Do you looking forward for the Lord Jesus return ?

[bbyrd009]

because when he returns, he isn't going be the nice guy we knew him to be the first go around....thankfully.

imo i would be careful about this gleeful anticipation of a vengeful God, if i were you. Examine it for what it says about you personally, iow. In order to have that pov, you must assume a certain place in the story, etc.

 

[bbyrd009]

Did you know that when you hope for the speedy return of Christ, you are by default hoping for the destruction of countless multitudes of nonbelievers. You're basically hoping for the destruction of all mankind.

Word. i would be contemplating Moses' dialogue with God about the fate of the Hebrews after the Golden Calf incident in this light.

 

[bbyrd009]

Either the holy spirit is with them, or its Jesus. Two plus two must always equal four.

in human math, yes. But you maybe forget that 1+1+1=1 in God's. math.

 

[bbyrd009]

Is this done in heaven or here on earth?

ha good Q. Is Gehenna in heaven or here on earth?

 

[ScottA]

The Father of that child is the same Father that sent the Holy Spirit to begin with.......who also, henceforth sent Jesus. Are you trying to say the Father sent himself? If so, that would make the Father begotten, which contradicts all scripture stating the Father is begotten of nothing. Before that child was conceived in the womb of Mary, he had to come from the womb of the Father who spoke it, or begot it, him, Jesus being the word, separate yet equal.

Your position is not completely wrong, just not complete, not "finished."

You describe God as the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Father and all three as separate yet equal, but then insist they are not equal in their ability to be "wherever." Do you not see that that is limited to the laws of the natural world, and that what is impossible for men is not impossible for God. And that because Christ has overcome the world, that He too has no such limitation?

We can each quote passages and scriptures until we have forgotten the real issue. But the premise is clear: Christ has overcome the world...and can no longer be put in the worldly box that you insist still exists. His ways are now higher than your ways. Will you not concede this? Or will you continue to deny Him?

 

[Dcopymope]

Your position is not completely wrong, just not complete, not "finished."

You describe God as the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Father and all three as separate yet equal, but then insist they are not equal in their ability to be "wherever." Do you not see that that is limited to the laws of the natural world, and that what is impossible for men is not impossible for God. And that because Christ has overcome the world, that He too has no such limitation.

We can each quote passages and scriptures until we have forgotten the real issue. But the premise is clear: Christ has overcome the world...and can no longer be put in the worldly box that you insist still exists. His ways are now higher than your ways. Will you not concede this? Or will you deny Him?

What may or may not be possible isn't even the issue, and everyone knows Christ overcame the world, its irrelevant in describing his Godly characteristics. With me, its about what is provable through scripture, I'm 110% Bible. If God can be everywhere present at the same time from one location, his throne, as scripture plainly states, then I consider that a feat that fits the description of "impossible" far more than the eastern mystic, new age definition typically given, which is about as pagan, as pantheistic as its ever been. Its important to know the difference for this reason, because its only a matter of time before the latter is seen by the world as "truth", and preached by the Anti-Christ, not if, as we see the steady rise of paganism into western society. What matters is if you will be able to tell the difference. The difference is pretty cut and dry to me as to the nature of his omnipresence.

 

[ScottA]

What may or may not be possible isn't even the issue, and everyone knows Christ overcame the world, its irrelevant in describing his Godly characteristics. With me, its about what is provable through scripture, I'm 110% Bible. If God can be everywhere present at the same time from one location, his throne, as scripture plainly states, then I consider that a feat that fits the description of "impossible" far more than the eastern mystic, new age definition typically given, which is about as pagan, as pantheistic as its ever been. Its important to know the difference for this reason, because its only a matter of time before the latter is seen by the world as "truth", and preached by the Anti-Christ, not if, as we see the steady rise of paganism into western society. What matters is if you will be able to tell the difference. The difference is pretty cut and dry to me as to the nature of his omnipresence.

That is all fine, but it is unclear what you consider the actual "truth." Perhaps there is a way of concisely wording just what it is that you have been advocating. Among all the arguing, I am not sure we are clear on that...if you could please restate your position.

Thank you.