Omnipresence of God

[marks]

decide for yourself

Both are true.

 

[DNB]

I appreciate your candor in wanting to edify me, but do consider these rebuttals for how you are applying those verses to mean.

1 Timothy 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

That is about Jesus Christ, the God Whom men have seen and we will see.

Colossians 1:15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

How can He that be the "image" of the invisible God? Would He not be invisible too?

I submit this to you that the use of the word "invisible" only means not presently seen. We see proof here about Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

For your next reference, God's act in creation are the invisible attributes that has been clearly seen.

Romans 1:20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Another one:

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

So invisible does not mean God does not have an image but just not presently seen.

God is a Spirit is still referring to His omnipresence and in light of the Good News when He is in us, it should not be hard to fathom that Jesus was talking about God is not limited to a specific place of worship so that we can worship God the Father anywhere now as believers by coming to & honoring the Son in worship as per John 14:6 & John 5:22-23 & Philippians 2:5-13

Ok, thanks Enow. Due to the fact that that both positions cannot be true, God's visibility and invisibility, I don't believie that there are any theophanies of God. Regardless of what the Scripture 'appears' to say. I will always take such anthropomorphisms as figurative speech.
I don't believe that 1 Timothy 6:14 is speaking of Christ, it could not possibly be doing so, by any stretch of the imagination. It is categorically speaking of God, for all these attributes are pre-understood from the Old Testament.

Sorry Enow, I am not one who interprets Scripture in a mystical manner, I do not believe that it is necessary on any level.
I believe in the supernatural, things that defy nature and physics, but not god-men, or God being seen in any form or dimension.
Again, I don't see it as being necessary in order to harmonize either, contradictory passages, or antithetical passages.

 

[amadeus]

Satan misapplies Scripture, and rather than finding fault in the devil, you find the fault in the Bible?

That makes no sense to me.

No, the Bible contains truth, but without the quickening of the Spirit, what is written is dormant awaiting the bringing to Life. It is like Jesus dead on the cross prior to the resurrection.

A Bible on my mother's coffee table remained unread by any one all of the years I lived in her home. It never converted anyone. One must both eat His flesh and drink His blood, but even in that many will simply disagree with me or quote scripture without really taking their questions to God.

 

[marks]

No, the Bible contains truth, but without the quickening of the Spirit, what is written is dormant awaiting the bringing to Life. It is like Jesus dead on the cross prior to the resurrection.

A Bible on my mother's coffee table remained unread by any one all of the years I lived in her home. It never converted anyone. One must both eat His flesh and drink His blood, but even in that many will simply disagree with me or quote scripture without really taking their questions to God.

There was a man named Charles Templeton, I don't know if you are familiar with him. He was an arena evangelist along with Billy Graham, and they both attendented seminary together. But while he was there, Mr. Templeton discovered that he didn't actually believe the Bible, and he left to do other things.

But through his preaching, many thousands apparently responded the the Word of God, even preached by an unbeliever.

Quoting scripture does not make it the Word of God any more than paraphrasing what is in our heart makes it Not the Word of God. Without the quickening of the Holy Spirit, it can still be quite dead! When satan quoted scripture to Jesus it was definitely in error and had no Life in it. When a man who has received the Holy Spirit is quenching the Holy Spirit his Bible quotations may also be dead!

This is an example of a man who later confirmed that he was an unbeliever, a man who was not alive in Christ.

The Word of God is simply that, whomever quotes it, I just don't see calling the Word of God dead in any circumstance.

I suppose now I'll hear all about making the Bible an idol again, not from you, I mean, but I get that sometimes on this forum. Believe it or not!



Much love!

 

[amadeus]

There was a man named Charles Templeton, I don't know if you are familiar with him. He was an arena evangelist along with Billy Graham, and they both attendented seminary together. But while he was there, Mr. Templeton discovered that he didn't actually believe the Bible, and he left to do other things.

But through his preaching, many thousands apparently responded the Word of God, even preached by an unbeliever.

The Bible is a vessel full of seed which needs to be brought to Life as with the seed of a plant. If you never plant the seed of the plant, nourishing it and watering it, it will never explode into life with leaves to soak up the sun, and blossoms and see and smell, and finally good fruit to eat. For the plant seed water and eventually sunlight is needed.

For the Word of God, the seed needs the Holy Spirit [the blood of Jesus] to quicken it. It will never do in that in a Book. It happens in you and in me by the Holy Spirit.

This is an example of a man who later confirmed that he was an unbeliever, a man who was not alive in Christ.

The Word of God is simply that, whomever quotes it, I just don't see calling the Word of God dead in any circumstance.

​

"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,​

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone" Matt 4:5-6​

​

The devil quoted scripture in his effort to tempt Jesus to sin. He did not misquote it:​

​

"For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.​

They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone." Ps 91:11-12​

​

But Jesus would not hear it. The words had no power, no Life in the mouth of the dead.​

​

"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Matt 4:7​

​

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63​

I suppose now I'll hear all about making the Bible an idol again, not from you, I mean, but I get that sometimes on this forum. Believe it or not!



Much love!

 

[Enow]

Ok, thanks Enow. Due to the fact that that both positions cannot be true, God's visibility and invisibility, I don't believie that there are any theophanies of God. Regardless of what the Scripture 'appears' to say. I will always take such anthropomorphisms as figurative speech.
I don't believe that 1 Timothy 6:14 is speaking of Christ, it could not possibly be doing so, by any stretch of the imagination. It is categorically speaking of God, for all these attributes are pre-understood from the Old Testament.

Sorry Enow, I am not one who interprets Scripture in a mystical manner, I do not believe that it is necessary on any level.
I believe in the supernatural, things that defy nature and physics, but not god-men, or God being seen in any form or dimension.
Again, I don't see it as being necessary in order to harmonize either, contradictory passages, or antithetical passages.

Since both positions cannot be true, then ask Him for confirmation that your position is true. I already explained how He helped me to see the position that I do. Can you address those scripture that supports my position for how I am applying it wrong?

I had addressed your references, but I do not want this to be an argument, brother. Just a little motivation to ask Him to confer with you, regarding the scriptures for the application I have done for why I believe the way that I do.

I realize that only God would lead you to do this and so I leave His ministry to Him with His help, too, as you leave me to Him as well. We agree to disagree, but let's trust Him to show us otherwise as the Good Shepherd we know Him to be.

 

[DNB]

Since both positions cannot be true, then ask Him for confirmation that your position is true. I already explained how He helped me to see the position that I do. Can you address those scripture that supports my position for how I am applying it wrong?

I had addressed your references, but I do not want this to be an argument, brother. Just a little motivation to ask Him to confer with you, regarding the scriptures for the application I have done for why I believe the way that I do.

I realize that only God would lead you to do this and so I leave His ministry to Him with His help, too, as you leave me to Him as well. We agree to disagree, but let's trust Him to show us otherwise as the Good Shepherd we know Him to be.

Agreed, Enow.
If sufficient, I will just say that there are enough passages, that I trust that you are aware of, that speak of God's transcendence. That is, he is outside the physical realm, he cannot be circumscribed in space and time, he cannot be quantified, he is larger than the universe, he is immutable (doesn't change in character or ontology), he is infinite, and he is not affected by the laws of physics.
Therefore, God does not have appendages, a corporeal frame, does not have blood running through his veins, does not need to cut his hair or toe nails, does not have a stomach, nor does he defecate, or blow his nose. He does not have blue eyes or green eyes, brown hair or red. A body requires gravity to function as designed, and God is outside a gravitational force.
Therefore Enow, no one has seen God, for there is nothing to see or he is too big to see (the former), he is invisible and resides in unapproachable light.
These are the axioms of God's attributes. We do not break these laws in our exegesis. But, when a passage appears to do so, we are obligated to use wisdom in interpreting the verse correctly. Meaning, we don't take the text hyper-literally. Just as Jesus said, 'eat my flesh, and drink my blood', or when he said 'cut off your hand if it offends you'. Or when Paul said that treating evil with kindness is like 'putting burning coals on the culprits head'. We do not take these expressions verbatim, we apply wisdom to understand what Jesus or the inspired author is attempting to convey.
This is the subjective part, where wisdom and prayer is required.
And thus, I personally do not go off into some mystical realm, of which not a single person can comprehend, and try to interpret the Scriptures from such a radical viewpoint.
God is divine and eternal, predicate number one.
Jesus came out of Mary's womb, from a seed, to a fetus, to a created infant, predicate number two.
These principle never change, their ontologies are established and not to be confused.
Enow, that is all that I can say, this is where all my exegesis begins and ends.

 

[Enow]

Agreed, Enow.
If sufficient, I will just say that there are enough passages, that I trust that you are aware of, that speak of God's transcendence. That is, he is outside the physical realm, he cannot be circumscribed in space and time, he cannot be quantified, he is larger than the universe, he is immutable (doesn't change in character or ontology), he is infinite, and he is not affected by the laws of physics.

While Jesus was in His incarnated body as the Son of Man, He saw someone under the fig tree long before He came upon him.

John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

I do not believe God's omnipresence is denying the existence of His body.​

Therefore, God does not have appendages, a corporeal frame, does not have blood running through his veins, does not need to cut his hair or toe nails, does not have a stomach, nor does he defecate, or blow his nose. He does not have blue eyes or green eyes, brown hair or red. A body requires gravity to function as designed, and God is outside a gravitational force.

Then explain why the request to make man in "our image and after our likeness was in the plural sense but when God created man in His image, He did it in the singular sense? That is why I believe the Father has a celestial body as the Son did too.

Yes, the Son of God had existed before His incarnation. He appeared unto Abraham in Genesis 18:1-15 where He ate and drank what Abraham had offered Him. He had appeared to Abraham before in Genesis 12:7 & 17:1. He appeared to Isaac in Genesis 26:1-2. He appeared and wrestled with Jacob face to face in Genesis 32:24-30 . All of this testifies to a celestial body of the Son of God as the God men had seen.

Therefore Enow, no one has seen God, for there is nothing to see or he is too big to see (the former), he is invisible and resides in unapproachable light.

Although no man had seen God the Father but Jesus said He has seen Him.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Since Jesus is now "invisible" as presently not seen, but we will see Him soon, is why I say this unapproachable light is referring to why flesh and blood cannot inherit the King of Heaven, but Jesus has provided the way for us to one day live with God in Heaven as we will be citizens of light.

1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

So I do not see the application of unapproachable light as if we will never approach Him and therefore cannot be applied as to how you mean it.

These are the axioms of God's attributes. We do not break these laws in our exegesis. But, when a passage appears to do so, we are obligated to use wisdom in interpreting the verse correctly. Meaning, we don't take the text hyper-literally. Just as Jesus said, 'eat my flesh, and drink my blood', or when he said 'cut off your hand if it offends you'. Or when Paul said that treating evil with kindness is like 'putting burning coals on the culprits head'. We do not take these expressions verbatim, we apply wisdom to understand what Jesus or the inspired author is attempting to convey.
This is the subjective part, where wisdom and prayer is required.
And thus, I personally do not go off into some mystical realm, of which not a single person can comprehend, and try to interpret the Scriptures from such a radical viewpoint.
God is divine and eternal, predicate number one.
Jesus came out of Mary's womb, from a seed, to a fetus, to a created infant, predicate number two.
These principle never change, their ontologies are established and not to be confused.
Enow, that is all that I can say, this is where all my exegesis begins and ends.

Well, I thank you for sharing, but the image of the invisible God means God the Father that is not presently seen yet just as the invisible King of kings, Jesus Christ is at the moment.

The fact that the request has us made in Their image and after Their likeness does testify to 2 celestial bodies of the Father & the Son within the One God for the creation of man.

So I believe God's omnipresence stems from the Father & the Son IN Their celestial bodies. God's omnipresence does not mean They have no celestial bodies if you take the example of that reference to Nathanael under the fig tree as "proof" of that.

 

[bbyrd009]

Let's expand it a little . . .


Quoting scripture does not make it the Word of God, according to amadeus.

Well, OK, you're right, I'm wrong here. Yes. Quoting Scripture does not make Scripture the Word of God, it's Scripture because it's the Word of God. Whether someone quotes, the devil, me, you, whomever, quoting does not make the Bible God's Word, because it already is quite apart from us.

a diff subject to me, but fwiw there i would differ with you both, as imo "Easter" then becomes or has a chance of becoming Word. And by extension, even in the original once it is written down and not heard, a crucial element of exchange has been lost; it is merely that a kind of recording has been made, right? "Stay here for the present" requires context, iow.

Hence, imo, why we cannot Quote "Scripture is Word." God~breathed is what we get, theophneustos. I notice wherever Word is mentioned, heard always seems to be in close proximity. Once or twice i have found not the word "heard" near Word but some artful allusion to it, i forget how now

so anyway i agree with amadeus to a point, but imo Word might also be heard in a completely different context, no actual Bible reading at all. Prolly paraphrase It anyway tho

which i guess amadeus might take exception to Easter too maybe, so it becomes a question of what "Bible" means i guess...our English ones are pale imitations imo
kjv included

Only one of these is in the Bible.

so you say, but google has no probs finding it
and hey, interpret it however you like
lemme know how much it varies even
i mean, any?
Ezekiel 18:20 Lexicon: "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

 

[marks]

lemme know how much it varies even
i mean, any?
Ezekiel 18:20 Lexicon: "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

I would think that you could see this isn't the way you quote it, and your quote adds meaning I don't see in the actual quote.

No son of man may die for another's sins

There is no conflict here bbyrd. The person who sins dies. We die in Christ. No son is bearing their father's sins, no father is bearing their son's sins. Or we die on our own, but that destroys us.

 

[bbyrd009]

Only one of these is in the Bible.

so you say anyway
google has no problem finding it tho

I would think that you could see this isn't the way you quote it, and your quote adds meaning I don't see in the actual quote.

Well so then you have reiterated your position but you haven’t defended it. Care to explain what difference you see, or no

 

[marks]

so you say anyway
google has no problem finding it tho
Well so then you have reiterated your position but you haven’t defended it. Care to explain what difference you see, or no

#130

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Does God Dwell in One Place?


Various religions describe God as omnipresent, a term suggesting that God dwells in all places simultaneously. For example, the New Catholic Encyclopedia refers to God as the one “who is actually present in all existing places and things.” Likewise, John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, wrote a sermon entitled “On the Omnipresence of God” in which he stated that “there is no point of space, whether within or without the bounds of creation, where God is not.”

What does the Bible teach? Is God omnipresent, existing in all places in heaven, on earth, and even in humankind at the same time?

Actually, the Bible speaks of God as having a specific place of dwelling—the heavens. It records a prayer of King Solomon in which he called upon God: “May you yourself listen from the heavens, your established place of dwelling.” (1 Kings 8:43) When teaching his disciples how to pray, Jesus Christ told them to address their prayers to “Our Father in the heavens.” (Matthew 6:9) After his resurrection, Christ entered “into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God,” states the Bible.—Hebrews 9:24.

These verses clearly indicate that Jehovah God dwells, not everywhere, but only in heaven. Of course, “the heavens” mentioned in these passages does not refer to the atmosphere surrounding the earth nor to the vast expanse of outer space. The physical heavens cannot contain the Creator of the universe. (1 Kings 8:27) The Bible tells us that “God is a Spirit.” (John 4:24) He resides in the spiritual heavens, a realm independent of the physical universe.—1 Corinthians 15:44.

What, though, of Bible passages that seem to suggest that God is present everywhere? For example, as recorded at Psalm 139:7-10, David said regarding God: “Where can I go from your spirit, and where can I run away from your face? If I should ascend to heaven, there you would be; and if I should spread out my couch in Sheol, look! you would be there. Were I to take the wings of the dawn, that I might reside in the most remote sea, there, also, your own hand would lead me.” Do these verses indicate that God is, in fact, omnipresent, dwelling in each of the places mentioned?

Note that David first asked: “Where can I go from your spirit?”* By means of his holy spirit, God can see anything and exert his power anywhere, without literally going there or dwelling there.

Likewise, Jehovah God does not have to be present everywhere, or omnipresent, in order to perceive what is happening at any point in the universe. God’s Word says: “There is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight.” (Hebrews 4:13) Yes, Jehovah’s powerful active force, or holy spirit, can extend anywhere, allowing him to be all-seeing and to accomplish his purpose from a fixed location, his “holy dwelling” in the heavens.—Deuteronomy 26:15.

 

[bbyrd009]

#130

ok then

 

[bbyrd009]

#130

So, although I’m sure you don’t mean to, I don’t doubt your intentions, Jesus is denied here is a spiritual “father” when in other threads you are, I’m quite sure, anxious to forward Jesus as the father, correct? And also to forward that Jesus died for our sins as a sacrifice? Do whatever you want marks, but I suggest forgetting everything you know, because it’s crap anyway, and eat the manna bro

 

[bbyrd009]

Because your bargain with the grave will not stand

And your knowledge Will come in Handy later, after you have forgotten it all imo

 

[marks]

So, although I’m sure you don’t mean to, I don’t doubt your intentions, Jesus is denied here is a spiritual “father” when in other threads you are, I’m quite sure, anxious to forward Jesus as the father, correct? And also to forward that Jesus died for our sins as a sacrifice? Do whatever you want marks, but I suggest forgetting everything you know, because it’s crap anyway, and eat the manna bro

I know many seek deep spiritual meanings in the plainest words of Scripture, and I don't speak against that, only that we have to ask ourselves sometimes, Is it possible that God is actually trying to say just what the words say?

But I know many who say, no, what's written isn't actually what it's saying. Make it all spiritual, that is the means to make it into anything you want. At least, so it seems to me.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

I know many seek deep spiritual meanings in the plainest words of Scripture, and I don't speak against that, only that we have to ask ourselves sometimes, Is it possible that God is actually trying to say just what the words say?

But I know many who say, no, what's written isn't actually what it's saying. Make it all spiritual, that is the means to make it into anything you want. At least, so it seems to me.

Much love!

No offense but you’ve changed the subject again to suit yourself, and you are not really replying to my post? And in that case that one will still be found to be a hypocrite imo, When the verses that they refuse to take literally are revealed

I’m ready when you are
Because in my opinion yes, there are many verses that are meant to be taken literally, only we don’t

 

[bbyrd009]

For the rest of us let me at least suggest that Jesus is a spiritual “father” to us, which might make the verse no Son of Man may die for another’s sins A bit opaque upon first reading, but really rather easy to decipher if one wants to; But of course Esau does not want to

 

[bbyrd009]

I know

Eat the manna, Or do not, marks, mox nix to me bro