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.