where he was, look fior him and found him in a given place.

We dont have any indication of Jesus Christ being omnipresent at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top